I'm against murderers and I'm against agitators (which is just about synonymous with influencers in politics). Kirk did a lot of damage. And whoever did this did a lot of damage too. I'm not sure about where the balance between those two lies but it irks me that you're supposed to be either on the side of the murderer or on the side of Kirk with zero room for more complex viewpoints. What irks me even more is the cynical way in which the usual suspects have already decided this is what they needed to further their agenda.
To be clear, are we talking about agitators the likes of Martin Luther King? Or something else? Because I fail to see how anything in politics changes without agitators. Without agitators, we'd all still be living under monarchies, dictators, and who knows what else. I'm curious about what you mean.
As for taking sides, I'm not sure why taking the side of a man who was wrongfully murdered irks you. Its basic ethics. You don't have to agree with him, or even support their views, to denounce his murder.
Unless you have an issue with people like Kirk being allowed to live, I'm not sure where the conflict is.
I don't think this is a remotely controversial viewpoint. The vast, vast majority of people (among those who even know who he is) think his murder is an awful act.
But because clicks and outrage rule supreme we end up with screenshots of a couple of dozen nobodies saying controversial things used to paint the "other side" as unhinged and violent. I wish we could all move beyond it but we seem unable.
You missed my point. I'm not talking about the violence.
Charlie Kirk gets killed. There's some number of right-wing zealots who go on X or BlueSky or whatever and say "Kill all the Democrats!" Then the left (all the left, not just the zealots) points to that and says "See, they're completely insane!". But it's not all the right, it's some number of unhinged plus some number of trolls.
Same thing happens with the left. AOC says something or Mandami says something, and the right (not just the complete nut jobs) say "look, they're completely insane!"
Both sides use the statements of the extreme of the other side to paint the entirety of the other side as complete wackos.
I've seen it referred to as nut picking, and certainly it's something that both sides are prone to. I'd say the difference is that one side has chosen to elect an obvious malignant narcissist to represent them who literally declared war on Chicago over the weekend and regularly vilifies entire groups of Americans.
Well it helped Charlie Kirk, in one aspect. I had no idea who he was, now I'm tempted to watch his videos and see what points he was making. I'm curious what he has to say that a crazy guy and loads of people on social media seemed to think was so dangerous he needed to die for it.
> loads of people on social media seemed to think was so dangerous he needed to die for it.
I really don't think there are "loads" of people saying he needed to die at all. Just a few fringe wingnuts. There are many people who do not mourn him but that's different to "he needed to die".
Exactly. It resembles the Brian Thompson murder in this way: there's a small minority who think it was a good thing. However, they are very vocal online. You probably don't know anyone who believes this in real life, but it's easy to find online because that minority is so noisy.
Meanwhile, there is a group who condemn this and all murders. They largely believe the offenders in these cases should be prosecuted to deter similar actions. However, they can't find much empathy for the particular victim. This group is significantly larger. Members of this group are sometimes mistaken for members of the former group because of that noise.
You're argument is that you think it's a good idea to base your intellectual curiosity on the <inverse> priorities of a raving madman? Do you think that insanity is precise enough to understand the truly valuable ideas of the world, it just heads in the opposite direction? Better apparently than other methods of discerning valuable information?
I don't really know much at all about the guy's political views, the bit about gang shootings is the only thing I've ever heard from his mouth. I am curious why the world is in a better place now that his wife and kids have to deal with the trauma and aftermath of picking up the pieces of their life and moving on. Sounds like he must have been a pretty bad guy.
So let me get this straight, you didn't know who was Charlie Kirk, you only decided to look him up after he died, and you're so noncommittal about it that after 24 hours you still have no idea who he was (and why people hated him), and at the same time you're invested enough to write passive aggressive remarks on his haters?
I love how on HN I'm simultaneously "justifying this murder"[0] but also passive aggressive against haters. No matter what I say, there is a specious argument as to why I must just be a liar or a murderer-sympathizer and sometimes both at once!
The truth is I like to debate people, even if I am bad at it, my knee-jerk without more information is I don't like the idea of a guy getting shot during a live debate when I know little about him beyond that's the thing he does. I can tell you on what little I've gathered, I don't agree with the guy on much of anything except some of his pro 2A beliefs, I have no particular reason to cover for him.
I did watch a few of his videos shortly ago, he wasn't particularly persuasive and seemed to capitalize on debating people younger and less skilled than him, rather than attacking weakly defendable positions he just takes cheap shots at college kids knowing he's more polished than them. Still I'm not tracking why the world is a better place without him.
>I love how on HN I'm simultaneously "justifying this murder"[0]
If your best representation of this community is a new member, a 9 day old account with 2 karma, asking you a question, it's pretty clear we're not going to have a proper conversation here.
I sincerely hope the great-grandparent comment is not a representation of this community, either. I will try and stay optimistic that there are higher quality comments, if nothing else, for something higher I can aspire to than comments calling others liar but in a nuanced enough way to reframe it as a someone dishonest.
It's pretty clear we're not going to have a "proper conversation" if it's not OK for a knee-jerk reaction, when I know little about a guy, and no one has offered compelling evidence to the contrary, to be passive aggressive about an insane comment that a husband and father of little kids is better off dead. Absolutely unconscionable to me, unless this guy is going around violently attacking people or something.
The one mistake you don't want to make around here is to assume any sort of homogeneity among the commentariat. (I make that mistake myself more often than I should.)
HN is a mixture of stereotypically left-leaning people, from high-school students to old-school cyberpunk activists, sharing threads with stereotypically right-leaning people from billionaire founders to ambitious wannabees. There is also no shortage of Trumpers around here, and no shortage of people whom the Trumpers would like to exile or worse.
What doesn't go over well with any of these people is sea-lioning. The site guidelines explicitly require an assumption of good faith on the part of the people you're talking with. When you make it difficult to honor that rule by "just asking questions here," it tends to generate friction. Those who think you secretly agree with them may vote you up, while those who suspect otherwise may do the opposite. But nobody is ultimately fooled, and nobody is genuinely impressed.
He was basically the founder and figurehead of the MAGA youth movement. So he is probably as responsible as anyone for the election of Trump and all that has happened as a result. In my book that indeed makes him a pretty bad guy.
Essentially, if you want to resort to the usual Nazi cliches, what happened here was that MAGA lost their Goebbels rather than their Horst Wessel.
> But I recognize that violence can sometimes become a necessity—which is why I say that people should forgo the use of violence unless all non-violent paths to resolve a conflict have either been exhausted or taken off the table.
> Lethal violence is the line that should only be crossed when it, too, is the last available option.
No, violence is never necessary. Once you use violence, you start the downward spiral of perpetual hatred; after all, if someone harms one that you love, forgiveness becomes difficult.
The only solution to perpetual hatred is peace, understanding and love.
As long as you think violence is a solution, you'll gravitate toward the short term gratification that may or may not come therewith.
Are there any circumstances under which you would call the police if you felt unsafe? Because any time the police intervene with someone there is a chance, however small, that it will escalate into violence. (Assuming you are in the US where the police can use up to lethal force with near-impunity.)
If you are indeed willing to call the police then you are simply outsourcing your violence to someone else. I personally do have friends who are proper pacifists -- they would not fight an attacker (but would try to deescalate them or run away), and they would not call the cops under basically any circumstances.
That has taught me that pacifism requires a lot of bravery. Whereas saying "violence is never the answer" is usually cheap, thoughtless rhetoric.
I don't think this is a fair question. Answering the question you asked to someone else: It's hard for me to personally know how I'd react in such a situation. I'd like to say that I'd do everything possible to stop one person from killing another even if (lesser) violence is required to do so, and I think that's okay. But I think it's equally likely that I could be afraid or unsure of how to react in such a situation and therefore fail to act which is also okay I think? Not everyone wants to be or can be a hero or a statistic.
It's perfectly fine that you wouldn't know what you'd do in that hypothetical. But you answered the question I asked, you'd choose the lesser violence to stop the greater violence. I think a lot of people would agree.
The person I asked said "violence is never the answer" so I wanted to explore that.
Self defense is fine. Rebellion is less and less viable, but your unalinebale rights to life and liberty means that it's within your means to fight against anything oppressing you.
2nd amendment, ehh. Most of the world requires permits. A gun isn't a toy, nor a tool we use in everyday modern society. If we use 2A to justify a way to rebel, we need to examine what an "arm" really is in the modern war. The useful ones are still banned from civilian use.
> But I recognize that violence can sometimes become a necessity—which is why I say that people should forgo the use of violence unless all non-violent paths to resolve a conflict have either been exhausted or taken off the table.
This is admirable and works in a lot of situations. But exhausting nonviolent options can foreclose success and be abused by an opponent.
Yes, this was a constant refrain by white moderates during the Civil Rights era, that black people should absolutely and under all circumstances refrain from violence and remain civil and respect the law.. all while they were being beaten, shot and lynched with regularity. MLK Jr. said such people were worse than the klan. The the feds shot him in the head.
It is an understandable argument but like "think of the children" it can also be used to normalize the violence of the state and de-legitimize dissent.
The entire country is flying flags flags at half staff in honor of Charlie Kirk. His murder is filling headlines across the country. It's being declared an act of domestic terrorism, and right-wingers are calling for civil war. Meanwhile the explicitly politically motivated murders of Melissa and Mark Holtman, the attacks on Nancy Pelosi and her husband, and the plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer go utterly unremarked upon.
We notice when the rhetoric about nonviolence implies that only one side should stand down.
Well, war against Democrats, leftists, liberals, gay and transgender people, black and brown people and everyone else they consider the perfidious enemies of God and who they've been threatening to put up against the wall for years now.
I don't know if it technically counts as "civil war" if the government declares war on its own citizens, and one half of the population declares war against the other half. It's not as though "declaring war" actually means anything in the US. Maybe it's just sparkling fascism.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Let's not forget the liberals who've been murdered and attacked:
- Gabrielle Giffords (2011) - shot in the head, survived.
- Gretchen Whitmer (2020) - kidnapping plot foiled by the FBI.
- Paul Pelosi (2022) - hammer blows to the head, survived.
- Josh Shapiro (2024) - arson attacked family home while Josh Shapiro along with this wife and kids were residing at the time.
- Melissa and John Hoffman (2025) - Murdered by a man posing as law enforcement.
Now you want me to get concerned that MAGA might get upset with the murder of Charlie Kirk? I'm supposed to get concerned that MAGA is going to use this event as a rally cry - a rally cry for what, exactly? More violence? What does that say about them? That's just a threat they make to further their use of fear and intimidation to silence their critics. As I told my grown children time and time again while they were growing up: don't ever use the excuse that someone "made you" do something to rationalize your behavior. You chose your behavior, stop making excuses to justify it. Own it.
The Whitmer plot is interesting because it was both 'foiled' by the FBI and the plot itself was something like half police informants or employees.
If I recall several of the alleged plotters were found not guilty or hung jury because some of the jurors were having trouble with who even came up with and encouraged the plot.
Imagine that defense. "Well sure, if one person convinced you to kidnap a governor, that's on you. But in this case several people said it'd be a good idea to kidnap a governor so you're blameless!"
There is no need to "imagine" -- many of them were found not guilty, and their defenses are openly available. You can pull up the cases, and I think the situation was a little beyond a sort of one liner defense or anything like that. Brandon Caserta also was featured in several interviews and commented on it, for a briefer view of his situation.
Either way I think we should be concerned that the government is generating violent conspiracies against the government while intentionally trying to drag 3rd parties along with it. I also just kind of object to calling something "foiled" when the entity foiling it appears to have likely been the one generating it in the first place.
They were mostly FBI informants instead of agents, acting as FBI assets.
FBI informant "Big Dan" was the guy that drove them to the supposed casing of Whitmer's vacation home, acted as one of the leaders of the militia, and he also spent hours and hours planning the kidnapping. For one. (from memory, the FBI even supplied the addresses to case).
FBI credit cards bought a lot of the ammunition and the stuff involved in the plot.
I believe Caserta (not guilty) was referencing him when in his interviews he talked about how the guys training them were FBI assets as referenced in wikipedia "Chappel taught the group tactical skills he had learned in the U.S. Army."
A confidential FBI informant known as "Big Dan," identified in court as Dan Chappel, testified that he drove plotters involved in the scheme to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Chappel also drove with Adam Fox, the group's ringleader, to scout Whitmer's vacation home.
(google AI)
Dan Chappel (born c. 1987), nicknamed "Big Dan", an Army veteran who served in the Iraq War. He has stated that he joined the Wolverine Watchmen in 2020 after finding them on Facebook, wanting to keep up his firearms skills, but contacted law enforcement after seeing the group's radicalization.[109] After becoming an informant, Chappel became the group's "XO", or executive officer, the second-highest rank in the group,[110] and then its highest-ranked officer after Morrison departed the group due to marital problems.[110] Chappel taught the group tactical skills he had learned in the U.S. Army,[110] offered the group use of a credit card (paid for by the FBI) to buy ammunition and supplies,[111] and in summer 2020 spent hours on the phone with Fox planning the kidnapping.[110]
Lol you just brushed aside all the generating the FBI did, which i cant beleive is an act of good faith. You know they convicted a bunch of other people that helped generate the plot too right? Not even the FBI subscribes to your idea that only the guy that initially came up with the general idea is culpable, assuming it was Musico ( and even then, to become a conspiracy you need an overt act and not just an idea... like fbi informants helping people buy ammunition or driving them to case a house).
The FBI provided the training, ammunition, addresses, and driving. If the best counterpoint is another crackpot conspirator had allegedly the initial mere idea (which, depending how it is conveyed, may not even be illegal merely as speech if not calling for imminent action or soliciting or threatening to actually do it), well I rest my case about their involvement in generating the conspiracy.
Perhaps we aren't seeing the term 'generate' in exactly the same way. I took your meaning to be "the government hatched a kidnapping plot and suckered some libertarians into going along with it". You understand this is a much different scenario from "the FBI let confidential informants play their part as militia members but let the conspirators fully bake their plan."
> If the best counterpoint is another crackpot conspirator had allegedly the initial mere idea (which, depending how it is conveyed, may not even be illegal
Seems like exactly the reason the feds would have to allow the conspiracy to develop. What would you have them do? Give them a stern warning and let them know who their informants were?
The government hatched a large part of the plot, it seems though, then roped a bunch of people into court who jurors found not guilty.
I think it impossible to know who came up with the mere idea first. You'd have to prove a negative that no one else did which seems impossible. So the assertion regarding Musico is questionable, at best you could assert he did utter the idea at some point.
>eems like exactly the reason the feds would have to allow the conspiracy to develop
You're speaking of alternate reality. Fed assets trained , funded, planned, and encouraged it. They weren't 'allowing it' -- they were actively creating it. No i dont condone that.
> You'd have to prove a negative that no one else did which seems impossible.
That is a weird way to operate, particularly since you just assigned "a large part" of the creation of the plot to informants without proving that no one else on earth thought of it beforehand.
> Fed assets trained , funded, planned, and encouraged it
They were also militia assets with a pretty strong incentive to not act abnormally. You are welcome to be opposed to undercover work, most of the country is not. In the end, they key figures were convicted and the kidnapping didn't happen.
Stated as generation/"generating violent conspiracies", not initial conception of mere idea which by itself might not even be illegal activity. You can't even have a conspiracy without an overt act, which FBI extensively aided and generated.
You cannot legally have a conspiracy conviction without an overt act. Clearly the plot to kidnap the governor was an actual criminal enterprise from its inception.
The FBI did a great job exposing a violent militia.
> I'm supposed to get concerned that MAGA is going to use this event as a rally cry - a rally cry for what, exactly? More violence?
Yes. Namely. You wait and see, with how public figures on the right have been talking.
The political party which tends more than the other to house bunches of heavily armed wingnuts who like to muse about the prospect of a civil war... How do you think this is going to go when one of their media darlings gets murdered? And then quotes like this are put out there:
"Radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives. Tonight, I ask all Americans to commit themselves to the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died" - Trump, 2 days ago before anything was known.
I actually think we're lucky that reflexively they haven't started jailing the political opposition just to make the base feel warm and fuzzy.
This kid without question made the world a worse place for liberals and conservatives both. What a complete asshole.
As for taking sides, I'm not sure why taking the side of a man who was wrongfully murdered irks you. Its basic ethics. You don't have to agree with him, or even support their views, to denounce his murder.
Unless you have an issue with people like Kirk being allowed to live, I'm not sure where the conflict is.
But because clicks and outrage rule supreme we end up with screenshots of a couple of dozen nobodies saying controversial things used to paint the "other side" as unhinged and violent. I wish we could all move beyond it but we seem unable.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45202200
To this one
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44276916
You won't even get the names of the latter on this site if this is how you consume news.
Charlie Kirk gets killed. There's some number of right-wing zealots who go on X or BlueSky or whatever and say "Kill all the Democrats!" Then the left (all the left, not just the zealots) points to that and says "See, they're completely insane!". But it's not all the right, it's some number of unhinged plus some number of trolls.
Same thing happens with the left. AOC says something or Mandami says something, and the right (not just the complete nut jobs) say "look, they're completely insane!"
Both sides use the statements of the extreme of the other side to paint the entirety of the other side as complete wackos.
- Chase Hughes, former US Navy behavioral analyst -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azE7nqqQMmo
I really don't think there are "loads" of people saying he needed to die at all. Just a few fringe wingnuts. There are many people who do not mourn him but that's different to "he needed to die".
Meanwhile, there is a group who condemn this and all murders. They largely believe the offenders in these cases should be prosecuted to deter similar actions. However, they can't find much empathy for the particular victim. This group is significantly larger. Members of this group are sometimes mistaken for members of the former group because of that noise.
A guy I've never heard of getting assassinated and it making to the top of news, while a bunch of other people cheer it on, is one input.
If I just randomly hear some guy was shot by the local schizophrenic, no I probably won't look up their videos.
So let me get this straight, you didn't know who was Charlie Kirk, you only decided to look him up after he died, and you're so noncommittal about it that after 24 hours you still have no idea who he was (and why people hated him), and at the same time you're invested enough to write passive aggressive remarks on his haters?
Someone's not being honest here.
The truth is I like to debate people, even if I am bad at it, my knee-jerk without more information is I don't like the idea of a guy getting shot during a live debate when I know little about him beyond that's the thing he does. I can tell you on what little I've gathered, I don't agree with the guy on much of anything except some of his pro 2A beliefs, I have no particular reason to cover for him.
I did watch a few of his videos shortly ago, he wasn't particularly persuasive and seemed to capitalize on debating people younger and less skilled than him, rather than attacking weakly defendable positions he just takes cheap shots at college kids knowing he's more polished than them. Still I'm not tracking why the world is a better place without him.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45212304
If your best representation of this community is a new member, a 9 day old account with 2 karma, asking you a question, it's pretty clear we're not going to have a proper conversation here.
It's pretty clear we're not going to have a "proper conversation" if it's not OK for a knee-jerk reaction, when I know little about a guy, and no one has offered compelling evidence to the contrary, to be passive aggressive about an insane comment that a husband and father of little kids is better off dead. Absolutely unconscionable to me, unless this guy is going around violently attacking people or something.
HN is a mixture of stereotypically left-leaning people, from high-school students to old-school cyberpunk activists, sharing threads with stereotypically right-leaning people from billionaire founders to ambitious wannabees. There is also no shortage of Trumpers around here, and no shortage of people whom the Trumpers would like to exile or worse.
What doesn't go over well with any of these people is sea-lioning. The site guidelines explicitly require an assumption of good faith on the part of the people you're talking with. When you make it difficult to honor that rule by "just asking questions here," it tends to generate friction. Those who think you secretly agree with them may vote you up, while those who suspect otherwise may do the opposite. But nobody is ultimately fooled, and nobody is genuinely impressed.
He was basically the founder and figurehead of the MAGA youth movement. So he is probably as responsible as anyone for the election of Trump and all that has happened as a result. In my book that indeed makes him a pretty bad guy.
Essentially, if you want to resort to the usual Nazi cliches, what happened here was that MAGA lost their Goebbels rather than their Horst Wessel.
> Lethal violence is the line that should only be crossed when it, too, is the last available option.
No, violence is never necessary. Once you use violence, you start the downward spiral of perpetual hatred; after all, if someone harms one that you love, forgiveness becomes difficult.
The only solution to perpetual hatred is peace, understanding and love.
As long as you think violence is a solution, you'll gravitate toward the short term gratification that may or may not come therewith.
Get that out of your head.
Violence is never the answer.
Violence can be the answer. We are nowhere near that point in America.
The murder of Kirk wasn’t a thoughtful application of violence. It was a tantrum, and this being the U.S., one acted out with a gun.
If you are indeed willing to call the police then you are simply outsourcing your violence to someone else. I personally do have friends who are proper pacifists -- they would not fight an attacker (but would try to deescalate them or run away), and they would not call the cops under basically any circumstances.
That has taught me that pacifism requires a lot of bravery. Whereas saying "violence is never the answer" is usually cheap, thoughtless rhetoric.
The person I asked said "violence is never the answer" so I wanted to explore that.
2nd amendment, ehh. Most of the world requires permits. A gun isn't a toy, nor a tool we use in everyday modern society. If we use 2A to justify a way to rebel, we need to examine what an "arm" really is in the modern war. The useful ones are still banned from civilian use.
This is admirable and works in a lot of situations. But exhausting nonviolent options can foreclose success and be abused by an opponent.
It is an understandable argument but like "think of the children" it can also be used to normalize the violence of the state and de-legitimize dissent.
The entire country is flying flags flags at half staff in honor of Charlie Kirk. His murder is filling headlines across the country. It's being declared an act of domestic terrorism, and right-wingers are calling for civil war. Meanwhile the explicitly politically motivated murders of Melissa and Mark Holtman, the attacks on Nancy Pelosi and her husband, and the plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer go utterly unremarked upon.
We notice when the rhetoric about nonviolence implies that only one side should stand down.
I don't know if it technically counts as "civil war" if the government declares war on its own citizens, and one half of the population declares war against the other half. It's not as though "declaring war" actually means anything in the US. Maybe it's just sparkling fascism.
- Gabrielle Giffords (2011) - shot in the head, survived.
- Gretchen Whitmer (2020) - kidnapping plot foiled by the FBI.
- Paul Pelosi (2022) - hammer blows to the head, survived.
- Josh Shapiro (2024) - arson attacked family home while Josh Shapiro along with this wife and kids were residing at the time.
- Melissa and John Hoffman (2025) - Murdered by a man posing as law enforcement.
Now you want me to get concerned that MAGA might get upset with the murder of Charlie Kirk? I'm supposed to get concerned that MAGA is going to use this event as a rally cry - a rally cry for what, exactly? More violence? What does that say about them? That's just a threat they make to further their use of fear and intimidation to silence their critics. As I told my grown children time and time again while they were growing up: don't ever use the excuse that someone "made you" do something to rationalize your behavior. You chose your behavior, stop making excuses to justify it. Own it.
If I recall several of the alleged plotters were found not guilty or hung jury because some of the jurors were having trouble with who even came up with and encouraged the plot.
There is no need to "imagine" -- many of them were found not guilty, and their defenses are openly available. You can pull up the cases, and I think the situation was a little beyond a sort of one liner defense or anything like that. Brandon Caserta also was featured in several interviews and commented on it, for a briefer view of his situation.
Either way I think we should be concerned that the government is generating violent conspiracies against the government while intentionally trying to drag 3rd parties along with it. I also just kind of object to calling something "foiled" when the entity foiling it appears to have likely been the one generating it in the first place.
FBI informant "Big Dan" was the guy that drove them to the supposed casing of Whitmer's vacation home, acted as one of the leaders of the militia, and he also spent hours and hours planning the kidnapping. For one. (from memory, the FBI even supplied the addresses to case).
FBI credit cards bought a lot of the ammunition and the stuff involved in the plot.
I believe Caserta (not guilty) was referencing him when in his interviews he talked about how the guys training them were FBI assets as referenced in wikipedia "Chappel taught the group tactical skills he had learned in the U.S. Army."
(google AI) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_pl...The FBI provided the training, ammunition, addresses, and driving. If the best counterpoint is another crackpot conspirator had allegedly the initial mere idea (which, depending how it is conveyed, may not even be illegal merely as speech if not calling for imminent action or soliciting or threatening to actually do it), well I rest my case about their involvement in generating the conspiracy.
> If the best counterpoint is another crackpot conspirator had allegedly the initial mere idea (which, depending how it is conveyed, may not even be illegal
Seems like exactly the reason the feds would have to allow the conspiracy to develop. What would you have them do? Give them a stern warning and let them know who their informants were?
I think it impossible to know who came up with the mere idea first. You'd have to prove a negative that no one else did which seems impossible. So the assertion regarding Musico is questionable, at best you could assert he did utter the idea at some point.
>eems like exactly the reason the feds would have to allow the conspiracy to develop
You're speaking of alternate reality. Fed assets trained , funded, planned, and encouraged it. They weren't 'allowing it' -- they were actively creating it. No i dont condone that.
Which parts?
> You'd have to prove a negative that no one else did which seems impossible.
That is a weird way to operate, particularly since you just assigned "a large part" of the creation of the plot to informants without proving that no one else on earth thought of it beforehand.
> Fed assets trained , funded, planned, and encouraged it
They were also militia assets with a pretty strong incentive to not act abnormally. You are welcome to be opposed to undercover work, most of the country is not. In the end, they key figures were convicted and the kidnapping didn't happen.
>st assigned "a large part" of the creation
Stated as generation/"generating violent conspiracies", not initial conception of mere idea which by itself might not even be illegal activity. You can't even have a conspiracy without an overt act, which FBI extensively aided and generated.
We're just looping now. End of loop.
The FBI did a great job exposing a violent militia.
Yes. Namely. You wait and see, with how public figures on the right have been talking.
The political party which tends more than the other to house bunches of heavily armed wingnuts who like to muse about the prospect of a civil war... How do you think this is going to go when one of their media darlings gets murdered? And then quotes like this are put out there:
"Radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives. Tonight, I ask all Americans to commit themselves to the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died" - Trump, 2 days ago before anything was known.
I actually think we're lucky that reflexively they haven't started jailing the political opposition just to make the base feel warm and fuzzy.
This kid without question made the world a worse place for liberals and conservatives both. What a complete asshole.