Charlie Kirk - explanation why there is no rioting

"Impactful injustice" vs. "an isolated violent crime"

I asked AI Perplexity, which clearly is taken over by legacy news, and their explanations of why Charlie Kirk’s murder did not lead to riots and looting. Here is how AI responded to my question:

“Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and co-founder of Turning Point USA, was shot and killed at an event at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025. Despite the murder of this politically prominent figure, there were no reported riots or looting following the incident.

The absence of riots or looting can be understood in the context of this being a targeted political assassination rather than a broader incident of systemic or widely impactful injustice that has historically sparked civil unrest. Unlike the George Floyd case in 2020, which triggered widespread protests and riots due to its racial and systemic policing implications, Kirk’s shooting appears to be treated primarily as an isolated violent crime. Additionally, the response from officials and the public has largely been condemnation of the political violence without escalation into mass unrest.

Reports indicate the event where Kirk was shot generally had a “good vibe” and a mostly friendly crowd, and the shooting was a sudden act of violence rather than part of ongoing tensions that typically lead to riots or looting. Political violence against specific figures often prompts grief and condemnation but does not always incite large-scale civil disorder unless it is symbolic of a larger social or political grievance.

In summary, the key reasons for no riots or looting after Charlie Kirk’s murder are that the incident was a targeted shooting without broader systemic implications or mobilizing grievances that usually drive mass protests or civil unrest. The context and nature of the event, and the public and official responses, contributed to the absence of violent disturbances afterward.”

If this response does not bother you, I do not know what would.

I find it more than deeply problematic and indicative of societal injustice. This explanation is clearly dismissive of the broader societal injustices that are unevenly acknowledged depending on political alignment, identity, or where the victim fits in (“conservative”). The lack of civil unrest in one case but the presence of it in other cases (see above) manifests that grievances or legitimacy are granted according to left- or right-leaning partisanship. This explanation demonstrates that only some deaths “count” toward collective outrage, which are presented as being aligned with established social movements or marginalized communities. This approach shows us that we keep elevating one group at the expense of another, continuously encouraging their sense of victimhood.

In the case of Charlie Kirk’s murder, it is explained that he was present at a conservative political gathering. Kirk is described as a polarizing but prominent right-wing figure by mainstream media. The lack of rioting is reasoned that different communities experience justice and recognition differently. Murder, in effect, becomes minimized. It becomes apparent that some violent deaths are visible only when they are connected to certain (marginalized again?) identities or movements.

This approach provokes deep emotional and ethical discomfort.