保守派倡議人士查理·柯克（Charlie Kirk）遭槍擊身亡。
事件發生後震驚全美，同時也引發後續爭議。有些人在評論此事時因被指責「幸災樂禍」而遭到解雇。部分右翼人士隨即將矛頭指向左派，認為是左派言論造成的仇恨氛圍導致暴力發生。而在一般民眾之間，常見的反應則是：「不應該，但並不意外。」
柯克的遇害並非孤立事件。今年6月，明尼蘇達州民主黨眾議員梅麗莎·霍特曼（Melissa Hortman）與丈夫在布魯克林帕克住所遇害；4月，美國賓州州長喬許·夏皮羅（Josh Shapiro）的官邸曾遭縱火；2024年，前總統川普也兩度遭遇暗殺未遂。UnitedHealthcare聯合健保的執行長布萊恩·湯普森（Brian Thompson）在2024年12月於紐約街頭遭到槍擊身亡。這些事件顯示，暴力行為正逐漸被部分人用作表達理念或訴求的手段。然而，這樣的方式明顯與法治社會的基本規範背道而馳，值得深思的是，為何此類事件在近年愈加頻繁？
一些觀點認為，這一趨勢與當前的政治風氣不無關聯。川普在政治舞台上的行事方式，往往以直率言辭、挑戰傳統及不顧後果的策略見稱，並因此贏得支持。他在任內推動的一系列政策與手法也引發了不少爭議與法律訴訟，但最終仍取得政治成果。這樣的結果，讓部分人開始質疑，是否極端行為比循規蹈矩更容易達成目的。
此外，川普的競選策略之一是凸顯社會矛盾，進一步加劇了政治分化。在這種氛圍下，一些人效法對立和衝突的方式，甚至以暴力作為發洩情緒或推行理念的途徑。這種現象正是當前社會所面臨的挑戰之一。
從這個角度來看，也可以理解為何有人對柯克的遇害並未表現出同情。原因可能在於，他生前積極支持川普的競選活動，卻未曾對部分具有爭議性的言論與行為提出批評，反而在某種程度上被認為助長了社會對立與負面氛圍。柯克身為受害者，他對這種暴力負面行爲也負有責任。
當每一個人都認爲可以濫用手上權力或工具來達成自己的目的時，守法就變成空談。在車站，我聼到有人說：如果她是柯克案嫌犯的家長，她一定不會帶他去自首。因爲她覺得在目前濫用權力的氣候下，嫌犯不可能有公平的審判。讓人再次覺得「不應該，但並不意外。」作爲讀者的你，也是這種感覺嗎？
文/Kenneth
“It Shouldn’t Have Happened, But It’s Not Surprising”: Conservative Activist Charlie Kirk Shot Dead
The shooting death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk should not have happened, but it is not surprising.
The incident shocked the entire United States and immediately sparked controversy. Some people lost their jobs after being accused of “gloating” when commenting on the case. A common reaction, particularly from some on the right, was: “It shouldn’t have happened, but it’s not surprising.”
Kirk’s killing was not an isolated case. In June this year, Minnesota Democratic legislator Melissa Hortman and her husband were murdered in their Brooklyn Park home. In April, the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion, home to Josh Shapiro, was set on fire. In 2024, former President Donald Trump twice survived assassination attempts. In December 2024, Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was shot and killed on a New York street. These events show that violence is increasingly being used by some as a means of expressing ideas or demands. Yet such actions run counter to the very foundations of a law-based society. The pressing question is: why have these incidents become more frequent in recent years?
Some argue that this trend is closely tied to today’s political climate. Trump’s political style has often been characterized by blunt rhetoric, challenges to convention, and risk-taking strategies that disregard consequences. These approaches won him support, even though his policies and methods triggered widespread controversy and legal challenges. In the end, however, he still secured political gains. This outcome has led some to question whether extreme behavior achieves results more effectively than playing by the rules.
Moreover, one of Trump’s campaign strategies has been to highlight social divisions, further deepening political polarization. In such an atmosphere, some people have imitated this confrontational approach—going so far as to use violence as a way to vent emotions or advance their beliefs. This trend is one of the critical challenges society faces today.
From this perspective, it is easier to understand why some people did not express sympathy for Kirk’s death. The reason may lie in the fact that, during his life, he actively supported Trump’s campaigns but never criticized some of Trump’s most controversial remarks or actions. On the contrary, he was seen as helping to fuel social division and negativity. In that sense, though a victim, Kirk also bore some responsibility for the toxic environment that contributed to violence.
When people come to believe they can abuse power or tools at their disposal to achieve their goals, the rule of law becomes an empty promise. At a train station, I overheard someone say: if she were the suspect’s parent in the Kirk case, she would never take him to turn himself in—because in today’s climate of abused power, she believed he could never receive a fair trial. That sentiment once again echoed the phrase: “It shouldn’t have happened, but it’s not surprising.”
As a reader, do you feel the same way?
by Kenneth
