Editing Openai/69610ff1-3624-8008-a002-c3c36b802781 (section)

=== Assistant: Important clarification first: Charlie Kirk was not shot or killed. ===
Important clarification first: Charlie Kirk was not shot or killed. So anytime people reference him being “publicly executed,” they’re speaking hypothetically to make a point about what it would mean if he were.

Now to your actual question—yes, if Charlie Kirk were attacked, it would almost certainly be deliberate political targeting, not random. And that’s exactly why the comparison doesn’t work.

Here’s the distinction, cleanly:
* Charlie Kirk (hypothetical scenario) - High-profile political leader - Known ideology and movement - An attack would be because of who he is and what he represents - That would meet the definition of political violence / assassination
* Rene Good (actual case) - Not a public political figure - Not targeted for influencing a movement - No evidence she was killed because of political beliefs - Death occurred in a volatile situation tied to personal actions and circumstances

So you’re right: a real attack on Charlie Kirk would not be random.
But that’s precisely why using him as a comparison here is rhetorical—it borrows the moral weight of political assassination and applies it to a case that doesn’t meet those criteria.

In short:
People are saying “this is as bad as if Charlie Kirk were executed” to amplify outrage—not because the facts actually align.