A Non-Pattern of Political Violence

For the second time in just over a year, gunmen targeted a high-profile conservative political figure. On July 13, 2024, Thomas Matthew Crooks wounded then Republican nominee Donald Trump during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. This week, Tyler Robinson murdered conservative activist Charlie Kirk during an appearance at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. In the same time frame, Democrats have been the victims of political violence, most notably the firebombing of the governor’s mansion in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on April 13, 2025, and more recently, the murder of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark two months later.

Before I begin what some might find a disturbing take on these events, let me be clear. Violence has no place in American political discourse. And every incident of death or harm, regardless of the victim’s ideology or political affiliation, is a tragedy and a stain on the nation’s reputation as a role model for liberal democracy, a political philosophy founded on a belief in individual rights, limited government and the rule of law.

Also, in light of calls “to tone down the rhetoric,” I have considered if I am part of the problem rather than the solution. As many of you know, I have spent a great deal of time and energy trying to convince voters in the 4th Congressional District that we need to replace the incumbent Aaron Bean. Over the last couple of days, I have reviewed everything I’ve written about Aaron and believe I remained with the boundaries of blunt, but civil commentary. As early as January 2024, I posted a blog which contained how I would announce my own candidacy if I chose to run against him. It contained the following:

To be clear, I am not running against Aaron Bean.  The Bean family has a long record of service and commitment to our community.  Aaron is a good and decent person whom I consider a friend.  I simply believe he is in the wrong job and that the citizens of the 4th district deserve better.

Since then I have posted a barrage of reasons why NE Florida voters deserve better. Some have been quite pointed. Many are directed at his hypocrisy. Claiming to be pro-family and anti-crime yet giving Trump a pass when it comes to releasing the Epstein files and holding sex traffickers and their accomplices accountable for crimes against children. Or, as co-chair of the House DOGE caucus, he makes endless speeches about waste, fraud and abuse, yet says nothing about the costs that result from Trump’s actions including military parades, renaming the Defense Department the “Department of War” and refitting a “free” luxury jumbo jet which he will retain after leaving office. Or his diatribes about transparency while gaslighting his constituents by telling them they will never again pay taxes on social security under the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” something it clearly does not do.

My review produced one potentially over the top post, a cartoon I created (pictured here) in which Aaron is portrayed as Trump’s lap dog following his reluctance to sign the “discharge petition” to override Speaker Mike Johnson’s decision not to put House members on record when it comes to the Epstein files. The caption reads, “Aaron gets his reward for obediently refusing to sign the “discharge petition” to force a House vote on releasing the Epstein files.” Though I must admit, my perverted sense of humor initially took me to a more dangerous place. What if the Trump bubble read, “Don’t worry. I’ll tell Kristi you’re a good boy.” Remember, I posted this five days before Kirk was murdered, yet I realized the violent imagery of the Homeland Security Secretary shooting a dog she claimed to be “untrainable” was beyond the pale.

Which brings me back to the moment when I realized the spate of political violence was a chance to reinforce my original purpose for creating this blog 10 years go. To look at the world counter-intuitively in hopes of asking better questions, not just finding answers. The question at the top of my list this week is, “With all the available evidence about the perpetrators of political violence, what are the experts missing?”

There are numerous motives and causes for political violence. Passionate differences in party affiliation or ideology. Zealous support for one or more issues. Rebellion against societal or community norms. Real or perceived grievances. Personal vendettas. Mental illness including increased susceptibility to suggestion. History of violent behavior. In most cases, these factors are not mutually exclusive. For example, Cody Balmer, arrested for the firebombing of the governor’s mansion in Harrisburg, had been treated for mental illness, had a record of domestic violence and believed that Governor Josh Shapiro was responsible for the death of Palestinians in Gaza despite the fact Shapiro had criticized both Donald Trump and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in February when Trump suggested that Gaza, sans all Palestinians, could become the “Riviera of the Eastern Mediterranean.”

Likewise, Vance Boelter, arrested for killing state representative Hortman and her husband, was influenced by several factors. His voter registration listed him as “no party preference,” though he told friends he voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020. He was an avid supporter of the pro-life movement. This might explain the hit list of 70 Democratic politicians and abortion providers police found in his car. Police also recovered an announcement of the time and place of a “No Kings” protest the same day as the shootings. Boelter had a personal connection with one of his surviving victims, serving on a state board with Senator John Hoffman, though there is no evidence that association resulted in a personal animosity toward Hoffman. There was, however, an indication that Boelter was living in an alternate reality. His confession letter included the following, “[Governor] Tim [Walz] wanted me to k*ll Amy Klobuchar,” the assumption being Walz hoped to replace her as U.S. Senator.

Both incidents involving Democrats seem to fit well established patterns. In contrast, the motif associated with the attacks on the two MAGA/conservative figures is more enigmatic. Especially since Trump laid the blame for Kirk’s death on his favorite scapegoat.

For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals.

Donald Trump/September 10, 2025

If that were the case, one would expect the suspects in the Trump attempt and Kirk’s murder to exhibit attributes of the “radical left.” However, in Trump’s mind, the radical left no longer simply means someone who favors authoritarianism, anarchism, communism or Marxism. It now includes anyone who did not vote for him or does not support his MAGA agenda. In contrast, a significant subset of his base consists of rural, gun-owning, evangelical, conservative, anti-immigration, anti-gay rights, pro-life, younger, macho white males.

So how do the assailants stack up?

• Neither Crooks nor Robinson had any association with groups that professed communism or Marxism. With the exception of a $15 dollar Robinson made to a Democratic organization when he was 17-years old, neither registered as a Democrat. Robinson is registered as “unaffiliated.” High school classmates said Robinson , much like the rest of his family, leaned conservative and supported Trump ahead of the 2020 election. Crooks was a registered Republican. 2024 would have been the first time he was eligible to vote in a presidential election.
• Both were excellent students in high school. Crooks graduated with high honors and scored 1530 out of 1600 on his SAT exam. Robinson graduated with a 4.0 GPA and received a $32,000 academic scholarship.
• But neither received a four year degree. Crooks earned an associate degree in engineering science. Robinson dropped out of Utah State University after one semester.
• Neither grew up in urban environments. Crooks lived in Bethel Parks, Pennsylvania, on the exurban edge of Pittsburgh. Robinson was raised in St. George, Utah, population 92,300.
• Neither was an immigrant.
• Neither expressed views for or against abortion rights.
• Max Smith, one of Crooks’ classmates described him as definitely conservative although the majority of the class “were on the liberal side.”
• Both were in their early 20s.
• Both were white males.
• Both were loners. Classmates said that Crooks would sit alone at lunch. A co-worker described Robinson as shy and “wasn’t talkative unless he was spoken to.”
• Robinson was a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints. Crooks religious affiliation is unknown.
• Both grew up in households that embraced guns. Crooks was a member of a local shooting club and often wore camouflage hunting outfits to school. Robinson appeared in several on-line pictures with his parents in which each held a rifle.
• At the time of their death or arrest, Crooks worked as dietary aide at a nursing home and Robinson was an electrician.

Based on the above FACTS, no one would describe Crooks or Robinson as members of the radical left. In fact, their profiles suggest they were more likely blue-collar MAGA voters. Which also explains why Trump’s placing blame on radical left rhetoric makes no sense and represents just one more case of his projecting his own behavior on others.

Instead of taking out an enemy, this seems more akin to “friendly fire.” It calls for a truly counter-intuitive approach. When you do that it is hard to describe Crooks’ attempted assassination of Trump as political violence. It was the cry for attention of a mentally disturbed young man. And the target provided the most opportune chance to make that statement. A review of Crooks’ online search history tells us he was tracking Joe Biden’s schedule as well as that of other prominent public figures. He also made note of events including both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions. If, by chance, he had been more interested in cinema or sports, a beloved movie star or a Super Bowl quarterback might have served his purpose. But he was a history buff, who on the day of the assassination attempt, sought an online answer to the inquiry, “How far was Oswald from Kennedy?” A Trump rally near his Bethel Park home was just the most convenient moment in time and space to accomplish his goal.

In Robinson’s case, a hypothesis requires much more speculation and imagination. For me, the keystones are two pieces of public information that lay the foundation for his attack on Kirk. The first is a statement by a former classmate. As reported by CNN:

“When I knew him and his family, they were like diehard Trump,” said the former classmate. “When this happened, I was like… I don’t know what changed.”

The second was the description by Utah governor Spencer Cox of Robinson’s outburst during a gathering at his parent’s home.

A family member of Robinson’s told investigators that the suspected shooter “had become more political in recent years,” and in particular had lashed out at Kirk at a recent family dinner, Cox said.

I do not claim to know what was going on in Robinson’s head, but I do wonder if a high school student with a 4.0 GPA began to question the inconsistencies between all his relatives’ support of the Trump/MAGA agenda and his Mormon upbringing. He then goes off to Utah State University, believing he has put distance between himself and the hypocrisy of those relatives and members of the St. George Mormon church. Despite a $32,000 scholarship, he drops out after one semester. Is it because “the political climate at USU is characterized by a strong moderate and conservative student base, reflecting Utah’s overall political landscape.” (Source: The Utah Statesman)

If only we had a recording of the dinner table conversation that night, just days before Robinson fired his rifle at Kirk. We know he brought up the subject of Kirk’s coming appearance at Utah Valley University. And we know he spewed hateful opinions of the conservative activist. But what happened in-between? Did the MAGA-supporting members of his family tell him he was wrong about Kirk? Did they question where he got such outrageous ideas? If so, we now have a young man who wonders if there is any place for him in the world in which he grew up.

Again, nothing I said about Crooks or Robinson is an excuse for directing lethal force at another human being. My point is the assaults on Trump and Kirk represent a pattern of violent behavior that does not correspond to more traditional models. A prototype that, though directed at politicians, may be apolitical.

I cannot end this lengthy search for answers without stressing that a better understanding of a wannabe assassin’s motives does not alone solve the problem. It simply adds one more checkbox to the list of red flags that should force a caring adult to ask, “Isn’t it my responsibility to ensure that someone, especially someone I love exhibiting such behavior, does not have access to a firearm?” If the Robinsons had checked that box, Charlie Kirk would still be exercising his First Amendment right to whisper fire on a crowded college campus. And hopefully, more and more critically thinking students would have had the opportunity to eventually realize his message is neither patriotic or Christian.

UPDATE: Within hours of completing the final draft of this blog, Fox News reported, “[FBI] officials confirmed that Tyler Robinson, 22, was in a ‘romantic relationship’ with the unnamed person, who is a male transitioning to a female, and that they shared an apartment in Saint George, Utah.” While this news adds a new wrinkle to the story and suggests Robinson animosity towards Kirk might be more personal than ideological, it still does not justify Robinson’s violent response.

However, I find a New York Post follow-up report most unsettling. First, during an interview with an unidentified female member of the roommate’s family, she referred to her relative as “the black sheep of the family.” I wonder whether this familial shunning of his roommate added to Robinson’s sense of isolation in his own family and community.

More disturbing however was the Post’s effort to portray Kirk as someone who “spoke about [transgender] issues with kindness and empathy.” To make this point, the article contained the following advice he gave a transgender male at one of his “Prove Me Wrong” question and answer events.

I want you to be very cautious putting drugs into your system in the pursuit of changing your body. I, instead, encourage you to work on what’s going on in your brain first. I think what you need first and foremost is just a diagnosis. Just someone that is going to listen to what you have gone through, listen to what else is going on. My prayer for you. I actually want to see you be comfortable in how you were born. I know that you might not feel that way, but I think that is something that you can achieve. I think that with the right team and the right people you don’t have to wage war on your body, you can learn to love your body.

Kindness and empathy? It sounds more like orientation at Marcus Bachman’s clinic which practiced “pray away the gay” therapy. Likewise, how kind and empathetic were Kirk’s comments at a 2023 Turning Point USA event?

A man who calls himself trans is wearing ‘woman face,’ no different than I would wear Black face trying to be a Black person. It’s assuming an identity that isn’t yours.

For the last time, Charlie Kirk certainly had the right to speak his mind without being murdered. Just the same, those who disagreed with him have the right to acknowledge the tragedy of his death without celebrating his life.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP