The shooting of Charlie Kirk is absolutely horrifying.

It’s sickening to see political disagreements spill into violence — especially on a college campus, where speech is supposed to be celebrated, not silenced.

There’s no justification for it. Political violence is evil, no matter who the target is.

In a democracy, we have ballots, courts, and free expression to resolve disputes. Resorting to violence threatens to destroy the very system we all depend on.

This country is already on edge. No one wants to live in a tinderbox where politics is settled by force.

Everyone in public life needs to do some serious soul searching.

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot in the neck at an event at Utah Valley University, the Deseret News reports.

A suspect is in custody.

A witness told CNN what Kirk was talking about: “A kid came up and he asked a question about how many transgender shooters there were… And then he asked one more question, and so the question was about shooters. And before Charlie Kirk could pick up the mic again, that’s when the shot happened.”

“A Michigan judge threw out charges Tuesday against Republicans who claimed to be presidential electors for Donald Trump in a state he lost in the 2020 election,” the Washington Post reports.

“The dismissal of the case delivers a victory to Trump and his allies and a blow to the state’s Democratic attorney general and to those who have been calling for accountability for lies about the 2020 election.”

The Jan. 6 rioter seen in photos wearing a “Camp Auschwitz” hoodie inside the U.S. Capitol building has been arrested in Virginia on charges stemming from a dog attack, ABC News reports.

A new CBS News poll finds 58% of Americans are opposed to President Trump deploying the National Guard to major cities to fight crime.

New York Times: “In what could be read as a citizens’ revolt, ordinary people serving on grand juries have repeatedly refused in recent days to indict their fellow residents who became entangled in either the president’s immigration crackdown or his more recent show of force. It has happened in at least seven cases — including three times for the same defendant.”

“Given the secretive nature of grand juries, it is all but impossible to know precisely why this has been happening, but the persistent rejections suggest that grand jurors may have had enough of prosecutors seeking harsh charges in a highly politicized environment.”

“By ordering the U.S. military to summarily kill a group of people aboard what he said was a drug-smuggling boat, President Trump used the military in a way that had no clear legal precedent or basis,” the New York Times reports.

“Mr. Trump is claiming the power to shift maritime counterdrug efforts from law enforcement rules to wartime rules. The police arrest criminal suspects for prosecution and cannot instead simply gun suspects down, except in rare circumstances where they pose an imminent threat to someone.”

“By contrast, in armed conflicts, troops can lawfully kill enemy combatants on sight.”

“Because killing people is so extreme — and doing it without due process risks killing the wrong people by mistake — the question of which rules apply is not simply a matter of policy choice.”

“Federal grand jurors in the nation’s capital have refused to indict two people who were charged separately with threatening to kill President Donald Trump, more evidence of a growing backlash against Trump’s law enforcement intervention in Washington, D.C.,” the AP reports.

“It is extraordinarily rare for a grand jury to balk at returning an indictment, but it has happened at least seven times in five cases since Trump last month ordered a surge in patrols by federal agents and troops in the District of Columbia.”

Said former U.S. Attorney Brendan Ballou to CBS News: “Not only have I never heard of this happening, I’ve never heard of a prosecutor who’s heard of this happening.”

New York Times: “In the past several weeks, the rioters and their lawyers have pushed the Trump administration to pay them restitution for what they believe were unfair prosecutions.”

“On Thursday, one of the lawyers, Mark McCloskey, said during a public meeting on social media that he had recently met with top officials at the Justice Department and pitched them on a plan to create a special panel that would dole out financial damages to the rioters — much like the arrangement of a special master to award money to the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”

New York Times: “The image of red-state governors mustering uniformed troops for duty in blue-state cities has left many Americans with the foreboding sense of a nation dangerously divided, perhaps even drifting toward open conflict. Mr. Trump denied statistical reality last week when he was asked whether he might send federal forces into high-crime cities in Republican-led states.”

Said Trump: “Sure, but there aren’t that many.”

“There are that many: Kansas City, St. Louis and Springfield, Mo.; Birmingham, Ala.; Cleveland, Dayton and Toledo, Ohio; Tulsa, Okla.; Memphis and Nashville; Houston; Little Rock, Ark.; Salt Lake City; and Shreveport La., all have crime rates comparable to Washington’s, according to F.B.I. statistics.”

“House Republicans are expected to take the lead as the GOP moves to fulfill President Trump’s call for a ‘comprehensive crime bill’ that coincides with his crackdown on Washington, D.C., and threats to extend his efforts to other cities,” The Hill reports.

“Exactly what the bill will include is unclear, but it’s expected to take aim at issues such as cashless bail, which Trump has blamed for crime.”

“President Donald Trump is envisioning a sweeping crime bill and billions of dollars in new funding for the nation’s capital. His Republican allies in Congress are largely in the dark on the details,” Politico reports.

“Multiple times this month, Trump has said he’s working on crime legislation with GOP congressional leaders… But Trump’s latest comments have puzzled Republicans, including members of leadership and key congressional committees, who don’t know what ‘comprehensive’ measure the president is talking about.”

“Federal prosecutors on Tuesday were unable to secure a felony assault indictment against a man who threw a sandwich at a federal agent on the streets of Washington this month,” the New York Times reports.

“The remarkable failure by the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington was the second time in recent days that it was unable to persuade grand jurors to bring an indictment in a felony assault case against a federal agent.”

“And it amounted to a sharp rebuke by ordinary citizens against the team of prosecutors who are dealing with the fallout from President Trump’s move to send National Guard troops and federal agents into the city on patrol.”

A new AP-NORC poll finds 53% of Americans approve of how Trump is handling crime – higher than his overall job approval or approval on other issues.

Key takeaway: “Fifty-five percent of the public think it’s acceptable for the U.S. military and National Guard to assist local police in large cities. But only a third support the federal government taking control of major city police departments.” 

Ryan Lizza: “Probably more than one. In fact, if you’re an average professional who has filled out lots of government forms, signed and mailed contracts, has semi-complicated taxes, some investments, financial relationships, and a mortgage, you’ve almost certainly run afoul of several federal statutes over the years.”

“Though plenty of people get swept up in life-ruining investigations by overly zealous prosecutors, most Americans go about their lives, occasionally breaking federal laws without fear of prison, because no free country would unleash its prosecutors to pursue every violation of every statute in our labyrinthine criminal code.”

“Federal prosecutors make choices. This vague concept of prosecutorial discretion prevents millions of technical lawbreakers from losing their freedom or suffering the devastating consequences of a criminal accusation by the government.”

“Not long ago, conservatives dreaded the possibility that an unconstrained executive branch might unleash its prosecutors to pursue violations of every law on the books.”

Rachel Bade: “To many Washington insiders, President Trump’s early August Beltway crime crackdown seemed like an opportunistic and hamhanded pivot after getting walloped for weeks over the Jeffrey Epstein affair.”

“But if it wasn’t clear then, it is now: The White House’s public safety play is a deliberate ploy to refocus the narrative on an issue that favors Republicans ahead of the midterms — one that’s already backing Democrats into a corner.”

“If his recent escalation was an attempt to goad Democrats into declaring that crime isn’t a problem, repelling swing voters in the process, top Democrats did not disappoint him.”