We
may
no
longer
be
on
the
cusp
of
civil
war
because
the
main
Charlie
Kirk
shooting
suspect
was
“demographically
uncooperative,”
but
his
shooting
has
manifested
a
widespread
sensitivity
to
the
language
talking
heads
use,
for
fear
that
their
words
may
either
be
“too
insensitive”
or
“incite
violence.”
Take,
for
example,
MSNBC’s
decision
to
fire
Matthew
Dowd
for
daring
to
share
one
of
the
most
violent
and
evil
sentiments
known
to
man
—
what
goes
around
comes
around:
In
the
same
week,
Fox
and
Friends
anchor
Brian
Kilmeade
casually
suggested
that
being
homeless
and
and
refusing
state
shelter
should
warrant
the
death
penalty:
Just
for
clarity’s
sake
—
“involuntary
legal
injection”
is
just
a
fancy
way
of
saying
“murder.”
What
was
the
fallout
for
this,
an
actual
call
to
violence
against
a
class
of
vulnerable
people
facing
rising
homicide
rates?
He
just
said
oopsie
and
got
to
keep
his
job:
Hey,
if
that’s
the
standard
for
forgiveness,
can
Karen
Attiah
get
her
job
back
after
allegedly
“endangering
the
physical
safety
of
colleagues”
for
merely
posting
a
Charlie
Kirk
quote?
I
think
the
real
difference
is
that
for
many,
Charlie
Kirk’s
life
is
one
that
mattered,
while
the
lives
of
people
who
are
homeless
are
ones
that
burden.
And
while
the
right
are
the
only
ones
openly
advocating
killing
the
homeless,
I
do
wonder
how
far
behind
liberals
are.
Grants
Pass
v.
Johnson
may
have
come
out
of
Oregon,
but
it
isn’t
heartening
to
know
that
in
California,
the
supposed
bastion
of
far-left
lawlessness
and
bleeding
heart
liberals,
Gavin
Newsom
isn’t
above
making
a
photo-op
out
of
destroying
what
little
shelter
these
people
have:
How
far
are
we
really
from
treating
our
homeless
like
our
polite
neighbors
up
north
do?
The
only
difference
will
be
that
our
government-sponsored
killing
program
won’t
be
rooted
in
an
ever-growing
right
to
die
movement.
It’ll
sprout
from
tough-on-crime
rhetoric
and
NIMBYism.
While
the
case
was
being
argued,
what
should
have
been
one
of
the
most
compelling
arguments
against
the
Court’s
support
of
the
ordinance
was
that
Oregon
effectively
relegated
the
status
of
homelessness
to
being
criminally
punishable.
The
majority
pushed
that
argument
aside
and
claimed
that
they
were
merely
regulating
actions.
It
doesn’t
take
too
much
mental
maneuvering
to
arguing
that
under
Kilmeade’s
suggestion,
you
wouldn’t
be
killing
people
because
they’re
homeless,
but
merely
because
of
their
refusal
to
take
aid
and
a
presumption
of
criminality.
But
hey,
he
said
sorry
—
no
harm,
no
foul.
Just
don’t
be
surprised
when
his
words
become
part
of
a
Supreme
Court
opinion;
Alito
is
no
stranger
to
getting
inspiration
for
his
opinions
from
Fox.
Earlier:
Struggling
With
The
Status
Versus
Conduct
Distinction?
So
Are
The
Supreme
Court
Justices
SCOTUS
Just
Greenlit
The
Crime
Of
‘Sleeping
While
Homeless’
As
Totally
Fair
Game
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.