Resolution criteria
Resolves YES if, by 11:59:59 pm local time on December 31, 2025, there is at least one carried-out violent attack against persons (e.g., shooting, stabbing, bombing, vehicular attack) that credible authorities attribute as retaliation for the September 10, 2025 murder of Charlie Kirk. Attribution must be explicit in at least one of: a law-enforcement press release/briefing, charging documents/court filings, or a perpetrator claim corroborated by investigators. Examples of acceptable sources: FBI or relevant police press releases, DOJ press releases, or reporting that quotes those officials. (justice.gov)
Resolves NO if no such officially-attributed retaliatory attack is verified by the deadline.
Exclusions: threats, rhetoric, protests, doxxing, property damage without injury, brawls/assaults without serious injury, foiled plots or arrests absent an attack, unsourced social posts, and opinion pieces. Killings by police in the line of duty do not count.
Source checks to resolve: FBI press releases; DOJ press releases; major wires summarizing official statements (AP, Reuters). (justice.gov)
Background
Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was shot and killed during a public event at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025; the shooter fled. Authorities recovered a bolt‑action rifle and released images of a person of interest while offering a $100,000 reward. Motive and suspect identity remain unconfirmed as of September 12, 2025. (reuters.com)
1,000Hmm. Is an attack against a target that is completely separate from the original killers cause, but inspired by Charlie Kirk's death a retaliation? That is, given that apparently Kirk was killed for not being extreme enough, would the retaliation have to be directed towards other people on the really extreme right, or is a shot in the blind at just anyone in particular perceived as a threat, basically at random "just shooting at someone at least", a retaliation?