MURDEROUS VIOLENCE

At age 18 years, 2 months, during a pitch-black night in early September 1965, two days after arriving in Chu Lai, Vietnam, I was ordered into one of my squadron’s UH-1E  helicopters.  Along with three other Marines, we flew to Da Nang approximately 56 miles north.  On the flight line was a large empty C-130 transport aircraft with open ramp.  Not long afterwards, I saw the headlights of the first medevac helicopter heading toward us and many others arrived later.  We ran to arriving helicopters to offload body bags of dead Marines and litters of grievously wounded Marines onto the C-130. Needless to say, I had never before experienced anything even remotely similar.  During that harrowing night, I thought how fortunate I was to be loading rather than being loaded. So, that was my introduction to Viet Nam and to murderous violence, but that was a war in a foreign land. 

Now, 60 years after my initial Chu Lai experience , I read everyday about murderous actions, especially in Gaza, Israel, Ukraine, and Russia. As sad as that is, I realize that those, too, are the inevitable consequences of war, and I console myself, knowing that there are no foreign troops shooting and bombing in America.  It is particularly troubling, then, that many of our citizens rationalize violence against each other.

Consider a 2025 Network of Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) - Rutgers University’s Social Perception Lab report entitled, Emerging Threats: Normalized Political Violence and the Rise of Assassination Culture that I present for your consideration. The report indicates that 55% of self-identified left-of-center respondents believe that assassinating President Donald Trump could be at least somewhat justified. Similarly, 48% expressed the same sentiment regarding Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX and head of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency. 

Overall, 38% of all respondents stated that murdering Trump would be at least somewhat justified, while 31% said the same about Musk. The study suggests the emergence of an "assassination culture" within segments of the extreme left, with political violence becoming increasingly normalized in digital discourse. 

The NCRI report warns that these attitudes pose a threat to political stability and public safety, emphasizing that such perspectives are not fringe but reflect an emergent culture grounded in far-left authoritarianism. The study also highlights the role of social media platforms in amplifying radical ideation, contributing to the normalization of political violence. 

Some people, therefore, mistakenly believe that political violence is justified.  But what about violence against non-politicians? Of course, everyone is acutely aware of the ongoing Luigi Mangione case currently being tried in New York.  To briefly refresh your mind, on December 4, 2024, Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was fatally shot outside the New York Hilton Midtown in Manhattan. Prosecutors claim that Mangione, the alleged assailant, approached Thompson around 6:44 a.m. and shot him multiple times in the back before fleeing the scene on an electric bicycle. 

Mangione was apprehended five days later at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania. At the time of his arrest, he was found in possession of a 3D-printed pistol consistent with the weapon used in the attack, multiple fake identification documents, and a handwritten letter expressing hostility toward the U.S. healthcare system. 

Authorities charged Mangione with multiple offenses, including first-degree murder in furtherance of terrorism, interstate stalking resulting in death, and using a firearm to commit murder. He has pleaded not guilty to these charges. Federal prosecutors, under the directive of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, have announced their intention to seek the death penalty in this case. 

The Brian Thompson murder has been co-opted for rants against the U.S. healthcare system and income inequality. Some social media users have expressed sympathy for Mangione, viewing his actions as a manifestation of frustration with corporate practices in the healthcare industry. This sentiment has been reflected in graffiti and merchandise glorifying the attack, reviving the "Eat the Rich" mentality.  But the most egregious responses came from those who prioritize their identity bias over morality.  For instance, in my Weaponized Communication book I wrote: “… the fact that the [Thompson] shooter earned undergraduate and graduate degrees at the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania was cited by Penn’s Julia Alekseyeva, an assistant professor of English, Cinema, & Media Studies, who posted a video that included the Les Misérables song, ‘Do You Hear the People Sing?’ and captioned, ‘Have never been prouder to be a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.’   The cowardly Alekseyeva, of course, later deleted the post after having reaped the publicity benefits that came from promoting the popular animus felt toward large medical insurance companies.” 

So, public opinion on the matter is divided. While many condemn the act of violence, others rationalize the assassination, claiming that issues of healthcare accessibility and corporate accountability caused the tragedy. Legal experts anticipate a complex trial, given the high-profile nature of the case and the potential for the death penalty. 

The fact of rampant violence is bad enough.  But, it troubles me, too, that those who speak violence do so  with neither social shame nor fear of social consequences.  In fact, many -- such as Penn’s Julia Alekseyeva  --  expect to be lauded for their hate speech. Are they our children's role models?  What do you think?