Former Michigan Prosecutor Criticized for Comments on Charlie Kirk’s Assassination
In the wake of tragedy, the digital landscape often becomes a battleground for political opinions. This was starkly illustrated when Carol Siemon, a former Michigan prosecutor, made controversial remarks following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA. Kirk, just 31 years old and a father of two young children, was shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University as part of his American Comeback Tour. While tributes poured in from across the globe, Siemon’s response stood in stark contrast, suggesting that Kirk’s pro-Second Amendment stance somehow made him complicit in his own death. “I’m terribly sorry when anyone is shot,” Siemon wrote on social media platform X. “But I’m sure he doesn’t mind because he has said that shootings and gun deaths are a price he is willing to pay for nearly unfettered abilities to possess and use firearms. I support sensible firearm control, and perhaps he will too.” The insensitive nature of these comments, made while a family was grieving the loss of a husband and father, sparked immediate backlash, ultimately leading Siemon to delete her social media account.
The criticism of Siemon’s remarks came swiftly, with former Michigan House Speaker and gubernatorial candidate Tom Leonard condemning her for “politicizing the murder of a young father and husband.” Leonard pointed out the irony in Siemon’s stance, noting that during her tenure as prosecutor, she “refused to prosecute gun crimes, making Lansing one of the most dangerous cities in the country.” This criticism highlights a troubling disconnect between Siemon’s expressed support for gun control and her actual prosecutorial record. The controversy surrounding her comments has reignited discussions about the appropriate boundaries of political discourse in the aftermath of violence, regardless of ideological differences. Many observers found it particularly disturbing that a former prosecutor would imply that a victim of violence had somehow invited their own death through their political beliefs—a sentiment that runs counter to fundamental principles of justice and human dignity.
Siemon’s professional record as Ingham County’s first female prosecutor, elected in 2016, has come under renewed scrutiny following her controversial remarks. Her tenure was marked by what critics described as a soft-on-crime approach that led to clashes with law enforcement and the judiciary. Perhaps most damning was her handling of a 2019 case involving Anthony McRae, who later perpetrated the 2023 Michigan State University mass shooting that claimed three lives and injured five others. Under Siemon’s leadership, McRae was allowed to plead a felony gun charge down to a misdemeanor—a decision that meant he avoided jail time and retained his ability to purchase firearms. This case raises serious questions about the consistency between Siemon’s public advocacy for “sensible firearm control” and her actual prosecutorial decisions that may have contributed to enabling future gun violence.
Further compounding concerns about Siemon’s prosecutorial judgment was a 2022 incident when Ingham County Judge Rosemarie Aquilina rejected a plea deal Siemon had arranged for convicted murderer Kiernan Brown. Judge Aquilina publicly accused Siemon of “trying to be creative to get around the law” and called for her resignation. These past controversies provide important context for understanding the public reaction to Siemon’s comments about Kirk’s assassination. They suggest a pattern of decisions that some viewed as prioritizing ideological positions over public safety and the fair application of justice. Siemon ultimately stepped down as prosecutor in 2022, but her comments about Kirk demonstrate how former public officials can still influence public discourse, sometimes in ways that inflame rather than heal societal divisions.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk represents a troubling escalation of political violence in America. Kirk had been actively engaged in his American Comeback Tour, taking questions from both supporters and detractors when the shooting occurred. Regardless of one’s agreement or disagreement with Kirk’s conservative activism and positions, most Americans across the political spectrum recognize that political violence represents a fundamental threat to democratic discourse and the peaceful exchange of ideas. Vigils were held across the United States following Kirk’s death, with many participants emphasizing the need for national healing and a return to civil discourse. These gatherings reflected a widespread recognition that despite deep political divisions, violence can never be normalized or justified as a response to ideological differences.
The controversy surrounding Siemon’s comments illustrates a broader challenge facing American society: how to maintain basic human empathy and decency in an era of intense political polarization. When public figures like Siemon use moments of tragedy to score political points or suggest that victims somehow deserved their fate due to their political positions, it further erodes the shared moral foundation necessary for democratic coexistence. The widespread condemnation of Siemon’s remarks from across the political spectrum suggests that most Americans still believe in certain boundaries of decency that should not be crossed, particularly in moments of grief and loss. As the nation continues to grapple with political violence and extreme polarization, the ability to see political opponents as fully human—deserving of life, dignity, and respect regardless of their views—remains essential to healing societal divisions and preventing further escalation of hostilities. Charlie Kirk’s assassination, and the varied responses to it, stand as a sobering reminder of what is at stake when we lose sight of our common humanity.
