PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, Md. — Several law enforcement officers are under investigation after social media posts about conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s fatal shooting.
Kirk, 31, was shot and killed on Sept. 10 as he spoke at Utah Valley University during the first stop of his “American Comeback Tour.” According to university officials, the fatal shot was fired from the rooftop of a building approximately 200 yards away.
| POLICE1 ANALYSIS: Cop’s career ended by a $25 online donation and ‘words of encouragement’
Prince George’s County (Md.) Police
A Prince George’s County officer is being reviewed after a post from his account was widely shared on the social platform X by Libs of TikTok, an outlet with more than 4 million followers, WJLA reported. The post read: “When you’re spewing hate, hate will eventually rear its head and find you...”
The post, which appeared to reference Kirk’s killing, has drawn sharp criticism online and prompted the Prince George’s County Police Department to launch an internal probe. Officials confirmed the investigation and said the post may violate department general orders related to employee conduct on social media.
Specifically, the department prohibits officers from using social media in ways that could discredit themselves or the agency, according to the report. As of now, there is no indication that the officer’s duty status has changed.
Maui Police Department
A Maui police officer has also been placed on administrative duties and is under internal investigation after allegedly celebrating the assassination of Kirk on social media, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported.
The officer is accused of posting, “Charlie Kirk’s demise takes us one step closer to healing this country” in the aftermath of Kirk’s fatal shooting.
“We take this matter extremely seriously,” Maui Police Chief John Pelletier said. “We hold our employees to the highest standards of the policing profession, and when actions fall short of those standards, they are addressed immediately.”
The incident has been classified as an ongoing personnel matter, and no further information will be released at this time, according to the report.
Secret Service
An agent with the U.S. Secret Service has been placed on leave and had his security clearance revoked after expressing negative opinions about Kirk, CBS news reports.
The agent is accused of posting on Facebook that Kirk “spewed hate and racism on his show ... at the end of the day, you answer to GOD, and speak things into existence. You can only circumvent karma, she doesn’t leave.”
In a memo to staff obtained by CBS News, Secret Service Director Sean Curran warned that politically motivated attacks are increasing in the United States and urged employees not to worsen the problem
“Let me be clear, politically motivated attacks in our nation are increasing — seemingly every day,” Curran said. “The men and women of the Secret Service must be focused on being the solution, not adding to the problem.”
Westchester County school resource officer
In New York, a School Resource Officer assigned to Somers Intermediate School in Westchester County was removed from her post after making comments on Facebook about Kirk’s murder, Mid Hudson News reported.
The officer allegedly made several posts, including: “Why yall don’t have that same energy for the school shooting that took place yesterday, but yall crying over the man that was ok with gun violence.”
Somers Superintendent of Schools Adam Bronstein said the posts glorified violence and were unacceptable for someone responsible for student safety. He contacted the Westchester County SRO unit, which reassigned the officer.
This article, originally published on Sept. 12, has been updated with additional investigations.
How should agencies balance free speech rights with public trust when officers post about high-profile incidents?
Police1 readers respond
- We accept that we are held to a high standard, or we don’t take that oath. There should be reasonable disciplinary measures taken if you choose to make questionable posts.
- When a law enforcement officer or other government official elects to reference themselves as a government employee on social media either through words or photographs, they have to tread carefully in their posts, likes or replies to the comments of others. For when they do choose to interact with others, they are not only representing themselves but by, extension the government agency they work for. That’s why so many agencies have policies in place to protect the integrity of the agency. If your comments can defame their respective agency, then they need to be smart enough to keep those thoughts to themselves!
- Law enforcement in our country must be based on law and not political ideology. As a private citizen, your vote is personally protected, but your identity as an officer follows you 24/7. Obsession with political agendas is just another form of discrimination that compromises your ability to even-handedly and effectively perform your duty to protect and serve.
- ANY officer posting hate speech or encouraging violence should be fired and potentially prosecuted. End of discussion.
- I am reminded of what I was told upon entering the Academy in 1983, “We are a para-military organization. What you do as a representative of this organization, in uniform or out, especially when you draw a nexxus to it, can have significant consequences.” In other words, when in uniform you don’t have an opinion, UNLESS you have been duly authorized by the Department to express its opinion. The military has laid it out clearly through the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), essentially, when in uniform you do not have a political opinion. Most people who follow law enforcement professionals on social media know what the profession is, and they will hold us to a higher standard of conduct than Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public, and rightfully so. If one is inclined to speak their mind on social media, then stand by to stand by, because those who you have sworn to serve and protect may suddenly feel less safe with you having a badge and a gun and all that power.
- Agencies must balance free speech with public trust by recognizing that while officers have the right to personal opinions, their words carry added weight when tied to a badge. Departments should affirm constitutional rights but hold staff to higher standards of professionalism — especially around high-profile incidents — because public confidence in fair, impartial service is the foundation of effective policing. Clear policies, consistent enforcement and transparency help preserve both free expression and community trust.
- To be an effective enforcement officer, you need to keep your personal feelings neutral and away from any type of media outlet.
- This is why our country is so screwed up right now. Both officers should be immediately fired. Spewing their hate-filled speech is unconscionable. People look to law enforcement officers to be unbiased in thought, word and deed. Enough said.
- You have to be professional at all times and refrain from saying or doing anything that will show your personal views. You are always representing your department.
- Agencies should be able to restrict certain statements when they compromise the mission of that agency.
- While you should not limit their free speech, maybe their off-duty conduct reflects their on-duty bias or prejudices. If they don’t live their lives as promoting respected conversation instead of violence, then they shouldn’t be police officers.
- Both of these jerks are a disgrace to ALL law enforcement officers and their departments and communities.
- How insensitive can comments like this be, especially at a time such as this when the family is grieving the loss of a father and husband. I would never condone any social media post that would celebrate the death of any law enforcement officer for any reason. It’s evil, hateful and serves no purpose. Just because we may not agree with each other, doesn’t give anyone the right to violate someone’s First Amendment rights by taking their life, let alone celebrating it.
- When I was a rookie officer my sergeant told me, “If the department wants you to have an opinion, it will be issued to you.” Excellent words of wisdom I carried through my career.
- As a retired law enforcement officer (34+ years), making comments such as these should in the least result in removal from the position. They don’t deserve to wear the badge and consider themselves a part of the thin blue line.
- What in the world have we come to glamorizing the murder of someone because we don’t like something they say. As a 43-year veteran of LE, I’m totally disgusted.
- There should be zero tolerance for any officer advocating or condoning any speech or action that supports criminal violence towards an innocent citizen. Neither should they be allowed to support any felonious criminal activity. We all may use violence at times in the course of our duties and may even praise each other for the use of that force…there is a stark difference here! No innocent man should be assaulted for his opinion, speech and platform only- Republican, Democrat, Independent, etc. Supporting and condoning publicly any violence towards a violent criminal or someone who is criminally violent toward the innocent…another thing entirely.
- No one should be shot dead for their freedom of speech. Anyone that condones this action should lose their job, otherwise the violence continues.
I am a retired deputy sheriff with 40 years in California. I have learned that when people use demeaning slander, it often reflects more about the person using it than their intended target. Those who use slander often misinterpret others’ intentions or exaggerate flaws. They project their own insecurities or unresolved issues onto others, distorting reality to fit a narrative that justifies their behavior.
This can be tied to a person’s psychological makeup: low self-esteem, narcissistic traits, learned behavior, or — most concerning — personality dimensions. An officer or agent cannot do their job objectively if these are present. Personality dimensions are screened during background investigations in the hiring process. Persistent behavior can align with traits found in certain personality dimensions, indicating a possible disorder.
I was a background investigator for new recruits and reviewed many psychological reports, which were consistent with what I observed in the recruits I investigated. I found that those who scored to the far right in certain categories of these tests — we look for candidates who fall near the middle — may not have a diagnosable disorder but are not suitable candidates. Persistent slanderous behavior can align with undesirable traits in an officer of the law: antagonism, disinhibition (poor emotional regulation or impulsiveness), and negative affectivity (frequent anger, irritability, and suspicion).
Often, these individuals seek power and control. Belittling others can be a way to establish social dominance, which often stems from feelings of powerlessness in other parts of their lives. My perspective comes from years of working with many officers, reviewing cases, and conducting background investigations.
When I was a young deputy assigned to the jail, I used unflattering names for inmates — “dirt bag” and others. One night, a seasoned sergeant pulled me aside and explained how my comments reflected poorly on me as well as the department. He gave me examples. I appreciated his mentorship because he set me on the path of treating others the way I would want to be treated in those same circumstances.
| WATCH: Gordon Graham on social media best practices for first responders
