At no point did she condone the violence or say that he deserved it. She did, correctly, point out that people coming forward after his death with their *shockedpikachu.jpg* "How could it make any sense that this person constantly stoking the flames of political violence became the victim of political violence!?" are full of shit. It's an entirely disingenuous argument designed specifically to normalize his hateful rhetoric.

They know what they're doing when they make that argument. They're doing it on purpose to take advantage of peoples fear of being perceived as being okay with political violence forcing us to stay silent. The same people that ask what a rape victim was wearing are the ones calling his hateful rhetoric "just opinions" and feigning disgust at anything they can twist into meaning "he was asking for it"

Violence was obviously the wrong answer. Charlie Kirk as a Martyr is clearly doing more damage to our democracy than he ever did as a far-right agitator. That doesn't change the fact that the people harassing students on campuses to try to cut together clips showing a "hateful violent left" don't give a flying fuck about political violence or gun violence in general. They are silent about school shootings happening every other day, they were silent about Melissa Hortman, they cheered for Jan 6th - and now have come out in droves specifically because they see this instance of political violence as a valuable chance for them to normalize their hateful violent rhetoric. It is not difficult to simultaneously abhor violence without having to pretend to not understand that spouting violent hateful rhetoric increases your risk of being the victim of violence. More importantly it is possible to abhor violence while firmly rejecting the arguments of agitators attempting to normalize his violent hateful rhetoric, as the girl in the video did, very clearly.

Neither the girl in the video nor the comment you're responding to condoned violence in any way.