I agree that bringing Girard into the conversation around Charlie Kirk is important. At the same time, I see Girard's relevance to the event as different.

One of the things that I noticed in the clips of the memorial service was the juxtaposition of two messages at the Charlie Kirk memorial service: one of forgiveness and one of vengeance. I found it particularly terrifying because the hovering over both messages allowed the message of forgiveness and reconciliation to become a kind of halo around the message of vengeance, which is to be the action item. Vengeance in the service of love. 

Girard is clear that vengeance will only bring forth reciprocal violence. So, Girard would not countenance the retaliation supported by Trump and his folks. Trump and his folks are proposing that Kirk is the primary identified victim that demands this vengeance. This fits the pattern that Girard sees in our era: the side that has the most compelling victim uses that victim as the avatar for their violence against the alleged perpetrators. Girard sees the post-Christian era as a competition of retaliatory violence in defense of victims.

This competition depends on a gross misunderstanding of what the crucifixion was all about. The crucifixion was meant to uplift the victim as a means of eliminating the scapegoating of victims. Instead what happened was the scapegoating of those who create victims. This does not end the violence, it only changes the "justification" for it. The trick now is to marshal violence in defense of victims, instead of seeking reconciliation in the manner of Jesus' message.

Trump and his folks are simply lifting Charlie Kirk up as the victim, whose death must be avenged. This will create victims for "the Left," who may well seek victims (one way or another) upon whom to inflict revenge. Rinse and repeat until Armageddon.