Fear of a Copycat Culture: From Mangione to the Shooting of an Indiana Judge

Luigi Mangione reveals motive for CEO's killing after pleading guilty in federal case

As threats against politicians, judges and corporate leaders rise, Indiana has already seen a judge shot at his home, Hoosiers imprisoned for threats against public officials and the same grievance culture spreading nationally.

Hoosier Enquirer Analysis

LAFAYETTE, Ind. — The assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, attempts on Donald Trump's life, a plot against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the assassination of Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman and the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk have forced Americans to confront an ugly question: Are we developing a culture in which angry and alienated people increasingly view murder as an acceptable way to settle political, economic and personal grievances?

In Washington, a Kentucky woman felt is okay to live stream on facebook her vandalizing a WWII memorial with red paint. The violent acts of deviance are on the increase here and everywhere. While occuring under his watch, Trump isn't the cause of this trend; however, it is his enemies that seem to support sowing this chaos and lawlessness.

HE asked an anachost protestester why he had a shirt on with a killer's picture on it, glorifying murder, when he said, "it is a civil war." Leaving quickly not to be treated like Independent journalist Nick Shirley, the comment was telling of a spreading movement to kill high profile powerful people being blamed today and HE does not support or condone this mentality at all. HE has critized losers in government with words and only and respects human life completely. Calling for resignations and retirement must not be mistaken for anything else. Let us be clear, don't ever harm a fellow human physically, even if they have harmed you.

God will judge and police them. Karma is real and we only live on this earth a short time. Some choose to do harm to others and somehow justify it and some have powerful government, educational, and corporate positions. They will face their fate and live with their flaws. Let that be punishment enough.

Indiana has particular reason to ask that question because the violence is no longer something happening somewhere else. On January 18, 2026, Tippecanoe Superior Court 2 Judge Steve Meyer and his wife, Kimberly, were shot at their Lafayette home. Meyer was wounded in the arm and Kimberly Meyer in the hip. Both survived. Investigators subsequently alleged that Meyer had been specifically targeted for assassination in connection with a criminal case before him. Five people were arrested following an investigation involving Lafayette police, Indiana State Police, the FBI and other agencies. Three face attempted-murder and conspiracy allegations, although all remain entitled to the presumption of innocence.

That case should make the national conversation intensely personal for Hoosiers. Someone allegedly did not simply threaten a judge on social media or shout something outside a courthouse. According to investigators, people allegedly connected to a case before Meyer took the dispute to the judge's home, where both he and his wife were shot.

There is no evidence establishing that the Meyer shooting was inspired by Luigi Mangione, and HE is not suggesting otherwise. The alleged motivations are quite different. But the two cases belong in a much larger and increasingly troubling American story: the personalization of grievance and the fear that spectacular violence can inspire imitation, rationalization or further violence against entirely different targets.

From Mangione to Meyer: Different Grievances, the Same Dangerous Line

Mangione admitted in federal court on August 14 that he stalked and killed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The killing quickly became something more than a criminal prosecution. To some Americans angry about insurance denials, medical bills and corporate power, Thompson became a human representation of an industry they despised, while Mangione acquired an extraordinary following among people who treated him less like a killer and more like an avenger.

That reaction may ultimately be more consequential than Mangione himself. America has always produced assassins, extremists and disturbed individuals. What social media can now provide is an audience prepared to transform an accused or admitted killer into a political symbol almost instantaneously. A grievance that once remained inside one person's head can be reinforced by thousands of strangers telling that person who supposedly destroyed his future and why his anger is justified.

The target does not have to be a health-insurance executive. Don't like what an insurance company did? The CEO becomes the enemy. Hate a Supreme Court decision? The justice becomes the enemy. Believe politicians destroyed the country? The officeholder becomes the enemy. Believe a judge is responsible for what is happening to you? The judge becomes the enemy.

For an overwhelming majority of Americans, that anger ends with words, protests, elections, lawsuits or appeals. But for a tiny and dangerous minority, blaming can become threatening and threatening can become killing.

Indiana has now experienced the latter in terrifyingly literal fashion.

Someone Came to an Indiana Judge's Home

The Meyer shooting deserves special attention because courts depend upon something more fragile than armed deputies and courthouse metal detectors. They depend upon society accepting that legal disputes are resolved through law even when one side considers the result profoundly unjust.

Judges sentence defendants to prison, decide divorces and custody disputes, terminate parental rights, issue protective orders, resolve enormous financial disputes and make rulings capable of changing people's lives. Some of those decisions are wrong. Some judges deserve severe criticism. Judicial misconduct deserves investigation, appellate courts exist to reverse legal errors, and journalists have every right to scrutinize judges and the institutions protecting them.

What cannot become acceptable is retaliation by violence.

Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush responded to the Meyer shooting by warning judges throughout the state to remain vigilant. Nearly 200 Indiana judges subsequently participated in a judicial-security webinar. The Indiana Supreme Court emphasized that judges handle more than one million cases annually and must be able to perform that work without fearing violence against themselves and their families.

HE has repeatedly criticized Indiana's judiciary and will continue doing so when warranted. That makes the distinction particularly important. Shooting a judge is not criticism of the judiciary. It is an attack upon the rule of law. Citizens can investigate judges, demand resignations, file complaints, pursue appeals, campaign against retention and expose misconduct. A free society provides all of those weapons precisely so nobody needs a real one.

Indiana Was Already Seeing the Warning Signs

The Meyer shooting did not occur against an otherwise tranquil background. Federal authorities have prosecuted several Hoosiers for threats against government officials, including cases involving remarkably explicit language about killing people in positions of authority.

Federal prosecutors said Douglas Thrams of Milford posted videos advocating attacks on government buildings and the assassination of politicians. He pleaded guilty to making threats involving explosives. Indianapolis resident Shayla Addison was sentenced in July to 27 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to threatening a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Authorities said she repeatedly sent communications threatening to kill the representative and made a threat involving an explosion.

Another Indianapolis man, Dedrick Brown, received 21 months in federal prison this April after pleading guilty to threatening a federal employee. Prosecutors said Brown threatened during a court proceeding to shoot his probation officer and find and kill the officer after his release.

These cases are not evidence of a single movement, ideology or conspiracy, and they should not be presented as such. They instead demonstrate something broader: public officials and other people exercising institutional authority can become intensely personalized targets for private rage.

But America's Assassination Problem Doesn't Belong to Only One Party

The national picture makes it impossible to assign this phenomenon neatly to Republicans or Democrats.

Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July 2024, and another man was later convicted of attempting to assassinate him at his Florida golf course. Nicholas Roske admitted traveling across the country intending to kill Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Minnesota House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband were murdered at home in 2025. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and his family survived an arson attack on the governor's residence. Conservative activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated in 2025.

Now Indiana has a judge who survived being shot at his own home.

The common denominator isn't a coherent ideology. It is the proposition that a sufficiently hated political, judicial or economic adversary can be transformed from a person into a target.

The numbers surrounding Congress reinforce the concern. The U.S. Capitol Police Threat Assessment Section investigated 14,938 concerning statements, behaviors and communications in 2025, compared with 9,474 in 2024. Those figures should be interpreted responsibly: a threat-assessment case is not synonymous with a credible assassination plot. Nevertheless, an increase of that magnitude illustrates the hostile environment surrounding public officials.

The Mangione Effect Is Different—and Potentially More Dangerous

The Thompson killing added something unusual because Thompson was neither a president nor judge nor politician. He was a highly compensated corporate executive.

To Americans furious about medical bills, denied insurance claims and corporate profits, he could be turned into a symbol. That is precisely where society must draw an unmistakable moral line.

Americans have every right to despise a corporation. They can investigate insurance companies, sue them, regulate them, boycott them and demand that elected officials reform the industry. CEOs can be criticized for their compensation and corporate decisions. Wealth and power should never purchase immunity from scrutiny.

But neither can resentment become a death sentence. Charlie Kirk should still be talking at college campus intead of being a Martyr. (When will Indiana towns start nameing streets after him?)

The moment society accepts the proposition that an unpopular executive can legitimately be killed because he represents a hated industry, every ideological faction receives permission to construct its own list of allegedly deserving victims. One person's insurance executive becomes another person's judge, billionaire, prosecutor, congressman, governor, activist or president.

That is where the fear of a copycat culture becomes larger than literal copycats.

A copycat does not necessarily have to select the same kind of victim, use the same method or even share the original killer's politics. What can be copied is the underlying idea that killing a powerful person is a legitimate method of avenging a grievance.

A Generation Swimming in Grievance

This question becomes especially important when examining younger Americans, but it must be handled carefully. Most young people are not violent, and research does not support describing Generation Z—or any generation—as a generation of assassins. The percentage of Americans actually willing to injure or kill someone for political purposes remains small.

What has changed dramatically is the information environment surrounding that unstable minority.

A frustrated young American can spend virtually every waking hour being told that someone else stole his future: billionaires, corporations, Republicans, Democrats, judges, immigrants, capitalism, socialism, government or some other villain selected by an algorithm and reinforced by an online community. Unlike previous generations, that grievance can follow a person from breakfast until bedtime.

Eventually the abstraction can acquire a face.

A corporation becomes Brian Thompson. A court becomes Brett Kavanaugh or Steve Meyer. A political movement becomes Donald Trump or Charlie Kirk. A legislature becomes Melissa Hortman. Once an institution has been reduced to one human target, a sufficiently alienated individual can convince himself that killing that person somehow strikes a blow against the entire system.

That is not political activism. It is the collapse of politics.

Indiana Must Defend Criticism Without Normalizing Dehumanization

Indiana should be particularly careful not to draw the wrong lesson from the Meyer shooting. Protecting judges and politicians from violence cannot become an excuse for insulating them from criticism. Public officials should expect aggressive scrutiny, especially when exercising enormous governmental power.

A society committed to peaceful accountability actually needs more transparency, more public records, more investigative journalism, meaningful judicial review, competitive elections and credible disciplinary systems. When citizens believe institutions are accountable, they have legitimate mechanisms through which grievances can be heard.

HE can argue that a judge is wrong, question a politician's fitness for office, investigate a prosecutor, criticize a CEO or demand someone's resignation. Those are exercises of freedom. Violence is where that freedom ends.

The alleged attempt to assassinate Judge Meyer illustrates the difference with frightening clarity. If the allegations are proved, someone attempted to substitute fear and violence for the judicial process. That isn't reforming the system. It is trying to dominate the system through terror.

The Hoosier Warning

Perhaps the greatest danger isn't that America suddenly contains millions of potential assassins. It doesn't. The number of people willing to commit such violence remains extremely small.

The greater danger is an expanding culture willing to rationalize violence when it dislikes the victim.

One person excuses violence against a CEO because insurance companies are hated. Another rationalizes threats against judges because courts are hated. Someone excuses an attack upon Trump because Trump is hated. Someone else excuses violence against Democrats because Democrats are hated.

Different ideology. Same poisonous principle: People I hate deserve whatever happens to them.

Indiana should reject that principle without qualification. The shooting of Steve and Kimberly Meyer eliminated any illusion that this phenomenon belongs exclusively to Washington or New York. It reached Lafayette, entered a Hoosier neighborhood and arrived at a judge's front door.

Indiana can fight bitterly over its courts, corporations, elections, prosecutors, criminal-justice system and political future. Newspapers can investigate. Citizens can protest. Lawyers can appeal. Voters can remove politicians. Legislatures can change laws.

That noisy, contentious process is democracy.

The fear of a copycat culture is that an increasing number of alienated people may decide democracy takes too long—and a bullet produces an immediate result. Indiana has already been warned how dangerous that idea can become.

Instead Love one Another Right Now!!!