Dean Withers was livestreaming when the news broke. Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old conservative activist who founded Turning Point USA, had been shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University.
Withers, a 21-year-old left-wing influencer who built his career challenging conservatives like Kirk. But when he heard the news, he started crying. Not just a few tears. He sobbed openly in front of 250,000 live viewers. People attacked him for it. They questioned why someone who regularly fought Kirk’s politics would cry over his death. The backlash came fast and hard.
Withers made a follow-up video, in which he said, “In the last 24 hours, I have received a lot of public scrutiny and backlash because after Charlie Kirk died, I cried.” Despite years of political battles and sharp disagreements, Withers saw Kirk as more than just a political enemy. He saw him as a human being with a family.
The Personal Connection Behind the Tears
Dean Withers posted his response video after facing heavy criticism for crying on his livestream. The video was titled “In response to critics, here’s why I cried.” “Even though, of course, I didn’t like the guy, I still talked to him multiple times. I sat down with him. That was somebody that I sat across the table from,”
Withers’ best friend, Parker, had been there when it happened, just 20 feet away from Kirk. “That was someone that my best friend, Parker, had to watch die,” Withers said.
He kept coming back to Kirk’s family during his livestream. “His kids don’t f-king deserve that,” he said, the profanity showing just how raw his reaction was. Kirk’s wife and children had been there for what should have been just another speaking event. Now they’d witnessed something no family should see.
“I want you to see how I feel because there are so many people in here right now, and I want to, if I can, set the tone for what the public’s response to this is,” he told his viewers.
Even in his grief, he was trying to lead by example, showing that you could hate someone’s politics and still feel human compassion.
Standing Against Violence Despite Political Differences
“If you want to end gun violence, you can never celebrate it. Violence is always disgusting, always vile, and always abhorrent,” he said. Withers used his emotional response to make a wider point about political violence.
He told his audience that celebrating such acts goes against everything they claim to believe. But Withers also made something else clear. This wasn’t about changing his political views. He still thought Kirk’s positions were harmful. He separated the person from the politics when it came to life and death.
“It should come as no shock when I tell you that I think Charlie Kirk was a bad person. I’ve made that very clear over the last year. But does that mean I think he deserves to lose his life? No.”
Then Withers drew a line with his audience. “Gun violence is sickening and wrong. If you celebrate this, if you don’t condemn it, if you’re happy, then there is a clear line between me and you, and you are not a fan. I do not support you, and I do not want you to support me.”
By showing his viewers how the news affected him, Withers modeled a response to political violence. You can hate someone’s politics while still believing they deserve to live. You can fight their ideas while supporting their right to express them without fear of violence.
The Backlash and Support
The criticism came fast. Many questioned whether Withers’ tears were genuine or just for show. Some called him weak, even contradictory, for showing emotion over someone he had opposed so fiercely.
But there’s something deeper at work when we see someone cry online. Our brains are wired to mirror the emotions we witness. When we watch someone cry on camera, we feel an echo of their pain, whether we want to or not. This creates discomfort, especially when the person crying goes against what we expect. We expect political opponents to stay composed, to keep their emotions in check. Raw vulnerability like this can feel unsettling.
Support came as well, though. Viewers and other commentators recognized the humanity in Withers’ response. “If Dean’s video has made you angry, you’re probably the one with a problem,” one supporter wrote.
Others shared this view about keeping political disagreements separate from basic human empathy. “I’ve always disliked Charlie Kirk, and no I am not mourning his death, but I feel so much sorrow for his wife and two kids,” another person commented.
Tilly Middlehurst, a University of Cambridge student who had argued with Kirk months earlier. She had challenged him directly in their feminism debate, yet she still expressed genuine sadness about the violent way his life ended.
Both young activists did something rare in modern politics. They showed you can hold strong beliefs while still seeing the humanity in people who disagree with you.
Transcending Political Tribalism
Withers’ tears weren’t a sign of political weakness. They were a reminder that behind every political figure is a person with family, friends, and people who care about them. In a moment when many expected partisan celebration or indifference, Withers chose a different path.
This wasn’t just about Kirk. It was about establishing principles that transcend political tribalism. Sometimes the most radical act isn’t taking a political stance. Sometimes it’s remembering that your opponents are human too.
His response showed that you can fight hard for your beliefs while refusing to dehumanize those who oppose you. That might be the kind of political discourse we need more of.
Read More: Neuroscientist Breaks Down Charlie Kirk’s Arm Movement After Fatal Shooting