A school resource officer in New York has been pulled from campus duty after posting political comments about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, turning a local staffing decision into a flashpoint in the national fight over speech and safety in schools. The removal landed at the intersection of social media outrage, community expectations, and the very practical question of who parents trust to stand guard in their children’s hallways. It also dropped into a broader wave of workplace fallout for people who reacted online to Kirk’s killing.
The officer, the posts, and a community on edge
In Somers, a suburban district in Westchester County, families learned through a districtwide email that their school resource officer would no longer be working in local schools after administrators reviewed a series of social media posts that officials said glorified violence. The officer, identified in separate reporting as Tanisha Blanche, had been assigned to keep order and build relationships with students, a role that depends heavily on trust and the perception of impartiality. When parents discovered that One of Blanche’s alleged posts appeared to celebrate the assassination of Charlie Kirk, that trust evaporated almost overnight, and the district moved quickly to say the officer would not work in Somers schools anymore, according to a detailed notice about local removal.
The controversy did not stay local for long. National outlets picked up screenshots of the officer’s alleged comments, including a post that paired a video of Kirk with the line, “Well that white sniper was over qualified when he put that bullet in your neck hunni bunni,” language that critics said openly cheered political violence. One of Blanche was quickly described as a Twisted NY school cop in some coverage, and the framing stuck as the story spread, with commentators arguing that anyone who jokes about a public figure’s killing should not be armed and patrolling school corridors. The district’s decision to sideline the officer, and to emphasize that the posts were “unacceptable,” signaled that leaders were less interested in parsing political nuance than in drawing a bright line against staff who appear to endorse shootings, especially in a climate where parents already worry about safety in classrooms, cafeterias, and parking lots, as reflected in reporting on the unacceptable posts.
Charlie Kirk’s assassination and why it hit schools so hard
The reaction to the officer’s posts only makes sense against the backdrop of who Charlie Kirk was and how his death shook American politics. Charles James Kirk, born October 14, 1993, built a national profile as an American right-wing political activist, entrepreneur, and media personality, founding a youth-focused conservative organization and becoming a fixture on college campuses and cable news. His assassination in 2025 did not just remove a polarizing figure from the political stage, it instantly became a symbol in the culture wars, with supporters calling him a martyr and critics arguing that his rhetoric had long pushed the boundaries of acceptable discourse. The fact that Charles James Kirk was killed by a sniper, and that his death was captured and replayed across social platforms, meant that any comment about the shooting carried a visceral charge, especially when it came from someone in a position of authority over young people, as documented in biographical accounts of Charles James Kirk.
In the months after the assassination, schools and universities found themselves pulled into the aftermath, not because they were directly connected to the attack, but because so many of their employees and students reacted online. Administrators who might once have treated a stray tweet as a private matter suddenly faced pressure to respond when staff appeared to cheer the killing of a political figure. National reporting on Schools and universities described a wave of disciplinary actions, from suspensions to firings, as institutions tried to balance free expression with their duty to maintain safe, inclusive environments. The Somers case landed squarely in that pattern, with the officer’s comments about Kirk seen not as abstract political speech but as a real-time test of whether a school district would tolerate staff endorsing violence against a public figure, a tension that has been traced across multiple workplace firings.
Inside the Instagram post that lit the fuse
At the center of the uproar was a cluster of social media posts, including at least one Instagram entry that circulated widely among parents and students. The post, which appeared on an account that local reporting linked to the officer, mixed a video clip of Kirk with commentary that many readers interpreted as mocking his death and praising the shooter. The tone was not detached or analytical, it was conversational and taunting, the kind of language that might show up in a private group chat but lands very differently when it is attached to someone who wears a badge in a school hallway. Screenshots of the Instagram content, including the caption that referenced a “white sniper” and “hunni bunni,” were shared across platforms and eventually tied back to a specific Instagram post that became shorthand for the entire controversy.
Parents who saw the post did not need a legal seminar on First Amendment doctrine to feel uneasy. If an officer could publicly celebrate a sniper’s bullet in the neck of a political figure, some asked, what did that say about how she might treat students who shared Kirk’s views or came from families that supported him. Others worried more broadly about the normalization of violence, arguing that any adult in a school who jokes about an assassination is sending the wrong message to teenagers who are still figuring out how to argue without threatening harm. The fact that the post was not a one-off, but part of a pattern of online commentary that district officials described as glorifying violence, made it easier for administrators to justify removing the officer from campus, even as debates raged online about whether the punishment went too far for speech that, however offensive, was still speech.
From Somers to the national map of Kirk-related reprisals
The Somers officer’s removal did not happen in isolation. Across the country, employers have been taking action against workers who commented on Kirk’s assassination in ways that colleagues or customers found disturbing. A detailed overview of reprisals against commentators on the Charlie Kirk assassination notes that Nasdaq terminated a junior sustainability strategist over social media posts about Kirk, while a Texas Roadhouse employee was fired after making comments that management deemed unacceptable. In that same roundup, there are references to efforts to prosecute the fired employee, underscoring how quickly online speech about the killing of Kirk has moved from the realm of opinion into the realm of legal and professional consequences. The Somers case slots neatly into that pattern, another example of how remarks about the assassination of Kirk can cost people their jobs, as seen in the catalog of reprisals against commentators.
What ties these cases together is not a single political ideology but a shared sense among employers that celebrating violence crosses a line, especially when the target is a high profile figure like Kirk whose supporters are watching closely for signs of institutional bias. In Somers, the officer’s job was to protect students and staff, which made any hint of partiality or cruelty feel especially jarring. In corporate settings like Nasdaq or customer facing roles at Texas Roadhouse, the concern has been reputational as much as ethical, with companies wary of being seen as tolerating employees who appear to cheer a political assassination. The result is a patchwork of decisions that, taken together, send a clear message: in the current climate, public comments about Kirk’s killing are not just another hot take, they are a potential career risk.
How other educators are getting caught in the crossfire
Teachers have not been spared from the fallout. In MARYLAND, local coverage has highlighted how educators who posted controversial reactions to Kirk’s assassination have faced intense pushback, including calls for discipline and removal. One report from WBFF described how, as tensions rose following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, social media posts from teachers triggered complaints from parents and community members who felt that celebrating or joking about the killing of a conservative political activist was incompatible with the responsibility of teaching students from across the political spectrum. In some cases, teachers reportedly used phrases like “we will take what we can get,” language that critics read as endorsing the assassination, prompting investigations and, in certain districts, formal reprimands for MARYLAND teachers.
Farther south, a Martin County teacher in Florida has been fighting a suspension tied to controversial social media comments, seeking an administrative hearing to challenge the district’s decision. In that case, public meetings have featured ABOUT 15 MINUTES of heated testimony, with supporters and critics lining up at the microphone before the chair cut off one speaker by saying, “THREE MINUTES. NO. I’M SORRY, I’M GOING TO TURN OFF THE MIC. WE HAVE A LOT OF SPEAKERS. NO, I APPRECIATE…” The teacher has pointed to the volume OF SUPPORT HE HAS RECEIVED as evidence that his comments should be protected, while the district has framed the suspension as a necessary step to maintain a respectful learning environment. The Martin County fight shows how quickly a dispute over online speech can morph into a broader referendum on what kind of political expression communities will tolerate from the people who teach their children, as captured in accounts of the Martin County teacher.
Why school resource officers face a different standard
Even among school employees, resource officers occupy a unique space. They are sworn law enforcement, often armed, and they sit at the intersection of discipline, safety, and student support. When a classroom teacher posts something inflammatory, districts can argue about whether it undermines their ability to teach. When a school cop appears to glorify a sniper’s bullet, the stakes feel different, because that officer is the person students are supposed to run toward if violence breaks out. In Somers, the district’s email to families made clear that the officer’s social media posts were not just “inappropriate” but glorified violence, a characterization that set the stage for her removal from campus and signaled that leaders saw a direct conflict between her online persona and her on campus responsibilities, as outlined in the notice about the school resource officer.
There is also the question of perceived bias. A school resource officer who publicly mocks the assassination of a conservative figure like Kirk may struggle to convince right leaning students and parents that she will treat them fairly in disciplinary situations. That perception problem is not theoretical, it goes to the heart of whether families feel comfortable having that officer question their children, search their lockers, or intervene in conflicts. In the Somers case, the combination of the officer’s law enforcement authority and the specific language of her posts about Kirk created a perfect storm, making it politically and practically difficult for the district to keep her in place, even if some community members might have preferred a reprimand or training instead of removal.
More from Decluttering Mom:
