Peter L. Mehegan, an active commentator on social media, posted a series of tweets on September 29, 2025, addressing the identity and categorization of individuals who commit violent crimes.
In his first tweet at 12:53 UTC, Mehegan stated: “Their own guy?” A murderer loses his right to identify as political. He loses his sex, his pigmentation and he is identified as murderer. After the trial, he’s ‘guilty murderer.’ Who do you call ‘your guys?’ The folks who burned down Portland all lost their identity that night.”
A few minutes later, at 12:56 UTC, Mehegan expanded on this idea: “If you shoot people in a church, you are antiChristian. A murderer loses his right to identify as political. He loses his sex, his pigmentation and he is identified as murderer. After the trial, he’s ‘guilty murderer.'”
Later that day at 14:39 UTC, Mehegan addressed the topic of political affiliation in relation to acts of violence: “Calling BS…That’s a Trump/Vance sign and his FB page is all the same. AND you LOSE your right to a party/leaning/persuasion, to sex or pigmentation when you attack the innocent. He will be identified as coward and murderer with all the other cowards and murderers.”
Mehegan’s posts reflect ongoing debates about how perpetrators of violent acts are labeled in public discourse—whether by their political affiliations or personal characteristics—and suggest that such identifiers should be set aside in favor of labeling based solely on criminal actions.
These comments come amid continued national discussions over how violent incidents are reported and discussed online and in traditional media. The question of whether to emphasize factors such as race, gender, or political beliefs when describing those accused or convicted of serious crimes has been a subject of debate among journalists and commentators.
