New paper finds that the arrest of Luigi Mangione—and, therefore, the revelation that he had murdered Bryan Thompson—appeared to cause Democrats to increase their support for partisan violence. The authors exploit a large, two-wave survey that asked about support for political violence and was coincidentally fielded before and after the murder. They compare responses before and after Thompson's death and Mangione's arrest. The former event led to a slight decrease in support for violence among Democrats. But the latter caused a significant increase in their support for a hypothetical act of partisan violence: "For instance, comparing 7 days before and after the arrest, Democrats are estimated to agree 9 points more than Republicans that the partisan violent act described in the mock newspaper article 'could be justified' depending on the circumstances, and 7 points more than Republicans that the perpetrator in the mock article 'was likely provoked to react like that'." I doubt these results hold for just Democrats, to be clear. Rather, I think they suggest that high-profile political violence can, when committed by a charismatic or appealing offender for an allegedly just cause, persuade partisans left or right to be more supportive of political violence at the margins. As the authors write: "Support for interpartisan violence among Democrats rose only after Mangione’s public identification and arrest, that is, when a legitimizing, moralized narrative about his actions gained traction. This narrative may have activated feelings of moral justification and in-group solidarity, fostering tolerance for violence when perceived as serving a just cause."