pull down to refresh
nothing I’ve seen shows that clearly
Either need to get your vision checked or take your lithium, TDS impeding your perception. It's clear as day.
were rounds fired once the car was moving away
Yes, absolutely. This is also very clear.
no longer an imminent threat
Just because he was to the side (after already being struck) doesn't mean the threat is no longer imminent.
I'd like to think I wouldn't have taken those 2nd and 3rd shots, but adrenaline is a bitch... As a matter of legality, there's plenty of precedent on this. Deadly force is justified until a weaponized vehicle is stopped.
Ironic these two things happened on the same day
"A leader doesn’t have to pass a law to move the culture. Sometimes they just have to signal what contempt is allowed.
The screenshot making rounds shows Donald J. Trump’s Truth Social account boosting a clip captioned: “LIBERAL YT WOMEN!!! Most damaging creatures on earth.” For those unfamiliar with online shorthand, “YT” means “white.” The target here isn’t a policy argument. It's a demographic outgroup, labeled as subhuman with the word “creatures.”
That distinction matters, because the signal isn’t in the meme itself. It’s in the endorsement.
This is a modern skin on an old move: the “unruly woman” panic. Throughout history, when women, especially those seen as moral authorities, step into public power, critics don’t just debate their policies. They cast them as socially contaminating: hysterics, witches, home-wreckers, civilization-ruiners. The “liberal white women” framing adds a betrayal element: the supposed guardians have defected.
So here’s the narrowest form of the claim: When a high-reach leader boosts content that frames an identity group as inherently harmful or subhuman, the mechanism at work isn’t “trolling.” It’s a permission structure. It normalizes who can be mocked, blamed, and treated as fair game.
To be clear about what I’m not claiming: A repost isn’t policy. This doesn’t “prove a plan.” But it is a public signal of what the movement will tolerate, and what it wants repeated.
If the actual goal is better outcomes, or even just winning, the focus should be on incentives, institutions, and accountability, not identity scapegoats. Because there’s a threshold here. “Just politics” means attacking ideas, behavior, and policies. But when it becomes identity targeting, collective blame, and dehumanizing language, it’s not persuasion anymore. It’s authorization.
And authorization works in predictable ways. Outrage sorts the tribe: “this cruelty is allowed now.” Status backing lowers the social cost of harassment. The debate shifts from “what should we do?” to “who even counts?” The online flank gets fed, and everyone else gets dragged along.
I’ll grant the obvious concession: yes, politicians share junk all the time. But leaders don’t share randomly. The choice is the point. What would change my mind? Proof the post is misattributed or altered, or a clear pattern of repudiation and deletion when things like this slip through.
Which brings me to the question for those who think this is overblown: What’s the minimum standard of message discipline you’d demand from any leader before you’d say, “No. Don’t mainstream that”?"
Maybe he should have just called them racist or a nazis instead? Spare me your projection.
Trump is clearly eluding to the brainwashing weaponized against women. They are victims. It's a tale as old as time.
“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.”
― George Orwell, 1984
You’re omitting the key modifier: “YT”. This was identity targeting (“YT women”), not a neutral critique of “women.”
This interpretation makes more sense, these crazies are brainwashed and incited by mockingbird media echo chambers
Yeah, I’ll say it plainly: I’m Black and I use “YT” all the time to mean “white.” In online slang that’s the common meaning. So reading it as “YouTube women” feels like a stretch unless the original poster explicitly said that’s what they meant.
You really think Trump was using urban dictionary before a repost? Get a grip.
I’m Black
So you know better than most how bad of an idea it is to give cops even a whiff of an excuse to draw a weapon regardless of how right you think you may be.
I’m not claiming Trump checked Urban Dictionary. I’m saying “YT” is established online slang for “white.” The post says “LIBERAL YT WOMEN,” and that reads like identity targeting, not “women on YouTube,” unless you’ve got evidence from the original creator.
And yes, exactly why I’m focused on imminent threat and shot-by-shot justification. “Don’t give cops an excuse” isn’t a moral blank check for cops.
We have video from multiple angles, witnesses not required, but even so this corroborates what we can see.
"ICE agent was infront of her car... his midriff was on her bumper"
What witness neglects to mention is he shot only after she accelerated. Only sane thing to do when surrounded by law with a gun in your face is to put your hands up... not punch the accelerator.
The ICE agents told her to leave and she tried to comply when they approached the car. She was not under arrest.
She tried to comply by punching the gas as an agent was in front of the car? After another agent walking up calmly told to get out of the car? Only after she tried to speed off did that other agent grab the door. She was being detained, and only at that point was the shooter in front of the car to stop her from evading after being told to exit the vehicle.
Spin it all you want, it's conclusive she resisted arrest and weaponized the vehicle.
deleted by author
reporting
LOL
You're really a dishonest turd. Your own linked video shows all of this.
You’re right on one point: the video does show them yelling “get out of the f— car.” I retract that bullet.
But that still doesn’t make your story “conclusive.” Even if she was protesting and obstructing, that might justify an order to move/exit or detention depending on the facts, but it doesn’t establish the order was lawful, or that the car was “weaponized,” or that she was under arrest, or that shots were justified after separation.
Obstruction ≠ weapon.
"Get out” ≠ “under arrest.”
And even with a valid basis to detain, deadly force still turns on imminent threat, especially once the vehicle is moving away.
So the remaining questions are simple:
what was the lawful basis?
was she actually detained/arrested (and for what)?
when did the threat stop being imminent relative to the shots fired?
Even if the first shot happened with the agent on the hood (an imminent-threat moment), nothing I’ve seen shows that clearly. The real question is after separation: were rounds fired once the car was moving away / no longer an imminent threat to that officer (with bystanders in the street)? In the screenshot I posted, the vehicle appears already past him and he’s upright, planted, firing toward the rear/side, not pinned.
Also, “30 ft/sec” doesn’t describe the contact moment. If he’s on the bumper, speed is zero. The relevant part is the transition: once he can plant/aim, there’s time + distance, and “imminent threat” gets thinner unless the video shows an ongoing threat to someone else.
So what’s your limiting principle? when does lethal force have to stop once the threat isn’t imminent anymore?