MouthBQ98 said:

---

Dr. Hannah Spier explains the mental destabilization that is being indoctrinated into substantial portions of the female population. There is a complex of related leftist nihilistic or narcissistic ideologies that is apparently driving many females into a form of "morally" self reinforcing sociopathy.

---

will25u said:

---

I just figured out why the Minnesota ICE death is bothering me so much.

This liberal woman was willing to take on federal agents, to disrupt ICE operations, in order to protect criminal Somalis.

Obviously, she probably didn't imagine she would be killed. But surely, she must… pic.twitter.com/tVEifM0QjR

— Lauren Chen (@TheLaurenChen) January 8, 2026

---

Quote:

---

I just figured out why the Minnesota ICE death is bothering me so much.

This liberal woman was willing to take on federal agents, to disrupt ICE operations, in order to protect criminal Somalis.

Obviously, she probably didn't imagine she would be killed. But surely, she must have known that, at the very least, she could be arrested.

She has three kids. So she was willing to be separated from her kids to protect criminal Somalis.

Speaking as a mother, this is insanity. This is not rational thinking.

What it is, instead, is the result of liberal brainrot that convinces progressive women they have more of a duty to nurture and protect poor, brown (criminal!) strangers than their own country, and hell, even their own children.

I am praying for this woman's soul and for her family. But I mean it when I say this type of thinking is almost wholly responsible for the decline of Western civilization.

---

MORE DEEP DIVING — Competent Lawyer Thoughts on the Minneapolis Shooting Pt. 2:

Another big danger of this kind of incident is the left’s refusal to apply the law as it is to the facts as they are documented on video. As was pointed out to me, this is very similar to the Kyle…

— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) January 8, 2026

Quote:

---

Competent Lawyer Thoughts on the Minneapolis Shooting Pt. 2:

Another big danger of this kind of incident is the left's refusal to apply the law as it is to the facts as they are documented on video. As was pointed out to me, this is very similar to the Kyle Rittenhouse situation.

The law of self-defense is clear. It's ancient. The rules are set down, and there is ample precedent to rely on. The fact pattern here similar to the Rittenhouse incident. The law is also similar. Yet the left misconstrued both situations.

The facts about today's shooting are there on video. They are not subject to good-faith dispute as to the events relevant to a claim of self-defense. Rittenhouse was attacked by a guy with a Glock, as well as others with weapons. Here, everyone agrees this woman accelerated her car in the direction of the police officer and struck him. Applying the law of self-defense should be simple; it only gets complicated if you are trying to avoid a result you don't want it.

So, we get two lines of argument from the left. The first is to misstate the law of self-defense. They accept the facts but falsely claim that the facts do not justify invoking self-defense. For example, here, we get arguments that the woman was trying to drive away, though under the law of self-defense, her intent is irrelevant. The analysis is what a reasonable cop would have thought in his position. What she thought doesn't matter.

The second line of argument is to deny the facts, including facts clearly shown on the videotape. We saw that here with people insisting, despite pictures of bullet holes in the windshield and the front of the side mirror, that the police officer was firing into the side window in an effort to deny that he was in the path of the vehicle. Or the facts are minimized. The woman struck the police officer; what we hear is that he was only winged, as if he would've had to have been killed before the right to self-defense had arisen.

All this is in the service of the leftist narrative, which is crafted to create a martyr to advance the leftist agenda. But what this does is eliminate the ability to resolve disputes and determine the truth through the legal process. How can you guide yourself to conform with a law that is a kind of Calvinball it is what it needs to be to support a leftist narrative. And how can you not break the law if facts showing you did not break the law are ignored, especially facts that are right there on video?

This is a serious problem. You can't have a society with civil rights when you can't rely on due process grounded in fixed laws and the determination of objective facts. When one side dispenses with a justice system and replaces it with a social justice system that determines guilt by narrative necessity, the other side will dispense with a justice system, too. Then you have a system based on power. And as we saw today, it's the guys with the guns that have the power.

The left ought to think very long and hard about this.

---

500,000ags said:

---

Drives towards? He walked in front of the car. Like stupidly close. Why?

---

500,000ags said:

---

Drives towards? He walked in front of the car. Like stupidly close. Why?

---

jja79 said:

---

What is a legal observer? I suspect nothing but I keep seeing that thrown around.

---

jja79 said:

---

What is a legal observer? I suspect nothing but I keep seeing that thrown around.

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Geminiv said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Here is a zoomed in slowed down version. pic.twitter.com/tLIgGg0WMg

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 7, 2026

This isn't a game.

You hit a federal agent with your car.

---

Looks like a four point turn and the car didnt touch him.

---

The other angle shows it hitting him, stop lying

better angle. you can see that she actually hit the guy in front of her jeep. pic.twitter.com/U26QIOQ4Aj

— el gato malo (@boriquagato) January 7, 2026

---

Yeah, I'm not exactly like rooting for either side in this thing but seems like a ***** move to shoot her.

I have my doubts. Her intention was to try and kill or hit. The police officer. Looks like she was just taking off.

I'm not arguing with anybody because I don't give a **** to argue, but that's just my take

---

500,000ags said:

---

There will always be disagreement on this issue. It's very similar to KRH, as I previously stated. At what point does the person that is okay to use deadly force become culpable for putting themself in a situation that requires that deadly force. I just think it's just too convenient to say it's the side that I don't like. Always. Always.

---

500,000ags said:

---

There will always be disagreement on this issue. It's very similar to KRH, as I previously stated. At what point does the person that is okay to use deadly force become culpable for putting themself in a situation that requires that deadly force. I just think it's just too convenient to say it's the side that I don't like. Always. Always.

---

500,000ags said:

---

She made him stand in front of her car, so she could viciously run him over. That's just not what I see.

---

500,000ags said:

---

I agree because he was LEO on duty, and she was instigating. The national issue is that ICE has operated in a certain way, and many people were just aching for this moment.

---

500,000ags said:

---

There will always be disagreement on this issue. It's very similar to KRH, as I previously stated. At what point does the person that is okay to use deadly force become culpable for putting themself in a situation that requires that deadly force. I just think it's just too convenient to say it's the side that I don't like. Always. Always.

---