Selective Outrage and the Death We’re Already Exploiting
When Video Evidence Exists — and Truth Still Isn’t Enough
Part II of a Two-Part Series
I knew what was coming the moment I saw the footage.
Before the headlines stabilized.
Before the hashtags multiplied.
Before people started shouting absolutes.
I remember thinking, This is going to be George Floyd 2.0.
Not because the circumstances were the same — they weren’t.
But because I recognized the pattern.
A death occurs.
Emotion surges.
Facts lag behind outrage.
And before evidence can be examined, the narrative hardens into dogma.
What Happens When Evidence Is Ignored
I didn’t watch a single clip and jump to a conclusion.
I watched multiple videos, from multiple angles, in slow motion, frame by frame.
Here is what the footage shows — not ideologically, but mechanically:
A protester blocking traffic
Federal agents with legal authority are initiating an arrest
Active resistance
An attempted escape
A vehicle accelerated directly into the path of an agent
Physical impact — visible, undeniable
A vehicle, when used this way, is not symbolic.
It is a deadly weapon.
Under the law, an officer struck by a vehicle during a lawful arrest has the right to defend himself. That doesn’t make the outcome good. It makes it legally explicable.
A tragedy does not automatically equal murder.
Tragedy Without Mythology
Let me be explicit.
I do not believe this woman deserved to die.
I do not celebrate her death.
I do not believe lethal force should ever be treated casually.
But calling this “execution” or “fascist murder” requires ignoring what the camera shows.
If the agent had died, the same people now rioting would almost certainly call it vehicular homicide. The law does not change based on which political movement is emotionally invested.
And yet — the outrage began immediately.
Not after evidence.
Not after the investigation.
But before.
The Pattern Repeats
This is where the comparison matters.
After the death of George Floyd, facts that complicated the narrative were declared immoral to discuss. Violence that followed was reframed as “mostly peaceful.” Entire cities absorbed billions in damage, and the moral justification was emotional, not factual.
Now, again, we see:
Riots before conclusions
Absolutes before analysis
Moral certainty before truth
Anyone who says “slow down” is accused of cruelty.
Anyone who cites footage is accused of complicity.
The truth becomes irrelevant once a death becomes useful.
Why This Isn’t About Left vs Right
This isn’t a defence of law enforcement as an institution.
It isn’t a condemnation of protest as a concept.
It’s an indictment of moral selectivity.
Some deaths are declared sacred instantly.
Others are instrumentalized.
And in both cases, facts become negotiable.
When outrage is detached from evidence, justice becomes impossible.
The Hard Question
Here is the question neither side wants to answer:
Why are we willing to reject video evidence when it contradicts our emotional commitments?
Why do we demand nuance in some cases — and reject it violently in others?
And why does the same society that insists “context matters” suddenly insist context is immoral when it threatens the narrative?
A nation cannot survive on emotion alone.
A movement cannot claim justice while rejecting truth.
And a society that treats facts as optional will eventually excuse anything.
Including violence.
Final Thought
Every death is tragic.
Not every tragedy is murder.
And not every act of outrage is moral.
If we cannot tell the difference —
If we refuse to see what is plainly visible —
Then the question is no longer who is right?
The question is:
Are we still capable of truth at all?