By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Regarding the events of January 6th, when asked if officers were justified in using lethal force against those causing them harm, Noem stated that each situation would depend on the specifics, and officers had the authority to arrest individuals using weapons or physically harming them. Tapper countered, noting that Trump had pardoned all the rioters involved in the incident.
Read the original article here
Kristi Noem, the South Dakota governor, has found herself embroiled in an embarrassing double standard, particularly in her response to the shooting involving an ICE agent. The core of the issue centers on her inability – or unwillingness – to articulate a consistent rationale for when the use of deadly force is justified. This inconsistency has exposed a deep-seated bias, making it clear that her decisions are not based on legal principles or ethical considerations, but rather on her own predetermined viewpoints.
The lack of a coherent explanation highlights a significant problem: the perceived arbitrary nature of her judgments. This has led to a growing perception that her views are driven by political expediency rather than a commitment to justice or fairness. The specific incident involving the ICE agent has become a focal point, as her justification for the use of deadly force in that instance clashes dramatically with her stances on other situations, such as the January 6th insurrection.
The absence of any remorse or embarrassment further complicates the situation. Her actions imply she either doesn’t comprehend the gravity of the questions being asked or, worse, she simply doesn’t care. This lack of accountability reinforces the impression that her position is not one of upholding the law, but of selectively applying it based on a political agenda. The responses provided by those sympathetic to her highlight a worrying reality: that for some, the rules are not universal. The rules apparently apply differently depending on who is perceived as the victim or the perpetrator.
The crux of the issue boils down to the question of context. It’s what she uses to justify her actions when answering questions. But the context is only selectively applied. The circumstances surrounding the shooting of the ICE agent, for instance, were apparently viewed through a lens that differed sharply from her perspective on those who participated in the January 6th events. While one situation, regardless of its nuances, warrants deadly force, the other is seen through a lens of justification or even pardon.
The situation underscores a broader pattern: a willingness to accept or even encourage violence against those deemed to be political opponents. This bias manifests not only in her words but also in her actions, and particularly in how she chooses to defend them. This is how the perception of the far-right functions: to win, regardless of the cost.
The silence on clear questions and the resorting to vague, context-dependent explanations reveal a calculated strategy. The focus is to maintain the narrative that supports her political goals. This isn’t about legal principles or justice; it’s about power and maintaining a specific political stance, which often supersedes any genuine consideration for fairness or the sanctity of life.
The pattern of behavior exposes a fundamental lack of principle. It points to someone who’s incapable of answering questions without the risk of exposing an ideology. She has become a person who cannot explain their principles because they do not have them. The incident with the ICE agent and the contrasting responses to other, similar situations, highlight the hypocrisy at the core of her decision-making process. The only constant seems to be her own self-interest.
The focus on the injury report of the ICE agent is a clear example of the double standard at play. Whereas in other situations, such evidence might be deemed irrelevant or an overreach of privacy, in this case, its release is considered vital. This illustrates how the rules and expectations change depending on the political alignment of the participants.
The situation has opened a window onto a troubling reality: that those in positions of power may view justice as something to be manipulated rather than a principle to be upheld. The double standard exposes not only hypocrisy but also a potential for abuse, as those in power become judge, jury, and executioner. It is a terrifying prospect that shows what the use of power can result in.
The call for her removal and prosecution isn’t just a political response; it’s a desperate plea for accountability. It’s an indictment of the system that allows such blatant hypocrisy to flourish. This incident will be remembered as a stark reminder of the importance of consistent ethical standards, especially for those who hold positions of immense power. It is a cautionary tale about the erosion of principles and the insidious nature of double standards.