Video from Donald Trump’s rally in Youngstown, Ohio, is disturbing enough without social media turning the aftermath into a vigilante identification campaign.

Footage from the event shows a protester who appeared to be a woman being grabbed and struck by multiple rally attendees during a confrontation in the stands. ABC reported that at least four people appeared to grapple with or grab the protester before police intervened.

Other reporting says the protester was wearing a shirt calling for the release of the Epstein files when the confrontation erupted. Video circulating from the rally appears to show one attendee pulling at her hair and striking her while others surrounded her.

That alone deserves scrutiny.

But another story quickly emerged online: users began circulating screenshots of a private individual’s social-media profiles, naming him as one of the alleged attackers and urging others to “make this POS famous.”

That is where legitimate outrage can become reckless.

There is a difference between demanding accountability for violence caught on camera and declaring that a specific private individual committed a crime based on screenshots and crowdsourced identification.

I cannot verify from the images alone that the person named in those posts is the same person shown in the rally footage, and neither should anyone else pretend certainty without corroboration from law enforcement or reliable reporting.

That distinction matters.

If authorities identify and charge someone in connection with the assault, then report it. If credible news organizations independently confirm an identity, cite them. If police are seeking witnesses, share the official request.

But social media should not become judge, jury and digital posse.

The more significant political issue is what happened inside the arena.

A protester was confronted physically at a presidential rally while Trump continued speaking from the stage. Reporting says Trump mocked the protester and characterized protesters as paid agitators while the confrontation unfolded.

That is the part Trump’s defenders should have to answer for.

Political rallies are supposed to be places where people can cheer, protest, heckle and disagree without being punched.

There is nothing particularly conservative, patriotic or “America First” about a crowd deciding that dissent deserves physical punishment.

And there is something deeply corrosive about a political culture in which violence against an opponent becomes another piece of partisan entertainment.

Trump has spent years cultivating politics as combat.

His critics are “scum.” Opponents are enemies. Protesters are portrayed as illegitimate intruders. Political disagreement is routinely framed not as part of democracy, but as proof that someone is working against the country.

That rhetoric does not automatically make Trump legally responsible for whatever an individual supporter does.

But leaders shape atmospheres.

They decide whether crowds are encouraged to cool down or become angrier.

They decide whether opponents are treated as fellow citizens or objects of contempt.

And when a political movement spends years telling supporters that its opponents are dangerous, corrupt and undeserving of respect, nobody should be shocked when some people begin acting as though ordinary democratic restraint no longer applies.

The correct response, however, is not to copy that behavior online.

Do not publish addresses.

Do not harass families.

Do not declare someone guilty because a Facebook profile resembles a blurry figure in a video.

Send evidence to police.

Preserve the footage.

Demand an investigation.

And insist that anyone who actually assaulted someone be treated exactly as they would be outside a political rally.

That should be the standard whether the attacker wears a MAGA hat, a Biden shirt or no political clothing at all.

The most damning image from Youngstown is not a screenshot of somebody’s LinkedIn profile.

It is the sight of American political disagreement apparently turning physical while thousands watched.

And the question Trump’s movement should answer is much simpler:

When did disagreeing with the president become something that could get you punched in the stands?