I'm baffled to have received a few messages from readers, suggesting that my article yesterday titled "Self-defense under a justice system that's no longer on your side" went too far in suggesting that, in certain jurisdictions, we might need to be very careful to leave no evidence behind if we're forced to defend ourselves, because the law enforcement and justice system authorities there are biased towards the lawless and against the law-abiding.
I don't think it went too far at all. In fact, I think I pulled my punches too much, if people are still laboring under the misapprehension that the rule of law is still intact throughout these United States. I have news for them. It isn't.
Please consider the impact of far-left-wing, progressive District Attorneys (DA's) that have been elected to office in various urban centers (usually with the assistance of massive funding from George Soros and organizations that distribute his support). Consider Seattle, WA; Portland, OR; Philadelphia, PA; Baltimore, MD; Chicago, IL; New York, NY; St. Louis, MO . . . it's a long list. In those jurisdictions, how many rioters and violent demonstrators have been arrested by police, only to be released without charge by local DA's? You can research the news reports and other sources for yourselves. I'm sure that by now, the total must run well into four figures across the country. They're sending a very public message. If you do something illegal, but politically correct, you'll get off scot-free.
Police forces across the country, particularly those in riot-plagued areas, are losing officers hand over fist as they hand in their retirement papers, or resign and seek employment in areas that appreciate law and order. However, the left-wing authorities in such areas are making it as difficult as possible for them to do so. In some cases, they're trying to assert their authority over neighboring law enforcement agencies as well, to ensure that they control all police activity affecting their residents.
The latest example comes from Seattle, which is a city so large that it effectively controls King County in Washington state through its voters. Many Seattle PD police officers have resigned, and some have joined the King County Sheriff's Office, where they continue to serve the people of their communities - but out from under the control of SPD and those in authority over it. Now comes news that the left-leaning King County Council is to ask voters in a referendum to give it greater authority over the Sheriff's Office, including making the incumbent an appointed rather than an elected leader, abolishing checks and balances that prevent the Sheriff's Office being politicized, and ignoring the role of the sheriff as defined in state law. It's very clear why they're doing this. The thought of a law enforcement agency that's outside their control is anathema to them. They want to make sure that the KCSO becomes as politicized as the SPD is already. Would you feel "protected and served" in King County if they get their way? I know for sure I wouldn't.
I agree that many of our police forces have overstepped the mark, and need to be reined in. I've said as much in these pages often enough. However, the "bad cops" who do that are, I think, outnumbered by the "good cops" who want to maintain law and order, and in doing so serve the communities where they live. How are those cops being treated by the authorities? In most cases, they're being described publicly as part of the problem. Talk of "defunding the police" is a slap in the face to their law enforcement authority, and emboldens those who hate them. No, hate is not too strong a word. When BLM activists chant, on camera, "Pigs in a blanket! Fry 'em like bacon!", I submit there's only one way to understand those words - and it's not as an invitation to a peaceful neighborhood game of tiddlywinks.
Progressive, far-left-wing DA's are openly siding with anti-police activists these days. Just look at Philadelphia, where the Soros-supported and -supporting DA has threatened criminal charges against federal law enforcement officers that the President is sending to his city. He's trying to intimidate them before they even arrive. Look at the reaction of various progressive, far-left-wing mayors who've protested the (entirely lawful) actions of Federal officers in defending Federal property against rioters in their cities.
In many ways, such "in-justice system" officials are fouling their own nests, and the jurisdictions where they operate. Consider St. Louis, where it's emerged that a senior prosecutor in the DA's office actually instructed a police crime lab to tamper with evidence. He then allegedly used the altered evidence to bring charges. That's a felony under color of law - but did he care? Like hell he did! If I were a defense attorney, I'd be rubbing my hands in glee at the thought of calling for the dismissal of all charges against my client(s) on the grounds of egregious prosecutorial misconduct. Whether or not that'll happen is up to local courts, of course. One wonders how objective and non-partisan they are. I suspect we'll soon see. Meanwhile, I can only refer readers to my article yesterday. Do these events in St. Louis help to illustrate why I wrote it? They should.
Consider a pro-police rally in Denver, CO last weekend that was attacked by anti-police activists. It's now emerged that the police commander on scene gave a "stand down" order and allowed the attack to continue, rather than protect the peaceful demonstrators against the thugs. Impartial policing? Protecting and serving? Law and order? Well, so much for that . . .
Michelle Malkin was one of the speakers at that rally. She comments:
The America you grew up in is not the America we live in now.
One nation under God? Ha.
Land of the free? Ha.
Domestic tranquility? Ha.
Equal protection under the law? Ha.
The right to bear arms? Ha.
Freedom of speech? Association? Peaceable assembly? Ha. Ha. Ha.
It's not "socialism" or "communism" under which we suffer. Our dangerously chaotic, selectively oppressive predicament is more accurately described as "anarcho-tyranny."
. . .
The toxic combination of "pandemic panic" and "George Floyd derangement syndrome" has thoroughly destroyed the home of the brave. It is a paradise for the depraved and dictatorial.
Anarcho-tyranny is how hoodlums can toss statues into rivers with impunity, while citizens disgusted by Black Lives Matter street graffiti are charged with "hate crimes"—as David Nelson and Nicole Anderson in Martinez, California, were by a George Soros-funded district attorney two weeks ago.
Anarcho-tyranny is how rioters can shut down highways and byways on a whim without fear of arrest, while commuters trying to escape the window-smashing barbarians obstructing traffic are charged with "assault"—as poor Jennifer Watson of Denver, Colorado, was this week.
. . .
Anarcho-tyranny is how 1,000 black militia members can take over the streets in Georgia and point their guns at motorists as they demand reparations, while white citizen militia members in Idaho, Utah and New Mexico have been smeared publicly as racists and face injunctions for peacefully defending their neighborhoods.
Where do the police stand in this regime? It pains me to say it, but those of us who have backed the blue so loyally and vocally can no longer do so under the assumption that the blue will back us.
. . .
It was rank-and-file cops in Denver who watched as my patriotic friends and I tried to hold a Law Enforcement Appreciation Day this past Sunday and were besieged by Black Lives Matter and antifa thugs who had declared that their sole intent in invading our permitted celebration was to "shut us down." I livestreamed the chaos as pro-police attendees were beaten, including the organizer Ron MacLachlan, who was bloodied in the face and head just a few feet from me by black-masked animals. One antifa actor wielded her collapsible baton just inches from me.
. . .
If we had brandished or used our weapons in self-defense, we'd be facing felony assault charges—as armed citizen Steven Baca is in Albuquerque, New Mexico, at the hands of another Soros-subsidized district attorney.
If any of our men had tried to peel the female antifa thugs off of MAGA ladies who were assaulted, they'd be charged with battery, too—just like Baca.
. . .
So the message is loud and clear. When push comes to bloody shove in end-stage America, under the rule of the anarcho-tyrants, we, the law-abiding, are the enemy. Those in uniform sworn to protect and serve will turn their backs on us because their bosses don't answer to the public. They protect and serve the mob.
There's more at the link.
Our justice system has, in far too many jurisdictions, become an Augean stable of corruption, disrespect for the law and partisan political prosecutions. In some cases, District Attorney's offices may be so far gone that they can't be cleaned up at all. The only solution may be to fire the entire staff en masse, and start from the beginning with new, non-partisan appointees.
Meanwhile, those of us who are law-abiding citizens and refuse to be intimidated by thugs, rioters and criminals, find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. The letter of the law, and its spirit as traditionally understood, give us the right to defend ourselves, our loved ones and our property (subject to greater or lesser restrictions, depending on where we live). The new, far-left-wing, progressive administrators of our justice system don't give a damn about that. They want to intimidate us into abandoning our legal rights and allowing the mob to ride rough-shod over us.
If we refuse to permit or tolerate that, we will be targeted by such officials. They'll try to make examples of us to intimidate others. Witness what's happening to the McCloskeys in St. Louis. Their actions were entirely justifiable under law - so much so that the State's Attorney-General has filed suit to quash the charges brought against them by the local DA. However, the DA didn't care about the law, only about radicalizing the system of justice she administers and making the McCloskeys into an example to all those who object.
I repeat what I said in conclusion yesterday, and urge you to read that article in full if you haven't already done so.
By observing [the] precautions [that I recommended], law-abiding citizens fearing persecution from a law enforcement system that's become biased and one-sided can help to make unjust, partisan charges against them much harder to bring, and even more difficult to prove. Sadly, in this day and age, in some jurisdictions, that's no longer a far-fetched, remote possibility.
If you live in a jurisdiction dominated by such left-wing parasites, you need to very seriously consider leaving before it's too late. Some of them are, I think, already too far gone to save. Among them I'd include all the cities I cited in the third paragraph of this article, plus a large number of others. Is your life worth the risk that remaining there poses? Only you can answer that question. In my case and my wife's, we voted with our feet, as have many others of our acquaintance. If you think you can't afford to leave, due to lower salaries and other inconveniences, I can only ask . . . what makes you think you can afford to stay?