Give rioters an inch, and they'll take a yard - and the law may let them

A shocking video emerged over the weekend, showing a vehicle trying to get through a Black Lives Matter demonstration in Los Angeles, only to be chased down by BLM vehicles and attacked.  The victim (the driver of that vehicle) was then arrested - but the BLM attackers apparently got off scot-free.

First, look at the video.

Notice the blatant, in-your-face aggression of the BLM rioters.  They weren't afraid of police intervention at all, because they knew there wouldn't be any.  They knew that local law enforcement had basically been told to let them get away with it.

Matt Bracken analyzes the incident.

ABR [Antifa/Black Lives Matter/RevCom] used three vehicles to chase the white Prius down and attack it after it escaped the mob. A pickup truck with ABRs in the back got ahead of the Prius and cut it off from the front.

A convertible followed, packed with more troops. Both of these vehicles had guys ready to leap out for a fight or attack. And they had a dirt bike on the side to pursue anybody running away on foot, or keep up the chase if the other vehicles were blocked.

ABR tactics must not be underestimated. This was an Antifa QRF [Quick Reaction Force]: two fast “troop carriers” and a motorbike. Not random at all: this was a QRF in waiting, probably SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] for a standard ABR nighttime roadblocking mob.

Note the speed of the single motorbike, but numerous ABRs on mountain bikes arrive pretty fast too.

The black pickup / troop carrier was probably located as security on the forward end of the mob, because it was able to overtake the Prius very fast. The green convertible took a while to catch up, so it was probably on the back side of the mob, and had to get through “the comrades” before taking up the chase.

It’s important to note that on this date, ABR is using clubs and skateboards to smash vehicle windows. In a month or so, these can easily be replaced with pistols or other firearms as the SHTF escalation progresses. They could have easily shot the driver of the Prius. During a wide open SHTF / CW2 [Civil War 2], expect and plan for these ABR vehicle QRF tactics, but with the commies armed with guns instead of clubs.

As I've said again and again and again:  stay away from such conflict zones.  The chances of your being caught up in them increase dramatically the closer you are to them;  and there's no guarantee you'll be able to get away from them (particularly when the rioters set up quick reaction forces to chase you down if you try, as we saw above).

Furthermore, don't think that displaying a weapon will be enough.  When the rioters know that the local cops have been ordered to go easy on them, they won't care about your gun, because they'll be armed themselves - and they know there'll be more of them than you.  If you produce your weapon, they'll produce theirs, or try to take yours away from you (as they did to Kyle Rittenhouse).  If you actually use your weapon on them, no matter how legally and legitimately you were trying to defend yourself, you're very likely to be portrayed by the authorities (and treated as) the perpetrator of violence, rather than its victim.  (Again, see Kyle Rittenhouse.)

An armed security guard in Seattle recently learned the hard way that rioters are no longer intimidated by firearms.

Watch what happened in Seattle when the mob came across the armed security guarding a pot shop.

BLM & Antifa foolishly harassing an armed security guard outside what looks to be a pot shop. Coming soon to every city if the left gets its way. #Seattleprotests pic.twitter.com/rXHmvml6ky
— Kitty Shackleford (@KittyLists) September 25, 2020

They challenged him and harassed him.

Why?

Because the mob knows four things:

• The armed guard knows that if he shoots a rioter, no matter how bad the rioter is acting, he (the guard) will face the full force of a weaponized, partisan DA’s office that sides with Antifa.
• The armed guard knows that if he shoots someone in Antifa, they have him on video, they will doxx him, and they will probably burn down his house and try to murder him later.
• The guard is more afraid of what happens if he pulls the trigger than what happens if he doesn’t.
• Because of the above three things, the guard will not shoot.

So the guard drawing his gun is an idle threat, which is why they have no fear harassing an armed man.  Because he might as well not be armed.

. . .

We never expected the justice system to be so stacked against us and the mob be so organized against us that we couldn’t defend ourselves in the face of a violent threat because the outcome of winning a violent encounter is worse than losing it.

The mob may beat you nearly to death, but if you survive, they are done with you and you probably won’t go to jail.

If you shoot the members of the mob who are trying to split your skull with a skateboard, you will go to jail and/or the mob will come after you later for revenge.

There's more at the link.

As I've pointed out several times before (follow those 5 links for more information), many major US cities now have far-left-wing and progressive District Attorneys and prosecuting authorities who deliberately side with demonstrators and rioters (and other criminals) against law-abiding citizens.  City Journal goes so far as to call it a "culture of lawlessness in D.A. offices".

Compared with his predecessor’s average conviction rates, [Philadelphia District Attorney] Krasner either dropped or lost 26 percent more of all felony cases. More robbery cases (up 14 percent) and auto theft cases (up 37 percent) were dropped or lost. In drug sales (not possession) cases, Krasner dismisses or loses 55 percent of cases, compared with the 34 percent rate of his predecessor.

. . .

Krasner is not alone in presiding over rising crime while dropping or losing felony cases at a record rate. In a survey of six jurisdictions where progressive district attorneys serve, every city or county logged a lower overall felony-conviction rate, as well as a lower conviction rate for violent or serious crimes, than did their predecessors. On average, the profiled prosecutors dropped 20 percent more felony cases. Crime has risen dramatically.

In Baltimore, America’s big-city murder capital, homicides have increased 65 percent under progressive prosecutor Marilyn Mosby. Our report shows that Mosby drops or loses many more felony cases than her immediate predecessor, who enjoyed a lower crime and murder rate. A felony defendant is 23 percent less likely to be convicted under Mosby. Felons in possession of a firearm are 46 percent less likely to be convicted. Even when they are convicted, they serve less prison time than before.

Independent analyses of other cities bear out our findings. Progressive prosecutor Kimberly Gardner in St. Louis, who infamously charged a couple who brandished firearms at protesters threatening to invade their home, loses at trial or drops cases at an astounding rate. Trial conviction rates fell to approximately 53 percent under Gardner, from 72 percent before her arrival. Gardner is pressing charges in only 23 percent of cases filed by police. The rest remain “pending.”

Similarly, a Chicago Tribune investigation confirmed our earlier findings that Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx dismissed 35 percent more felony cases than her predecessor and dropped nearly 40 percent of all felony cases 2019. These offenses include serious and violent crimes like homicides, sex crimes, assaults by gun, and attacks on police officers. Sadly, in the Windy City, Jussie Smollett isn’t the only one getting away with crime. Homicides and shootings are up 50 percent over last year as criminals go free.

The media tout many of these progressive prosecutors as righteous crusaders for justice—but in fact, they don’t deliver justice to the public or to crime victims. Elected prosecutors like Krasner have a duty to secure public safety. As the results in cities across the U.S. show, failing to prosecute dangerous and violent offenders only begets more crime and erodes trust in the justice system.

Again, more at the link.

What Andrew McCarthy calls "the Progressive Prosecutor Project" has been one of the far left's most successful efforts to undermine US society.

The key to understanding the Machiavellian brilliance of the Progressive Prosecutor Project is this: As a matter of constitutional law, no legislature or court has the power to order a prosecutor to charge any crime against any person. In our system, prosecution is exclusively an executive call. Practically speaking, short of voting a rogue district attorney out of office, there is no remedy for abusive discretionary omissions—decisions not to prosecute. To be sure, if a prosecutor performs some affirmative illegal act while enforcing the law, there are legal remedies available—motions to suppress evidence, lawsuits against government, potentially even prosecution. But omissions are a different story. It is nigh impossible to force prosecutors to take enforcement action. Thus, a willful district attorney has enormous power to install non-prosecution as the default policy.

Realizing this, the left’s social-justice warriors have grasped that the control of prosecutorial power may be the most effective route to rapid societal transformation. It is transformation driven not by law, logic, or a half-century’s empirical data on offense behavior and policing methods, but by cultural Marxist narratives: the criminal-justice system and its law-enforcement agencies as a superstructure reifying America’s pervasive racism, xenophobia, and forcible oppression of The Other.

Equally important, prosecutorial power is attainable at the ballot box. For the most part, district attorneys, who oversee state prosecution at the municipal level throughout the United States, are elected officials.

. . .

In de facto one-party governance (Democratic), which controls most urban centers, the DA candidate runs virtually unopposed, the real contest limited to any intraparty vying for the nomination.

Consequently, DA positions have been ripe for the taking. Over the last few years, a network of progressive activists backed by big money has seized the day.

More at the link.

Go read Mr. McCarthy's article in full for a very useful summary of the situation.  He says flatly, "the nation's crime busters are becoming criminal enablers".  That leaves the rest of us - law-abiding citizens - in the lurch, particularly because progressive prosecutors will target us if we defend ourselves against their favored clients.  What's more, they'll go on doing so no matter who's in the White House, or which party controls Congress or the Senate.  They are, in so many words, laws unto themselves.  They enable criminals and rioters.

Fortunately, there are still many jurisdictions where such prosecutors have not taken office.  However, progressives are planning to expand their network across the nation.  We need to be on our guard to ensure that they don't succeed.  If you live in a place where they have succeeded, you need to take that into account if and when you're confronted with rioters and criminals.  Successful self-defense is likely to lead to criminal charges, no matter how unjustified they may be, so that the prosecuting authorities can send a politically correct message to their supporters - and to their opponents.

For preference, stay away from trouble spots.  If you aren't there, you can't get into trouble.  As noted firearms and self-defense instructor John Farnam has said:

The best way to handle any potentially injurious encounter is: Don’t be there. Arrange to be somewhere else. Don’t go to stupid places. Don’t associate with stupid people. Don’t do stupid things ... “A superior gunman is best defined as one who uses his superior judgment in order to keep himself out of situations that would require the use of his superior skills.”

Apply that to the situation discussed at the start of this article.  If the driver of that Prius in Los Angeles had turned around and headed the other way, he/she would not have found themselves in so dangerous a situation.  They made a poor choice, and they paid the price for it.  They were very, very lucky not to have paid more dearly.  The location of a rioting mob ("stupid people") is the quintessential "stupid place" to avoid!

If trouble finds you despite your best efforts, and you have no choice but to defend yourself, do so as quickly and discreetly as possible, then assess your options.  I'm not advising you to break the law.  Being a law-abiding citizen, I can't do that.  Nevertheless, if someone's name doesn't come to the attention of corrupt prosecutors, they can't charge them with an offense.  Knowing the legal and practical options available, and using them to the fullest possible extent, is no crime.

In particular, bear in mind that you have more legal rights in some circumstances than in others.  Depending on your jurisdiction, you may or may not have a "duty to retreat" in the face of attack, or you may be protected by "stand your ground" laws.  You may be permitted to use lethal force to defend your property under certain circumstances, or you may not be allowed to use such force except in defense of life and limb.  Know your local laws, and operate within them to avoid unpleasant legal consequences.  If possible, have security cameras and other recording devices to keep a record of what happened (e.g. in defending your home against attack), so that you can if necessary prove you acted within the law (and your attackers didn't).  Dashcams in your vehicle (particularly models that record an all-round view) are a very useful option if you have to drive in a riot-prone area.

Finally, if we want to clean up our streets and re-establish the rule of law, we're also going to have to clean up our prosecutors' offices.  That may be difficult to do democratically in the short term, particularly if a progressive District Attorney has packed his/her office with like-minded lawyers and prosecutors, so that even if the boss of the department changes, his/her employees will not be supportive of his/her new approach.  This will take time and effort to solve.  One hopes that suitable encouragement and incentives might be offered, to persuade the worst offenders to resign before they do too much more damage.

Peter