Yet again, police act against someone defending himself

 

Last year, I wrote two articles outlining the danger of defending oneself in an environment where law enforcement and prosecution authorities were actively biased against legitimate self-defense, and in favor of left-wing protesters, demonstrators and rioters.  They were:

Self-defense under a justice system

that's no longer on your side

No, I wasn't being alarmist -

rather, I wasn't alarmist enough

In so many words, I emphasized that one would have to be as discreet as possible in defending oneself, because the authorities in such areas would be motivated to act in support of the true guilty parties, rather than help the true victims.

Now comes this news from Salem, Oregon.  Click the image for a larger view, and follow the link to watch the video.

I'm not going to argue the legalities of the situation under the law as it pertains to Salem.  I don't know all the ramifications of Oregon law, or of Salem's city regulations and ordinances.  They may prohibit the carry and/or use of firearms for self-defense, or impose a duty to retreat, or whatever.  I'll simply point out that the driver was unquestionably defending his property and himself in that situation - yet he ended up being arrested, while the rioters who deliberately damaged his property seemingly got off scot-free.

Is that justice?  Hell, no, it isn't!  Nevertheless, it was the reality of the situation on the streets of Salem yesterday - and in many other jurisdictions right now, such as Portland, OR;  Seattle, WA;  Minneapolis, MN;  and far too many others.  If you openly defend yourself, you're more likely to be arrested than your attackers, because the authorities want locals to be cowed into submission.  They don't want individuals acting for themselves.  They want subjects, not citizens.

I think most readers of this blog will join me in a hearty one-finger salute to such authorities.  Fortunately, I live in an area where I'm likely to receive the support of law enforcement when I act in accordance with its precepts;  but many of my readers are not.  To them, I can only suggest re-reading my two earlier articles linked above, and planning accordingly.  If the driver of that pickup had not been there, he wouldn't have had to defend himself, and would have avoided all the subsequent fuss and bother.  Plan ahead, know where trouble is more likely, and avoid such areas like the plague.  It can pay dividends.

In such jurisdictions, if you have no choice but to act, try to do so as discreetly as possible, so as not to draw unwanted official attention to yourself.  On the other hand, if you simply have to act because you have no other choice, you may as well do so as strongly as necessary, because you know you're for the legal high jump anyway.  "In for a penny, in for a pound", as the old English idiom goes.  If I knew my attackers were going to be protected by the law, while I would be demonized, what would I have to lose?

It's very sad that I have to give such advice . . . but that's the reality on far too many of our streets at present.  In too many towns and cities, we can no longer trust law enforcement and the judicial system to be on the side of the law-abiding.  Political correctness has trumped justice.

As Miguel comments:

Maybe defunding the police is not such a bad idea. If they are going to be Antifa’s bitches. they should get their funding from them and stop milking the taxpayer.

Peter