Self-Defense on Trial

The radicals want to defund or abolish the police, or, as their forked-tongued talking heads in D.C. and the media like to say, “reimagine” policing. At the same time, they want to release convicted felons from prison while taking away your guns and rights to self-defense.

They have wanted to take our guns away for several generations now, but thankfully, they have mostly fallen short of their goals. Sure, they’ve gotten their capacity restrictions and waiting periods in blue states, but they cannot seem to penetrate the wall that is the Second Amendment to the Constitution—our guaranteed right to bear arms. Because every single American with a room temperature IQ can see what happens to countries where the citizens are stripped of their firearms and left with no recourse against a tyrannical government.

Right to Self-defense

What reasonable person would imagine that it is up to Nancy Pelosi to decide if you have the right to defend yourself against an attacker? There is no more primitive human instinct than to do so. It is as fundamental as seeking food and shelter, and these things are not “granted” to us by a collection of idiots who won or stole more votes than their opponents. Nor is the right to keep and bear arms. It’s right there in the Constitution.

Ted Nugent once said if he were to fall from space and land in the middle of Detroit without any concept of where he was, who we were, or what laws existed, his first instinct would be to arm himself with some type of weapon. He wouldn’t bother asking anyone if it was okay to do so.

Because self-defense is instinctual and a God-given inalienable right.

So with the pushback too great, and the concept of completely disarming Americans more ridiculous than thinking Joe Biden is running the country, the left has chosen the tactic of trying to make it illegal for one to defend him or herself. Sure, have your guns, you gun- and bible-clinging simpletons. But try using them in your defense, and we will hang you in public for all to see.

Kyle Rittenhouse

And that is what the malicious prosecution of Rittenhouse was all about.

Every honest trial lawyer, prosecutor, and investigator in the country will tell you that Rittenhouse would have never been charged if there hadn’t been a political component and strategy. Simply put, there is no clearer case of self-defense so vividly captured on video in recent times. Yet they charged him with murder.

Just to be clear, contrary to so-called news reports, Rittenhouse did NOT illegally possess the rifle he used to defend himself. And even if he had, that wouldn’t change the fact that he acted in self-defense.

Every American should celebrate the failure of those incompetent, lying, and cheating prosecutors who knowingly tried to persecute an innocent man. They should be disbarred, at the least.

My Experience vs. The Left’s Emotions

I have investigated thousands of criminal cases and presented the facts of many of those cases to prosecutors so that they could determine what, if any, charges should be filed against the perpetrators. You might be surprised by how many of those cases were determined to be acts of self-defense and didn’t warrant criminal charges.

There was a gangster who illegally possessed a firearm and returned fire when a drive-by shooting was committed upon him and his brother. The brother was killed by our gangster, as it turned out, an unfortunate mishap in the heat of battle. But said gangster was not charged. Not for illegally possessing a firearm, nor for his brother’s death.

At the time, the felony murder rule existed in California for just these types of cases, allowing the state to charge the instigator of a felony for any death that occurs as a result of their actions. And that is what we did. The occupants of the car who initiated the drive-by were charged with murder. You can read that story here, Murder in the Alps or in my memoir, Nothing Left to Prove.

Another case was that of an 18-year-old who shot his father in the back of his head. The father was beating the boy’s sister, something that happened frequently along with other abuses to her that nobody would quite admit but we (and you) might imagine. The father also regularly beat the boy and his mother. He (the father) had always boasted of his military service in El Salvador, claiming to have been part of the Death Squads, and all members of the family feared him mightily. This boy knew he had to put a stop to the beatings, and there was only one way he was able to do so, and he did.

No, the boy did not (could not) legally possess a firearm in California. But he knew where his older brother secured a gun he used in his employment as a security officer, and the boy helped himself to it when the time came to end the violence.

Knowing this was a complex issue, my partner and I spent many hours and days interviewing family members, neighbors, friends, and school officials, and we were able to clearly substantiate a case for “in defense of others” due to ongoing abuse and a reasonable fear for his and his mother’s and sister’s lives.

Self-defense and a Civil Society

There are many other cases of people killing in the name of self-defense. Most police shootings are matters of self-defense or in defense of others. Battered women have resorted to killing abusive partners to save themselves and their children. The right to self-defense is critical in a civil society!

So when you see Kyle Rittenhouse dragged through a kangaroo court, and when you see the McCloskeys criminally charged for arming themselves and standing up against a violent mob as the rioting that swept through the nation came to their doorstep, you need to understand why these things are happening, and what the end goal of the left really is.

And you need to fight against it, as if your very life depends on our inalienable right to bear arms and to use these tools when needed in acts of self-defense. Because it does.

* * *

Thank you for reading my blog. I hope you will share it with your family and friends.