Home Invasion Shooting In Ontario, California: The hypocrisy of police in a statist society

The hypocrisy by police in regard to personal property defense is often astonishingly audacious.  Such an example has been percolating in my mind for a few weeks now in regard to the Ontario, California man who shot a drunk intruder who broke into his home and threatened his son as they were sleeping.  If the police had been involved in a similar incident the intruder would have been shot and killed with or without a gun.  Just the mere threat of danger would allow a police officer to shoot and kill a suspect, and the police union would circle the wagons around the shooter to protect him from legal harm.  But the property owner and father of a threatened son is being investigated for homicide by the police because the father can’t prove that he was afraid for his life with sufficient evidence.    Here is the story as it appeared at The Blaze.

Police are investigating a potential homicide in Ontario, Calif., after a resident shot and killed a drunk intruder who broke into his apartment and attacked his sleeping son.

In California, citizens have a right to protect themselves and their families, however, there are stipulations in the state.

“The homeowner, the citizen, has to be able to articulate or apply the appropriate amount of force that was done against them,” Ontario Police Sgt. David McBride told NBC Los Angeles, later adding that Manzano was unarmed at the time of the shooting.

Thomas Gilbert Manzano, 24, forced his way into the California residence at around 3 a.m. on Monday, according to police. Manzano had been drinking alcohol for several hours with a friend when they decided to break into an apartment they thought was vacant. They had reportedly been squatting in one of the apartments but got confused as to its location.

Manzano was first turned away from the apartment, but he allegedly threatened the resident and forced his way into the home through a bedroom window and then went after the resident’s adult son. Police say the suspect threatened the son and a physical altercation ensued.

Responding to the commotion coming from his son’s room, the father retrieved his firearm and rushed to protect his son. He then shot several rounds at the suspect.

Manzano was transported to a local hospital with serious injuries. He was later pronounced dead.

The case is now being investigated as a homicide and the district attorney will determined whether the shooting was justified, according to officials.

The resident and his son were cooperating with police.

Manzano’s uncle, “Alfonso,”  told NBC Los Angeles that the shooting was not justified.

“Just because you have a gun and its registered, doesn’t give you the right to kill somebody,” he said.


There are so many things wrong with that story, first the rights of the property owner are obviously not respected by law enforcement, as they see it as their job to do any and all killing that might need to be done.  The decision for use of force is measured differently by them than a homeowner by society, which is wrong.  Second, the rights of the intruder are superseding the rights of the sleeping son.  This is a left over mentality from statist collectivism which believes that each according to their need is the pillar of modern society.  If he drunk fool who broke into a home needed a place to rest his head for the night, then the property owner has an obligation to provide it, or to call the police and wait for 15 minutes while they arrive—superseding the authority of the father over his son, and over his property, surrendering protection to statist authorities.  Then of course are the comments of the drunken victim’s uncle who declared that just because the homeowner had a gun, it doesn’t give him the right to use it.

On that last statement, where was the uncle in instructing his nephew that breaking into homes was not a good idea?  What about harassing a homeowner while they sleep?  What about living their life irresponsibly and imposing their mistakes on innocent people?  I would argue that the responsibility for the drunken intruder’s behavior is partly the fault of the uncle, yet he purposely shifted the blame for the death on the homeowner who has been nothing but abused in this story, by the police, the drunken intruder, and now social progressive parasitic behavior patterns.  There is no responsibility taken by any of the bad characters in this case, only on the homeowner.  The unsaid mandate by the statist authorities is that homeownership is not of value, and that citizens surrender their rights to personal defense in light of the greater needs of drunks, punks, and scallywags.

We live in a society that does not put value judgments on those who perform bad behavior, only on those who attempt to do good.  This is a direct result of a parasitic progressive philosophy that has been built upon the neurosis of Immanuel Kant’s 1781 Critique of Pure Reason – which is everything but reasonable.  The thinking derived from the anti-concepts introduced by the philosopher Kant is what makes this ridiculous shooting in California such an appalling case.

The facts of American culture dictate that property ownership is the highest form of value in society.  The home owning father has a right to protect that value from an intruder.  The necessity to prove threat assessment is not the homeowner’s responsibility; it is on the drunken intruder.  He made decisions to impair his thinking, to impose himself on home ownership, and threaten the son of the homeowner, which is another form of ownership, the relationship of a father and a son.  If the son is killed, then the intruder takes everything the father worked for his entire life to put into the son – so the father has a right to protect that investment.  In my mind, the son also has a right to defend himself with a firearm just for being awaken from a dream in his own bed.  The dream is his.  The bed is his.  The confines of his room are his.  He does not deserve, or need some idiot to stumble into his bedroom in the middle of the night yelling and screaming because the drunk wants a place to crash and work the alcohol out of his system.

Instead, using the philosophy of Kant’s brand of Transcendental Idealism that attempts to combine rationalism and empiricism in a nutty effort to merge the world of the seen and witnessed with the world of the unseen and inexperienced has created a society of law that seeks to punish value the only place that value exists, on the homeowner.  The drunken thug has no value to be redeemed.  The uncle has no value to be redeemed as he contributed to the behavior of his nephew.  The sleeping son is still building value up in his life so that leaves only the father/homeowner who sought to protect his value to take value from in order to redeem the sins of all involved.

I recently spoke to our local sheriff and heard what he had to say when asked what one should do if a homeowner shot and killed a home intruder.  His response angered me greatly.  He replied that nobody should do that, and that there would be a lot of trouble if it happened.  “But if it did, make sure to report that you feared for your life.”  As he said these things I watched him walk around with a .38 snub nose packed in a holster on his hip, knowing he has the authority to shoot it.  If he were to walk out in the parking lot and someone even made the shape of a gun and pointed it at him, he could gun that target down without any such trouble as the California homeowner experienced.  He wouldn’t have to make any kind of passive cry for relief by declaring that he “feared for his life” like some trivial beta-man lobbying for same-sex marriage.  He would simply be able to gun down the threat to his life and protect the value of it because he’s a police officer, and in a statist society, they have more value than a homeowner.

The California case of the home intruder being shot and killed by a property owner is one of the paramount issues of our time.  It is in essence the battle between not just life and death, but ownership and value, against no value from collective resources.  It comes down to a failed philosophical adoption that no lawyer in the country is equipped to handle.  Because of that, the father is being needlessly prosecuted and ruthlessly drug through a court system that will cost him a personal fortune, when in fact he should have been able to shoot the threat, throw the body out on the front lawn and call the cops to pick up the body.  Then after all the blood was cleaned up, and everyone settled down, the father could have taken his son to get an ice cream to repair the intrusion on his sleep and put the ordeal behind them within a couple of hours.  That would be a philosophy of justice which is not present in this case, and has been eradicated in order to preserve the infantile statism which was born from Immanuel Kant.

To learn more about justice, and the hypocrisy of police versus the individual read my novels Tail of the Dragon, and The Symposium of Justice. Both books are being offered by Amazon.com for $34.06 as a discounted package.  CLICK HERE. 

And if you are not aware of how serious this situation is, then watch all the videos above completely.  It won’t take long to realize.

Rich Hoffman

“Justice Comes with the Crack of a Whip!”


3 thoughts on “Home Invasion Shooting In Ontario, California: The hypocrisy of police in a statist society

  1. Yes, there is no right or wrong until you legitimately defend yourself. Then the lawyers come at you, the law comes at you and the burden of proof is on your head. Yes, murder is okay with the Humanists until you happen to defend yourself from someone killing you. Zimmerman is fighting for his life (for the second time) because he shot and killed a trained marshall art person that was banging his head on the concrete and threatening to kill him. He didn’t have a chance against the much larger and stronger man sitting on his neck.. If the case had been reverse all would be over. Check the murders in Chicago over the July 4th weekend. More murders, more shooting that Bagdad. Not a mention in the news.


  2. By the way, three sixteen year old thugs nearly beat a person to death in Cincinnati. They kicked him in the head, pounded on him and stomped on him. Why? Because they were bored. Cunningham had a lot to say about this today. No right and no wrong.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.