St. Louis Protesters Vandalize the Mayor’s Home: Lyda Krewson should have gunned down the people on her lawn

The St. Louis protests over the shooting of an alleged drug dealer during a police arrest migrated into radicals upset with the lack of prosecution by the legal system to go over to Mayor Lyda Krewson’s home and vandalize it by throwing rocks through the windows and blasting it with red paint.  In the process nine St. Louis police officers were injured, two of them seriously, one with a broken jaw, the other with a dislocated shoulder—and in my opinion the protestors crossed the line from something possibly protected under the umbrella of free speech and migrated into something where an armed defense of the mayor’s home was justified.  Lyda appears to be a nice lady who did everything she could to deescalate the situation with non-violence, but I would argue that in so doing she actually perpetuated the situation.  It would have been better to put bullets into those attackers when they came to her home and to send them to the hospital, or to the morgue at that point in time instead of taking the passive position that she did—because she only empowered them further.

I have some experience with this kind of thing and my general policy is to engage violence with more violence than the attackers can handle.  If they come to your house to throw eggs, then you should burn their cars so they can’t escape and cripple them so there is no retreat-until the police can come to make an arrest.  Playing nice with people who are willing to vandalize private property doesn’t make things better.  As the mayor said, nobody was hurt and that she can fix what was vandalized—but in all actuality people were hurt, police were hurt seriously and getting hit in the face with bricks could have easily have killed those police officers, which to me opens up the options of what should be done to those attackers to deescalate the situation in the future.

Private property is what we’re talking about here.  While Mayor Krewson’s position is the one that current law and order adheres to—it has the assumption that material things can be replaced but lives cannot-it is technically wrong.  The reason for the police, the Second Amendment and the trappings of a legal system are to protect the private property of America’s citizens.  By going to the mayor’s home and attempting to influence her where she lives the mob was purposely attempting to use fear and the destruction of private property to influence the nature of law and order.  That is not acceptable.   When those lines are crossed and a mob of insurgents arrives to your place of residence to influence your behavior in the realm of law and order, then violence in return is the only option.

Obviously the actions of Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA are open about their strategies of violence against those they disagree with, so that opens the play book to violence which can then be conducted against them.  And the battleground which gives merit to the action is in the defense of private property.  I would say to the reporters who had to endure having water bottles being thrown at them, or violence inflicted on them in any way that your personal space then becomes private property and should be defended with any means necessary.  If the attackers lose their life in the process–then so be it—they had it coming.  This is the right way to think about these matters.

I’m writing this now as a kind of qualifying statement for future behavior.  Speaking for myself, I get by most days without having to inflict violence on other people.  If it happens it’s never because I started the conflict.  I have had to be violent with people before on occasion and while doing so have in my mind the complete destruction of those people.  Most of the time things work out alright and everyone lives to see another day.  But when it comes to private property and the defense of it, we have a right as individual American citizens to defend it.  Our politics does not give those rights over to enemy insurgents to do with whatever they want.  If I were the mayor of St. Louis I would have had to engage those people after the first broken window with violence that likely would have ended their existence—because it would have been the right thing to do.  All that stands between such things is law and order and once the mob failed to be contained by law enforcement, then the next tier of defense is personal protection.  For me, I have lots of options, but firearms are part of that defense.

I always try to use other methods before reaching for the gun in this present so-called civilized world.  Someone trained in various combat methods should have various degrees of defensive persuasion to apply against villains.  But for Mayor Krewson who obviously is a nice lady who doesn’t think much about such things, machine gunning down the protesters on her lawn would have been acceptable.  Those protestors made it very clear that they were willing to fight and possibly kill the law enforcement personnel on the streets—so that means that all the rules are off the table and anything goes—essentially.  It is quite obvious that appeasing these radicals is not the best method and that our legal system does not know how to handle these matters.  The path of Mayor Krewson has only made the situation worse.  Turning your back on these types of aggressive people empowers them to do more vile acts, it doesn’t deter them.  So we must draw the line somewhere and a personal residence where your family sleeps and your possessions are kept is where that thin line of justice resides.  If anybody is willing to cross that line, then they are said to be willing to surrender their life to your protection of it.  Because you really have no way of knowing what their intentions are.  Are they there to simply scare you, or under the pressure from the mob and the politics of our times, will they simply revert to the animal nature of rape, pillaging, and death?  We must assume the worst and hope for the best, but if they cross that line, they’ve made that decision for us.

A legal system that cannot protect our private property and our pursuit of happiness is ineffective and they don’t have a right to then prosecute us, the law abiding, with the use of firearms or other things to protect our personal sovereignty—and our bodies are part of that sanctity.  People do not have a right to get in our faces, vandalize our cars, or threaten our homes in any way shape or form.  If politicians cannot get this situation under control and use the rules of law to produce a society filled with justice, then we have no other choice.  In my opinion the mayor should have gunned down those protesters and left the lifeless bodies hanging from the trees of her front yard—because that’s the only language that people corrupted with primal instincts understand.  And in the realm of value assessment private property cannot always be replaced.  It represents more than material possession—it is a token of our personal sovereignty, and if we don’t have that in American society—then we have nothing of law and order.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  Use my name to get added benefits.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.