Crossing All Sorts Of Lines
You have to think that at some point, one of two things are going to happen: either they go too far or the other side lashes out.
Getting some serious 1966 Northern Ireland vibes. Look at what happened last Tuesday in Michigan:
This story has received little to no national coverage, with FOX News seemingly the only major outlet to talk about the incident in any depth:
The "victim said that she was shot in the back/shoulder while leaving a residence during a heated conversation, and that the man who shot her was not a part of her conversation," the pro-life group wrote in a press release Saturday. The unidentified woman is 83-years-old, according to police, though the Right to Life of Michigan identified her as 84 years old in the press release.
The woman was canvassing a neighborhood in Lake Odessa to discuss the state’s vote on Proposal 3, which would protect abortion access in the state. The state will vote on the proposal on Nov. 8 on the general election ballot.
"The victim does not know the identity or motive of her shooter. The victim is still recovering from her gunshot wound and wishes to remain anonymous while the criminal investigation proceeds," the Michigan Right to Life press release stated.Michigan State Police told Fox News Digital Saturday that the elderly woman was shot after a "verbal altercation while she was passing out pamphlets."The victim drove herself to the Lake Odessa Police Department after she was shot in the shoulder, according to state police. She was then taken to an area hospital, where she was treated and released.
There are still many gaps in the story needing to be filled and it may be possible the shooting itself had nothing to do with politics. But is it hard to believe that it might’ve? After all, violence against pro-life organizations and pregnancy centers has become more prevalent following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade:
There was also the murder of Cayler Ellingson, who was mowed down by a left-wing extremist who believed the 18-year-old was a “Republican extremist” following an apparently heated conversation of a political nature. The Left, for decades, has long embraced violence under the guise of “peaceful protesting,” so the fact that organized violence has now led to unorganized violence shouldn’t surprise anyone, especially as the president himself is providing cover for left-wing radicalism.
It’s tough, early on, to make the connection between these kinds of low-level political violence and a bigger, broader armed conflict, especially in a country of over 330 million people. In any place with that many people, it’s certainly possible for all kinds of terrible things to happen on a daily basis. Only after matters escalate to the level of armed conflict does the connection become easier to make. It’s quite likely all this fizzles out and amounts to nothing at the national level, but the Left’s history of political violence, combined with institutional support from the very top, also makes it more likely than before this sort of thing will continue by the mere fact nobody, not even the Right, seems able or, more importantly, willing, to stop it.
You have to think that at some point, one of two things are going to happen: either they go too far or the other side lashes out. I find the former more likely than the latter. Lashing out, currently, carries a price most are still unwilling to pay. Despite the Second Amendment, functionally, the state possesses a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Of course, the state uses that power re-actively, while regarding the actions of law-breakers and law-abiders along the same standard.
This makes sense with respect to maintaining order, but it only works in a society where law-breakers are effectively deterred and the state fulfills its end of the social contract to not merely respond to illegal violence, while also working proactively to prevent it from occurring. It doesn’t make much sense to discourage and dis-empower the citizenry from using violence if one group is willing to engage in it and pay the price for doing so, while the state stands idly by, addressing the matter only after the fact, and while holding those who seek to defend themselves to exacting standards. One Kyle Rittenhouse learned this lesson the hard way and nearly paid for it with his freedom and life.
The lesson here is that under the present order of anarcho-tyranny, there’s no avenue for physical resistance. The state is doing nothing to prevent left-wing extremist violence, while marshaling resources to tackle the supposedly more urgent threat posed by right-wing extremists. This means leftist violence is likely to continue and, in doing so, the likelihood of them stepping over the line will increase. When they finally do, there’s no telling what comes next. Troops in the streets? Open street warfare like we saw in pre-Nazi Germany or like we’re seeing today in England?
That said, I’m still firmly of the belief that, at least in the near term, the next American civil armed conflict is likely to be not the result of partisan politics, but out-of-control crime. For now, crime is something which impacts Americans sparingly, some communities more than others. However, if crime rates continue to rise, not only will more Americans be exposed to it, it’ll begin to impact everyone’s quality of life. In a time of political uncertainty, burgeoning great power conflict, and economic instability, concerns about public safety will further deepen the demoralization and dysfunction, while heightening the air of hostility as the issue becomes inevitably politicized.
Actually, crime is already a political issue, one that even former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki conceded is a liability for the Left, though the White House denies it:
It’s a key issue in many elections around the country, but there still seems to be a serious lack of urgency on the part of the Regime. Not a whole lot seems to change as both sides trot out the same arguments, with the Left especially obsessing over everything but the main issue:
Republicans have said the ads are part of a broader strategy of calling out Democrats on crime, an argument they believe will be potent in the closing stage of this year’s midterm elections. But some allies of Barnes, who would be Wisconsin’s first Black senator, have derided the attacks as racist messages that feed on stereotypes. As he faces a torrent of negative ads, Barnes has launched spots seeking to assure voters he will fight crime and support law enforcement. Yet some Democrats said they fear his response has been ineffective.
The tensions playing out in Wisconsin mark one of the starkest examples of a trend that has swept across the midterm landscape with about six weeks left until Election Day: Republicans are increasingly centering their pitch to voters on crime, casting Democrats as weak and ineffective buffers against violent criminal conduct. As Republicans advance that argument, they are drawing growing accusations from Democrats that they are engaging in a pattern of stoking racial divisions, a charge they reject.
At the same time, Democrats worry the attacks could resonate amid the rise in violent crime that has taken place with their party in power at the federal level and in many cities. Some candidates are scrambling to distance themselves from slogans such as “Defund the police” that were popular among left-wing activists after a reckoning on racial justice and policing two years ago but have complicated the party’s image more broadly since that time, according to strategists across the political spectrum.
Still, indications are clear the Left is aware, on some level, crime is a substantive issue, but they seem not to have a serious plan for dealing with it. Probably because the Left’s position on the matter is that crime is no matter at all.
In many quarters of the country, crime has become so normalized, the woman seen in the foreground of this video has the temerity to ask a worker if he’s going to make a sandwich for her, as if what’s going on in the background is no big deal. How do you fix a problem like this? How do you get people to care?
The answer: stop cleaning up the mess. Part of the problem is that society has become so demoralized, it’d rather just pretend it all never happened and move on. By cleaning up the mess, it doesn’t leave a reminder of what took place, leaving no lessons to be learned. If the country doesn’t care about flash mobs of looters, many of them young and violent, then it’d certainly care about a big mess being left behind and products and services not getting delivered as a result. The recent backlash in places like San Francisco over the rapidly declining public safety and quality of life shows people do have a breaking point and won’t tolerate squalor and threats forever.
For now, the Regime intends to ignore everything - crime, left-wing extremist violence - and hope everyone goes back to suffering in silence. We now live in an era in which reality is more difficult to hide, however. It’s going to be interesting how the public responds to these sorts of incidents not only becoming more prevalent, but more visible to a wider audience [WARNING: explicit content]:
We already know how the media will respond: crime isn’t the problem.
It’s hard to see which straw will be the one that breaks the camel’s back. We may be waiting a long time for it. Meanwhile, victims of crime refuse to suffer in silence. A woman who suffered a savage beating from a lifelong criminal who murdered his own grandmother at age 14, had this to say about the increasingly out-of-control situation in New York City:
“Our city needs major help,’’ said Elizabeth Gomes after removing her sunglasses to show her injuries from the horrific caught-on-camera attack, which included her eyes being swollen shut and a nasty gash over her right one.
“We’re going through a lot here,’’ the 33-year-old woman told The Post.
“I remember hearing that they would have cops posted on platforms, riding the trains, cops down in a subway. Mayor Adams said especially in the subway,’’ she said.
“The mayor said we would have much more cops in the subway and the cops specifically would be patrolling the subways because that’s where the worst of the crimes we are having. Especially at places like Howard Beach station.
“There was no one. Why no protection there?” she said, referring to her early-morning assault Sept. 20 at the Howard Beach subway station.
“Obviously, the government or nobody is doing anything for us,’’ the married mom said in a separate interview with her husband minutes earlier outside their home.
“When we’re out there, we’re by ourselves, we’re fighting these battles by ourselves, and what they do, they go try to help other countries that have nothing to do with what we’re going through in our own place.”
Gomes, asked later by The Post who she was referring to by “they,’’ replied, “The mayor, the governor.
The Regime would do well to learn: saving the world from Russian aggression won’t do much if you can’t save your own country from self-destruction.
UPDATE: The shooter of the 83-year-old has been identified and explains his side of the story:
ODESSA TOWNSHIP, Mich. (WOOD) — The man who fired the shot that struck an anti-abortion rights canvasser in the shoulder last week called it an accident but also said the volunteer had been arguing with his wife, who supports abortion rights, and refused to leave their property.
“I came out and she (the volunteer) is screaming and having a great old time, and being told, I’m sure I heard at least a dozen times, ‘You’re trespassing, get off the property,'” 74-year-old Richard Harvey, wearing a “Facts Matter” baseball cap, told News 8 on Tuesday.
More:
“This lady comes up to me, knocks on my door, and says she’s from some coalition to save women and babies,” Sharon Harvey said. “She needed me to vote no on Proposal 3.”
That’s the proposal on the Nov. 8 ballot that if approved would enshrine reproductive rights, including to abortions, in the Michigan Constitution. Right to Life of Michigan is campaigning against it.
“I told her I can’t do that and she says, ‘Well, you have to.’ I says, ‘No, I don’t. It’s not going to happen,'” Sharon Harvey said. “I told her I had a four-and-a-half month tubal pregnancy, and she says, ‘Well, you survived, didn’t you?'”
Sharon Harvey said the tubal pregnancy in 1971 required surgery and nearly killed her.
The argument, she said, was on.
Finally:
She said the woman ignored at least a dozen warnings to leave, though she finally did step off their front porch.
“It got louder and louder. My husband was in the barn and he heard it,” Sharon Harvey said.
“I’m in the barn,” her husband recalled. “I hear a bunch of screaming going on.”
Richard Harvey said he came out of the barn with a .22-caliber rifle that belongs to his wife and fired a warning shot into the pine tree out front.
“She (the volunteer) is still ranting and raving and she’s got this clipboard. She’s waving it around. I’m thinking she’s going to smack Sharon with it. So without thinking, I went to club it away with the rifle and my finger was still in the trigger guard. It went off and hit her about in here,” he said, pointing to his right shoulder.
There’s a lot to unpack here, but I’ll keep it as simple as possible. The 83-year-old volunteer should’ve just left the premises once it became clear the residents weren’t buying what she was selling. I don’t understand why she felt the need to stick around and engage in a heated debate with someone who clearly isn’t going to vote the same as her. There’s no support to be gained with someone you have to argue with.
As for the residents, they have the right to stand their ground, especially on their own property (Michigan is both a “stand-your-ground” and “Castle doctrine” state). However, prudence and responsible behavior is still required. Bringing a gun to a shouting match is highly irresponsible and attempting to frighten an 83-year-old woman highly imprudent. Unless the volunteer were brandishing a deadly weapon of her own, there’s no threat here that’d necessitate the introduction of a firearm. Seeing as entering their home and closing the door was an option, the residents clearly escalated the situation unnecessarily, thinking being on their own property would cover them.
Finally, there’s no such thing as “warning shot.” The law only permits the lawful discharge of a firearm only in an act of self-defense. This means you either fire for effect or you don’t fire at all. Warning shots constitute negligent discharge, a misdemeanor offense in Michigan. He then negligently fired the weapon again, this time striking the woman. Thank goodness for everyone involved she wasn’t killed or maimed.
Bottom line: allow a cooler head to prevail. There was no reason for this incident to end in gunshots. The volunteer leaving the premises would’ve been the end of the story. Likewise, entering their home and closing the door would’ve likely been the end of the story, also. Both sides instead chose to escalate the situation, leading to an encounter that nearly turned fatal. It’s all so unnecessary.
Let this serve as a reminder that civil wars require buy-in from both sides. The refusal of even one party to disengage increases the likelihood of a violent clash.
Edward Chang is a defense, military, and foreign policy writer. Follow him on Twitter at @Edward_Chang_8.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!
Love your substack, it should be way more highly read