Home Invasion Nation

We’re being forced to live like prisoners in our own country.

Your country, like your home, is up for grabs. Source

“Squatting” - the act of occupying a residence you have no legal claim to as an owner, tenant, or otherwise - has been in the news a lot lately. It’s not a new problem - it’s been a problem at least as long as I’ve been alive - but not only are cases seemingly at an all-time high, they’re now occurring during a moment of worsening social tensions, coupled with a breakdown in rule of law.

Here’s a story out of New York City which caught a lot of attention on social media:

[Adele] Andaloro inherited her family's home in Flushing, Queens after her parents passed away. She was in the process of selling it when she noticed a problem. Someone changed the entire front door and lock of her home.

“I’m really fearful that these people are going to get away with stealing my home,” she said.

She says squatters moved into her home in February and refused to leave.

“By the time someone does their investigation, their work, and their job, it will be over 30 days and this man will still be in my home,” she said.

In New York, squatters have rights after 30 days.

When Andaloro recently went to her property, Eyewitness News was there when a woman walked up to the house, unlocked the door, and left. Andaloro decided to enter the property with her daughter and her property deed in hand.

Upon making entry, the mother and daughter discovered multiple uninvited residents. They were told to leave, to which they incredulously responded by calling the police.

The story continues:

Police arrived shortly after and started interviewing the men, the neighbors, and asking for documents.

One officer asked the men, “Do you have something that shows you’ve been here more than 30 days?”

When the men didn’t provide documentation, they escorted both off the property and Andaloro had a locksmith change the locks. Before police left, they warned her about changing the locks.

”I may end up in handcuffs today if a man shows up here and says I have illegally evicted him,” said Andaloro. “I said ‘let him take me to court as I’ve been told to take him to court’ because today I’m not leaving my house.”

In New York, it’s against the law to turn off the utilities, change the locks, and remove the belongings of someone who claims to be a tenant.

It doesn’t make sense: police escorted the squatters off the property, but the rightful owner cannot exercise control over her own property? To quote Staff Sergeant Sean Dignam (an Oscar-nominated performance from Mark Wahlberg) from the movie The Departed, “Well, la-dee-f**kin’-da!” If it’s that easy, why doesn’t everyone break into a home, claim tenancy, and then they can live anywhere they want?

Later, two squatters return, barging in after the locks had been changed, claiming to be leasing the home. The police are called back and, just by claiming tenancy, the property owner has to treat them like tenants, whether they have proof or not.

The story has an unbelievable conclusion:

Because Andaloro changed the locks, they arrested her for unlawful eviction.

When Eyewitness News asked Brian Rodriguez, the man who claims to have a lease, for documentation he provided none. Instead, he showed bills for work he claimed he had done to the house. He said he moved into the home a few months ago and signed documents with a realtor but wouldn't say who that realtor is.

“You got to go to court and send me to court,” said Rodriguez. He said he’ll leave “if she pays me my money that I put in the house,” said Rodriguez. “Pay me the money and I’ll leave or send me to court it’s that simple.”

It’s not that simple. Going through the housing court process takes time.

It takes an average of 20 months for an eviction case to have a resolution in New York City, according to the Rent Stabilization Association.

ABC7NY captured the incident during an investigative report. You can watch it here:

Infuriating, isn’t it? The legal homeowner has been criminalized for a most frivolous cause: asserting control over their own property. Meanwhile, a squatter can simply claim to be a tenant and cannot be forced to leave? If the term “anarcho-tyranny” comes to mind after reading this story, it means you’ve been studiously reading my blog, for which I’m unabashedly grateful.

If you require a refresher, here it is from the term’s progenitor, Sam Francis:

In the United States today, the government performs many of its functions more or less effectively. The mail is delivered (sometimes); the population, or at least part of it, is counted (sort of); and taxes are collected (you bet). You can accuse the federal leviathan of many things—corruption, incompetence, waste, bureaucratic strangulation—but mere anarchy, the lack of effective government, is not one of them. Yet at the same time, the state does not perform effectively or justly its basic duty of enforcing order and punishing criminals, and in this respect its failures do bring the country, or important parts of it, close to a state of anarchy. But that semblance of anarchy is coupled with many of the characteristics of tyranny, under which innocent and law-abiding citizens are punished by the state or suffer gross violations of their rights and liberty at the hands of the state. The result is what seems to be the first society in history in which elements of both anarchy and tyranny pertain at the same time and seem to be closely connected with each other and to constitute, more or less, opposite sides of the same coin.

In the case of Adele Andaloro, being a property owner, the one paying (massive) taxes on the property, HOA fees, and everything else that comes with home ownership, meant absolutely nothing in the end. Yes, as preppers, we should never operate under the assumption the rule of law doesn’t exist. However, it’s also true that in an effective sense, rule of law doesn’t exist. How could it when you have no right to your property even as a property owner?

Without property rights, nobody really has any freedom. After all, one of the reasons we establish civilization in the first place is because without it, we’re killing each other for land and things, having things taken from us forcefully. Maybe that’s how the system still functions underneath it all, but at least civilization provides order and predictability in how it occurs. Few of us go to bed and wake up worrying about whether everything we have is going to be taken from us violently, even as the threat of it is ever-present.

Sometimes, it does all get taken from us violently. Squatting can be deadly and yet another recent incident out of New York proved it. It’s quite gruesome:

Source

The two suspects have since been arrested in Pennsylvania, a 19-year-old male and 18-year-old female. It’s not a stretch to say that the law itself is what resulted in the death of 52-year-old Nadia Vitels. New York City law allows squatters to claim legal residence after 30 days, so depending on how long the two alleged killers occupied Vitels’ apartment, they could conceivably argue that they had a right to be there and, along with it, defend themselves in their own residence. It sounds absurd, but equally crazy policies exist elsewhere. In Philadelphia, once a person occupies a residence and begins receiving mail at that address, they’re considered a resident, even without a lease, and must be put through the lengthy eviction process before being forced to leave.

Of course, the fact Vitels’ killers ran off undermines any self-defense case they might have, but it doesn’t matter now, does it? An innocent woman, the rightful owner, lost her life. The system failed and will likely fail a second time when it comes to delivering justice. We’ve seen this play out too many times.

On the other side of the country, we see what happens when the state cannot resolve simple disputes. We often lament how long it takes for people to finally lose their patience and start taking action, but this proves that nobody can be expected to exercise restraint forever. Click the source to watch the video, it’s wild:

Source

Here’s the backstory from the UK’s Daily Mail:

Sang Kim has sparked fury in the upmarket neighborhood of Bellevue after squatting for almost a year in a five-bedroom property owned by Jaskaran Singh, who has claimed in legal filings that his tenant owes him around $80,000.

It led to an ugly confrontation between the pair and a protest of around 200 residents, demanding the 'con man' cough up or get out.

But now DailyMail.com can reveal Kim and his family are alleged to have moved straight into Singh's property from a previous squat nearby, where they used similar delaying tactics to avoid paying rent of around $4,000 a month on a three-bedroom, $1.3million home.

Kim and his wife Yougin were also earning a combined income of $408,000 a year working for medical consultancy SiriusIQ when they moved into Singh's property, according to a proof-of-income letter seen by DailyMail.com.

The following passage underscores the severity of the problem, particularly when it comes to serial squatters like Sang Kim, an immigrant along with his wife from South Korea:

The extraordinary row comes as thousands of American property owners struggle with a broken legal system that is allowing squatters to live rent free in upmarket homes without consequence.

Kim, a father-of-two, rented Singh's home in the summer of 2022, but has since only paid for one month's rent out of his own pocket, relying on legal aid until May 2023, when payments stopped entirely, Singh claims.

But the squatter's freeloading dates back almost four years, according to a declaration signed by local estate agent Jani Spencer in support of Singh's eviction proceedings against Kim.

In her statement, Spencer claims a couple she had sold a $1.3million Bellevue property to contacted her in September 2020 complaining that they had rented it to Kim but he was no longer paying up.

Kim was served with a 90-day eviction notice, which he ignored, but it then took until March 2022 to get a court date and the summer of that year for him to finally be evicted, Spencer stated.

She said that during that time she spoke to Kim ‘several times’ and he ‘always had a story about getting money, waiting for some partner or employer to pay him’.

Ultimately, the landlords lost two years of rental income, worth around $100,000, $5,000 in unpaid utilities, $20,000 in repairs and around $100,000 in the value of the property once they were finally able to sell it, Spencer claims.

Bottom line: squatting is theft. Nothing is free: someone’s always footing the bill. Rarely does the victim of a squatter ever recoup losses or owed rent. If you end up with a squatter in your property, you’re screwed. The best possible outcome is a quick eviction, which takes, at minimum, weeks.

What troubled me most about the incident captured on video in the case of Kim is how the police have zero interest in getting involved in resolving the issue. Their immediate response is to “keep the peace,” conveying the message in a most self-righteous way. Learn the lesson today so you don’t have to learn it at the wrong time: the police aren’t on your side. One could argue that resolving a squatting problem isn’t the job of the cops. Fine, whose is it? The courts? We’ve already established the courts cannot quickly resolve what’s ultimately a very simple matter: either you have legitimate claim to residency, or you don’t. At some point, you can’t help but conclude: the system itself is the problem.

Think about it: we pay taxes so the government can deal with problems exactly like this. Yet the best they can manage is to force everyone to wait months to go to court, then wait a year or more for the case to be resolved? We can come up with a million different excuses for “why it has to be this way,” but as preppers, we keep it practical: a person has a legal right to occupy a residence or they don’t. If the system doesn’t allow for the dispute to be resolved right then and there, the system is failing. Civil society isn’t supposed to be this complicated. Rule-breakers ought to be dealt with swiftly, even if we all agree the shouldn’t have mob rule, either.

It gets worse: even illegal immigrants are catching on to the fact that anyone can occupy any property they want to in the U.S., as long as they break in:

Source

Meanwhile, millions are streaming across the border in a “Camp of the Saints”-like scenario. Once they discover, en masse, what this TikTok invader knows, what do you think is going to happen? None of this is far-right paranoid speculation any longer. It’s all happening right here, right now. What are we going to do?

A recurring theme in my commentary is that our problems are many, they’re mounting, and there’s no solution, maybe no solution at all. When at an impasse like this, what else is left except violence? Remember: property ownership is a target in just about every revolution in history. After every revolution or war, a “re-distribution” of property occurs, along with the establishment of a new social order.

Do you see now why I and so many others believe America is headed for civil war, whether we actually reach that wretched destination or not?

Can We Call It An Invasion Now?

Speaking of illegal immigrants, look at what happened at the U.S.-Mexico border in El Paso, Texas, on March 21:

Source

Some things require no further context or explanation, but I’ll quote

Rod Dreher

, who as always, lays it all out succinctly (unlike me) [bold mine]:

The US southern border is a fiction. And Washington is fine with it. What does this tell you about what America has become? The near-frictionless movements of foreigners across the border, to settle. As I’ve said before: if these men carried weapons, we would know exactly what this was. It is an unarmed barbarian invasion, same as the vast movements of peoples that helped collapse the Roman Empire. When a nation that can defend its borders chooses not to, then it’s not a nation.

Calling them “barbarians” ruffles feathers. It may even be hyperbolic. It doesn’t matter. Americans may be overall an inviting bunch, but too much is too much, whether they show up legally or illegally. There’s not a single person out there who honestly believes what’s happening here is a good thing. We know this to be true, because the Left has taken pains to convince everyone that what you see in the video isn’t happening. Why would they do that if masses overrunning the border is such a self-evident positive? Why even pretend to have borders? And why is that everyone else except those who seemingly can’t get enough immigration get to be the ones who deal with the deluge of new entrants?

Whatever the reasons - and we know what those are - what’s also for sure is that we’re not getting any help from our neighbors in stopping mass migration into the country. In an itnerview with 60 Minutes, President of Mexico Andrés Manuel López Obrador (or “AMLO,” for short) made the following demands in exchange for taking stronger action to stem the tide of illegal immigration

Source

These are obviously not even worth considering, clearly a cynical attempt to extort the U.S. Still, you can’t blame Mexico for trying to take advantage of the situation: it’s biggest concern is its civil war, making mass migration a mere blip on the radar. Until Mexico gets its internal situation under control, there’s nothing they can do about mass migration. The same way I emphasize privileging personal affairs over politics when it comes to prepping, all countries must get their houses in order before they can worry about dealing with problems on the outside. Moreover, if there ever was a president who might agree to such absurd, insulting, and counter-productive proposals, it’s President Joe Biden, so AMLO has nothing to lose in going for it.

It also says something about how tenuous America’s power has become. Imagine you don’t know the names of the countries involved: if you looked at the crisis one side was dealing with - unrestricted mass migration - and what the other side was demanding in order just slow it down, and also considered the extent of the demands, who do you think would be the more powerful of the two parties? Power isn’t just about being able to credibly threaten violence. It’s also about being able to say “no.” Making outlandish demands is a backhanded way of saying “no” and AMLO did just that.

The fact is, Mexico isn’t our friend, NAFTA or not, no matter how much cross-border interaction takes place daily. They’re unlikely to be part of the solution to our border crisis and will instead become one of the biggest reasons we end up having a long border conflict, inevitably drawing in our respective military forces. We may not go to war against Mexico itself, but we’ll likely end up in something of a cold war against our southern neighbor, a proxy war waged indirectly through criminals and drug cartels. In some ways, it’s already happening. I’d expect relations between the U.S. and Mexico to deteriorate if Claudia Sheinbaum, even further to the left than AMLO, becomes the next president of Mexico as expected in the country’s June 2 election this year. I’d anticipate worsening relations even if Biden wins re-election in November. Regardless of who occupies the White House, nobody wants to be dictated to by the lesser power.

Immigration truly is a make-or-break issue. As someone once said, it bleeds over into everything, including property rights and squatting. It’s a national security issue in the most literal sense of the term. By failing to secure our borders, the very thing which defines a country, we’ve created or exacerbated a crisis in almost every other arena of life. It’s an act of negligence for which no punishment for the negligent will ever suffice.

What To Do About Squatters And Invaders?

Squatting has been a problem in America for years. In it of itself, it’s not an indicator of civil strife, though it’s certainly a contributing factor. Only now, it’s happening in an environment of escalating social tensions. What was once considered a specific issue now fits into a larger context of a country, one which happens to have the world’s largest economy, increasingly failing to provide even a modicum of predictable order. Predictability is core component of civilized society; no matter how dangerous society gets, it’s predictability which we build our lives around. If this happens, that will happen. If you do this, they will do this. If you pay your bills and taxes, you’ll stay out of trouble. If you own property, nobody else can claim it as their own. That sort of thing.

Handling squatters is among the most challenging of situations anyone is likely to face short of a life-threatening encounter. I think we all agree it shouldn’t be too difficult - one has a legal right to control their own property or they don’t - but that presumes we reside in a rule-of-law environment. We don’t. It’s no wonder that squatting has suddenly become a national crisis in this moment in history, as the U.S. faces a series of upheavals on the horizon.

Some of you will note; most of the horror stories involving squatters occurs in our major metropolitan areas. Not every place in America is like New York or Seattle, that much is true. In other jurisdictions, getting rid of a squatter isn’t anywhere near as difficult. Yet if this is how it goes in the country’s largest population centers, imagine how many people are at risk of being impacted by these policies. How is it possible to own property in these places? It’s presumably a lot easier to get rid of squatters in smaller, more sparsely populated locales, but again, most of us don’t live there, neither do many renters. Neither is the answer to run for the hills. Our problems are inescapable and will eventually afflict most parts of the country. They must be tackled head-on.

In the interest of breaking the tension, here’s a funny, but effective method of disposing of squatters head-on:

In all seriousness, as squatting becomes a bigger problem and as society becomes more disorderly and lawless, getting rid of squatters will become an industry of its own. It kind of already is.

Here’s America’s most prominent anti-squatter, described by some as a “vigilante:”

Flash Shelton, from San Fernando Valley, California, has seen a huge rise in demand for his services as a 'squatter hunter', which include offers to remove illegal tenants personally.

Flash, whose day job is as a handyman, first took on a squatter in 2019 when he needed to remove a woman who broke into his late mother's home.

Since then, his snappy YouTube videos, in which he films himself 'out-squatting' the squatters, have garnered millions of views.

In the last year, he has carried out hundreds of Zoom consultations, where he talks homeowners through potential strategies to rid themselves of their unwanted guests.

If they want him to do the job himself, the minimum cost is around $5,000. 

A trifling sum compared to the months of lost rent, legal fees, and property damage that clients would otherwise face.

How does he do it?

His preferred method is a ‘lock out’. This involves getting the landlord to draw up a lease making him the tenant, allowing him to enter their property legally.

He then stakes out the home for several days, learning the habits of the squatter through surveillance and interviews with neighbors.

When their guard is down, or if they have temporarily left the property, he takes his chance, bundling inside and changing the locks.

He says this works in around 90 per cent of cases.

The article goes on to say that Flash Shelton doesn’t really make a profit off this. It’s effectively a form of charity on his part, the charity being that he and his team are placing themselves in harm’s way on behalf of others (for a price) to rescue their property.

What happens if the squatters refuse to back down?

In these scenarios, Flash goes toe-to-toe with his targets. He becomes their housemate, roommate, worst-nightmare, and starts to out-squat the squatters.

He or his team begin by telling the police of their plan in anticipation of a potentially hostile confrontation.

Flash then researches everything he can about his targets, from names and ages to criminal histories.

Armed with their identities, he enters the home and installs Ring cameras throughout the property to record his every interaction with the squatter.

After a day or two, he has usually spooked them sufficiently to force them out.

Faced with the option of leaving anonymously or public exposure on his YouTube channel, they tend to choose the former. 

But sometimes the squatters dig in. Now Flash ramps up his tactics, making their lives a misery by eating their food, pinching their spot on the couch and blasting loud music.

It can get tense. It’s a battle of wills, but one Flash says he hasn't lost yet.

These encounters make for must-see viral videos. But this isn’t about entertainment. This about real-life, livelihoods, and safety. Confronting squatters can be dangerous, especially since many squatters are dangerous people themselves. This ultimately traces responsibility back to the government, who is supposed to save us the trouble of having to deal with transgressors ourselves. Not only will the government do nothing, however, they’re trying to prevent the citizenry from taking matters into their own hands. It’s an impossible demand: telling people, “back off, but we won’t handle it” isn’t an answer at all. Eventually, someone will do something, at risk to their own lives. Hence the insidious evil of anarcho-tyranny: it destabilizes and increases, instead of decreasing, prospects for violence.

Still, I can’t recommend turning to vigilantism, due to the risks involved. In the meantime, what can you do? Realtor.com had this to say, with the caveat that it ultimately depends on the laws particular to where the property is located [bold mine]:

To get squatters out of a property, [David] Metzger uses a little-known Georgia state “intruder removal” statute that predates the Civil War.

“Most people don’t know about it,” he says. Under this statute, the property owner can execute an affidavit setting forth that the squatter is, in fact, an illegal intruder. Unless the squatter has a counteraffidavit, this gives the sheriff’s office the right to remove the squatter.

But it’s not always that easy. How a sheriff’s office responds to a squatter case can vary greatly by county. And squatters are geniuses at finding legal loopholes and how to drag out the process. Typical eviction methods can take a year or longer. Meanwhile, the property owner is on the hook for loss of income and legal bills.

Most places do have procedures in place for dealing with squatters, it’s just that it takes up to a year or more for the process to play itself out. Other sources indicate you can get rid of a squatter in four to five weeks, though the stories in the news suggest that’s a best-case scenario and we knows the best-case scenario rarely manifests. Certainly, what you hear on the news isn’t always indicative of the norm, but even four to five weeks is a long time. So even if there exist places in the country where you can get rid of a squatter the same day, I think we can reasonably discern most places don’t respect property rights to that extent.

As with all things in life, prevention is worth a pound of cure:

The best way to not have to deal with a squatter is prevention.

According to Metzger, the vast majority of squatters aren’t moving in when homeowners are away on a two-week vacation. They’re doing it when a property is listed for rent. They scour real estate listings to learn which properties are sitting empty.

Since squatters target vacant properties, anything an owner can do to make a property look occupied would go a long way toward discouraging intruders. Photos in a listing could include a person, or even a dog (perhaps a big, don’t-mess-with-me-looking dog).

“Try to have a camera and security system in place,” says Metzger.

Normally, when police show up to confront a squatter, and the person claims they have a lease, there is no way to prove the person broke in. However, camera footage can do that. This would generally move the case from a civil one to a much more enforceable criminal one.

Coldwell Banker agent Cara Ameer in Florida agrees that cameras are a deterrent but warns to make sure they are placed securely, or squatters can simply block or remove them.

“We’ve all seen those stories of people removing Ring doorbells,” she says. She also suggests using timed or motion-triggered lighting to make a property seem occupied.

Metzger also suggests alerting neighbors that your property is vacant and asking them to get in touch if they see any unusual activity.

And never leave a key in a key box, which can be broken into. Leave it with a property manager.

Once more, this is all so unnecessary. We’re being forced to live like prisoners in our own country. The sentiment that America is essentially under occupation isn’t an exaggeration. We’re responding entirely to the initiative of transgressors, when it’s them who ought to be fighting the uphill battle.

Yet as practical folks, we must live in the real world. If this is what it takes to prevent squatting, then this is what it takes. I’d reinforce the point that leaving properties unoccupied for long periods of time is strongly inadvisable; either have a family member or trusted connection check up on it regularly, or maybe even occupy it in your absence. After all, squatters cannot access an occupied residence, unless you invited them in the first place.

If this isn’t something you can manage, well, maybe owning property isn’t for you. I hate to put it like that, since owning property will allow us the most capital any of us will ever have access to, but with property costs as high as they are today, the risks might not be worth the reward. At least, if you choose to own property, own only what you’re planning on living in. Managing property is a full-time job and requires a strong understanding of the law. There’s a reason many real estate agents attended law school.

Finally:

If a squatter gets in? Do call the police but do not try to handle the squatter yourself, experts warn.

“Unfortunately, it is a legal game to play and you want to comply with what is required by the law to ensure a successful outcome,” says Ameer. “Don’t confront them or try to turn off utilities.”

With rents at all-time highs and little to no legal repercussions for the intruders, the squatting crisis is likely to get worse before it gets better.

The cost of living has to be part of the conversation when it comes to squatting. It’s true that most squatters are malicious actors, but it’s also true some squatters are taking advantage of the system because the alternative is to live in less-than-ideal conditions or even become homeless. Why rents are so damn high is a topic for another time, but a society where housing is more affordable ought to result in fewer of these incidents.

That said, if a person cannot pay the rent, for whatever reason, they cannot live there. Property owners shouldn’t be forced to subsidize anyone’s lives and our entire society functions on binding agreements both sides are beholden to. At least, that’s how it’s supposed to be. Even if rule-of-law isn’t a thing any longer, our entire society would fall apart if we quit pretending it was. So would it if we were forced to house others against our will for free. Nobody would want to rent to anyone, except for those who could afford exorbitant prices.

How about the invaders streaming across the border? There’s really only one solution: violence. Nobody wants to hear that, but ask yourself: how else does a society defend itself or maintain order? When the government asks you to do something, they’re just being nice about it. At the end of the day, behind every request, is the implied threat of violence. If you don’t do as I ask, this will happen to you. The same thing applies to illegal entrants.

The only alternative is what you saw in the video: they just stream across the border. The issue is nowhere near as complex or nuanced as some try to make it out to be. Thinking that there’s a “middle ground” is actually part of the problem. Even if there exists a middle ground, a choice has to be made eventually. In practice, the middle ground has often served as a convenient excuse for inaction. Look where it led us to.

Does that mean the Texas National Guard needs to open fire on these invaders? No, because shooting the unarmed, even when overwhelmed, is both legally and morally questionable. However, there are certainly less-lethal means: rubber bullets, tear gas, or blunt force, the same thing we use against rioters when we assess their peaceful protests aren’t all that peaceful any longer. There are many options which can be implemented before deadly force enters the equation.

But what if less-lethal measures don’t work? What if, by sheer force of numbers, these hordes still manage to break through? This right here is the problem: at some point, deadly force needs to be on the table. There’s no point in protecting the border if deadly force cannot be utilized even under appropriate circumstances. Keep in mind; an unarmed person who keeps approaching police despite being warned repeatedly to stop can be justifiably shot and killed. In America, police and soldiers can defensibly shoot anyone trespassing on their facilities, assuming the criteria has been met for the use of lethal force and all other measures short of it have been attempted without success. Why aren’t foreigners approaching the border subjected to the same standard? Why are they given greater license to violate laws and behave in disorderly fashion than Americans?

Now, we’re also being extorted by Mexico. A cold calculation would ascertain that Mexico isn’t a friend, even as it’s not a clear and obvious foe. But the simple fact is, Mexico’s interests diverge from ours. The space for cooperation is limited and currently, the incentive structure lines up to where Mexico City doesn’t need to acquiesce to Washington’s demands. Nor is there any appetite in Washington to square off with the Mexicans, especially under the Biden administration. It’s just another one of those things that’ll need to get worse before it has a chance of getting better.

This is clearly all screaming into the void on my end. I’ve talked about all this before and we all know the answer to these questions. It’s just that yet another thing They said wasn’t happening is now, in fact, happening. Are we going to do something about it? Of course not and again, we know why.

Some People Are Allowed To Protect Themselves. Others Aren’t.

Before closing it out, an update on the Daniel Penny case out of New York.

First, take a look at how ABC News framed the story:

Source

They couldn’t even bother to add the qualifier “alleged.” Obviously, ABC has come to its conclusion about the case and taken sides. Not that ABC News is a reliable source, but this headline just screams, “WE’RE COMPROMISED!”

Since we obviously can’t trust ABC News, we’ll turn to an alternative source.

From the New York Post:

Former Marine Daniel Penny is “confident” he’ll beat the manslaughter charges he faces for killing homeless man Jordan Neely on a New York City subway last May, his attorney told The Post Wednesday — as a Manhattan judge set the trial for Oct. 8.

The proceedings will likely last about four weeks — although they could run as long as six, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Maxwell Wiley said during the hearing.

Penny — who wore a charcoal suit, white shirt and maroon tie — did not offer a comment as he left the courtroom alongside his attorneys.

Defense lawyer Thomas Kenniff said afterward that he thinks it’s “unfortunate this case was brought at all,” but he’s still hoping the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office sees the “inequity in continuing this prosecution.”

I, too, believe it unfortunate the case was brought to trial at all. Longtime readers know that it’s not my policy to reflexively take the side of the person claiming to be the defensive party in a violent encounter. I think Penny shouldn’t be tried because I don’t think he committed any crime. It’s heartening to see that Penny’s team feels confident of an acquittal, however. It’s not easy to keep your chin up when your life hangs in the balance like this, so I hope the confidence is a sign that the charges in fact won’t stick.

I’d hope all of us hope for Penny’s acquittal. That said, I don’t think it really matters what the outcome of this case is. Obviously, it matters with respect to Penny, but even for him, acquittal of criminal charges is just one of many hurdles he’ll be likely to need to overcome. I doubt his family and the legions of activists and NGOs they’ve enlisted the help of will leave the Marine alone. They’re likely to press civil charges and spare no expense in attempting to destroy Penny’s life, to do what the legal system failed to accomplish. I hope Penny is up to the challenge and that he has plenty of help available.

At the societal level, whatever happens to Penny, the message has been delivered: don’t dare defend yourself or others. Even if Penny were found not guilty of manslaughter, who’d want to endure his ordeal? Under anarcho-tyranny, the process is the punishment. The law-abiding citizen obviously doesn’t want to go to prison, but what scares them more is having to be put through the system at all. They have more to lose in doing so, while the criminal only needs to stay out of jail. Remember - many criminals don’t need to pay their own legal fees.

Terrorizing citizens into not protecting themselves or others is a set-up for bloodshed, perhaps that being the intent. The NYC Subway has recently become an immensely dangerous place:

Crime on the subways has become significantly more violent since the pandemic with the number of felony assaults soaring when compared to pre-pandemic levels, an analysis by The Post revealed.

The number of attacks on trains that left victims injured jumped 53% from 2023’s 570 felony assaults to the 373 reported in 2019, according to stats.

Those 200 extra felony assaults meant that attacks resulting in substantial injury accounted for 25% of 2,285 major crimes reported on trains and in stations in 2023, compared to just 15% of the 2,499 major crimes in 2019, the data show.

Daniel Penny was one man who took on one of the apparently many dangerous people who roam the NYC Subway. He’s now risking having his life taken away because he dared to protect himself and others from a menace. Meanwhile, the authorities clearly have no answer for the escalating violence in the transit system they’re supposed to protect. Maybe Penny’s real crime was that he threatened the government’s reason for being?

That and he wasn’t part of a protected class. A few weeks ago, a shooting occurred on the NYC Subway that was caught on video (you can read an in-depth overview of the incident here). It happened in the wake of the controversial deployment of the New York National Guard to the subway in response to escalating crime. We all knew randomly searching the bags of elderly Asian women does nothing to reduce crime, but if all political leaders have one thing in common, it’s a lack of wisdom.

Prosecutors determined the shooting was the result of self-defense, with no charges brought against the shooter. The aggressor not only instigated the confrontation, but was also the one who brought the gun, only to have it wrestled away from him when he brandished it and ended up being shot with it. Penny’s own lawyer applauded the decision. Where the story gets interesting, however, is that authorities plan on only a single charge for the aggressor: criminal possession of a weapon. This despite an expert noting that there were at least three other charges that could’ve been brought against him.

What’s going on here? Why the disparity between this case and the Penny case? Clearly, the two cases are quite different, if only because nobody died (yet) in the more recent incident. But there’s also another difference: race. Penny is White, the person who supposedly died at his hands was Black. In the subway shooting, the defensive party was of Middle Eastern descent, the offensive party was Black. Prosecutors decided rather quickly that the shooting was an act of self-defense and who the defensive and offensive parties were. It took a bit more time, from what I can recall, to make a determination in Penny’s case and they seem pretty certain Penny was the aggressor, despite eyewitness evidence to the contrary.

Maybe self-defense is still a thing. But only for certain people. When it comes to Blacks losing their lives due to the actions of a White person, it’s like the outcome is predetermined. It’s bad enough that we need to think twice before taking measures to protect ourselves and others, it’s downright oppressive for the government to make determinations on the basis of skin color.

If this is what order is supposed to look like, one can only guess what disorder is going to look like.

Squatting: An American Nightmare

Let’s close on somewhat of an upbeat note by returning to the story of Adele Andaloro in New York. It turns out vigilantes got involved, forcing all but one of the tenants to flee her property. The holdout, who is occupying the basement, claims he’s a legal tenant and would leave once his deposit is returned.

Andaloro isn’t out of the woods yet, but the situation has improved dramatically from just days ago. Maybe vigilantism is the answer. I’m still not telling any of you to call Flash Shelton or form a mob like they did against Sang Kim in Bellevue, Washington, but what the state fails to do, the citizenry eventually will. We’ll have to do it. The alternative is to live under anarchy or rule-of-terror.

Have you ever dealt with a squatter before? How was the issue resolved? How long did it take? How much money did you lose in the process? What about the mass migrants who are no longer pretending to ask to enter the country? What are we going to do about Mexico, who’s clearly looking to exploit our border crisis for their benefit? What are your thoughts on the Daniel Penny case? Have your views changed? Or has he always been a convenient example to be made for the Regime’s terroristic ways?

Let’s hear your stories and thoughts.

Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.

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!