No Defending The Indefensible
No amount of cynicism regarding the other side justifies lionizing bad people just because they happen to align on your side.
The reason I avoid commenting on ongoing events or breaking news is that commentary without fact is all speculation. We obviously can’t avoid speculating entirely, but it’s something I believe we ought to keep away from when possible. The goal is to be right, not to beat everyone else to the punch, after all. Unless it’s your job to report on the news, there’s no harm in waiting for more facts to come out and I, in fact, regard it as indicative of one’s character as to their willingness to do so.
Therefore, I’m glad I waited before commenting on the death of Utah resident Craig Robertson. The 75-year-old was shot and killed by FBI agents who attempted to arrest him for “credible threats” made against President Joe Biden in advance of a visit to the state. There’s still a lot of unanswered questions regarding the chain of events leading to Robertson’s killing, but for now, I want to focus on the reaction many people had, viewing the shooting as wholly unnecessary and a state atrocity, with comparisons made with Ruby Ridge and Waco.
First, did Robertson’s threats really justify a law enforcement response? The answer to this is something I’d been waiting on and I’d say “yes,” without question. Take a look at the Facebook posts which apparently triggered the incident that ultimately ended his life:
I don’t know when we forgot, but making these sorts of threats against presidents and public officials has always been problematic. According to a report in the United Kingdom’s Daily Mail, Robertson had been making these kinds of posts on social media for years and it was only earlier this year authorities decided to take a closer look at him:
For months, Robertson has posted daily threats on what is believed to be his Facebook page, revealing his obsession with the president and fantasies about hurting him.
Another reads: 'There is only one creature in this universe I hate more than Joe Biden. It's Lucifer, Biden's brother!'
While conducting surveillance on Robertson's home on March 19, a special agent attempted to speak with Robertson about his posts, according to Fox13.
Robertson replied, 'I said it was a dream!' and told the agent to come back with a warrant.
The investigation began in April and the US Secret Services became aware of it in June.
So what’s rather indisputable right off the bat is that Robertson was doing everything possible to attract the attention of law enforcement, perhaps intentionally so. Also indisputable is that Robertson’s speech went well above and beyond what anyone can consider reasonable political banter. You all know my feelings on President Biden and other members of the Regime and I encourage everyone who feels the same to be relentless in their criticism and insults towards them. They’ve earned it.
However, there’s a world of difference between calling Biden a “worthless c**ksucker” (vulgar, I know) and suggesting you’re going to kill him, which is what Robertson did. Violent speech isn’t legally protected and it doesn’t matter who the target is. Mind you, threatening anyone, be it the president or a fellow citizen, is a crime, so nobody should be shocked the police came after Robertson. Whether they needed to kill him is a different story, but again, when you draw law enforcement attention, you’re no longer in control and you don’t get to dictate the outcome.
Let’s consider the threat triangle, a framework so useful it ought to be common knowledge: means, motive, and opportunity. Were all three present with respect to Craig Robertson? He’s not only armed to the teeth, but he even specifically cites the manner in which he intended to take out the president (sniping). His social media posts are nothing but expressions of motives for seeking to harm public officials he dislikes. Lastly, the president was visiting Utah, where Robertson resides.
All three components of the threat triangle were established, which meant law enforcement had no choice but to take Robertson seriously. If anything, I wish the authorities would take violent speech more seriously in general, especially when all three components of the threat triangle are satisfied, and not just when public officials are threatened.
Consider the death of Jordan Neely at the hands of Daniel Penny earlier this year on a New York City Subway car, an incident I’ve covered extensively in previous posts. A point I’ve made is that Neely may not have physically attacked anyone, but he still fulfilled all three components of the threat triangle, thereby justifying intervention, even at the cost of his life. Neely, simply by being in a train car, in close proximity to others, and being an able-bodied male, possessed the means of harming others and the opportunity for doing so. He explained to everyone he was willing to hurt them and why he wanted to do so, thereby expressing his motives. Surely, nobody “needs” to die, but again, a person making threats can never be allowed to control the situation.
All this is a way of saying we need to be careful about how much emotional energy we expend defending someone. I’m harshly critical of leftists who throw their weight behind violent criminals who clearly don’t value the lives of others and I’m troubled by those on the Right who’ll defend someone like Craig Robertson, who’s not only clearly doing wrong, but is probably aware of the risk he’s taking. Even if the FBI’s actions might not have been on the level, why would anyone defend someone like that?
Some attempted to draw parallels between Robertson and other right-wing martyrs like Randy Weaver, the central figure in the August 1992 Ruby Ridge incident, and David Koresh, the central figure in the April 1993 Waco siege. But regardless of how police handled the respective situations, to defend these figures so vigorously ignores the role they played in creating the deadly scenarios that cost them so dearly in the first place.
As much as the Right lionizes Weaver, who passed away last year, they ignore that Weaver himself regretted his own actions that led to the deaths of his wife and son, plus a U.S. Marshal:
And some of that turmoil is self-generated. “I’m not totally without fault in this,” he says, without elaboration. He has said previously that if he could do it over he would have appeared in court in 1991 on a gun charge in Idaho. His refusal to do so led to an 18-month standoff with Federal officials.
You’re not going to hear about this much from the thousands, of not millions, who’ve taken it upon themselves to be outraged on behalf of Weaver. For those of you who might to be familiar with the incident, Weaver had been ordered to court over gun charges, but was informed of the wrong date. Despite attempts to contact Weaver and almost a half-year’s time to check in on the matter, Weaver never did, nor did he attempt to show on the date he’d been given.
Again, regardless of how frivolous the charges, regardless of the errors made by authorities, both before and during the August 1992 siege, there’s no excuse for Weaver’s conduct and there’s never an excuse for willfully disobeying authorities. This is the mindset of a criminal and how they end up creating the very situations they later appeal to public opinion and the state to redress. There might be a time where resistance may be justified, but an order to appear in court wasn’t the hill to die on. Weaver recognizes, correctly, that showing up in court would’ve averted disaster and this is indisputable.
As for Waco, I find it interesting the authorities decided to raid a compound that wasn’t only full of women and children, but was also packed to the gills with arms, whereas with Weaver, they initially chose to arrest him off his property precisely because they felt arresting him on his property was tactically disadvantageous. If Ruby Ridge was tragic, Waco was negligent on the part of authorities. That said, I’d admonish anyone who regards Koresh as some sort of victim, because he wasn’t. Koresh was a dangerous, mentally ill man who led a life of crime and violence long before that fateful April 1993 encounter. He was a cult leader and like all cult leaders, he was abusive and predatory. I may catch some heat for saying this, but Koresh is as responsible for the events of that day as the authorities are. There are victims in the story and Koresh isn’t one of them. Is he someone you really want to defend?
Some of you might accuse me of “punching right,” but not only do I not see it that way, I don’t see it as a thing, either. Not only do I not see someone like Craig Robertson or any other right-wing martyr as “one of our own,” if we don’t hold our side accountable, then the other side will. Which do you prefer? We can either define ourselves or someone else will. No amount of cynicism regarding the other side justifies lionizing bad people just because they happen to align on your side (Koresh, in particular, doesn’t even have political convictions).
This is important because as the situation in the country deteriorates and our politics become more existential, there’s a strong possibility we see a return to the sort of political violence we saw in the early 1990s. Note that the events of Ruby Ridge, Waco, and, later, the Oklahoma City bombing, coincided with a period great dissatisfaction with the direction of the country:
That said, dissatisfaction with the country has been nothing by high for two decades, yet widespread political violence hasn’t been all that prevalent until the last several years. The supposed looming threat posed by right-wing extremists and militias was never really a thing and still isn’t - aside from the sporadic lone wolf attacks and criminal violence by White supremacist gangs (all of whom have roots within the prison system), the threat is one largely fabricated within the annals of the Regime.
But Craig Robertson is a reminder the discontented are out there and many of them are willing to lose touch with reality to indulge their anger and fantasies. Personally, I doubt Robertson was a serious threat, to the president or national security, but that’s just it, isn’t it? Why would a truly non-threatening individual take the risk? And is someone so reckless the kind of person we ought to be throwing any of our weight behind? Do we really want to be defined by the worst among us?
We are the company we keep, after all.
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!