Under Anarcho-Tyranny, Assume You Have No Right To Self-Defense

Unfortunately, we live in a country where such cases are being politicized and prosecution pursued or not based on the identities of the parties involved.

22-year-old Barry Washington, Jr. was shot and killed by 27-year-old Ian Cranston in a disputed self-defense incident on September 19, 2021. Source

Yesterday, I came across the story of the shooting death of Barry Washington, Jr. on the night of September 19, 2021, in Bend, Oregon. From a report earlier this year:

Attorneys for Ian MacKenzie Cranston don’t dispute that he fired on Barry Washington Jr., ultimately killing the 22-year-old Black man. Washington was unarmed at the time.

Cranston, who is white, has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder, first-degree manslaughter, second-degree manslaughter, first-degree assault and two counts of unlawful use of a deadly weapon.

Defense attorneys argue the 27-year-old acted in self-defense after Washington punched him in the face twice, and assaulted Cranston’s friends. But prosecutors said the evidence points to vengeance.

The state sought on Monday to continue holding Cranston without bail and to do so needed to show evidence supporting a strong likelihood of conviction. While the judge’s ruling on does not decide guilt, it does mean Cranston cannot pay bail to be released before the trial.

Surveillance cameras from the night of the killing show that after Washington landed punches, Cranston waited 26 seconds to shoot him in the torso.

“Cranston’s conscious objective after getting hit was to produce his loaded handgun and then wait for the opportunity to kill Washington at close range,” Deputy District Attorney J. Michael Swart argued in court records.

Defense attorney Kevin Sali stated in a brief that “26 seconds is hardly a lengthy period,” and “the video evidence makes clear that throughout the entirety of this period Washington continued to behave aggressively and gave no indication whatsoever of an inclination to terminate his assault.”

Bagley sided with the prosecution on Monday.

“The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that the defendant Mr. Cranston shot Mr. Washington at close range with a firearm, which is a lethal and deadly weapon, and when he did so, he had the conscious objective to cause Mr. Washington’s death,” Bagley ruled.

There are only so many words with which to underscore the gravity of the predicament Cranston now finds himself. According to Oregon state law, a second-degree murder conviction alone carries a lifetime prison sentence. In a state under left-wing governance and strict gun laws, Cranston is fighting an uphill battle to prove his innocence. If the experience of Kyle Rittenhouse serves as any example, having the facts on your side won’t be enough - stellar defense work will be required to overcome these accusations, even if the burden of proof is, ultimately, on the prosecution. After all, Cranston did kill Washington, creating the affirmative defense dilemma.

It also doesn’t help matters that Cranston is White and the deceased Washington was Black. Unsurprisingly, supporters of Washington and the media have made the case out to be a “modern-day lynching” and compared Washington with Emmett Till, the 14-year-old Black boy murdered in 1955 Mississippi by two White men after he supposedly flirted with a White woman.

Washington’s mother, Lawanda Roberson, had this to say about the incident which took the life of her son:

“I strongly believe in my heart that B.J. would not be dead if he were not Black,” Roberson said. “Race set aside, people in this community will have to decide if shooting and killing an unarmed man who punched you is justified.” [bold mine]

Racism is always quite the accusation to level, even when grief-stricken. But what stands out in Roberson’s remarks is her admission that, yes, her son did strike Cranston and it was this attack Cranston was responding to when he shot and killed Washington.

In fact, the account of the incident as described in court doesn’t make Washington out to be any kind of a victim and is rather insulting to the memory of Emmett Till in making such a comparison:

The night of his death, Washington was out drinking at The Capitol nightclub. Cranston was also there with fiancée Allison Butler and friend Tyler Smith. Inside the club, Washington approached Butler and “expressed an interest in her,” according to a motion by the defense. Surveillance footage shows a friendly, brief encounter.

“Butler, apparently flattered, smiled and told Washington she was engaged, showing him her ring. Washington gave Butler a hug, which she returned, and then the two separated,” Sali wrote.

Several minutes later, Butler, Cranston and Smith left the bar to smoke cigarettes on the sidewalk. Soon after, Washington also walked outside. He encountered the group about two minutes before Cranston shot him.

Each side of the case interprets evidence from those minutes very differently.

According to prosecutors, Washington brushed into Smith and told Butler, “Hey you’re good looking.”

The state summarized witness accounts given to police and a grand jury.

Cranston is described as saying things to the effect of “she’s already taken, move along,” and “mind your business.” Washington persisted in confronting the group, and Butler told the grand jury he became aggressive. Cranston and Smith reportedly told him to “fuck off.”

Butler told the grand jury that she got nervous “because Ian doesn’t back down, that he’s defensive over me and he’s not the kind of guy to be pushed around.”

After more words were exchanged, Washington punched Cranston twice.

Butler began filming with her cellphone.

“Then, Ms. Butler gets between [them],” Bend Police Det. Camille Christensen testified at Monday’s hearing, summarizing the 26 seconds of surveillance footage after the first punch, and right before the fatal shot.

“Mr. Washington pushes Ms. Butler aside,” Christensen said. “Mr. Smith kind of steps in. He gets punched by Mr. Washington.”

Cranston then fires a single bullet, hitting Washington in the torso.

More:

Sali’s motion states Washington’s blood-alcohol level was 0.195%, well over the legal limit to drive. Cranston was not impaired, his attorney told the judge.

If anyone was in a condition to make bad choices that night, it was Washington.

Finally, notice the black eye visible in this mug shot of Cranston taken following his arrest:

Again, the fact Washington punched Cranston first isn’t in dispute, all but assuring the former was the aggressor in this incident. Whether Cranston was justified in using lethal force is somewhat of a different matter (more on that in a bit), but this doesn’t appear to be a racially-motivated crime and is most definitely not a “lynching” as so many have irresponsibly described it as being.

Unfortunately, we live in a country where such cases are being politicized and prosecution pursued or not based on the identities of the parties involved. Had the races been reversed, there would be no media outcry and the presumption of the killing being race-related wouldn’t have been taken seriously. It’s hard to tell whether the charges would’ve been the same, but the point is that Washington is presumed to be a victim and Cranston the aggressor entirely on the basis of race, even though the facts of the case tell a different story. Something similar happened to Kyle Rittenhouse - despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, the prosecution threw the book at him, charging him with multiple counts of murder, and the media created a narrative of Rittenhouse as the aggressor and his assailants as innocent of wrongdoing. It was a politically-motivated attempt at character assassination and persecution, because the men Rittenhouse shot were left-wing political activists supporting the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and, in the Regime’s eyes, the good guys. Meanwhile, Rittenhouse, wasn’t and, therefore, was the antagonist by default. Some media outlets went as far as peddling the lie the men Rittenhouse had shot were Black (they were all White).

In fact, the lead prosecutor’s remarks reveal the extent to which politics plays a role in the handling of this case:

Hummel said he’d received hundreds of calls and emails over the past week regarding parallels the case had with the history of racist violence in America, namely the murder of Emmett Till.

“Our country has a disgraceful history of denigrating, prosecuting and lynching Black men for talking to white women. Over the last week, literally hundreds of people called and emailed me to remind me of this history. I responded to every one of you,” he said. “Racism didn't only happen back then. And down there. It happens right here. And right now.”

But, as you’ll see, there’s no evidence this was a racially motivated crime. If it were, Hummel would’ve been derelict to not press for just such a charge. Still, Hummel felt the need to emphasize race and associate the case with the murder of Emmett Till, even though the two cases have nothing in common and one would have to ignore the actions of Washington entirely to view him as nothing more than an innocent victim.

More:

The grand jury did not charge Cranston with a hate crime, but Hummel said there’s an ongoing investigation of Cranston’s motives. He said the public has been helpful collecting evidence, particularly the activist group Central Oregon Peacekeepers, and asked anyone with relevant information to send it to his office or Bend PD.

“If we obtained sufficient evidence to prove that this shooting was at least partially motivated by race, we will go back to that grand jury and ask them to add the charge. I determined we did not have sufficient evidence at this point to present it to the grand jury,” Hummel said. “That was a tactical decision made by myself. If we presented it now and the grand jury said no, the state doesn't have enough evidence, then that case is done. And if we gathered more evidence later, we couldn't go back.”

The Central Oregon Peacekeepers is a social justice activist group and hardly an impartial observer. But here is the prosecutor, openly admitting to cooperating with a politically-motivated interest group to find any evidence that can be used to pursue hate crime charges against Cranston. Again, I don’t see them doing this if the races were reversed.

Lastly, it’s worth noting that Cranston was initially charged with manslaughter and released after posting a $10,000 bond. Only after significant public outcry were more serious charges tacked on. It’s hard to see how racialized politics isn’t the driving force in this case, revealing troubling realities of the compromised nature of our legal system.

Cranston appears to be yet another casualty of anarcho-tyranny, brought on by the Regime’s pursuit of “criminal justice reform” and as part of their war for “racial justice.” By dumping a litany of serious charges against Cranston, the Regime isn’t only trying to put Cranston away for life, but they’re also attempting to demoralize and dissuade others like him from defending themselves and perhaps engage in a bit of racial persecution in the process.

According to a protester:

“A lot of us have been bringing up the question, ‘Would Ian Cranston have shot and murdered a white person?’ And he wouldn’t have. I think that’s very obvious to anyone who knows how racism in Central Oregon works,” said Stanfield, a Black woman who leads the Central Oregon Diversity Project.

Whites are often accused of harboring an irrational fear of Blacks, the reasoning being that Whites are more often victimized by other Whites (most crime is intraracial), yet we’re supposed to believe that Whites, who are arguably the least racially-conscious group in America, make life or death decisions based on the skin color of their attacker? This doesn’t make sense, but it doesn’t need to. This sort of hateful and vicious rhetoric serves a specific purpose and, as long as it does, it doesn’t need to make sense.

More from the protester:

“It’s important for us to bring race into this. Because Black people are not as safe as white people in America, of course, but especially in our community because we are such a small percent of the population,” she said.

Again, most crime is intraracial, not interracial. Up-to-date statistics have become increasingly difficult to come by, but, historically, the data has consistently shown that Blacks are, in fact, not as safe as White people or other races in America, but not due to interracial crime. In 2016, for example, 89.5 of homicides where the victim was Black were committed by a Black offender. Only 8% of homicides were committed by a White person.

But this is all neither here nor there, because, again, the evidence seems to demonstrate that Barry Washington was the aggressor. Talking about who Blacks are more likely to be killed by seems incredibly perverse, given that Washington died as a consequence of first provoking a confrontation when he could’ve simply walked away quietly into the night. However, while I believe the charges are politically motivated, I also cannot rule out the possibility some of the charges may possess legitimacy. As a legal expert noted:

In Oregon, laws about self-defense take a graduated approach, Lewis and Clark law school professor Tung Yin said.

“The basic root of it is you can use force proportional to the threat,” Yin said. “It can’t be excessive.”

“If somebody shoves you and they make a fist and you actually are afraid that they are going to punch you, you are allowed to defend yourself from the punch. But if it’s just a punch, it would be disproportionate to pull out a gun and shoot the person,” he added.

Ultimately, Yin said, it’s up to a jury to decide what degree of force is proportional, or if a decision to kill was reasonable.

While the murder charge seems excessive, without seeing the evidence prosecutors have access to, it’s tough to say with certainty that Cranston isn’t criminally liable in some small fashion. The one publicly available video of the incident, taken by Cranston’s fiance, is inconclusive on its own. Oregon has strict guidelines when it comes to self-defense, underscoring the difficulty he’ll likely encounter during the trial in justifying the use of lethal force. Though it’s become increasingly difficult to have faith in the legal system, the outcome of the Rittenhouse trial specifically, the most politically charged and fraught in recent memory, serve as evidence that, despite the Regime’s best efforts, justice still prevails. In the case of Ian Cranston, however, it’s still not entirely clear what it’d mean for justice to prevail, other than perhaps to be absolved of murder charges.

This case is worth paying attention to, as it shows that the right to self-defense isn’t guaranteed just due to politics, but because the right to self-defense differs on a location by location basis. In better times, it’s still possible Cranston may find himself in court, though, again, I find it far less likely he would’ve been charged with murder. Still, the last thing anyone wants after doing what they felt necessary to save themselves is to be in handcuffs and having to explain to a judge and jury why killing someone was defensible on their part. “Self-defense” is a legally-defined term and it’s not enough to think your actions were defensible. They have to be objectively consistent with the written law.

This is where the “I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6” mentality becomes fatal, literally. Particularly among gun owners (I am one), this mantra has become so ingrained to the point many ignore the reality that not only may they, in fact, be judged for their actions by a 12-person jury, those 12 may not rule in their favor! As Ian Cranston and so many others before him have discovered, surviving the dangeorus encounter is often the beginning of a long nightmare. Facing a lifetime in prison, crippling legal fees, and diminished prospects of a normal life are a high price to pay for the exercise of the right to self-defense. I’m not saying Cranston made the wrong choice, but look at the case objectively - had he not shot Washington, would he have been charged with all those crimes?

Here’s self-defense expert Marc MacYoung speaking critically of the “12/6” mantra:

Someone once said, "War is a thinking man's game." So too is self-defense. Unfortunately the way "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six" is often used, it is an emotional and dangerous cliché. Used that way, it is not a thought out and rational conclusion.

Everything I've stated thus far is based on pretty much confirmable facts. You can confirm them by talking to a lawyer or reading law books. Now my opinion, based on some more facts. I'll qualify them. F = fact; O = my opinion.

Violence is often the result of out-of-control emotions (F). Society has become less tolerant of violence (O). Many people, who engage in participatory violence, claim what they were doing was 'self-defense' (F). Many actually believe it. (O). This tendency to claim and believe an attack was 'self-defense' has 'peed in the pool' when it comes to cops and prosecutors believing such a claim (O). Self-defense is an affirmative defense (F). You are confessing to an action that is normally a crime (F). This "I did it" does half of the DA's job -- specifically proving that you were the one who did it (F). When you plead self-defense the 'production of proof' shifts to you. (F). You must produce enough proof (articulation of actions, their significance, the reason why it was dangerous) to explain why your actions were -- in fact -- self-defense (F). This, instead of it was you giving into your emotions and committing illegal violence on another person (F). Your 'fear' is not enough, you must provide facts that demonstrate not just your fears, but your actions were justified and reasonable given the circumstances (F).

The 12/6 motto is often used by people to skip all this legal mumbo jumbo and sophist crap and get to the most important of all things -- my feelings (O). If I'm scared, I'm going to act on my feelings and let the court sort it out (O). This, because I told myself I was about to die and that scared me so I killed him in 'self-defense' (O).

Of course, had Cranston not shot Washington, it’s possible Cranston could’ve suffered great bodily harm or death, precisely the message his defense team is going to convey to the court. The lesson here is that having to choose between potentially taking a life or getting killed/maimed isn’t much of a choice at all. There may, objectively, be instances where the choice is unavoidable and you may end up being charged anyway, like Kyle Rittenhouse. But, arguably, Rittenhouse was on far better defensible ground than Cranston and he still endured a nightmarish ordeal over the political nature of the case. Again, if avoiding the situation altogether is an option, this is far superior to being forced into a kill-or-be-killed predicament.

Having the correct mentality concerning personal safety will become even more crucial going forward as anarcho-tyranny envelopes our country and the authorities continue to side openly with criminals and prosecute cases based on politics and race. In a game rigged against the law-abiding, it’s better not to play. The following constitutes sound advice in the best of times, but are absolutely imperative in anarcho-tyranny:

- Recognize what’s fueling a confrontation: As Marc MacYoung says, “violence is often the result of out-of-control emotions.” This means it can be easy to go from a relatively peaceful state to an all-out war rather quickly, especially in a testosterone-addled environment with substances like alcohol readily available (like a bar). Conversely, this also means this sort of violence is easy to avoid. You may not be able to avoid a dangerous encounter with a truly violent criminal who has specifically targeted you or your loved ones, but a confrontation with a random stranger who did something that offended you is avoidable. Which leads to the next point:

- Understand what’s worth fighting and killing over versus what’s not: The Barry Washingtons of the world are social predators, but of a certain variety. For them, confrontation is the point, a way for them to fuel their egos and score social points, at least in their own minds. Someone like this isn’t worth risking your life over and there’s no justice to be had in prevailing in a confrontation with a person who just wants to feel better about themselves. It actually takes more guts and inner strength to be able to resist the urge to give them what they’re looking for, which is a fight. Be smart and don’t take the bait.

- If you kill someone, your actions will always be heavily scrutinized: Aside from self-defense, homicide is almost always illegal. As such, expect divided judgments concerning your actions. If you must take someone’s life, you need to be certain to an extent that your decision is defensible before you pull the trigger. Shooting first and asking questions later might make sense in a war, but it’s a recipe for disaster in society.

- It’s better not to carry in public: Even if done legally, the well has been poisoned to where having a gun on you will always be perceived as indicative of aggression or escalatory, especially if the other party is unarmed or armed with something less lethal than a gun. As the Regime fights to undermine the right of Americans to bear arms and use lethal force to protect themselves and their loved ones, using a firearm, even in self-defense, will incur increasingly steeper costs to prove one’s innocence. Remember that carrying a gun is a tremendous responsibility, one most people aren’t prepared for, and that having a gun isn’t the only means of personal defense. Consider knives or pepper spray, in accordance with local and state laws. Better yet…

- If leaving is an option, TAKE IT!!!: I cannot emphasize this enough. Only in a situation where you have to a gun to your face, are being attacked at that very moment, or with no means of escape is a forceful response an unquestionably appropriate course of action. All other times, it’s a toss-up and a potentially life-altering one at that. Too many convince themselves into thinking they cannot back down or remove themselves from a dangerous situation and will even go as far as to deliberately answer a challenge or threat just to prove they aren’t afraid. This is horrendously stupid. Self-defense is there for your protection, not to prove your manhood to others. In some jurisdictions, especially those without “Stand-Your-Ground” laws, you have to demonstrate an attempt was made to escape the situation before you resorted to violence in defending yourself. Unless you’re cornered with no way out or if you’re being attacked at that very instant, your justification for using force stands on thin ice. Look for a way out and, once you find one, take it. Your pride maybe hurt, but you’ll get over it in a day or two. You won’t be sitting in a jail cell and you won’t have to worry about going to court, either.

Barry Washington decided to spark a confrontation to feed his ego and paid for his foolishness with his life. Likewise, Ian Cranston chose to engage Washington and stood his ground, only to be attacked and now finds himself defending his decision to protect himself. One was carried by six, the other on the verge of being judged by 12. I wouldn’t want to be either of them.

Some fights are worth having, but this wasn’t one of them. Learn from it so you can make it home in one piece without becoming a target for persecution by the Regime.

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!