Dear KMAG: 20191102 Open Topic

It sounds so familiar but I can’t place it. Almost like something that would be used in a Trump campaign video?

“Antifa Terrorists Stalk Journalist Andy Ngo at His Home on Halloween—Ringing his Doorbell and Banging on Windows in Andy Ngo Masks”
_______________
Andy Ngo should get a copy of ‘Deadly Force‘ by Massad Ayoob. If he is threatened by a mob, the law allows him to defend himself with deadly force if necessary.
Certainly when threatened by a mob in your own home, as the case below demonstrates.

Excerpt:
………………………………
Disparity of force can take many forms. Force of numbers is one of the most common. A signifi cant disparity of size and strength is another. Male attacking female, adult violently attacking child, and able-bodied attacking the handicapped also constitute disparity of force. So does highly skilled hand-to-hand fighter attacking the less-skilled.
So does position of disadvantage, in which the law-breaking attacker has a huge tactical and/or physical advantage other than disparity of size, strength, or skill as the assault unfolds. Because so few people among the general public, who constitute the jury pool, understand this – and because so
many attorneys never even hear the term “disparity of force” in law school – it is important to discuss it here in detail.
Force of Numbers
The law has long since recognized that when two or more criminals attack a lone victim, their physical and tactical advantage is so great their single victim is likely to suffer death or grave bodily harm if the attack is not stopped immediately. (And, of course, the innocent victim has no prudent reason to believe that the attack will be stopped before that point by his or her violent assailants.)
A classic case in this vein was Michigan versus Ossian Sweet, in 1925. Dr. Sweet was a black physician in Michigan, in a time when segregation was law in the South, and “practice if not law” even in the North. He and his wife Gladys purchased a home in a Detroit neighborhood that was “all-white.” Hellish racial animosity ensued, and rose to the level of deadly threat.
On the day in question, Dr. Sweet had been so alarmed he had bought guns for the friends and relatives who came to his home to protect him. Hostile
crowds formed, at first held back by local police. When the mob began to storm the house, fi rst throwing rocks through the windows, the defenders inside opened fi re. One white man was killed, and another wounded.
Murder charges resulted. Legendary attorney Clarence Darrow took the case for the defense. In the chain of trials that followed, all of the defenders were ultimately exonerated, either by verdicts of not guilty or by prosecutorial dismissal of charges.
Not long after this trial, the classic legal text Warren on Homicide appeared, in 1938. This was the authoritative text destined to become known as “The Bible of Homicide Law” among lawyers and judges. The author(s) made it clear that when an individual faced a mob bent on doing violence to him or his compatriots, each member of that mob shared the culpability of the entire organism of the mob…and, therefore, was equally and individually fair game for the defensive violence suffered at the hands of the lawful defender(s).
One would have thought that would have decided the issue…and one would be wrong. It has long been a societal norm in the entertainment media, from books to “moving pictures” to the entertainment and even news media of today that “only a cowardly murderer would shoot/stab/ kill” an “unarmed man.” We live in a society where media memes have so overpowered collective logic, and even long-established law and case law precedent, that it takes a full-blown trial for the truth to come out, and for law and
justice to prevail.”
………………………………………………………..