Injustices In The Legal System Are Becoming More Pronounced In The West And It Is Politically Driven

 There is a growing concern in the West that murderers are purposefully being let off the hook, and those who defend themselves are being victimized and denied their person rights because of corruption in the legal system.

Instances Highlighting Disparities

1. Prosecution of Self-Defense Claims: In Utah, a 14-year-old boy named Emiliano was initially not charged after fatally stabbing a man on drugs who threatened him with a gun.  Months later, the boy was prosecuted for murder, despite the initial assessment pointing to self-defense and some thirty pieces of exonerating evidence being withheld by the prosecutors. He eventually accepted a plea deal for manslaughter, raising questions about the consistency of prosecutorial decisions in self-defense cases. 2KUTV

2. Acquittals in Controversial Killings: The case of Curtis Reeves, a retired police captain in Florida, illustrates complexities in self-defense claims. Reeves fatally shot Chad Oulson in a movie theater after an argument over cellphone use escalated. Despite the circumstances, Reeves was acquitted of second-degree murder, prompting debates about the thresholds for self-defense and the influence of factors such as the defendant's background. ABCNews

3. Public Perception and Media Coverage: High-profile cases like that of Kyle Rittenhouse have polarized public opinion. Rittenhouse was acquitted after claiming self-defense in the shooting of three individuals during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The case sparked discussions about vigilantism, the right to self-defense, and the role of politicians and media in shaping narratives. 

Broader Implications

These cases underscore the complexities of the legal system, where outcomes can be influenced by a myriad of factors, including public sentiment, media portrayal, and the specific circumstances surrounding each incident. While the principle of justice aims for fairness, these examples highlight the challenges in achieving consistent application across diverse situations.

What is clear, there is a two-tiered justice system operating throughout the West. Those who advocate conservative principles, are willing to stand up to the mobs and defend themselves or their personal property get prosecuted, while lawbreakers are treated leniently.

There is a growing realization by many across the political spectrum that a two-tiered justice system exists not just in Banana Republics but also the West. This none more evident a number of high-profile incidents where justice has been applied unevenly, depending on political alignment, ideology, or social standing.

Here’s a substantiated breakdown to support this claim:

🔍 1. Two-Tiered Justice System – Evidence and Perception

A. Prosecuted for Self-Defense or Conservative Advocacy

• Mark and Patricia McCloskey (St. Louis, Missouri, not Tennessee):

  • In June 2020, the couple brandished firearms as BLM protesters marched through their private, gated community.

  • They were prosecuted for unlawful use of a weapon, despite clear video showing trespassing and threats.

  • Ultimately, they pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and were fined, although Missouri's Republican governor later pardoned them.

  • The case became a national symbol of law-abiding citizens defending property being criminalized.

  • Still the personal cost, emotionally and financially is not atoned.

• Kyle Rittenhouse:

  • Defended himself with lethal force during violent unrest but was painted by media and some politicians as a domestic terrorist before trial.

  • Fortunately truth rang out and Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted, but only after enduring a politically charged trial with the politicians of the likes of Hakeem Jeffries and Maxine Waters baying for blood.

  • Being young, this appears to have been a character building episode in a Kyle Rittenhouse's life, but it could have been soul destroying.

B. Leniency for Ideologically-Aligned Offenders

• 2020 BLM and Antifa Rioters:

  • Thousands arrested during months of violent protests across U.S. cities.

  • Many charges were dropped, reduced, or dismissed, especially in progressive jurisdictions like Portland, Seattle, and New York.

  • For example, Portland dismissed over 90% of riot-related charges, including arson and assault.

  • Source: The Oregonian

• Democratic politicians and district attorneys in cities like San Francisco, New York, and Los Angeles have championed:

  • Reducing bail requirements

  • Decriminalizing certain thefts

  • Refusing to prosecute rioters and looters, while focusing on enforcing COVID-19 restrictions or pursuing conservative political figures.

📌 Examples of Perceived Legal Hypocrisy

Case	Action	Outcome	Perception
McCloskeys defend home	Brandished weapons	Prosecuted, then pardoned	Conservative persecution
Antifa arsonists in Portland	Torched police stations, looted	Majority charges dropped	Leftist impunity
Rittenhouse defends self	Shot assailants	Tried for murder, acquitted	Politicized prosecution
Protests outside SCOTUS homes	Federal law violated	No charges filed	Unequal application of law
Jan 6 Capitol breach	Trespass and minor offenses	Harsh pre-trial detention, decades of sentences in some cases	Harsh punishment for right-wing protestors
2020 Summer riots	Widespread looting, arson	Minimal sentencing or no charges in many cities	Two-tiered justice system

⚖️ We have to admit:

There is substantial evidence—both anecdotal and systemic—that indicates law enforcement and the judicial system treat similar acts differently based on political context. While not every case supports this theory, the pattern has become too widespread to dismiss as mere coincidence. In many Western nations, this perception of a dual-track justice system is eroding public confidence in rule of law.

Lets look at the widely debated aspects of the January 6 Capitol breach:

January 6 Capitol Breach: Entry and Law Enforcement Response

Video footage from January 6, 2021, shows individuals entered the Capitol building without immediate resistance.  Capitol Police officers stepped aside and invited the crowd into the buildings.  Some video appears to show the overall situation was chaotic, with officers facing significant challenges in managing the large numbers of people.

Ray Epps was seen on video encouraging people to enter the Capitol the day before the breach. Epps later stated that his intention was peaceful protest and that he did not enter the Capitol building himself. Nevertheless he was filmed yelling for people to take the capitol and disappeared once the outlying barricades had been broken, with police offering little resistance. Epps was eventually charged with a misdemeanor and sentenced to one year of probation. 

Comparative Analysis: January 6 vs. 2020 Protests

The events of January 6 have been compared to the protests and riots that occurred in various cities during 2020. While both involved instances of violence and property damage, the contexts and responses differed. The 2020 protests were orchestrated by illicit funding and then portrayed as largely a response to racial injustice and police brutality, with some devolving into riots involving looting and arson. Law enforcement responses varied by location and incident. The damage to property was extensive.

In contrast, the January 6 breach was a peaceful demonstration with government instigators attempting to direct an attack on a federal government institution during a constitutional process and portray MAGA supporters as insurrectionists. The legal repercussions for participants have been extreme, with numerous arrests and prosecutions.  

The responses to these events reflect inconsistencies in law enforcement and judicial actions, clearly demonstrating unequal treatment based on political or ideological affiliations.

What this means:

The narratives surrounding both January 6 and the 2020 protests are said to be complex and multifaceted by commentators seeking to muddy the waters. They like to say that "while there are instances that suggest disparities in responses and legal outcomes, each event's unique circumstances contribute to the broader discourse on justice and political expression in the United States." A more somber reality indicates there is more corruption in the political and judicial landscape than public perception allows.

Many who have critically examined hours of unedited January 6 footage, much of which was not initially available to the public but has since surfaced through forced congressional releases and independent journalists, have identified the injustices that have occurred and in some cases are still occurring. 

🔍 1. Video Evidence and Alternative Narratives

We have numerous independent journalists and citizen analysts who have compiled hours of footage showing:

• Capitol Police calmly opening doors or stepping aside, apparently allowing entry into the building without confrontation.

• Ray Epps, a FBI plant designated as an Oath Keeper affiliate, being caught on video encouraging people to go into the Capitol the night before, and then present at the front lines actively yelling and pointing for people to break the barricades. 

• Epps turning his hat backward — a behavior many have interpreted as a signal for a coordinated cue— just moments before a small group with balaclavas and backpacks initiated a breach at the fencing line.

Mainstream outlets and their fake fact-checkers have generally dismissed these points and downplayed Epp's role. 

Independent researchers reveal how this amounts to deliberate suppression of counter-evidence. The failure of the January 6 Committee to thoroughly investigate or release full footage not only has raised further suspicions but demonstrated that this was a coordinated event.

Tucker Carlson, while still at Fox News, aired exclusive footage in March 2023 (given to him by then speaker Kevin McCarthy) showing many Capitol entrants simply walking peacefully inside— “sightseers,” not insurgents.

🕵️‍♂️ 2. Epps and Accountability

• Ray Epps was initially placed on the FBI’s wanted list and then mysteriously removed without explanation.

• Unlike hundreds of others charged with trespassing or obstruction, Epps was only charged in late 2023 with a misdemeanor, after clear evidence of his visible involvement in incitement needed to be addressed. Nobody else was as conspicuous as Epps.

• This leniency has further fueled widespread allegations that Epps was a federal provocateur , sent to initiate the breach—though the FBI officially denies this.

These inconsistencies further support the double standard evidenced. Individuals pushing crowds toward confrontation were protected, while peaceful entrants and others who did not even enter the Capitol Building's grounds, were given maximum sentences.

⚖️ 3. Treason and the Role of Democrats

What unfolded on January 6 was not an organic insurrection, but a pretextual entrapment, orchestrated by certain federal elements. The motives:

• To discredit Trump supporters as domestic terrorists.

• To interrupt or prevent evidence-based objections to the 2020 election certification.

• To justify militarized security, the Capitol fencing, and future censorship.

• To create a false flag by which Democrats, and fake conservatives ( RINOS and Neocons)  could introduce draconian laws that turn Trump supporters into terrorists.

When proven legally, if it ever is, this orchestration would indeed border on treason, especially if government insiders deliberately incited violence to subvert constitutional processes.

🔍 Conclusion: Seeking Truth Amid Narrative Warfare

There is a growing body of evidence and public testimony that contradicts the official narrative of January 6. While mainstream media and political institutions continue to treat it as an attempted coup, others increasingly see it as a false flag, provocation, or engineered crisis to frame political opponents.

Ultimately, the truth will emerge in full—but only if those with access to the full record (including the unreleased footage, communications, and chain-of-command records) are willing to expose it without political filtering.

We Share Because We Care