In any republic, government officials are supposed to be the "grown-ups in the room." When officials escalate a non-threatening situation into a bloodbath, they aren’t "enforcing the law" — they become guilty of a total loss of mastery, training, and temperament.
The Inherent Right of Self-Defense
As a retired Navy Veteran, I have had more than my share of combat and weapon schools. The goal is always the same: De-escalate to stop a threat. That means using the minimum amount of force necessary and putting your feelings to the side. I know, it is easier said than done. But missing this crucial temperance and escalating a situation even by mistake turns even a safe environment exponentially unsafe for everyone involved.
We need to be clear about a fundamental truth: The inherent right of self-defense belongs to everyone, not just those wearing a badge. In the USA, we've seen a lot of right-wing 2nd Amendment folks screaming that for a long time. I personally don't condone violence of any kind — and will always advocate for de-escalation to mitigate things from going from bad to worse.
In an era where impersonation of officials is a documented reality, it would be naive to ascertain that any normal citizen would automatically surrender their life to an aggressive, masked, or unidentified threat. That is why in every functional society, law enforcement uses distinctive uniforms and identifiers. For anybody who signed the dotted line to defend the US Constitution, you accepted a sacrifice as a service - not a "job." I signed it more than once each time I reenlisted, and I understood the rules. But that sacrifice does not include the right to waste lives because of a "flight or fight" response you haven't mastered — or because somebody in charge makes a miscalculated decision. If you are too afraid to do the job without brutalizing the public you're supposed to defend, you have a duty to resign - otherwise you might make a mistake you're not ready to mitigate.
The Deadly Force Triangle (The Multipliers)
To understand if a threat is real, those entrusted with a government-issued weapon and positional authority use the Deadly Force Triangle. Think of these as multipliers; if one side is zero, the whole equation is zero. Meaning: don't shoot or escalate unless a threat is evident - and evident is a complex term. That is why we are supposed to train and test folks before going out in the field.
The correct answer to these questions is imperative before deciding on the use of force:
- Capability: Does the person have the means (weapons, size, or skill) to cause death or serious harm?
- Opportunity: Are they in a position to use that ability right now?
- Intent: Are they acting in a way that manifests a clear desire to kill or cripple? This is the hardest to prove and often where fear-blinded officials fail.
Remember that an untrained civilian will be asking themselves the very same questions — even if they cannot articulate them exactly as defined here. "Fearing for my life" is not a one-way street. That is why those trained must be professionals and de-escalate. If a government official acts aggressively, starts screaming insults, or loses temperament — resulting in shoving, kicking, or using any weapons whatsoever — that is escalation. And yes, it is not only unprofessional, but also illegal under the following statutes:
- 18 U.S.C. § 242: Deprivation of rights under color of law (Makes it a crime for a government official to willfully deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution).
- 34 U.S.C. § 12601: Pattern or Practice (Prohibits law enforcement officers from engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights).
- The Fourth Amendment: Protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," which includes the use of excessive force during an arrest or investigatory stop.
- The Eighth Amendment: Prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments" (Relevant once a person is in custody).
And of course, each locality has its own rules under their jurisdiction. Federal forces also have to abide by local statutes. In case you were wondering - in the USA, a charge under a State cannot be pardoned by the US President.
The Stanford Trap
In 1971, the Stanford Prison Experiment proved that unlimited power corrupts absolutely. When "guards" (voluntary students) were made to believe they were better than "prisoners" (also voluntary students) these "guards" quickly began to dehumanize and abuse those they were supposed to supervise. The experiment was supposed to last two weeks; it abruptly ended six days later because of the cruelty. We have seen this "Stanford Trap" manifest on the streets — abroad and now normalized in the USA. When an agency redacts the truth and protects its "weakest links," it sends a message that the weakest link is now the standard.
A Self-Inflicted Wound
Violence has no place in America — Period. Ironically, we are seeing unarmed citizens act like the adults, taking the brunt of violence at the hands of government forces and de-escalating, while masked agents act like emotionally compromised and scared children.
Let me illustrate with a simple analogy. If a teacher sees an altercation between a couple of kids, it is the teacher's duty as the adult in the room to de-escalate the situation using their experience and positional authority. If the teacher instead stoops to the level of the students, the situation will escalate, and the very person required to diffuse the situation becomes a catalyst for deterioration instead of the solution. This is not hard to understand.
A non-tyrannical government is supposed to de-escalate — period. When those given a gun and positional authority don't, they are brewing their own demise by validating the very fears they are supposed to protect us from. Whether you are a liberal or a "red-meat" conservative, the rule is the same: The one with the most power has the most responsibility to keep the peace. Anything less is a self-inflicted wound on our Constitutional Republic. BZV
About the Author: J. Marcelo "BeeZee" Baqueroalvarez
🔗 Connect & Learn More: Visit Marcelo's comprehensive landing page for his extended bio, social links, consulting form, and more.
J. Marcelo "BeeZee" Baqueroalvarez is the Founder of Half Life Crisis™, a unique father-daughter collaboration dedicated to the relentless pursuit of intellectual honesty, critical thinking, geopolitical strategy, and meaningful art. Marcelo is the recognized author of the essential reads, Authoritarianism & Propaganda and Woke & Proud, driving challenging conversations worldwide. When not publishing, Marcelo utilizes his strategic insight in technology and business as the founder of BeeZee Vision, LLC™, which includes BZVweb™ Automated Web Services and Info in Context™ strategic consulting.
Continue the Conversation
We encourage intellectual debate! To maintain a clean, focused reading experience, comments have been disabled on this article. Share your insights, counterarguments, or continue the discussion on your preferred social platform:
