The Constitutional Question in the Case of Daniel Penny

Progressive socialist leftists believe criminals who violate rights are more protected than law-abiding citizens. What do citizens do when threatened by criminals released onto our streets?

EXCERPT:

This case is important because it brings forth a very relevant constitutional question. Do Americans have a constitutional right to protect themselves? I refer back to the essay titled “The Law” written by French economist Frederic Bastiat circa 1830. He postulated that the purpose of the law was to protect the life, liberty, and property of citizens. As John Locke has written in his natural rights theory, it was natural that the rights of life, liberty, and property were endowed by the Creator to each individual. Bastiat advanced the idea that it would be chaotic if we were to all seek to enforce our very own law in protecting said rights, so we bestow upon the government our collective permission to protect such.

But what happens when the government abdicates that responsibility and decides, based upon some delusional ideology, whose rights are to be protected?

Consider in Minnesota the ruling of their State Supreme Court that one must seek to extricate themselves (flee) from a threatening situation as their first recourse. If not, any act of self-defense could be prosecuted.

---