Framing theft and electric shock

Here we have a man trespassing on private property, attempting to steal someone’s property, and then receiving a mild electric shock for his wickedness.

It might be staged, but its the framing that is interesting, including my own.

The lefties in the responses try to frame the sign owner as some kind of psycho, ignoring and completely dismissing the obvious crimes being committed, or even trying to pretend that it was the property owner committing a crime.

They also continually reveal both their dishonesty and/or ignorance.

It was a mild shock, the kind that you would get from a DC electric dog barrier. He didn’t plug the sign into an AC outlet and there is no “grounding” that would make the scene staged as a result. In effect, a perpetrator would suffer no damages.

Why would anyone electrify a sign?

Because they are stolen constantly. The left has no standards of behavior and ethics, which is, by the way, their greatest strength when judging outcomes. They are fully justified stealing Trump signs because… orange man bad. Likewise, any other political banner from the right side of things is fair game. Silencing political speech isn’t even an afterthought – anything that demoralizes the enemy or reduces the reach of his speech is not only acceptable, it is both commendable and obligatory.

I could conceivably see that a lefty, when seeing this, might be confused, since they have never had their pro-abortion signs stolen off of their own lawn. This is because the right has standards of behavior while the left does not – Christians don’t steal signs. This is the left’s own ignorance, but I think with most people pretending sign theft isn’t a thing, they are simply being dishonest about it.

The first time I remember sign theft really being a thing was about 20 years ago, when California passed a constitutional amendment that defined legal marriage as between one man and one woman.

The pro-gay mobsters were out in force prior to the election, stealing and vandalizing any house that had signage up in support of the amendment. My parents had their sign stolen. I remember a student was sent home for wearing the signs on his shirt, a violation of his speech rights, because the handful of gay students objected.

It’s been non-stop since then – have any right-wing identifying signage or messaging on your property and you risk vandalism and theft.

Ultimately this framing boils down to a particular strategy of the left – using the process-oriented ethics of the right against them. They have no process-focused ethics of any kind – everything is in service to the socialist ends – but they will demand that their opponents stick to their rulebook.

It’s the man who protects his property with force who is the psycho, you see, not the leftist who tries to steal or destroy said property with force.

Aside: this marriage law was a state constitutional amendment that the California court declared unconstitutional – wrap your head around that one. The SCOTUS refused (rightly) to hear the case as it was a state’s right; the California court effectively re-wrote the constitution on a whim and there is no legislative or democratic contingency for that. Also interesting – this may have excised the amendment from the state constitution, but as far as I know gay marriage (or any other arrangement, like polygamy) has never ACTUALLY been legalized. Gay marriage licenses are issued, but the legislature has never actually been forced to legislate legal gay marriage in California. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.