As my colleague streiff covered yesterday, a protester was shot in New Mexico after he and a vicious mob attempted to kill a man on camera. How do I know their intentions? Because they were literally yelling to kill him.

Despite this being an obvious case of self-defense by the person who shot, Democrat New Mexico politicians took sides immediately. The mayor blamed the shooter and the governor vowed to go after the “instigator.”

The man has been charged with a crime for saving his own life.

ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico —  A 31-year-old man has been arrested and charged with aggravated battery in a shooting that happened as protesters in New Mexico’s largest city tried to tear down a bronze statue of a Spanish conquistador outside the Albuquerque Museum, police said Tuesday.

Vigilantes might have started the violence that led to the shooting during Monday night’s demonstration, authorities indicated, and the governor vowed to hold the “instigators” fully accountable.

Notice the double standard here. If a protester gets in someone’s face and threatens to kill them while beating them with a skateboard, that’s not “instigating.” That’s just peaceful protest which should always be left alone. But if someone shows up to counter protest and ends up having to defend themselves after getting attacked, they are an “instigator.” It’s almost like Democrat politicians only care about the exercising of rights for causes they care about.

If the line is going to be that the NM shooter who was defending himself from a mob beating him and yelling "kill him" is that he first "antagonized" the mob, does that mean it's now ok to beat protestors who antagonize people? Or can we just use some freaking common sense here?

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) June 16, 2020

Ironically, that’s the line being taken by most of the left who are denouncing this shooting. They make claims such as “the man with the gun didn’t have a right to be there” or that he was “antagonizing” the crowd. But he did have a right to be there, and are we really arguing that counter protesting makes attempted murder against a counter-protester acceptable? That sure seems to be the line being drawn here and it’s nonsensical.

Nonetheless, Albuquerque Police Chief Michael Grier said in a statement Tuesday that police were looking into whether the group possibly instigated the shooting.

“If this is true, (we) will be holding them accountable to the fullest extent of the law, including federal hate group designation and prosecution,” the chief added.

“I am horrified and disgusted beyond words,” Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said in a statement condemning the “heavily armed individuals who flaunted themselves at the protest, calling themselves a ‘civil guard.’ “

The men who were there trying to protect the statue, which the original protesters had tied a chain around to criminally destroy, had every right to be present. They had every right to carry weapons because New Mexico is an open carry state. We can argue about about the wisdom of being there, but that doesn’t negate someone’s rights, nor does it give the real vigilantes (those who attacked and said they were going to kill this guy) the right to respond with force without expecting to get any back.

We are living in an alternate reality where constitutional rights don’t matter and criminality is ignored via political whims. This the kind of environment that collapses countries and most are sitting idly by hoping it all just stops. It’s not going to stop.

I’m sure this man will have plenty of legal counsel, as this case will be a dream for 2nd Amendment activist groups. There’s absolutely nothing in the video that showed this was anything other than a rightful use of force to defend one’s self. If shooting an attacker in this situation, after a guy has just cracked a skateboard over one’s head, isn’t self-defense, then nothing is. Perhaps that’s the goal here for the left?