In Empoli, Italy, four burglars invaded a hair salon, where two women and an expert in Chinese martial arts, acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine, worked.

The four burglars roped up the three people and looted the place. Disappointed in their findings, the burglars threatened to rape the two women if they didn’t show them where more cash was.

At that point, the 28 yr old unarmed man, known as the “Doctor,” freed himself, captured a knife from one of his attackers, and did some lethal damage. The Chinese martial arts expert killed two of the armed burglars and seriously wounded a third. One man was found sprawled on a staircase with a wound to his chest. Another was found bleeding to death from stabs to his leg in the driveway.

This is exactly the kind of resolve necessary when your life is in danger. When your life or property is threatened, you have the moral right to defend yourself, regardless of who dies, and excessive force be damned!

Well, now here is the bad news. Officials are now investigating whether or not The Doctor used, indeed, “excessive force.”

The fact that the police are even investigating “excessive force,” used against intruding burglars threatening to rape two women, is unbelievable and incredibly telling of the justice system in this town.

Indeed, it is quite frightening when the criminal is not identified as the person who violated private property rights, but the person who defended private property. It is a sign of statism – in which individual crimes against people are treated lightly, but crimes against the state or defending against attack are treated harshly.

Trying this man for “excessive force” is based on the stupid notion that one has to fight fair with a criminal. No, there is no such thing. A man has a right to protect himself. Criminals do not have rights: certainly not to a fair fight where one won’t punch to kill.

You would think, especially in this world of liberalism, that there would be some sort of “good intention” law to protect this man (although there doesn’t have to be one, since defending your property is sufficient enough reason).

However, having “good intentions” only seems to apply when setting up a Communist Utopia, and a few million innocent people have to die. Killing people when they are good guys is OK under the good intention rule but not killing bad guys.

And, of course, the good intention law would assume that the man should have the supposed “good intention” of trying to ward off criminals but not kill them. No, this is not a “good intention.” The good intention that he had is that he was protecting himself, his property, and two women.

And indeed, observe something: that’s exactly what his good intention was – to save himself and the women – and he succeeded. And it is for this that he is being punished.

If this man had wanted to save the two women but failed, there is little doubt in my mind that he would be regarded as a hero with good intentions. But he didn’t fail; he succeeded. Something absurd is thus drawn out: an impotent man would have been hailed as a hero; the successful man is treated as a criminal. This man isn’t being punished for any other crime except his ability. (And when it is one unarmed man against four armed men, there is only one way to effectively immobilize them: kill at least a few of them).

Of course, statists all over the world would like nothing more for a population that might have good intentions against intruders, but were completely impotent in their ability to ward them off. I see this case as just yet another example of statists leaving the population impotent, unarmed, and vulnerable.

The fact that this man is awaiting a trial is despicable. This man should be a hero, not a criminal. What really sets this guy apart is that he didn’t rise up to the occasion until the burglars threatened to rape the two women, at which point he broke free and did lethal damage (although if he killed the criminals to save himself, this is still a legitimate reason). The justice system in this town is sending a clear message to men everywhere: don’t protect women. Don’t take solving crimes into your own hands. Let yourself be pillaged then live forever as a martyred individual.

When I heard this story, I couldn’t help but thinking of Bogota, Columbia, the town which has a “Night Without Men,” a night in which a mayor ordered all men to stay at home while their wives and girlfriends went out. The alleged purpose is to “cut down on street crime and domestic abuse.”

The “Doctor” shows clearly what is needed for women to be safe from street crime and rapists: male protection. If it weren’t for the rebellious, non-obedient man, the two passive, unarmed women would have been raped.

The “Night Without Men” doesn’t stop bad guys; it stops good guys. It isn’t rapists and burglars who will stay home, for they don’t care about laws anyway. It is the women’s husbands and boyfriends, i.e. their protectors, who are being forced to stay home. This, effectively, leaves a huge swarm of unarmed, vulnerable women out on the town. This is an open invitation to allow any fox to invade the hen house.

My prediction regarding the “Night Without Men,” is that crimes against women will not decrease but increase. It will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I believe the goals of both criminalizing the Doctor and forcing the Bogota men to stay home are the same. Rob society of good men by criminalizing them. Meanwhile, leave women unprotected, thus open to any person who wants to rape, pillage, and loot them and society.

I do not believe the war on men was a war started by bitter women who only want to see men suffer. It was started by socialists to remove the protectors, rebels, and ultimate defenders against an invading government. They want a complacent and obedient population, which is much easier to do with a nation of primarily women, effeminated men, and where all rebels are thrown in jail.

I am asking all men to take a look at the bigger picture regarding what is happening with men being criminalized. These are not measures aimed at men solely to criminalize men, but aimed at both men and women, and will ultimately destroy both sexes’ rights. It is meant to destroy intimate relationships between men and women, create a rape culture, break down the family, and leave the population vulnerable and easily manipulated by the state.

This is not a men versus women thing. It is a state versus the people thing.