Our Current ZEITGEIST: When Self-Defense Becomes a Crime
How Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty Became an Accessory to Mob Violence
By Russ Hamilton
On December 27, 2024, at the Whipple Federal Building in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, a man peacefully waving an American flag was assaulted with an acoustic weapon, stalked when he tried to retreat, and then attacked by a mob. When he defended himself, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty charged him with fifth-degree assault while filing zero charges against his attackers.
This isn’t prosecutorial discretion. This is prosecutorial corruption.
And it reveals everything about the moment we’re living in—what I’m calling The Zeitgeist: an era where institutional power inverts justice, the Predominant Media Cultists amplify the lies, and citizens learn that defending yourself from mob violence is now a crime if you’re on the wrong side of the approved narrative.
Let me show you exactly what happened, what the law says, and how a county attorney became complicit in the crimes she refuses to prosecute. And be sure to keep reading below!
THE EVIDENCE: What The Video Actually Shows
I’ve watched the video multiple times. Here’s what happened, frame by frame:
THE INITIAL ASSAULT:
The video opens with protesters shouting “Nazi” at counter-protesters. A man with a bullhorn approaches Zak X, age 36, who is peacefully waving an American flag.
I’m going to call this assailant “BHG” (Bullhorn Guy) throughout this article because neither the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office nor the media will identify him by name. They’ve chosen to protect the identity of the actual perpetrator while fully exposing the victim they’re prosecuting. Remember that.
BHG holds the bullhorn directly against Zak X’s ear and begins shouting through it.
This is assault with a weapon. Commercial bullhorns reach 100-112 decibels. At 105+ decibels, hearing damage occurs within minutes of close exposure. Medical experts confirm this can cause acoustic trauma leading to temporary or permanent hearing loss. BHG is using a device capable of inflicting bodily harm as a weapon against Zak X’s person.
X tries to turn away. This is his first attempt to retreat—his first attempt to de-escalate and avoid confrontation.
BHG follows him and continues the assault with the bullhorn.
X pushes BHG’s arm away defensively. Minimal force. Proportionate response to stop the assault.
BHG persists. He moves the bullhorn back toward X’s ear.
X pushes BHG’s arm away again, harder this time. The bullhorn falls from BHG’s hand.
Here’s what’s critical: Zak X verbalizes, “This is an assault!”
He’s not confused. He’s not the aggressor. He knows he’s the victim of a crime and he’s calling it out. This statement alone demolishes any claim that X was seeking confrontation or acting as an aggressor.
THE WEAPON RETRIEVAL MOMENT:
BHG steps back and bends down to retrieve the bullhorn—the weapon he just used to assault Zak X.
What would any reasonable person believe in this moment? That BHG is giving up? Or that he’s retrieving his weapon to continue the assault?
X sidesteps and strikes BHG in the stomach.
The Hennepin County Attorney’s charging document calls this a “blind-side attack.” But here’s what they won’t tell you: preventing an assailant from retrieving the weapon they just used against you is textbook justified force. The threat doesn’t end when someone temporarily loses their weapon if they’re actively trying to get it back.
THE MOB ASSAULT:
After X prevents BHG from rearming, several protesters rush forward to attack him.
Let me be clear about what happens next: Zak X is attacked by multiple individuals in rapid succession. He defends himself against each attacker as they approach or charge him.
Attacker #1 moves forward. X punches him. He flees.
Attacker #2 squares up to punch X. X defends himself.
Attacker #3 runs at X. X defends himself.
X backs away from the crowd. This is his second retreat attempt.
Attacker #4 runs at him. X defends, knocking him down.
Attacker #5 moves toward him. X defends.
Attacker #2 returns and attacks again. X punches him three times.
Someone rushes forward and pushes X to the ground.
Video ends.
Count the attacks. Multiple individuals, multiple assault attempts, sustained mob violence against one man.
Count X’s retreat attempts. He tried to turn away from BHG initially. He backed away from the mob before they continued pursuing him.
Count the charges filed against X’s attackers by Mary Moriarty.
Zero.
THE LAW: Minnesota Self-Defense Statute
Minnesota law recognizes the right to use reasonable force in self-defense. Under Minnesota Statutes § 609.06 and established case law (State v. Basting, 572 N.W.2d 281), a valid self-defense claim requires:
Absence of aggression or provocation by the defendant
Actual and honest belief of imminent danger of bodily harm
Reasonable grounds for that belief
Absence of reasonable possibility of retreat (duty to retreat)
Force used must not exceed what is necessary (proportionality)
Let’s examine each element:
ELEMENT 1: NO AGGRESSION BY ZAK X
✓ Satisfied. X was peacefully waving an American flag—protected First Amendment expression. BHG approached him unprovoked and initiated physical contact with a weapon. X attempted to disengage by turning away. X verbally identified that he was being assaulted. Every action X took was defensive.
ELEMENT 2: HONEST BELIEF IN IMMINENT DANGER
✓ Satisfied.
BHG held an acoustic weapon against his ear causing pain and potential injury
BHG pursued him when he tried to retreat
BHG attempted to retrieve the weapon after temporarily losing it
Multiple individuals rushed him in coordinated mob attack
He was outnumbered and surrounded
Any reasonable person in these circumstances would honestly believe they faced imminent bodily harm.
ELEMENT 3: REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
✓ Satisfied. The threat wasn’t subjective or paranoid:
Bullhorns at 105+ decibels cause documented hearing damage
An assailant retrieving a weapon just used against you signals continued threat
Multiple people charging you simultaneously poses obvious danger of injury
Being outnumbered eliminates tactical options besides aggressive defense
ELEMENT 4: DUTY TO RETREAT
✓ Satisfied. Minnesota requires attempting retreat before using force. X tried to retreat at least twice:
First attempt: Turned away from BHG, who followed and continued the assault
Second attempt: Backed away from the mob, who pursued and continued attacking
Minnesota law doesn’t require you to run indefinitely while being chased by attackers. When retreat fails because aggressors pursue you, the duty to retreat is satisfied. X exhausted his reasonable retreat options.
ELEMENT 5: PROPORTIONATE FORCE
✓ Satisfied.
Against BHG: X initially used minimal force (pushing arms away). Only escalated when BHG retrieved the weapon.
Against the mob: X defended against each attacker individually as they approached or charged. He used strikes to neutralize threats, not excessive force after threats were neutralized.
Context matters: When defending against multiple attackers, you must incapacitate threats quickly or risk being overwhelmed. This is basic tactical reality.
CONCLUSION: Zak X satisfied every element of Minnesota’s self-defense statute. This is textbook justified self-defense.
So why was he charged?
THE INVERSION: Mary Moriarty’s Statement
Here’s what Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said when announcing charges against Zak X:
“The defendant engaged in political violence, assaulting a protestor whose views he disagreed with. This behavior has consequences, and we will hold him accountable. We are committed to protecting the right to nonviolent protest.”
Read that again.
Moriarty claims she’s “protecting the right to nonviolent protest” while prosecuting a man who was peacefully waving a flag—the actual nonviolent protest—and defending himself from assault and mob violence.
This is narrative inversion—a complete reversal of reality:
MORIARTY’S CLAIM: X engaged in “political violence” against a “protestor”
THE EVIDENCE: X was peacefully expressing himself; BHG committed violent assault with a weapon; multiple protesters committed mob violence
MORIARTY’S CLAIM: She’s “protecting the right to nonviolent protest”
THE EVIDENCE: She’s prosecuting the victim of violence while shielding the perpetrators—thereby encouraging future violence against anyone on the wrong side of her political preferences
MORIARTY’S CLAIM: X “assaulted a protestor whose views he disagreed with”
THE EVIDENCE: X defended himself from a weaponized assault he tried twice to escape, then defended himself from mob attack
This isn’t a difference of opinion about the facts. This is prosecutorial fiction contradicted by video evidence.
THE ACCESSORY: Moriarty’s Obstruction of Justice
Under Minnesota Statute 609.495, an accessory after the fact is someone who, knowing a crime has been committed, takes action to shield the perpetrator from prosecution with intent to hinder apprehension or punishment.
What crimes does the video document?
Assault with a weapon (BHG using bullhorn against X’s ear)
Harassment/Stalking (BHG pursuing X after retreat attempts)
Interference with civil rights (BHG suppressing X’s First Amendment expression through violence)
Gang assault/Mob violence (multiple individuals attacking X)
What did Mary Moriarty do?
✓ She knows these crimes occurred (video evidence is clear and public)
✓ She filed zero charges against any perpetrator (shielding them from prosecution)
✓ She charged their victim instead (hindering justice by inverting perpetrator/victim roles)
By prosecuting Zak X while ignoring overwhelming video evidence of crimes committed against him, Moriarty has made herself complicit in those crimes. She has:
Protected actual criminals from consequences
Signaled to like-minded actors they can commit violence with impunity
Weaponized her office against citizens exercising constitutional rights
Obstructed justice by inverting the roles of perpetrator and victim
This goes beyond prosecutorial discretion. This is prosecutorial corruption.
THE ACCOMPLICES: How the Predominant Media Cultists Amplified the Lie
Let me introduce you to terminology that will appear regularly in this publication.
Predominant Media Cultists (PMC): The institutional media structure that operates like a cult—adhering to narrative over evidence, excommunicating dissent, ritualistically repeating approved talking points, treating political positions as sacred doctrine, and demonstrating complete inability to self-correct or acknowledge error.
Journalistas: The individual operatives within the PMC structure who function as activists with press passes rather than actual journalists. They don’t investigate and report facts—they advance narratives and suppress inconvenient truths.
The journalistas who covered the Zak X case faithfully transmitted Moriarty’s narrative inversion while systematically burying the evidence:
What they emphasized:
X’s “multiple uppercut punches” (without context of mob attack)
X “balling his fist” in “blind-side attack” (ignoring weapon retrieval)
Moriarty’s “political violence” framing (without challenge or scrutiny)
What they buried:
X’s verbal identification: “This is an assault”
X’s multiple retreat attempts
BHG’s acoustic assault weapon use
BHG’s weapon retrieval attempt
The mob attack entirely
The fact that X satisfied every element of Minnesota self-defense law
What they protected:
BHG’s identity (never named, never charged)
The mob attackers’ identities (never named, never charged)
Moriarty’s narrative from scrutiny
The PMC didn’t report this story. They manufactured a false narrative to support political prosecution.
This is what journalistas do—they serve power rather than truth.
THE ZEITGEIST: What This Case Reveals
I’m calling this publication “The Zeitgeist” because cases like this one reveal the spirit of our age—the cultural and political moment we’re inhabiting.
Here’s where we are:
We live in an era where exercising constitutional rights gets you prosecuted while actual criminals get shielded. Where defending yourself from mob violence makes YOU the criminal. Where prosecutors weaponize their offices against political opponents while protecting political allies who commit crimes. Where the Predominant Media Cultists amplify prosecutorial lies rather than investigate them. Where journalistas function as state propagandists rather than watchdogs. Where video evidence gets memory-holed when it contradicts approved narratives.
This is THE Zeitgeist—institutional power inverted against citizens while claiming to protect rights.
The Zak X case is a microcosm. One incident. One man. One corrupt charging decision. One video that exposes the lie.
But multiply this by every jurisdiction where prosecutors make political charging decisions. Multiply it by every media outlet that amplifies rather than investigates. Multiply it by every citizen who learns that the system won’t protect them—and will prosecute them if they protect themselves.
What do you get?
You get Minneapolis 2020. You get the “Summer of Love.” You get emboldened aggressors who know the system protects them and deterred victims who know the system will punish them for defending themselves.
Mary Moriarty and prosecutors like her aren’t preventing violence. They’re engineering it.
By selectively prosecuting self-defense while shielding mob violence, they create a permission structure for escalation. They signal which side can commit crimes with impunity and which side will be punished for resisting.
This is how civil order collapses—not through lack of law enforcement, but through selective enforcement that inverts justice.
Minnesota leadership knows this. They lived through 2020. They know exactly what these enforcement patterns produce. If they’re repeating them, it’s not ignorance—it’s policy.
THE CURRENT STATUS: January 22, 2026 Arraignment
As of this writing, Zak X’s arraignment is scheduled for January 22, 2026—nine days from today. The outcome of that hearing will tell us whether Hennepin County intends to pursue this politically motivated prosecution or whether sanity will prevail.
What MUST happen:
All charges against Zak X must be dismissed immediately with prejudice
BHG must be identified and charged with assault with a weapon, harassment, stalking, and interference with civil rights
Every mob participant must be identified and charged with gang assault
Mary Moriarty must face:
Minnesota State Bar investigation for prosecutorial misconduct
Removal from office
Investigation for obstruction of justice
What will probably happen:
The system will protect itself. Moriarty will continue shielding her political allies. The journalistas will continue spinning. Zak X will be forced to spend thousands on legal defense while his attackers walk free.
And citizens will continue learning that defending yourself from mob violence is now a crime—if you’re on the wrong side of the approved narrative.
But here’s what CAN happen:
Video evidence doesn’t lie. The truth is documented. When enough people see what actually occurred versus what the PMC claims occurred, the narrative fails.
That’s why they fear independent journalism. That’s why they fear citizen video. That’s why they fear anyone who refuses to accept their inversions.
Either way, the video evidence is clear, and the truth is documented.
The truth is simple: Zak X defended himself from assault and mob violence. Everything else is a lie—a lie told by a corrupt prosecutor and amplified by complicit journalistas.
FINAL WORD
I spent over 30 years in corrections, including assignments at San Quentin and death row operations. I’ve watched institutional narratives diverge from ground truth thousands of times. I’ve seen incident reports that bore no resemblance to what body cameras showed. I’ve seen administrative findings that contradicted every witness account. I’ve seen official statements that inverted perpetrator and victim.
I know how narrative control works because I’ve spent decades documenting it.
What’s happening in jurisdictions like Hennepin County isn’t new. It’s the same institutional failure I’ve been writing about for years in CorrectionsOne magazine and my “Killing Complacency” newsletter—just applied to criminal prosecution instead of corrections operations.
But there’s a difference now: social media and independent journalism have broken the Predominant Media Cultists’ stranglehold on truth. We can document their lies in real time. We can show the video evidence they bury. We can expose the inversions they amplify.
That’s what “The Zeitgeist” is for—documenting the spirit of our age by exposing the gap between institutional narratives and documented reality.
The Zak X case is just the beginning.
Watch the video yourself. Form your own conclusions. Don’t let the PMC tell you what you saw.
And remember: In the current Zeitgeist, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
The January 22 arraignment will tell us whether Minnesota chooses justice or continues down the path toward engineered chaos. Either way, the truth is documented, and we’ll be watching.
More to come.
Russ Hamilton is a retired CDCR sergeant with over 30 years of corrections experience and a freelance investigative journalist specializing in correctional industry analysis and institutional accountability. He writes regularly for CorrectionsOne magazine and publishes “Killing Complacency” on Substack.
Video evidence of the December 27, 2024 incident is publicly available. Readers are encouraged to watch and form their own conclusions.
For updates on the January 22, 2026 arraignment and other Zeitgeist coverage, follow this publication.