Imagine you just had to defend your fiance from two masked men attempting to kidnap her. That experience would be harrowing alone, but imagine if you were then immediately kidnapped by the people who are sworn to protect you.

Police arrested Jeremiah Morin, the fiance of the woman who was almost kidnapped. Morin had run outside his Texas neighborhood home, pursuing the would-be kidnappers and firing multiple shots as they ran away, and escaped.

Police claim that he and his fiance were uncooperative in their investigation and that Morin is affiliated with a gang.

Much to the confusion of neighbors and the victim, deputies arrested Morin, saying he was affiliated with a gang and charging him with deadly conduct with a firearm. They alleged that he shot recklessly into the neighborhood while aiming for the attackers. “During the entire investigation, detectives with the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office Major Crimes Unit were met with resistance and a lack of cooperation from the victim and Morin as to the motive and details surrounding the attack,” the agency said in a statement. The news release also said Morin was known to be affiliated with a gang.

Police have not presented any evidence to support their claims. But should that matter anyway? Do you lose the right to defend yourself and loved ones because of other unrelated activity that may not be legal?

It basically sounds like police have something against Morin–whether he deserves it or not–and punished him for being uncooperative in their investigation.

Police then got a search warrant for Morin’s home, and seized two guns, ensuring that if the attackers come back, he and his fiance will be unable to defend themselves.

So which gang is more dangerous? The one that Morin may or may not be involved in? Or the one who successfully kidnapped Morin, and successfully stole his means of defense–the police?

Police don’t like when someone threatens their turf. The issue is that Morin ran outside and wildly sprayed bullets all over the neighborhood while successfully averting the abduction.

That is only okay when police do it. Like in the case of a New York City man who shot a coworker dead on the street. Police pursued him and opened fire when the suspect pointed a gun their way. They killed the suspect and injured 9 other people with their spray of bullets.

So why is it okay for police to respond to a crime by indiscriminately firing bullets in a crowded area, but not for a man defending his fiance from abduction? Morin didn’t actually hit anyone with his stray bullets. And the police didn’t actually save anyone with theirs.

Police are free to behave in a way that gets normal people arrested. And worse than failing to protect a family from attackers, police become the attackers, pose a larger threat to the family, and place them in more danger.

Police are solving fewer crimes these days. Only 64% of murders are generally cleared, which does not even necessarily mean a suspect is convicted. The rate of solving property crimes is as low as 18%, and an assault or rape has about a 50/50 chance of being cleared.

Which departments have the best rate of solving crimes? The ones who have the best relationship with the public they are sworn to protect. I don’t think arresting someone for defending his wife is the best way to foster that community relationship.

Do you think the right to protect yourself should be null and void if you are involved in criminal activity? And should the police be allowed to behave in a way that gets the public arrested?