The Police Have No Obligation To Protect You. Yes, Really.
It’s a holiday. You’re at the beach with your family when you notice a man standing neck deep in the water. Something tells you he may be trying to commit suicide. Firemen and police officers soon arrive, but to your amazement, they do nothing, watching for an hour until the man finally succeeds. Then they refuse to collect his body. Disgusted, you swim out and pull the unfortunate man to shore.
Fanciful fiction? Unfortunately, no. On Memorial Day, 2011, a suicidal man stood in San Francisco Bay near Alameda in neck deep water for about an hour as many people watched. The man’s mother called 911 and police and firefighters responded but did nothing, and when the man finally drowned, they refused to enter the water to bring his body to shore. A bystander had to do it.
Firefighters blamed budget cuts, which did not allow them to properly train for cold-water rescues. The police said they didn’t know if the man was dangerous and therefore could not risk the safety of their officers. The bystander was apparently unencumbered by a lack of specific training and the fear that paralyzed the police.
Americans have come to believe that first responders, particularly the police, not only will protect them but have a duty to protect them. It is this belief that underpins arguments about gun control and every other nanny state social policy. Don’t worry, be happy for the benevolent state will provide for and protect you. Leave it to the experts.
In truth, the state can’t protect anyone and has no such legal obligation. As the citizens of Alameda discovered, the state has no conscience and can decide — on the spot — which services it will provide. A little-known yet vital Supreme Court case explains why.
June 22, 1999, 5:00 p.m., in Castle Rock, Colorado: Jessica Gonzalez’s three daughters, 7, 9, and 10, were playing in her yard. Without her knowledge or permission and against the conditions of a custody agreement and a restraining order, her estranged husband took the girls. Jessica called the police at 7:30 p.m., and two officers came to her home. She showed them copies of the custody agreement and the restraining order and begged them to enforce it and to return her daughters, but they told her they could do nothing and to call at 10:00 p.m. if the girls weren’t home.
Many police departments schedule shift change at 10 p.m. The officers were likely trying to put the call off on the following shift, a common practice for officers that don’t want to handle an annoying or potentially unproductive call.
Jessica spoke with Gonzalez by cell phone at about 8:30, and again called the police, who again refused to act. She called the police at 10:00, and they put her off until midnight. She called at midnight and again, the police did nothing.
Jessica drove to Gonzalez’s apartment, but finding no one home, called the police at 1:10 a.m. They promised to send an officer, but no one came. At 1:50 a.m. she again went to the police station and begged them to make an incident report. The officer taking her complaint actually did something: he went to dinner.
At about 3:20 a.m., Gonzalez arrived at the police station, determined to commit suicide by cop. With a handgun he bought hours earlier, he opened fire on the station. The police finally did their duties and granted Gonzalez his wish by returning fire and killing him.
But, due to the laziness of the Castle Rock Police, Gonzalez was able to realize an additional desire. Inside his pickup truck, parked nearby, police found the bodies of his daughters. Gonzalez shot them hours earlier.
This excellent article says many things that must be said and should be repeated endlessly. Even so, it does not go far enough.
Not only do the State’s armed employees have no duty to protect private citizens, individually or severally; the State has a positive incentive:
– To promote the fiction that the police are all the protection we require;
– To deprive us, through the mechanism of the law, of any alternatives.
Private security forces are heavily regulated, limited in size and equipment and compelled to work under severe constraints. Privately owned and borne handguns are subject to severe restrictions almost everywhere. Watch committees often get more scrutiny from the local police force than the criminals they were formed to deter.
The point, of course, is to leave the citizen helpless before the State, and helplessly dependent on it, such that the good will of the political elite becomes a survival necessity. Thanks to stalwart defenders of Second Amendment guarantees and the pre-existent mass of weapons in private hands, the process has not yet been driven to its logical conclusion,. Never doubt the aims or the resolve of the forces behind it.
Most tragically, a great many individual policemen have adopted the dictatorial-paternalistic attitude that undergirds the process. Such men are not your friends; beware them.
All true, and I would add, normally staffed by one of four types:
1. The Student. He doesn’t care. He’s just working his way through school.
2. The Retired. He doesn’t care. He’s just picking up a few extra bucks.
3. The Out of Work [fill in the blank]. He doesn’t care. He’s just trying to put bread on the table while he looks for a REAL job.
4. The Wannabe. He CARES! He couldn’t make the grade as a REAL cop, so this is the next best thing for his ego. And he’s going to show you his dedication. Fear him.
Remember, the police only show up *after* a crime has been committed.
As Robert Heinlein said, “An armed society is a polite society.”
Then the police need to publicly refuse to enforce laws which prevent the people from protecting themselves. I’m sick to death of people who excuse the cops who enforce gun control ordinances, arrest people for shooting burglars, etc. as though “I was just following orders” is some sort of ticket to escape moral condemnation for punishing a man or woman for defending themselves. No one is forcing them to work in such areas of the country.
The cops in places like DC and Chicago that make these things practically impossible are no better than mafia enforcers or other criminals when they enforce these laws.
Why don’t you offer some examples.
In reality, police are required to do certain things after a shooting. Put your ire where it belongs, on the DA if he chooses to punish an innocent person defending himself. I recently watched a case through conclusion where the DA did threaten the store clerk who fought back against a pistol whipping, and the cops defended him. But the police had no standing. of course. Now the clerk is being sued, by the thug who pistol whipped him.
Put blame where blame belongs, and you’ll almost always end up with the courts.
In reality, police are required to do certain things after a shooting.
That’s funny, considering that police are not required to respond to calls for help by citizens being victimized by criminals.
The policeman is required to serve the priorities of his chief, who in turn is required to serve the priorities of the mayor. A mayor is more likely to tolerate laziness than rebellion.
Put the ire on the DA? Do you imagine the police aren’t taking a paycheck to do these evil things?
I could have sworn the “I vas followink orders” defense was ruled out 60+ years ago.
Not quite. All war crime trials are show trials, giving the winners political cover to hang the losers. I’m not saying that the Nazis didn’t deserve to die, but we should have simply shot them on sight, as Sir Winston Churchill advised.
The principle that “might makes right” is the only principle that any government ever follows.
We would indeed be a lot better off without any police forces at all. The only functions that they fulfill are to protect the powerful and well-connected, and to protect criminals from our own efforts at defending ourselves.
The constant saw of “first responders” that we hear from the political hacks is as good at getting the mouth-breathing American public to agree to anything that follows it as is the phrase “global warming”.
Make your first responder a 1200 feet per second bullet. Then dial 911.
You might have to call 911 in the city but then the DA gets involved. Where I live you just fire up the backhoe and deal with the secondary problem that way. No fuss, no mess and no legal issues that cost you an arm and a leg.
Yada yada yada.
I sure get tired of hearing this juvenile crap from gun store commandos.
Most who talk this way would probably wet themselves if they were ever in such a situation.
Of course, if one of the badmen ever DID go the backhoe route, he’d very soon find that the gun store talk wasn’t exactly based on reality, as he’s committed to a life sentence for murder and evidence tampering.
Thank you for outing the crotch grabber. Just for the record, we don’t even know if said CG is a gun owner, so it is improper to draw any conclusions about law-abiding gun owners based upon comments. All one needs is access to an internet connection.
So you’re claiming that armed citizens would just “wet themselves” if faced by a criminal. But not cops though, I assume.
So you think cops are genetic supermen or something? (Or something more esoteric? I notice a lot of police officers have big beer bellies… maybe THAT’S the secret of courage in the face of danger?)
There is only one reason for politicians attempts at disarming law abiding citizens, to be better able to control them.
The Founders knew that only an armed people were a free people, able to resist tyranny. As Chairman Mao stated, “Power flows from the barrel of a gun”. Do we really want only the government to be armed, or do we want the “checks and balances”, of millions of armed Americans.
You’re not going to go to war with the government. Been there done that. It was called the American Civil War. Never again.
And it is for this very reason that the 2nd Amendment is entirely moot today. As relevant as the three-fifths compromise.
Most amusing, Briggsy.
Right. So because of the American Civil War my right to use arms to defend myself and my family is moot. Your logic is dizzying.
A society of guns and ammo is one in which shooting first is the best guarantee of shooting last. If you think that’s an environment in which your family is best protected, then you were dizzy to begin with.
Hmmm. Your position is sadly undermined by the facts. It’s well-known and proven over and over that the more available firearms are to the general public for self-protection, the lower the overall crime rates are. And you clearly know nothing about the American Civil War (which wasn’t really a civil war as the term is generally used) or civil wars in general. Yes, guns in the hands of the people DO have the effect of making the government somewhat more reticent to use wholesale violence against the citizenry. Not that you’ll understand that, of course.
So I should rely on the police to protect me instead?
Actually, we DID go to war against the government, when it attempted to disarm us. It was called the Revolutionary War. How’d that work for you, Bugsy?
No, better controlling the people is not the only reason for victim disarmament.
In the Great Depression many (if not most) young highly-educated people became skeptical of capitalism and became Maxists. In the 1950s many of them were promoted into positions of power and influence (hence the McCarthyist panic). McCarthy was reckless, so his movement failed, and in the 1960s government was dominated by people who, privately, thought Marxism had something valuable to say. They knew that a coup was out of the question, but they began applying Marxist thinking to all sorts of social problems, such as crime.
A Marxist analysis tells you that crime would not exist under socialism, and that criminals are therefore the have-not victims of a guilty society (guilty in that it was not yet sufficiently socialist). Therefore, there was not much the police could (i.e. should) do to suppress street crime until the root causes of crime (insufficient socialism) had been eliminated. (Several mayors of NYC in the 1970s and ’80s explicitly said this.)
Marxism teaches that private property is evil — so certainly no individual has a _right_ to their own property. If, for the sake of gradualism or economic efficiency, the government _allows_ you to retain some of your money, it’s really none of your business if a robber tries to take it; your only legitimate option is to inform the government that he is challenging the government’s decision to let you keep your money — and let the government defend it’s decision should it choose to do so.
Under the Founders’ philosophy, there is no moral or ethical difference between a bank robber who would murder any cop who tries to arrest him, on the one hand, versus a mugger who would murder any private citizen who refuses to hand over the money. Both would murder, if necessary, to have what they want, is a private citizen is as justified in shooting the robber as is the policeman. Marxist analysis says otherwise; the private citizen has no right to his money and therefore has no excuse for withholding it from the robber; the policeman, in contrast, serves the State which does have the right to enforce its allocation of wealth.
Marxist ideas have made much greater inroads in Europe than in America. In Europe, you have no right to resist robbery — and hence will be treated as a murderer if you prepared a defense ahead of time. However, a defender may be _forgiven_ for self-defense as long as he had no prior intention of defending himself in but merely lashed out in a fearful panic.
In America gun controllers cite the safety argument only because they know there would be a reaction if they made their real motivations explicit. You can tell that safety is not really their concern because otherwise they would first concern themselves with things like backyard swimming pools (which is more likely than your handgun to result in the accidental death of a child). Their response that handguns unlike swimming pools are _designed_ to kill reveals their Marxist opinion that a private citizen has no business shooting armed robbers.
“Only politicians and criminals fear guns in the hands of free men”.
“God made man; Col Colt made them equal.”
Based upon the recent surges in gun sales, I believe that more Americans are waking up to the fact that when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.68
Fact: Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
Fact: 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are “hot burglaries”70 which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a “hot burglary” rate of only 13%.
Fact: Washington D.C. has essentially banned gun ownership since 1976 and has a murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is less restricted. There, the murder rate is just 1.6 per 100,000, less than three percent of the Washington, D.C. rate.
Fact: In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year.
Fact: The number of times per year an American uses a firearm to deter a home invasion alone is 498,000.
Fact: 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person – about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.
Fact: When a woman was armed, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when the woman was unarmed.
Fact: In 1966, the city of Orlando responded to a wave of sexual assaults by offering firearms training classes to women. Rapes dropped by nearly 90% the following year.
Agree with your point, but where did you get some of these stats? Rape stats in the 1960′s were utterly unreliable, so I don’tbuy that one. And your definition of police shooting “innocent” people 11 percent of the time is probably a misstating from the DOJ’s politiczed shootings by police study.
“When a woman was armed, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when the woman was unarmed.”
Source: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, U.S. Department of Justice, 1979
“11% of police shootings kill an innocent person – about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.”
Source: Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws, Clayton Cramer, David Kopel,
Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994
These statistics appear in the main to be generally correct. The ones regarding the UK are. As for citizen business and defense, the NRA reports 2 million guns are pointed a year in defense of either the home, business or person(s). Very few are fired.
The threat of there being a gun is enough to make most bad guys move on to easier pickings. Last spring I was sitting at my desk and noticed an Escalade with 22s and very dark tinted windows, a dead giveaway, cruising slowly by three times. I waited until I saw it coming down the street again and walked out on my front deck with my Saiga 12 guage very visible. Never saw them again!
The sad commentary is that those windows were illegal as Hell (and dangerous) but fear of the bad press about “racial profiling” and such keeps the cops from enforcing the law against the gangstas.
Your link to the Supreme Court decision is 404.
I use Cornell most often. Here is their Castle Rock v. Gonzales link:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZO.html
You may also find DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services very interesting. The Supreme Court extended precedent to include any government agency that exists on our tax dollars. In other words, we are required by law to pay taxes to support all these bureaucracies, but they are not obligated to provided the services we pay for.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0489_0189_ZS.html
Now it becomes apparent why the NRA is not only important and vital but a necessity in it’s efforts to uphold the 2nd amendment. Why would you call 911 at all? Shoot shovel and shut up unless you want to involve yourself and your family in a legal nightmare, is that what it’s coming to?
Basically. From my experience of living in a small town in Florida, any time that someone tries to confront me in a hostile (armed) way will involve them being shot and buried out back.
Why?
Because I would go to jail for a long time under Florida’s laws because they do not agree to home protection that doesn’t involve the police.
Those are brave but stupid words. When they start looking for that person you shot and buried, and more likely than not, they will look and they will find him/her, they’re going to charge you with 1st Degree Murder and stick a needle in your arm.
If you have to defend yourself, actually defend yourself from a threat to your personal safet, not just shoot somebody for being on your property, self-defense is a valid defense anywhere, even Floriduh. If they find a buried body, that in itself is pretty good evidence of a guilty mind and the rest of the circumstantial case for premeditated murder comes together pretty easily, even for twelve morons with driver’s licenses.
Shoot, shovel, and shut up is a pretty good rule with marauding but protected wildlife ’cause nobody’s likely to come looking for a wild animal. Humans, even feral humans, usually have somebody who’ll start wondering what happened to them.
You do not need to get rid of the body Florida has the Castle Doctrine law passed in 2005 to wit:
The Florida “Castle Doctrine” law basically does three things:
One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.
Two: It removes the “duty to retreat” if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]
Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.
It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.
In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.
So you do not need to retreat and may stand your ground same here in Tennessee or several other states, just google castle doctrine states to see where you stand as far as the law goes, I like the fact that at least here in Tennessee if you blow away a bad guy you can not face a civil lawsuit!
Huh? Florida has some of the best self defense laws in the country. If someone is attacking you you can use force to stop them. No need to try to cover it up and wind up in jail when you get caught. Call 911 and tell the truth.
Mr. McDaniel,
I don’t fault the police, fire department’s procedures in this sue-friendly society.
What I don’t like about the PD, FD is their ridiculous retirement pay/Unions.
Most of you cops work in suburbia for 17-18 years collectively, work in the hood for a few years for a bump up in pay then back to the ‘burbs and retire at 100 +% of your pay from the highest salary during your career.
What’s ‘interesting’ regarding law enforcement’s presence is the people who despise them most or take them for granted are the very same who use or need them most often. Having the non-emergency and 911 on their speed-dial.
The despicable, juvenile tantrums the ‘Occupy’ attendees exuded NEEDED a police presence, escort and presence to stop the thievery, sexual assaults, arrests and investigations in murders at certain occupy locations.
The fictional, ‘Were the government and were here to rescue you from yourself’ adage is EXACTLY what the Illiberals prove to be their mantra time-and-time again. Pathetic.
I was raised using and to respect firearms.
Regarding Castle Rock, it’s part of Douglas County, the mid-late 90′s was 1 of the fastest growing counties in the nation. I can see an R O being considered a back burner call at the time.
Who knows, maybe Ms. Rodriguez called the PD so often about minor blowups the PD grew tired of the common minor spousal/ex-spouse spats.
My folks, family still live in Colorado. Though thanks to the Colorado Homeowner Protection Act, I have peace of mind knowing they’ll be alright and not rely on the proven, ‘When seconds count the police are minutes away’ fact.
“Who knows, maybe Ms. Rodriguez called the PD so often about minor blowups the PD grew tired of the common minor spousal/ex-spouse spats.” Obviously you have no idea. If the facts alleged in the article are close to accurate the Supreme Court screwed up again! What was described was malfeasance by the incompetent, lazy and cowardly Castle Rock PD. Since you made a supposition, here is a counter; Who knows, maybe Ms. Rodriguez was of the wrong socioeconomic, ethnic/ racial group to be served by the PD! The supposition sword has two edges, neither very nice.
Robert Robert Robert – why would I have ‘any idea’ about Ms. Rodriguez’s call history with the Castle Rock PD?
That’s not necessarily public domain, champ. I threw out a hypothetical and you knee-jerked a reaction of ‘racism’. ‘Classy’.
You then suggest Ms. Rodriguez’s nationality (to be fair, we don’t know Ms. Rodriguez’s lineage. Though I’d found an image of her husband, Simon, who looks Latino) had something to do with the department’s not being able to confront and stop a situation getting worse? Gimme a break.
Look more into the story, Robert. The wife told Castle Rock PD the kids were at Elitch’s Amusement Park (in Denver, ~20 miles North).
Jessica Rodriguez asked Castle Rock PD to call Denver PD to ‘find her estranged ex-husband and kids’. DENVER, Robert.
Do you really think Denver has the manpower to get a unit to Elitch’s and find a guy with his kids.. for breaking an R O and having his own kids? Get real.
I lived in Castle Rock. I went to school with the Chief (Mr. Lane) and Assistant Chief (Mr. Anderson)’s sons. Same age, grade as myself.
Respectful, law abiding kids. We were like that due to our upbringing.
I knew Mr. Lane well, as well as Mr. Anderson. Heck we played ‘Capture the Flag’ on Mr. Anderson’s property when school let out every Summer.
The 2 men in charge of the PD at that time were competent, strong willed guys. 1 of the 2 boys followed in his father’s law enforcement footsteps.
Not to mention differing ethnicity were and I’m sure it’s larger today was evident in Castle Rock with no ‘Jim Crow-like’ demeanor. Sorry to burst your bubble.
As for Castle Rock’s PD being ‘lazy’ – you have ‘no idea’ what you’re talking about. I don’t know the situation now but when I lived there (’90-’92) and I know it didn’t change prior to ’99, Castle Rock possesses city, state and sheriff’s department’s in the same area! The aforementioned departments COULDN’T be ‘lazy’. On the contrary they were very astute and hardasses at times.
Go sell nonsense somewhere else.
Wow, full indignant badge-licker mode never takes a day off.
LOL so true
‘..badge licker..’?
Quite the contrary.
I stated in an earlier post I’m no fan of the PD/FD Unions, ridiculous pensions. Not to mention I don’t rely on law enforcement to protect me or my loved ones when the proverbial s hit hits the fan.
I was responding to a ‘Robert’s nonsensical rant.
Please, show me previous posts where I bow or curtsy to law enforcement, bub.
so what _were_ the Castle Rock police so diligently protecting that they could not help four innocent children?
round here, we go so far as to broadcast alerts and put ‘em on signs on the interstate looking for our missing kids. y’all in Castle Rock not like your kids?
try again.
There is no statute of limitations on murder. If you ever do have to use deadly force in self-defense, no matter how clearly you are not at fault, insist on being prosecuted. The current cops and DA might think you are innocent, but you dont know who is going to be DA in the future or how they will view things. Witnesses may be gone or dead, reports lost etc. .
Get an acquittal as soon as you can so that the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy will protect you.
Good advice.
I need to read that sentence and your link does not work.
Please…
Merry Christmas !
The Jessica Gonzalez story reveals so many things that are worng about society. First, why are womyn having so many kids? Aren’t there enough humans already? Second, could the killing of the little girls been prevented by one simple rule? That is: GUN CONTROL?! If guns were banned, this would not have happnened! It’s amazing how you crazy gun nuts use examples of gun violence to argue for more guns! It’s like you’re all taking crazy pills!
On a lighter note: Happy Winter’s Solstice!
And a very Merry Christmas to you my ignorant friend.
It is good to see you back LovelyEarth. Merry Christmas!
You are quite right, criminals and psychos always carefully obey the law.
Merry Christmas to you too !
Back again with the repetition: I don’t find your posts funny or enlightening. It’s just a one-note joke done endlessly. Get a new act – one that thinks.
Some people enjoy raising children, LE. Who are you to tell them they shouldn’t? And even if I were to agree with your opinion that someone should say something like this, what could anyone do about it? Did it ever occur to you that the cure could be worse than the disease?
I hope you had/having a happy one, whatever you celebrate.
In an episode of the old TV show “All in the Family” Archie Bunker and his son-in-law Meathead are having an argument over gun control.
Meat head says “Archie, do you have any idea how many thousands of people are killed by guns every year in America?”
Archie answers “Would ya be happier if they was all pushed out’a windows?”
The murderous father in this example could have killed his daughters by any other means if he had been denied a gun; choking, stabbing, club to the head or pushed them out’a window.
Denying everyone the ability to protect themselves so that you can be relieved of the psychic stress that you feel when you think of someone else having a gun…. now that’s taking a crazy pill.
Oh, look, it’s another econazi that thinks it’s intelligent.
Let’s see…if he didn’t have a gun, he probably would have stabbed or strangled the kids. So much for your ‘banning guns’ theory. Doesn’t seem to work in the UK, now, does it?
As for your fascist eugenic views, go die in a fire.
You and several others need to lighten up and learn to recognize parody. It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool and all that …
I recommend you read of UK home invasions.
Axes, pipes, knives, machetes, rope, bare hands are used in assault, murder in cities far more suburban than this.
While were at it, maybe we should ban operating room doctors under your ‘tutelage’. Why?
There are far more operating room deaths, percentage wise, than the tens of millions of fired bullet rounds nationwide.
And happy Northern winter/Southern summer Solstice (Perihelion)to you, you northern-hemisphere-chauvinist.
Since when is it any of your business to decide who may have how many children??? As for “gun control,” all of mine are completely under control…keep your grubby hands off of them!
I carry a gun because cops are too heavy!
I dealt with unionized cops and correctional officers for many years; assisted supervisors with disciplinary matters, handled grievances, represented the State in arbitrations and labor board hearings, negotiated labor agreements and presented the State’s case in interest arbitration, and was involved in policy-making regarding law enforcement. Before 9-11 unionized law enforcement was a pampered elite. Since 9-11 the so-called first responders have donned a halo.
My experience with Alaska State Troopers was that on the day they were hired, they precisely calculated the hour and minute they would be able to retire twenty years hence and weren’t going to let anything interfere with their seeing that moment. One thing you could count on was the union grieving any discipline that involved enough time off to change that retirement date, in our case that was any suspension greater than 23 days. That becomes important in a system where a 30 day suspension without pay is the ultimate discipline short of dimissal. You really don’t want to dismiss a cop for anything but the worst offenses because they are so expensive to recruit and train; being able to pee in a bottle and pass a background investigation is becomeing very rare in America. Disciplining cops is further complicated by the fact that even though disciplinary records are not subject to disclosure as a public record, the courts will just blow right past that law and allow them to be discovered. Any disciplinary matter that would call the officer’s judgement or veracity into question essentially makes him/her into an overpaid clerk; you can’t fire them and you can’t use them for anything that requires them to testify in court. The infamous Tpr. Wooten, Sarah Palin’s sister’s ex, will be useless for law enforcement for the rest of his career but unless he does something to get himself fired before, he’ll see that special minute come at twenty years and have a very nice retirement.
Tpr. Wooten is also a good example of another serious problem with cops and cop unions when they work in league with an Administration, usually a Democrat administration, but sometimes Republicans are stupid about it too. We had two terms of a Democrat governor from ’94 to ’02. Unions didn’t need a grievance procedure during that time; they just needed an appointee’s phone number. If a supervisor dared discipline a unionized employee during the early years of that administration, the supervisor was going to be doing the carpet dance in his/her bosses’ office. The Troopers’ labor agreement had a provision that didn’t allow the union to grieve reprimands. A written or oral reprimand is the lowest level of formal discipline and is usually for uniform violations, minor procedural errors, etc. Under the Democrats, the public safety managers wanted to get some discipline on record but didn’t want to face the wrath of the union and the governor’s office by getting lots of grievance traffic, so lots of misconduct that should have warraanted serious discipline and major suspensions just got a reprimand. When I took over in ’02, I tried with only limited success to up the ante on trooper discipline but if we gave a Tpr. ten days off without pay, the union trotted out all the examples of Troopers that had done the same or worse and only got a reprimand. Wooten’s original discipline for the things the Palin/Heath clan complained about actually happened on my watch but I never knew about it. Knowing the players, I suspect that public safety management didn’t want to explain it to me, especially in the months just before an election. For the record, I wouldn’t have fired him either on stale, self-interested reports from family members involved in a disputed divorce, but I would have given him 30 days and a formal last chance over it, since he already had discipline on record. I’m sure the ultimate settlement of his grievance by reducing the already meager discipline was purely political. The CW inside the government was that the Democrat, Knowles, was going to be the next governor, not Palin, so the union was going around to appointees making threats and promises. I retired on July 1, 2006, so nobody had to explain it to me and the settlement got executed by my very junior successor. In any event, when Palin won she didn’t waste much time getting rid of the appointee that settled Wooten’s grievance. That gives you a good insight into just how poltical cop discipline can be in Democrat or Republican administrations.
I’m not going so far as to say that police, fire, and jail employees shouldn’t be unionized; government management is often terrible and even at its best is terribly political. Employees with the exposure that cops, COs, and even firemen have need some protection from arbitrary and capricious acts of management and merit system appeals and lawsuits are horribly expensive and time consuming. That said, the price of their being unionized is that they should not be able to affiliate with unions that represent any other types of employees and their political rights should be strictly curtailed so that they cannot act collectively to influence the outcome of an election. In those states and political subdivisions where public safety employees cannot strike but have interest arbitration to decide contract disputes, interest arbitrators’ awards should be subject to approval by the legislative body to provide some check against an administration using arbitration to give the union what it wants while not taking the political heat for doing so.
In sum, there are still some good and dedicated LEOs and firemen out there but in my observation not nearly as many as there once were, especially in the unionized states, and there are a lot of bad ones. And, frankly, nobody is as good at being bad as a bad cop.
ah…..what?
Reading is fundamental.
Art Chance: As a fellow Alaskan, I appreciate the efforts you made.
Thank you for the kind words. Sometimes I miss it, but I was already two years past retirement eligibility, Frank wasn’t going to be re-elected, and I had my 120 days for a year’s service credit in ’06 in already. The only way I was going to get another 120 days was to give up the directorship and return to the classified service if Knowles won, and I wasn’t much on having a boss, especially a Democrat boss, or I could try to have Sarah become my new BFF, and we’d already gotten cross-threaded when she was at AOGCC and I knew she was going to have one Helluva time dealing with anyone who’d tell her anything she didn’t want to hear. So, July 1, 2006, seemed like a really good day to go fishing. Again, thanks.
This is true, and it’s probably why there are very few sky marshals flying United in the friendly skies. Get rid of TSA and let everyone pack a Bowie or a Roman short sword on the red eye to New York. I bet everyone would be polite and on their best behavior, even the celebs when told to turn their cell phones off.
After the LA riots, in I think 94, my wife asked a policeman what to do if she were threatened. He told her outright, “We can’t protect you. Get a gun and protect yourself.”
But they are Johnny on the Spot when it comes to bullying the middle class and law biding citizens.
Castle Rock wasn’t the only case. Look up Warren V. District of Columbia. If the Government won’t protect you and then demands that you not protect yourself…they are no longer your government. They are a tool of, by and for criminals!
Yes! Our Declaration of Independence specifies a duty we have in this situation.
I would like to emphasize that the Police and Fire personnel were not ALLOWED to save that man. Had they done so, they would’ve been fired (insubordination, disobeying a direct order, violations of SOPs, etc.) and almost certainly sued.
You can thank the legions of lawyers who are gleefully destroying our society for that one. When I was a firefighter, most of us agreed that in circumstances like that, we’d quit on the spot, THEN go rescue the person. Of course, we were Volunteers, not career so we wouldn’t be throwing our livelihood and a lifetime of experience and training down the drain. We’d be losing a hobby.
I don’t blame them. I blame the lawyers who’ve forced their departments to adopt those rules.
Orion
No, you can thank feckless politicians who’ve waived their government’s sovereign immunity to pander to the ACLU and various poverty pimps.
In sane states, employees are indemnified and the government substitutes itself as the defendant so long as the employee was acting within the scope of his/her duties. In such cases, the government would either assert its immunity or if it accepted the suit it would be the government’s liability, not the individual employee’s.
I am really disappointed in most of you people. As a former police officer in Los Angeles (retired after 23 years). I never recieved any order NOT to save life or property! I can think of many times I put my life on the line without a thought of my own personal safety and without fear that my department would punish me for doing so! Every year the LAPD presents officers with a Medal Of Honor for doing what many cops do every day on the job! Having said that, I have no use for police or fire unions. Being a Conservative (as are most officers) I know that most unions are Democrat controlled and therefore are really the enemy of law. The problem is not that officers won’t or can’t take action in some cases as are quoted above. It is that some officers know that they are protected by case law if they don’t take action. I cannot see why any officer would not be fired for not doing the job they are paid to do! If I sound like I am pissed off, you are right! After two broken legs and a broken arm and numerous other on-duty injuries, it is sad to hear all this anti-police crap from supposedly intelligent people here. And BTW: did any of you notice the author’s statement that a suspect used a hand gun he purshased “hours ago?” Really? Since the law requires a waiting period before the sale is complete, how could this be true? The only thing that keeps you people from having to deal with street crime is your local police. If you lose confidence in them due to a few sad stories (that may or may not be accurate) then we are in worse shape than we think. I don’t make excuses for bad cops or bad police work. Right now the City of LA is under the control of a mayor that is racist Hispanic radical who has the Chief by the balls but the cops are still loyal to the job and do what they can to Protect and Serve. Give them the credit they deserve!
The link to the “Court’s decision” is still broken…
Mr. McDaniel, as a former police officer you of all people should know the justified contempt in which DV Writs and other restraining orders are held. They are issued so freely and with so little justification that they are meaningless. Practically every divorce proceeding is initiated with a Complaint for Divorce, an allegation of domestic violence and a request for a restraining order, and an allegation of sexual abuse by the father of the children. These things are just rubber stamped by magistrates and judges. Really enlightened states like mine let the nice lesbians down at the “women’s center” get the DV writ for the poor victim on a naked assertion.
I dealt with it in my work when the US in its wisdom decided that our gun-toters couldn’t tote guns if they had a DV Writ, which means we had to pay them for not working or spend lots of time and money getting them off the payroll because they pissed off their teenager by not letting the kid have sex with their boy/girlfriend in their room or wouldn’t five them the car. We just made the decision that we wouldn’t obey the law. We wouldn’t pull the weapon unless it was an RO issued after an adversarial proceeding. Even those aren’t fair, but its more fair than the naked assertion of a wife/SO or a kid.
Dear Art Chance:
Thanks for your comments. Police attitudes toward restraining orders and custody documents vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and depend heavily on the authority documents written under such laws give the officers. In this case, at the very least, officers could have put out a BOLO (be on the lookout) and if Gonzalez was found, could probably have taken the girls home. There is no guarantee that he would not have kidnapped and killed them the next day even if that happened, but in this case, the police really did nothing when they could, with minimal effort, have done a number of routine things that would have increased the possibility that the girls might have been saved that night.
But of course, this case is only illustrative of the issue: we’re essentially on our own.
Thanks again!
I’ll buy that a BOLO might have been justified. I’ll also accept that there may, emphasize may, have been less than conscientious attention to duty. That said, everybody in law enforcement management knows what a PITA DV Writs and ROs are; for every legitimate one, there are hundreds that are just a PO’d wife/SO or a kid whose “rights” have been violated, or so their teacher told them.
All that said, I don’t disagree with the SC that “protect” is an abstract notion. I believe that if the cops are notified and they can get there in time to protect, they have a right and duty to protect; it is a deriliction of duty to stand idly by. I think the excuse-making in the SFO example is just what goes wrong in Democrat cities with unionized police; the cops didn’t want to do it and the city wasn’t about to order them – and SFO has probably fashionably waived all of its sovereign immunity, which would put the city at risk for a suit if something had gone wrong. I can’t imagine a situation where unionized LEOs would be liable if they were anywhere near within the scope of their duties.
Thanks for getting back.
Supreme Court link in article is bad.
Link to Castle Rock v. Gonzalez: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/04-278
Dear Topnife:
Thanks for the updated link. I’m sure most readers know that those of us that publish here don’t have access to the site for corrections. That must be done by our editors. I’ll let them know.
An armed person is called a citizen, an unarmed person is called a subject. You choose.
I am a citizen that is also a good shot with plenty of ammo!
There is a fine line between an armed gang and a police force. In fact, the difference between the two is a matter of who ultimately controls and disciplines the gang/force and who is allied with whom.
Police, and armed gangs, typically do not like people owning weapons of any kind because it limits their authority and ability to push people around. (Never mind the law, would you argue with someone who has a loaded gun in his/her hand?) This is why it is unusual for police to actually admit that officers can’t be everywhere and that people should defend themselves because they’re simply not capable of being everywhere all the time.
When people think the police are everywhere, they tend to be on better behavior because they’re never quite sure that they can get away with their misdeeds. This lack of certainty helps to keep the crime rate down. However, eventually the criminals realize how thinly staffed the police are, and they will get bolder. In this situation, more gun laws will not fix the situation. There are two solutions: more police, or self defense.
This explains what happened in the UK. In the US, we have the Second Amendment to the Constitution that says in no uncertain terms that persons and people have a right to self defense. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. It is also affirmed in the Gonzalez case that Police can decide, for any arbitrary reason, not to act on a Temporary Restraining Order because it does not actually involve property (what a loop-hole!).
So for crimes of passion, kidnapping, murder, and so on, there is no formal responsibility. And for practical purposes, there is no way the police can be everywhere.
Learn to use a weapon. It doesn’t have to be a gun. It just has to be effective at stopping or deterring a criminal act. Guns can do that, but so can other self defense methods including a baseball bat, a knife, pepper spray and so many more things. But above all, practice your self defense, whatever it may be.
Most thugs and bullies are cut from the same cloth: if they know you’ll defend yourself, they’ll leave you alone. And if they’re so insane that they don’t know this, you’ll at least have a way to defend yourself.
That’s the reality on the ground.
The New Corporate America Business Model Creating Foundations to Move Their Ideals…and Products By Pam Parker
http://www.forces.org/News_Portal/news_viewer.php?id=2303
Jeez, would you comment on an appropriate post instead?
I don’t know, here in Santa Barbara, California the police are extremely proactive at pulling over miscreants who attempt to drive a block at 15mph while not wearing seatbelts, and writing them a $156 ticket. They are very, very quick to respond to such flagitious conduct. Putting themselves on the line like that day after day…who can argue that they don’t deserve to retire with spiked megapensions at 45?
Of course, that there are such things as tickets for not wearing seatbelts in the first place shows how bogus the whole system is. It is manifestly not about safety, since riding a motorcycle is 50 times as dangerous as riding in a car without buckling your restraining belts, but nobody gets a ticket for riding a motorcycle. Ipso facto, it’s about something else, such as…oh, I don’t know…maybe revenue enhancement at the expense of respectable, hardworking citizens (i.e., soft targets)? Noooo….couldn’t be.
A relative moved up from San Diego county to LA county. The call to 911 sometimes gets a robot answer according to their neighbors. How wonderful to have the controls over law abiding citizens and they tolerate so much without a whimper. When seconds count the LAPD are hours away.
One thing that I have not seen on any of these comments is very basic. If there is no requirement that the police or fire department respond to a crime or legal order (in the case of the article) or a fire why are we paying taxes for them and why should we keep them around?
Hello.From Cops That Teach(Yup,all caps),it is the job of the police to:serve warrants,to hold suspects until trial,and to jail non-felons.Was told this back in the mid-80s,I doubt if things have changed.You will find that it changes from place to place.A town outside Ft.Riley,KS,cops would go hunting for bad guys.
Anyone believing that they are not responsible for their own safety,or that they should not be responsible for the safety of those about themselves,should stay in their mom’s basement,and not endanger anyone else.
Validate your 2nd Amendment Rights.Carry.
To protect … if you deserve.
In 1993, many years before Eric Holder hijacked the phrase, Jeffrey Snyder published an essay entitled “A Nation of Cowards”. It essentially makes the case for self defense and concealed carry of firearms. I highly recommend it. It is available here: http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
America has sunk into Evil. It happened slowly, over many decades. Marxist infiltration went unnoticed, because it was easier not to notice it. Now it has happened. America has collapsed. Not is, not might, but HAS collapsed. Like a giant tree, rotted out from the inside, America has fallen. We just haven’t hit the ground yet.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
We agreed on that when we started this country.
People have rights.
They form governments to protect those rights.
If the government won’t do their job…we can toss out said government and replace it with a new one.
And at the point of a bayonet, if need be!
America made a huge mistake electing a super corrupt totalitarian government,a bunch of Hitler/Lenin look-alikes that too few recognized. Of course, other nations have been saved from this mistake by the United States, but I don’t think the United States can save itself.
The self reliant, honest, decent, law abiding America, the one of the people, by and for the people, is now housed in the equivalent of the Alamo. That’s where you’ll find the last visage of a once great country.
And, as most are aware, the heroes get killed in the end.
Cop now days are basically ticket writers and sometime investigators of a crime after the fact, they look for infraction such as speeding distracted driving or DUI or they investigate the crime scene after a crime has been committed.
Normally they must see a crime in progress to attempt to stop it, and then they may be hesitant to do so for any number of reasons especially policies of their department.
I carry a gun because it is easier than carrying a cop!
Corporatism Is Not Capitalism: 7 Things About The Monolithic Predator Corporations That Dominate Our Economy That Every American Should Know
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/corporatism-is-not-capitalism-7-things-about-the-monolithic-predator-corporations-that-dominate-our-economy-that-every-american-should-know
After having spent 34 years in the NYPD, i can assure you this article is accurate and correct. And remember, it is the politicians YOU voted for who make the laws, not the police.
Is it not the law that the police uphold the constitution of the United States? So some of you are saying that a police officer or fire and rescue professional cannot act in certain instances by policy rather than act in upholding the constitution? If I am paying my taxes then I should expect that law enforcement should at least act within the constitution. I know that as a police officer that I would probably go with my gut rather than a statute that goes against what I am paid to do. Maybe I would get fired, but at least I could live with my conscience and sleep at night.
“A wise man believes only in lies, trusts only in himself and learns to expect the unexpected.”
– Intro, “Tales of the Unexpected”
The police are ALWAYS the LAST people at the scene of a crime (OK maybe lawyers). As far as your protection goes, it is up to YOU. The most wonderful thing is, we have a thing called The Constitution of the United States. Article 2 gives us the right to defend ourselves, it isn’t about hunting or sport (those are benefits). Lots of people who don’t want to assume any responsibility in life for anything would have the government dismantle our Constitution a section at a time (think Fast & Furious). You are responsible, ACT LIKE IT. Learn to shoot, be proud that you CAN protect yourself. It’s an old saw but still true “…better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6…”
Powder is dry
I can’t believe this article is actually defending this court decision. The situation was appalling, and a reasonable person would have expected the police to do something, especially with the restraining order. I know of many instances in my area where police refused to handle calls of potentially robbery and theft but spent tons of time on petty, personal cases that had no justification. I’m sure they were too busy to actually handle police work. This woman has dead children because no one was too concerned. What is so hard to understand about that and why would you defend the response? This will be the last time I bother with this site.
Dear MIA:
Recognizing a correctly decided case and and supporting police inaction are two separate things. There is no doubt, as I explained in some detail in the article, that the case was correctly decided for practical and legal reasons. That said, there is also no doubt that the decision does not prevent the police from properly acting to preserve lives and property.
Police officers who abuse their power, who make false arrests, beat citizens without justification or otherwise deprive them of their rights may be successfully sued, and in most states, are criminally liable for their negligence or bad behavior. In the Castlerock case, as I pointed out to another reader, there is no reason why the police should not have made an easily done, good faith effort to find and return the children–the many decisions then in force on this issue did not prevent such action. They chose to do nothing, apparently out of laziness or made a common calculation that this would end with the children returned safely home no matter what they did or didn’t do, as most similar cases do. This time, the odds–tragically–didn’t go their way.
I don’t defend police inaction and stupidity, quite the opposite. However, the facts stand. If the police could be successfully sued merely because any citizen was injured by criminals, it would be financially, practically impossible for any city to have a police force.
That the police are not obligated to protect the citizens was emphatically demonstrated during the 2001 Seattle Mardi Gras Riots. During the riots, the police were ordered to stand down while a rioting collection of black gangbangers beat a young man to death. The Seattle officers had to watch that and other attacks because the SPD leadership was too afraid of creating a racial confrontation.
Was the leadership negligient? Certainly, but there was no resolution other than a political one. Unfortunately, the police chief was retained until a bigger idiot decided to hire him as Drug Czar in 2008….
So now I carry a .38 every time I am in the city and often when I am in my rural home alone. Hopefully I won’t have to use it, but hope really is never a strategy.
Yeah, but are you carrying that .38 legally? WA don’t want no stinkin’ guns, at least not west of the mountains. They won’t reciprocate Alaska permits, nor will the other two Left Coast states, and since when you die in Alaska you’ll have to change planes in SEA to get to Heaven or Hell, I worry when I properly pack a handgun for checked baggage when it has to go through the Peoples’ Republic of Seattle. ‘Course, the only other place you can fly straight to from Anchorage year round is Chicago, the other Left Coast states, or Hawaii, and they’re even worse than Seattle.
I think first responders do have a duty to render aid. But that isn’t a duty that comes from law, it’s a duty that should stem naturally from having a conscience and a spine. The USCG isn’t required to go rescue mariners lost at sea. We do it because it’s the right thing to do, and we’re funded to do it because it’s the right thing to do. We could, quite legally, refuse to respond to any of those calls for help beyond transmitting a blind radio call asking if somebody could go help.
I’m not saying that a cop or fireman who refuses to help somebody in extremis should be punished or sued. He should go find a new calling, like accounting, or flipping hamburgers. I think that terminating his employment is not punishment, any more than releasing a non-performing military officer from service is punishment for being a bad officer. It’s really just making room for a good officer to step up.