Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally I don't see why not. No, the police can't be everywhere and yes many times they are called in too late to save someone but there have also been tons of times where they have arrived in time to help. At the very least if they are too late to save those particular people then witnesses can tell them who they're looking for so maybe the police can get those who did the crime off the streets so they don't strike again.
I do believe that people should be able to own a weapon if they choose to but as others said they then have a major responsibility to continually clean and practice with their gun.
I think the problem with some people who own guns is that they carelessly use it to "protect" themselves and only make a bad situation worse. The advice that it's better to cooperate, at least initially, when being confronted by a criminal has a lot of merit. If you're being robbed, then you have the gun if you really need it but just having the gun shouldn't mean automatically opening fire on the bad guy. I worked in a police station one summer (and have a bunch of relatives who are current and former police) and I can think of 2 examples off the top of my head where having a gun and using it just because they could and felt they just HAD to made things way more tragic than they had to be:
1) A guy was being mugged and instead of just cooperating, he withdrew his gun in order to take a shot at the mugger. The bad guy had his own gun out already and the guy being mugged was killed. When the mugger was apprehended by police later, it was found out that he'd already robbed 4 other people all of whom cooperated, lived through it, and now have not only their lives but their stuff back too. I'm not saying you shouldn't ever be able to use your weapon in a robbery but it should be a last resort and in self defense not just because you happen to have one.
2) Another robbery, this time at a convenience store, and when the store was being robbed, one of the customers decided to be a "hero" and used his own gun to shoot at the robber. Shootout ensued and a little girl also in the store was killed in the crossfire.
So while I believe that we have a right to carry, I also believe that there are too many people who decide to be cowboys with their weapons and make things way worse than they started out to be. Not enough people treat their weapons with respect in their quest to be "heroes" either.
Last edited by lucky_double_d; 11-29-2009 at 07:28 PM..
7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
Dano
And this is more twisting of the facts and misleading propaganda.
Police have a duty to uphold the law. They have a de facto duty to protect and serve people in accordance with their enforcement of law. The key is that their protection of and service to the public is defined by the laws they enforce.
If a cop sees a man attacking me, he has an obligation, by law, to intervene and enforce the laws on the books which make assault illegal. Technically he is enforcing the law, but in fact he is protecting me.
To say police don't have an obligation to protect and serve is splitting hairs on purpose to make misleading statements. You people who spread that crap do it in order to devalue police protection in order to bolster your propaganda for encouraging people to use guns more frequently.
I could argue that if someone stabbed your mother till she died that he didn't kill her, and that in fact what killed her was the massive loss of blood. Of course, such an argument is technically true, but it is also misleading and ignores the reality of the situation. Your mother's blood loss is what killed her but the blood loss was caused by the stabber.
It's equally stupid to say police have no duty to serve and protect. They do. It is clearly outlined by the law. The laws they enforce have the direct intent to make clear exactly HOW police are to protect and serve us. A cop has a duty, if he sees you being attacked, to intervene and stop the attack, protecting you. A cop does NOT have the right to "protect" a person by smacking the Big Mac or cigarette out of the person's hand, thereby "protecting" the person from the harm of that product. The cops discretion is still governed by the laws he must enforce.
I honestly have to wonder, are people really that ignorant that they really don't understand how a cop does have a duty to protect and serve the public or are those people intentionally twisting the facts and splitting hairs to give an appearance of a basis to their propaganda???
I honestly have to wonder, are people really that ignorant that they really don't understand how a cop does have a duty to protect and serve the public or are those people intentionally twisting the facts and splitting hairs to give an appearance of a basis to their propaganda???
There sure are a lot of cop-haters out there.
I believe the points behind the two cases sited were that the police cannot be everywhere and if they cannot protect you from such an attack, they cannot be liable for protecting you.
Here in a populated area of Arizona (Mesa, Az), there was a home invasion - 3 men breaking in a front door and beating up an elderly couple. The couple did not have time to call 911 so the Police did not even know they had a situation needing to be responded too - Mesa PD is a great police department - it is a populated area.
Two weeks earlier - a very similar situation (home invasions are all too common here) - only this time, the occupants were armed. Those who did the invasion? One dead, one in the hospital (last I heard) and the other one has now been caught.
The Police could not protect these people -
Here's the problem I have with your post - it's purely anecdotal.
Here in a populated area of NJ there was a home invasion in my friend's neighborhood, a few towns away. The homeowner called the police from his bedroom. The thieves drove off with their loot and were caught at the end of the street. Nobody was shot and the homeowner got his money and items back. The thieves are serving 10 years minimum before a chance of parole.
I can also give you other anecdotes where homeowners who shot their intruders were dragged through criminal charges and some were convicted for using excessive force. I can give you anecdotes of gun-owners whose children figured out how to get the gun and shot themselves or another kid.
So big deal, you have anecdotes and I have anecdotes. You can argue that it's not supposed to be that way and I can argue it's not supposed to be that way. In both case, neither situation is perfect. I acknowledge police protection has its flaws and isn't perfect, but I also know that homeowners arming themselves also has its flaws and isn't perfect.
So it's fine if you want to disagree with me, but don't give me silly stories which are supposed to somehow prove to me that gun ownership is a better solution to protection than police, because your stories don't prove a thing.
So it's fine if you want to disagree with me, but don't give me silly stories which are supposed to somehow prove to me that gun ownership is a better solution to protection than police, because your stories don't prove a thing.
I did not say that gun ownership was "better". But neither is not having a gun "better".
Both scenarios have their own pros and cons.
Both scenarios are up to the individuals
We choose to have firearms and carry firearms.
You choose to not have firearms and not to carry firearms.
And this is more twisting of the facts and misleading propaganda.
Police have a duty to uphold the law. They have a de facto duty to protect and serve people in accordance with their enforcement of law. The key is that their protection of and service to the public is defined by the laws they enforce.
If a cop sees a man attacking me, he has an obligation, by law, to intervene and enforce the laws on the books which make assault illegal. Technically he is enforcing the law, but in fact he is protecting me.
To say police don't have an obligation to protect and serve is splitting hairs on purpose to make misleading statements. You people who spread that crap do it in order to devalue police protection in order to bolster your propaganda for encouraging people to use guns more frequently.
I could argue that if someone stabbed your mother till she died that he didn't kill her, and that in fact what killed her was the massive loss of blood. Of course, such an argument is technically true, but it is also misleading and ignores the reality of the situation. Your mother's blood loss is what killed her but the blood loss was caused by the stabber.
It's equally stupid to say police have no duty to serve and protect. They do. It is clearly outlined by the law. The laws they enforce have the direct intent to make clear exactly HOW police are to protect and serve us. A cop has a duty, if he sees you being attacked, to intervene and stop the attack, protecting you. A cop does NOT have the right to "protect" a person by smacking the Big Mac or cigarette out of the person's hand, thereby "protecting" the person from the harm of that product. The cops discretion is still governed by the laws he must enforce.
I think you must not understand the difference between moral and legal responsibility. While your local agency would likely terminate an officer who stood by and failed "to intervene and stop the attack", the courts would not award a financial judgment or legal penalty in the same circumstance; That's how legal responsibility is defined.
I provide case law to establish the fact that LEOs have no LEGAL responsibility to protect any individual and you reply with your opinion on what their responsibility is.
Did you bother to look at the cites? Could you perhaps provide cites to support your opinion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny
I honestly have to wonder, are people really that ignorant that they really don't understand how a cop does have a duty to protect and serve the public or are those people intentionally twisting the facts and splitting hairs to give an appearance of a basis to their propaganda???
There sure are a lot of cop-haters out there.
The depth your ignorance is totally awe inspiring. When facts don't agree with your sense of what's right it's not "intentionally twisting the facts and splitting hairs to give an appearance of a basis to their propaganda"; It's quite simply the truth. For you to hold opinions contrary to actual fact is your prerogative- dumb but still your choice. As far as being a 'cop-hater' nothing could be further from the truth; I admire, respect, and support LEOs. I also recognize that while they do the best job possible they're not standing by my side 24/7 to 'protect and defend' me personally. And while they typically are personally devastated when they investigate a crime they couldn't prevent- they have NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to do so. As proven by the cites of case law all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
. And while they typically are personally devastated when they investigate a crime they couldn't prevent- they have NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to do so. As proven by the cites of case law all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Dano
And it comes down to the FACT that the person who is PRIMARILY responsible for ones safety it that person - NOT the Police.
I have the greatest respect for our Nations (and my States) police officers. BUT, they cannot, even remotely, stop every crime from being committed. They just cannot do it.
Again, it is the individual citizens RESPONSIBILITY to protect themselves - and it is solely their decision to decide how best to fulfill that responsibility.
Alan and Diane Johnson of Bellevue, Idaho were killed by their own daughter. They had no warning. Police, upon their initial investigation, did not take her into custody.
It is well-known that the police won't show up until after a crime has been committed.
After I survived a violent, brutal attack, it still took the police a good half hour to arrive. That is typical, and I don't live in a bad area.
People should learn that they can only rely on themselves in the moment of danger, and that the police are not there to protect the community. To be fair, the police cannot be everywhere at once-especially with all of the cutbacks going on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
