Dial 911 and Die

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by Doglips, Apr 25, 2002.

  1. Doglips

    Doglips Guest

    Dial 911 and Die
    By Jay E. Simkin
    April 14, 1992

    Most Americans believe their local police have a duty to protect them against criminals. They are wrong. Some of them are dead wrong. And some of those who are dead wrong are dead because they have been duped by politicians or police chiefs who promise protection they cannot give and have no legal obligation to give.
    U.S. law is based on English common law, under which "the Sheriff" is a government employee whose main job is the enforcement of government decisions: seizure of property, arrest of persons wanted by the authorities, collection of taxes. Keeping the public order is a secondary duty. Research conducted under the auspices of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) shows that a wide range of state courts has confirmed that local law enforcement officials have no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.

    In 1959, New Yorker Linda Riss was terrorized by an ex-boyfriend with a criminal record. Over several months he repeatedly threatened her; she repeatedly sought police protection. Nothing was done. When her ex-boyfriend threatened her with immediate attack, she again urgently begged the New York City Police Department for help. Her pleas were ignored. The next day, a "thug" hired by her persecutor threw lye in her face. She was blinded in one eye and her face was permanently scarred.

    The Court of Appeals of New York ruled that Linda Riss had no right to protection. Judge Keating dissented, bitterly noting that Ms. Riss was victimized not only because she had relied on the police to protect her, but also because she obeyed New York laws that forbade her to own a weapon. Judge Keating wrote:

    What makes the city's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York, which now denies all responsibility to her. (Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897)
    On September 4, 1972 Ruth Bunnell, of San Jose, California called police to beg for help because her estranged husband had just called to say he was coming right over to kill her. She was told to call back when he arrived. She never got the chance; she was stabbed to death. The California Court of Appeal rejected her estate's claim against the police department, noting that

    Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service. (Hartzler vs. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr 5)
    The bottom line is this: Life is risky, the police cannot be everywhere at once, and it is impossible to hire enough law enforcement officers to protect every person who needs it or thinks he or she needs it. State and local police departments have no legal duty to help any given person, even one whose life is in imminent peril.
    And therein lies the fallacy of gun control. Gun control presupposes the police have a duty to protect individuals -- a duty they never have had and probably never will have. Giving law enforcement officials such a responsibility would require the establishment of a domestic army of police officers -- and we know from recent international events that such a police state would soon violate our most cherished freedoms.

    The Framers of the Constitution provided for a judicial system to enforce the laws and punish the criminals -- not to protect the law-abiding. The Framers assumed that law-abiding citizens would largely be responsible for their own safety. And that is where it stands today: A law-abiding person's security -- as a matter of law and as a matter of fact -- is in his or her own hands.

    The most effective form of self-protection is lawful concealed carrying of firearms by any law- abiding person. Concealed carry is a potent deterrent: The criminal could not know who was or was not armed. A person who had been threatened -- and had no right to police protection -- would at least have the means to protect him- or herself. And if concealed carry were the law of the land, a criminal's first shot could be the last: We would no longer have massacres such as occurred recently in Killeen, Texas, where a madman killed 23 unarmed people and wounded many others.

    While police officers have an important job to do, that job doesn't include protection of individual citizens. That task is ours alone.

    Written for The Heartland Institute by Jay E. Simkin, an economist and author of "Dial 911 and Die," a report issued by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
  2. Rave

    Rave G&G Evangelist

    Sad but true,the media even, once in a while,when they are in the mood let us hear the screams and agonized crys of the victems while they are still telling them to keep talking and holding onto the phone!
    There is something wrong with this picture!
    We should hear the gunshots and the sound of the monster hitting the floor.
    We should read about the agency that turned the monster back out onto the streets having to pay for it's actions,at least!
    I feel like ranting and raving,but I guess I will stifle for now.:mad: :mad: :mad:

  3. Stopper

    Stopper G&G Newbie

    Get on down with your bad self!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Sweet article, way to go Doglips thanks for putting that up. I am printing immediately to show some lesser informed persons what they can look forward to. CCW is everyones RIGHT!!!!
  4. Shaun

    Shaun G&G Evangelist

    So very true - Speaking from the perspective that I have, I have always told people even when they were reporting a prowler to call and say "I smell smoke" to the dispatcher this will cause the dispatcher to send fire immediately - no criminals do not pay attention to sirens sounds so that means if they here it they are gone. The average response for Fire is 2-4 minutes even out in the country areas versus LEO response upwards of 45 minutes depending on where you live in relation to officers location at the time.
  5. Benny

    Benny Guest

    Great article. I certainly believe that when it comes down to it that the only person that can defend you is yourself. I'm positive you'll all agree. There are a lot of nuts out there so who knows when we'll be called to defend ourselves or our family. Keep up with the great articles!

  6. Stopper

    Stopper G&G Newbie

    I printed out the article above and showed it around.

    I am always amazed at the ignorance of people. We just had a "heated" discussion about it, the ladies were mad because they thought their tax money went to LEO's to protect them and when they found out that THEY were responsable for their own protection they almost cried.

    I would rather be fighting with guns and bullets than trying to explain Freedom and Liberty to a bunch of phsyco women. If any of you read my post on ffl, you would know how I feel about non-thinking women or men for that matter.

    As one of you men say: "oil well" you can't walk away from a fight, so fight the good fight. It's gonna be hell around here for a while, but WTF!
  7. TKH

    TKH Guest

    I am a LEO, and have no doubts about the right and responsibility of self protection. We share our dispatch center with a number of agencies, and last week they listened to 2 seperate double murders. Both times the final victims were on line with the dispatcher when they were killed. Both instances took over 20 minutes from start to finish (both out in rural areas) and both times it was over before LE could get there. Sadly, both times the final victim would had plenty of time to deal with the problem appropriately (lethal force), but lacked the necessary equipment. In both instances the suspect shot one victim early on and then waited before killing the second.

    In the first instance, the second victim had time to return to her vehicle and call 911. She was on the line for a long period of time (10 minutes or so) before she was shot. The second victim in the second shooting actually had time to lock the doors to the house and call 911. The suspect had been in the house earlier and killed the first victim. His gun then mis-fired and somehow the second victim got him out the door and got the door locked. He was on the line for at least 15 minutes before he was tricked into looking out the window and then shot in the head.

    Both situations were close range encounters, one suspect used a 9mm handgun, the other a .243 rifle. We can debate 9mm vs 40 vs 45, or AK vs AR-15 vs G3 all day long, but the best gun in a gunfight is the one you have with you. In both these instances a 5 shot 38 might have saved the day, and grand daddys 12 ga duck gun would have sure as hell helped. I know that I'm preaching to the choir on this type of forum, but no, the cops can't be there all the time when the $^&! hits the fan. We'll come running when you call, but be prepared to take care of yourself until we get there!! (as a side note, when we do get there, listen to what we say. You'll be pumped up, so will we, and we probably don't know if you're the good guy or the bad guy. So when the responding officer tells you to drop your Kimber Ultra Super Tactical Response Defender, he isn't going to care if its a $2500.00 gun, and you shouldn't either! Drop it!)

    While I'm on my soap box, support the NRA. This type of discussion may be a moot point if the anti's have their way. You may have no choice but to wait for help, and I think we can agree that ain't always the best option! I personally don't think the NRA is perfect, but I think they are the best we've got so far!
  8. wes

    wes Guest

    TKH,you are kind of in my neck of the woods. All the dealings I've had with the LEO's around here have been good. Just want to say thanks to you guys.
  9. Oxford

    Oxford G&G Evangelist

    You said it right


    The following portion of your post really hit home for me. That was a powerful statement and totally accurate. Couldn't have been more clearly stated why individuals need to take the responsibility of defending themselves instead of "burying their heads in the sand" and waiting for danger to pass.

    "...a 5 shot 38 might have saved the day, and grand daddys 12 ga duck gun would have sure as hell helped. I know that I'm preaching to the choir on this type of forum, but no, the cops can't be there all the time when the $^&! hits the fan."

  10. Calvin

    Calvin G&G Evangelist

    It's a sad state of affairs when the government can't/won't accept the fact that the Average Joe has the right to defend him/herself. I know of a case where the 911 operator actually hung up on the victim because they didn't believe the caller was in real trouble. The girls' ex-boyfriend attacked her when she was getting into her car at the college she was attending. Her throat had been slashed, along with her wrists, and could barely talk. Had it not been for a security officer who just happened by, she would have died. The 911 operator said she thought the caller was a prankster because "she was whispering, like she was trying to hide her voice." 2 years later, and the victim has never received an apology for it. Matter of fact, the only thing she got was "Well, we're only human, so we're gonna screw up".
    I don't know about you, but I believe the good Lord put us on this earth with a survival instinct for a reason. It's a means of self-preservation that overshadows these idiotic laws that say you should just roll over, and let the bad man have whatever he wants. I don't rely on anyone other than myself to protect me and my family, because that's the way it is. Politicians get enough of my money, and they don't have any right to decide when I have a right to fight or not.

    :fuss: :target:
  11. Beaver

    Beaver Guest

    Speaking as a "thinking" woman, I don't rely on anyone but myself for protection!
  12. JohnD

    JohnD Guest

    It happens like that here in canada all the time. People phone the cops and they can't or will not get there in time. A gun in the house aint no good unless everybody knows how to use it. And grandpas 12 gage is almost ideal when loaded with bird shot for defence because it don't go through the house and kill other people when fired.
  13. Stopper

    Stopper G&G Newbie

    Right on Beaver!!

    I'm not woman bashing, just liberal woman bashing I guess, I just seem to hear it from the prettier sex more than the fellas. And it has been hell around here since I showed off the article.

    I wish more and more ladies were taking your stance!
  14. Rave

    Rave G&G Evangelist

    This is a terrible situation,and to make matters worse down here in Tampa the Fire,rescue,or telephone repair will not go into certain areas until the police are at the scene or are at the station to escort them.What do you think about THAT?:mad: :mad: :mad:
  15. Bear

    Bear Guest

    I think we would have a lot less crime if we let the dope dealers, street thugs, ect bodies pile up in the gutter for their buddies to see...

    My idea for gun control is hitting what you aim at!
  16. I'm with Bear on that one. Here in Tucson our murder rate is already over twice of what it was for the entire year last year! A lot of the killings are gang related and personally I hope they shoot at each other till the last one is standing then the courts could convict and sentence him to death. With the gang mentality if a member of one gang is killed then that gang will go kill someone in the other gang. I think that dumping their bodies in their own "hood" might open their eyes.