Tuesday, December 18, 2012

The truth cops know but won't say

By Donald Sensing

PJ Media » Until U.S. Understands Police Limitations, Some Will Put Faith in Gun Control:

There is one thing that can immediately stop an active shooter, and which, if handled properly, may even serve as a deterrent. Unlike most governmental initiatives, it will cost little or nothing, and is undeniably effective. However, until the public understands the reality facing the police — the people they look to for the protection of themselves and their children — that single most effective solution is impossible. 
Active duty officers usually cannot tell the whole truth to the public; they’d lose their jobs. 
Police administrators won’t tell the whole truth to the public; they have to please the politicians that hired them. 
Since I’m no longer serving as a police officer, I can tell the truth — the whole truth — and it’s not encouraging. Remember, above all, this foremost truth: No one is responsible for your personal safety and that of those you love but you.
The post was written by a retired police officer, who also points out that in a best-response scenario, the first police officer will not arrive at the scene before at least 10 minutes have elapsed from the first shots fired. CNN reports that at Sandy Hook, "Police and other first responders arrived on scene about 20 minutes after the first calls" (my italics).

The excerpt above echoes what I said here.
I carry a pistol to defend myself and my loved ones, not to defend you. A carry permit does not make me the Fist of Justice. It does not give me police powers. If I face criminal danger in public, my number one choice will be to flee, not fight. Having no other choice, I will draw or use my pistol to save my children, my wife, myself. Not you. ...
 If you are an adult, no one is more responsible for defending you than you. If you find yourself unarmed and needing defending, it is because you decided to be. Bluntly put, I am not going to put my life at risk to subsidize your stupid decision. I might be morally justified in defending you with lethal force, but I am not morally obligated to do so. 
And, as the retired cop goes on to say, police officers are under no obligation at all to put themselves at risk to protect anyone. Yes, this is true.
If municipalities and individual officers could be sued for failure to keep each citizen from harm, how could any city afford a police force? Who would become a police officer knowing every dime they ever made would be spent fending off lawsuits for matters about which they had no knowledge?
His post is very illuminating. Read the whole thing.

Meanwhile, Chief of Police Tim Fitch of St. Louis County, Mo., says it's time to start seriously discussing letting school employees go armed.
Fitch said the killing will not be stopped by legislation or laws. “If there’s somebody that’s really hellbent on doing something like this, they’re not going to care what the law is.” ... 
"But, last resort, somebody’s got to take action and they got to do it quickly.”
Both UCLA law Prof. Eugene Volokh and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo think that schools should be protected by armed security guards. For the record, I would first want this teacher's assessment of it addressed.

Bookmark and Share