Protection -- Whose Job is it?

By Michael LeMieux 24 January 2011

It seems that more and more reports are appearing of people using 911 emergency numbers to resolve their issues rather than emergency assistance. On late night television the other night I came across a story of a woman calling 911 because the fast food restaurant had messed up her order. Another 911 call was to have a policeman bring them a bottle of booze because they were too drunk to drive. Obviously absurd uses of the 911 system but it brought to mind the question Whose job is it to protect us? I have heard many anti-gun proponents state that if we can just get guns out of our society then we would be safer. Really? We have had the war on drugs for a number of decades where even the mere position of the substance could mean jail time yet there are more drugs on the streets today than ever before. Yes, the law abiding citizen does not have access to those substances but who does? Correct, the criminal! Why do they think that it would be any different with guns? Each and every day hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens carry firearms when going about their daily business and no one is harmed. In fact hundreds of times a day a criminal is thwarted by law abiding citizens armed with firearms but that is never reported. Yet if a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime then the anti-gun zealots want to take guns away from everyone even the law abiding citizen. Does that make sense? And nearly each time the mantra of if we can save just one life it would be worth it. This same thought process when applied to any other object would be laughed at as being ridiculous. For instance, thousands of people are killed each year by swimming pool drowning should we outlaw pools? Tens of thousands are killed each year from automobile accidents should we outlaw the automobile? Many deaths occur each year from accidental poisoning from common household chemicals perhaps those too could be outlawed? What many forget to recognize is that it is not the object that initiates an action that ends in a persons death (where criminals are involved) it is the criminal. We, sometimes, recognize the drunk driver is responsible for his actions when gets behind the wheel of a car. Why do we not afford the same logic for someone that uses a firearm illegally? With that having been said, whose job is it to protect us from the criminal elements in our society? Many on the left would have you believe that it is the police. However, you may be shocked to learn that the courts have ruled time and time again that even though the states employ police to patrol our streets there is no responsibility to provide protection to any particular individual and that the police are only a general benefit to the society. One particular case that highlights this concept is that of Castle Rock V Gonzales (USSC 04278) in which Jessica Gonzales, who had a restraining order against her ex-spouse, had called the

police asking them to arrest the ex-spouse for violation of the restraining order when he picked up their shared custody children without prior notification. The police declined to respond at that time and asked her to call if they had not returned later in the evening. Numerous other requests, by Jessica Gonzales, were made to the Castle Rock Police with the same result. In the early hours of the following morning the ex-spouse arrived at the police station and started firing his weapon and was subsequently killed during that exchange. It was later discovered that the 3 children were dead in the back of his truck and presumed to have been killed by the exspouse. Jessica Gonzales sued the city and officers for failing to enforce the restraining order against her ex-spouse and for not arresting him and possibly preventing the loss of her 3 children. The Supreme Court ruled that the police, in essence, could not be held liable as they were not a party to the restraining order and that it the determination to arrest was based upon the police officers judgment whether or not to further investigate immediately or to await further information before moving to arrest. In other cases the rulings have been more up front about law enforcement not being an individual protection. In South V. Maryland (1856) the court held local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. In DeShaney V. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989) the court held that although there is a duty for law enforcement to protect the individuals who are imprisoned or held in some type of institution or similar restraint of liberty, it does not translate into a specific grant of protection to the general resident. In the 1982 Bowers v. DeVito case, the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit court held that, "there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." So if there is no right to be protected by the state then the right, and responsibility, must therefore fall on the individual citizen to be the first line of defense. Many left leaning organizations would have you believe that the mix of guns and violent individuals are a lethal combination that kill and injure every day. They focus their efforts on the criminal without regard to the potential victim. Their position is that guns are always part of the violence problem and are never part of the solution. Americans must wake up to the fact that they are the primary defense when it comes to their and their familys safety. As the adage goes when seconds matter the police are only minutes away. We should not scorn the person willing to defend himself just because there are so many in our society who are unwilling to do so themselves. I, for one, am not willing to ask another to risk their life in defense of my life if I am not willing to defend it myself. Passing more laws that remove, diminish, or hinder the ability of the law abiding citizen of selfdefense only aids the lawless in our society. Put another way; when certain types of weapons are restricted by law the only ones that will have them will be the lawless. By definition the criminal

does not obey or care about the law and it only assures him of having superior capability over his potential victims. A prime example of this is gun free zones or more aptly called criminal superiority zones as it assures the criminal there will be no one there to stop him from using a gun. The recent shooting at a school board meeting showed all the victims being held at the mercy of a deranged madman. Why? Because this was a gun free zone that did not allow firearms by law abiding citizens and therefore the only person armed was the bad guy. We need to step out of the victim mentality and start asserting correct defense responsibility by assuming the mantel of protector of ourselves and our loved ones. Until we do so we will continue to be ruled by madmen and idiots. Madmen who would endanger our lives directly and idiots who think laws will stop them. Laws are designed to bring the lawless to justice. Lets stop wasting time passing laws on inanimate objects and deal with illegal behavior regardless of the tool used.