The Significance of Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
This is Huge.
June 27th, 2005, the Supreme Court Of The United States held that there is no constitutional right to police protection.
The case involves a restraining order, police opinion that the order in effect was enough, the subsequent murders of family members and the subject of the order committing "suicide by cop".
The lawsuit for police failure to protect did not prevail.
Stunning, but for the fact that this is not the first time this has been held. Other courts have held no constitutional right to police protection, as in the case of Bowers v. Devito.
Did you know that police have no mandate to protect individuals?
In his book Dial 911 and Die, The Shocking Truth About The Police Protection Myth, attorney-author Richard Stevens cites case after case (including Bowers) where it’s just plain smarter to understand that you’re on your own, one of which cases is on page 106, Ford v. Town of Grafton, N.E. 2nd 1047 where the police advised the plaintiff to "get a gun." She dialed the police instead in time of emergency, and was found dead for lack of ability to fight back. [Available at http://www.jpfo.org/n-dial911anddie.htm ]
Other cases describe instances of waiting periods and other misguided restraints of the law-abiding while the seething, known subject spends that time in freedom of movement and then subsequent action.
Since the beginning of law enforcement in the early 19th century in both U.K. and United States, police had never contemplated protecting individuals. Two of the chief reasons were that it was down to the individuals to take care of themselves and that any idea of police protection of the individual would not be workable.
My objection to elected and appointed officials afflicted with Potomac Fever on such a subject is that they are out of touch with our realities. A disease of power, isolation, and deafness, Potomac Fever reaches us by the remote control of centralization and their out of touch indifference and insistence.
Once in a while there is a beam of sunlight. Not real assistance per se certainly, but Truth, clearly enunciated Truth. The reminder, again, is that we are on our own.
Modernly, here are some other realities which make this so huge an announcement.
Police have no mandate to protect individuals. The courts know it, attorneys know it, police know it, now you know it. They protect the public, they detect crime, they collect evidence and apprehend bad guys and they do more, but they have no duty to protect individuals. They never did, remember?
We don’t hold our cops responsible for this: it is simply not on their list of duties. And remember: it wouldn’t work if it were.
In this, we understand that in time of violent crime, one cannot often summon aid. Violent crime can happen in a moment of time, which leaves no chance to call for help, anyway.
If a call for aid is completed, there must be a clear understanding of the nature of the call for its prioritization. Then there must be a car or cars available. Then there is the overall response time.
This would be several minutes for a single incident. What about civil disturbance?
In time of civil disturbance, the creeps come out of the woodwork. There are the opportunistic burglars, robbers and ne’er-do-wells who just wait for police to be busy elsewhere; there are the scavengers who sniff around looking for a child with no one to stop them, and, of course, there are always those who simply never were afraid of police to begin with.
As the law enforcement assets are occupied with their hands full, aggressors move in.
On the other side of the coin is the individual who elects not to become a victim, either in a one-shot hot burglary or local disturbance where assets are tied up unable to respond for hours or even days.
As I’ve written, individuals already have all the authority they need to protect themselves or to protect another. The head of every household needs to understand the authority he or she already has in determining how best to defend their home and person in time of violent crime.
Because I understand that it’s not possible for law enforcement to protect individuals, I propose a synergy between law enforcement and the givers in our society, the constituents who work hard, pay taxes, raise families and abide by the law. Together, we can make a considerable force to be reckoned with in fighting crime, the takers in our society.
It’s not a matter of technical legal obstacles as some disingenuously argue: it’s merely a matter of personal choice and swiftly decriminalizing reasonable actions in exercising that authority to counter a larger movement to punish individual involvement in self-defense.
Once you better understand your authority, would you exercise it in the protection of your home? Once you understand that you are in fact on your own, really, what steps would you then take in planning your household's protection? Most will pre-think and plan, once they know their powers, powers which have been stifled by officials.
Because the individual is the target (and an on-scene target at that!), because the individual already has the authority to defend home and person with lethal force if necessary, and because an individual can elect not to become a victim, the individual is the first line of defense. Now that’s workable.
It certainly works in two-thirds of the states of the nation where individuals are viewed as law-abiding and criminals are seen as criminals. They seem to have little problem discerning the difference and sorting things out. Part of the answer there is, I'm sure, not criminalizing lawful acts such as concealed carry of handguns and not painting the law-abiding as criminal for political purposes.
They key to this synergy is to no longer freeze individuals out of the process of law enforcement, but to work closely with a community. Really closely. Not merely Watch programs, but decriminalizing the use of force in personel self-defense.
Potomac Fever – the because-we-say-so governance of the people – freezes people out of the process, including its war on crime. Restoring the control back to the community - and individuals who act in their own self-defense - will raise our hand in self-defense resistance against violent crime, which aggressors might just take notice and back down. They usually do. Force is the only language they understand.
Working together with law enforcement will mean decriminalizing lawful response to release righteous personal protection from the handcuffs of horribly misguided politically correct attitudes. At present, it’s legal in one law book, but with penalties in another law book since PC, a conflict prevails in identifying reasonable lawful response with the presumption of being in anger or with excessive force. It is this imposing, counterproductive attitude that needs to be taken off the books.
Would law enforcement agree with this synergy? Well, if The 17th Annual National Survey of Police Chiefs and Sheriffs is any indicator, the answer would be more than Yes – more like a resounding Hell, Yes! (Please take note of questions 6, 7, and 10.)
Those officials not living with our realities have tried confiscation, banning guns, demonizing law-abiding owners, discouraging volunteer groups such as the Minutemen – even trying the stupidest law to stamp serial numbers on ammunition ha, ha, ha (Lord, that’s stupid!)
[Note: Not to digress too far, but California's SB 357 requires serialization of bullets (that's the lead portion of the cartridge) by a date certain, even though that technology does not exist. For officials who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, Kalifornia sure does abandon it in such unending, vexing, backdoor acts as frustrating ammunition sales as a means of gun control; in fact, officials should have no opinion or interest in controlling guns, but to uphold the Bill of Rights, not sneak in anti-constitution legislation.]
Specifically, for all their lip service, Kalifornia Legislators fail to notice that crooks don’t obey the law. That happens a lot with Potomac Fever, including Sacramento, California's own kind. It also happens that they insist on their way, remain deaf and intransigent and exclude the involvement of those they are sworn to serve.
I know, I know, if you talk to the public you may be informing terrorists, I know, but did it ever occur to the eggheads that if we join together, we can defeat the terrorist?
If Kalifornia dropped the K and armed its citizens, what would happen to violent crime?
The significance of Castle Rock v. Gonzales is the affirmation that we are on our own. All of us. On the other hand, the affirmation of past experience is that we are the first line of defense, and it's proven workable and just.
The proposal is to untie the hands of the law-abiding.
Don’t freeze out the individuals you’re sworn to serve and to hear. Don’t sweep up the law-abiding in your efforts to make the nation safe. You're making it unsafe.
The nation will be fine if you understand that we’re not the enemy.
Law enforcement and the individual are allies.
_________________________________________________
John Longenecker is author of The Battle We Fight – Battling Potomac Fever To Recapture Our Homes And Communities, available at online booksellers. His website is www.nationwideconcealedcarry.com
THIS WEEK'S TALKRADIO GUEST APPEARANCES:
KTRS ST. LOUIS AM 550
Thursday, July 21st - 09:20 Central Time with Scott St. James.
June 27th, 2005, the Supreme Court Of The United States held that there is no constitutional right to police protection.
The case involves a restraining order, police opinion that the order in effect was enough, the subsequent murders of family members and the subject of the order committing "suicide by cop".
The lawsuit for police failure to protect did not prevail.
Stunning, but for the fact that this is not the first time this has been held. Other courts have held no constitutional right to police protection, as in the case of Bowers v. Devito.
Did you know that police have no mandate to protect individuals?
In his book Dial 911 and Die, The Shocking Truth About The Police Protection Myth, attorney-author Richard Stevens cites case after case (including Bowers) where it’s just plain smarter to understand that you’re on your own, one of which cases is on page 106, Ford v. Town of Grafton, N.E. 2nd 1047 where the police advised the plaintiff to "get a gun." She dialed the police instead in time of emergency, and was found dead for lack of ability to fight back. [Available at http://www.jpfo.org/n-dial911anddie.htm ]
Other cases describe instances of waiting periods and other misguided restraints of the law-abiding while the seething, known subject spends that time in freedom of movement and then subsequent action.
Since the beginning of law enforcement in the early 19th century in both U.K. and United States, police had never contemplated protecting individuals. Two of the chief reasons were that it was down to the individuals to take care of themselves and that any idea of police protection of the individual would not be workable.
My objection to elected and appointed officials afflicted with Potomac Fever on such a subject is that they are out of touch with our realities. A disease of power, isolation, and deafness, Potomac Fever reaches us by the remote control of centralization and their out of touch indifference and insistence.
Once in a while there is a beam of sunlight. Not real assistance per se certainly, but Truth, clearly enunciated Truth. The reminder, again, is that we are on our own.
Modernly, here are some other realities which make this so huge an announcement.
Police have no mandate to protect individuals. The courts know it, attorneys know it, police know it, now you know it. They protect the public, they detect crime, they collect evidence and apprehend bad guys and they do more, but they have no duty to protect individuals. They never did, remember?
We don’t hold our cops responsible for this: it is simply not on their list of duties. And remember: it wouldn’t work if it were.
In this, we understand that in time of violent crime, one cannot often summon aid. Violent crime can happen in a moment of time, which leaves no chance to call for help, anyway.
If a call for aid is completed, there must be a clear understanding of the nature of the call for its prioritization. Then there must be a car or cars available. Then there is the overall response time.
This would be several minutes for a single incident. What about civil disturbance?
In time of civil disturbance, the creeps come out of the woodwork. There are the opportunistic burglars, robbers and ne’er-do-wells who just wait for police to be busy elsewhere; there are the scavengers who sniff around looking for a child with no one to stop them, and, of course, there are always those who simply never were afraid of police to begin with.
As the law enforcement assets are occupied with their hands full, aggressors move in.
On the other side of the coin is the individual who elects not to become a victim, either in a one-shot hot burglary or local disturbance where assets are tied up unable to respond for hours or even days.
As I’ve written, individuals already have all the authority they need to protect themselves or to protect another. The head of every household needs to understand the authority he or she already has in determining how best to defend their home and person in time of violent crime.
Because I understand that it’s not possible for law enforcement to protect individuals, I propose a synergy between law enforcement and the givers in our society, the constituents who work hard, pay taxes, raise families and abide by the law. Together, we can make a considerable force to be reckoned with in fighting crime, the takers in our society.
It’s not a matter of technical legal obstacles as some disingenuously argue: it’s merely a matter of personal choice and swiftly decriminalizing reasonable actions in exercising that authority to counter a larger movement to punish individual involvement in self-defense.
Once you better understand your authority, would you exercise it in the protection of your home? Once you understand that you are in fact on your own, really, what steps would you then take in planning your household's protection? Most will pre-think and plan, once they know their powers, powers which have been stifled by officials.
Because the individual is the target (and an on-scene target at that!), because the individual already has the authority to defend home and person with lethal force if necessary, and because an individual can elect not to become a victim, the individual is the first line of defense. Now that’s workable.
It certainly works in two-thirds of the states of the nation where individuals are viewed as law-abiding and criminals are seen as criminals. They seem to have little problem discerning the difference and sorting things out. Part of the answer there is, I'm sure, not criminalizing lawful acts such as concealed carry of handguns and not painting the law-abiding as criminal for political purposes.
They key to this synergy is to no longer freeze individuals out of the process of law enforcement, but to work closely with a community. Really closely. Not merely Watch programs, but decriminalizing the use of force in personel self-defense.
Potomac Fever – the because-we-say-so governance of the people – freezes people out of the process, including its war on crime. Restoring the control back to the community - and individuals who act in their own self-defense - will raise our hand in self-defense resistance against violent crime, which aggressors might just take notice and back down. They usually do. Force is the only language they understand.
Working together with law enforcement will mean decriminalizing lawful response to release righteous personal protection from the handcuffs of horribly misguided politically correct attitudes. At present, it’s legal in one law book, but with penalties in another law book since PC, a conflict prevails in identifying reasonable lawful response with the presumption of being in anger or with excessive force. It is this imposing, counterproductive attitude that needs to be taken off the books.
Would law enforcement agree with this synergy? Well, if The 17th Annual National Survey of Police Chiefs and Sheriffs is any indicator, the answer would be more than Yes – more like a resounding Hell, Yes! (Please take note of questions 6, 7, and 10.)
Those officials not living with our realities have tried confiscation, banning guns, demonizing law-abiding owners, discouraging volunteer groups such as the Minutemen – even trying the stupidest law to stamp serial numbers on ammunition ha, ha, ha (Lord, that’s stupid!)
[Note: Not to digress too far, but California's SB 357 requires serialization of bullets (that's the lead portion of the cartridge) by a date certain, even though that technology does not exist. For officials who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, Kalifornia sure does abandon it in such unending, vexing, backdoor acts as frustrating ammunition sales as a means of gun control; in fact, officials should have no opinion or interest in controlling guns, but to uphold the Bill of Rights, not sneak in anti-constitution legislation.]
Specifically, for all their lip service, Kalifornia Legislators fail to notice that crooks don’t obey the law. That happens a lot with Potomac Fever, including Sacramento, California's own kind. It also happens that they insist on their way, remain deaf and intransigent and exclude the involvement of those they are sworn to serve.
I know, I know, if you talk to the public you may be informing terrorists, I know, but did it ever occur to the eggheads that if we join together, we can defeat the terrorist?
If Kalifornia dropped the K and armed its citizens, what would happen to violent crime?
The significance of Castle Rock v. Gonzales is the affirmation that we are on our own. All of us. On the other hand, the affirmation of past experience is that we are the first line of defense, and it's proven workable and just.
The proposal is to untie the hands of the law-abiding.
Don’t freeze out the individuals you’re sworn to serve and to hear. Don’t sweep up the law-abiding in your efforts to make the nation safe. You're making it unsafe.
The nation will be fine if you understand that we’re not the enemy.
Law enforcement and the individual are allies.
_________________________________________________
John Longenecker is author of The Battle We Fight – Battling Potomac Fever To Recapture Our Homes And Communities, available at online booksellers. His website is www.nationwideconcealedcarry.com
THIS WEEK'S TALKRADIO GUEST APPEARANCES:
KTRS ST. LOUIS AM 550
Thursday, July 21st - 09:20 Central Time with Scott St. James.
<< Home