TAMPA, February 11, 2013 – It would be the hilarious stuff of satire or black comedy if it were fiction, but it involves real people and it’s tragic.
Police officers in pursuit of one of their own gone bad shot 71-year-old Emma Hernandez in the back after opening fire on her newspaper delivery truck. Hernandez’s daughter, 47-year-old Margie Carranza, sustained a hand injury. Police apparently mistook Hernandez’s blue Toyota Tacoma for murder suspect Christopher Dorner’s dark-gray Nissan Titan. The two women were not warned or ordered to stop before the shooting.
“No command, no instruction, no warning. They just opened fire on them,” said Glen Jonas, who is representing Emma Hernandez, 71, and Margie Carranza, 47, in possible legal action against the Los Angeles Police Department.
These are the “public servants” that we are supposed to rely on to defend us against violent crime after we surrender our natural right to keep and bear arms. That obviously begs the question, “Who is going to protect us from the public servants?”
These are by no means the only circumstances in which you have good reason to fear the police.
In the fantasyland inhabited by gun control advocates, the use of firearms is delegated to police, who somehow defend innocent victims against violent criminals even in absentia. The victim need only dial 911 and the police will “respond within minutes.”
This is so preposterous that the effort shouldn’t be necessary, but let’s walk through the thought experiment nonetheless. Three criminals break into your home. They may be armed with guns, knives, or just superior strength and numbers. You have no firearms, so you dial 911.
Assuming that your attackers stand motionless for the “minutes” it takes the police to get there, they are thwarted just before killing or maiming you by police who burst through the door and dispatch them with pinpoint accuracy, perhaps even shooting a perpetrator who is holding a gun to your head. Those not killed by the police drop their weapons and surrender. You live happily ever after.
That might play well on a movie screen, but out here in the real world, exactly the opposite will likely occur.
First, even if the cops “respond within minutes,” it’s too late. They responded within minutes at Sandy Hook. They responded within minutes in Aurora, Colorado. Ten minutes is too long. Two minutes is too long. If you are unarmed, two minutes after you are attacked by a violent criminal, you’re dead.
Do the math.
If the cops do arrive at your home or place where you are attacked before you’ve been killed, your problems might just be beginning. As Will Grigg reminds us, the first priority for police responding to a 911 call is “officer safety.” More often than not, the officer attempts to secure his or her own safety at the expense of yours.
Charlie Mitchener learned this the hard way when he called 911 to report a break-in at his office. When the police officer arrived on the scene, Mr. Mitchener dutifully informed her that he had a firearms permit and was carrying a firearm. The officer responded by handcuffing and disarming him, to make certain “we were all safe.”
“Bear in mind that she had yet to clear my office (she was waiting for backup for clearing),” Charlie writes. “So, while remote, there was the possibility that the bad guys were still in my office and would come rushing out, finding me, to their delight, handcuffed. Apparently I was not included in her comment ‘that we were all safe.’ It is always nice when law-abiding citizens, particularly myself, are disposable,” remarked Mr. Mitchener.
The Gipper wasn’t exaggerating when he called “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” terrifying words.
This is by no means an isolated incident. Grigg’s Pro Libertate blog has been documenting the danger posed to the public by local, state and federal law enforcement agencies since 2006. It’s hard to argue with his conclusion that the worst thing that you can do in an emergency is call the police. A well-armed and trained private citizen is far safer protection against violent crime than government thugs, especially now that they have tanks, grenades and C-4 explosives.
Defending your life at the moment you are attacked is your responsibility and your responsibility alone. Our legal system does not suppose that the police will be there to prevent a violent attack or fight off the attacker. The policeman’s job is to arrest the perpetrator not only after he has committed a crime, but after an impartial judge has determined the policeman has identified the right suspect.
The Constitution doesn’t even trust him to do that on his own.
Pretending that defense of your life can be delegated to the government is a recipe for disaster. Gun control advocates who argue it’s possible are either intellectually dishonest or delusional or both. If anything, we need protection from the police, not by them.
Tom Mullen is the author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.