Debate on Police Responsibility..

[itsbob]

We've had this discussion several times on this forum. What are the police responsible for??

If you ask a cop, they say we don't need weapons to protect ourselves, we don't have to concern ourselves with our own security as they'll protect us, and make sure we are safe and secure. To the point if someone invades your home do NOT do anything to protect yourself.. run, hide, and call the cops to come protect you.

If you ask a "citizen" they'll tell you it's an individual's responsibility to protect themselves, and protect and secure their property, and they should be allowed to have the tools to do it.

So, if we all agree with scenario #1... Cops protect us, cops provide security, we don't have that responsibility anymore.. Shouldn't liability go along with responsibility??

If you want to remove the responsibility of my protecting my property, the lives of myself and my family.. and you (as the police) want to assume that responsibility shouldn't you also assume the liability?

If people break into my home and steal all of my worldly possessions, and the cops are responsible (by their own admission), shouldn't they be liable to replace all the stolen property because they failed to do their job?

OR is the other camp correct. The police department's job is NOT to protect, but to enforce and investigate? And if that is the case who is supposed to protect us if the cops can't (it's not humanly possible) and we aren't allowed?

 

[G1G4]

I think it's a little of both. In the majority of cases, the police are reactive instead of being proactive. We simply don't have enough law enforcement in the world to assign one officer to every home and/or person.
With that said, I think it's the job of the police officer to enforce laws. I don't think it's their job to protect people to an extent. Now, yes, it's they're in a police chase, it's their job to end it as quickly as possible, or if there is a gun-toting maniac running around shooting people, it's their job to arrest him or find him as quickly as possible, but if someone breaks into your home, then I believe it's your job, and your right, to protect yourself by any means necessary.

 

[edinsomd]

The police are under no legal obligation to provide protection to citizen's persons or property. I know they would love to catch criminals in the act, but unfortunately it doesn't happen that way very often. Mostly they investigate after the crime has occurred, and try to catch those responsible. And kudos to them for that, but the fact is the first responder to a crime scene is the victim, and what security there may be is what the victim has on hand.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away. That's the simple truth.

 

[bulldog]

I had this very chat with a police friend of mine a couple weeks ago. It started with me asking his opinion on 2A and more specifically, a citizens ability to carry a weapon. His opinion was "no way", let us do our jobs. He went on to say that there is no good and valid reason for a citizen to carry a weapon. He did at least acknowledge that he was not against having them at home, but they should be used as an absolute last resort...when your back is against the wall and there is no other way out.
It was neither the time nor the place to get into a longer discussion about it, but he knows that I disagree with him on every level about this. Cops can only protect us to the degree that they somehow manage to get bad guys off the streets and that usually happens, as has already been pointed out, as a result of another crime and an investigation that follows.
I would venture to say that many more home owners have stopped home invasion type crimes than have the police.
Protect yourself cause nobody else is.

 

[Tech]

I had this very chat with a police friend of mine a couple weeks ago. It started with me asking his opinion on 2A and more specifically, a citizens ability to carry a weapon. His opinion was "no way", let us do our jobs. He went on to say that there is no good and valid reason for a citizen to carry a weapon. He did at least acknowledge that he was not against having them at home, but they should be used as an absolute last resort...when your back is against the wall and there is no other way out.
It was neither the time nor the place to get into a longer discussion about it, but he knows that I disagree with him on every level about this. Cops can only protect us to the degree that they somehow manage to get bad guys off the streets and that usually happens, as has already been pointed out, as a result of another crime and an investigation that follows.
I would venture to say that many more home owners have stopped home invasion type crimes than have the police.
Protect yourself cause nobody else is.

He would change his tune quickly if he was only permitted to be armed while on duty. If after his shift, he was required to secure his weapon at the station house and be like the rest of us, I wonder how he feel.

 

[onelove6366]

I am all for carrying a handgun to be legal. I respect cops - don't get me wrong but IMHO the legal system has created an environment where more often then not their hands are tied and they are not allowed to take appropriate or even any action in most instances. This is the same of Child Protective Services - their goal is to keep families together so most kids stay in abusive or neglectful environments due to this while our tax dollars are spent sending useless parents to "parenting classes" in a sad attempt to rehabilitate them which more often fails. I see the police being hampered by federal and state laws/mandates/goals in much the same way. I have a personal experience where there were people on my street using and dealing drugs and a police officer lived right next door and we discussed the matter many times and they could do nothing becuase they could not get a judge to sign off on the paperwork for them to move forward. The neighborhood is going to crap still - Strawberry Hills. The cop moved due to these very same people harassing his wife and I moved out too. It's not a nice place anymore.

Law abiding citizens should be allowed to protect themselves. Gun control laws don't stop criminals from committing crimes - they enable them to get away with it.

He would change his tune quickly if he was only permitted to be armed while on duty. If after his shift, he was required to secure his weapon at the station house and be like the rest of us, I wonder how he feel.

 

[foosballpaul]

I am all for carrying a handgun to be legal. I respect cops - don't get me wrong but IMHO the legal system has created an environment where more often then not their hands are tied and they are not allowed to take appropriate or even any action in most instances. This is the same of Child Protective Services - their goal is to keep families together so most kids stay in abusive or neglectful environments due to this while our tax dollars are spent sending useless parents to "parenting classes" in a sad attempt to rehabilitate them which more often fails. I see the police being hampered by federal and state laws/mandates/goals in much the same way. I have a personal experience where there were people on my street using and dealing drugs and a police officer lived right next door and we discussed the matter many times and they could do nothing becuase they could not get a judge to sign off on the paperwork for them to move forward. The neighborhood is going to crap still - Strawberry Hills. The cop moved due to these very same people harassing his wife and I moved out too. It's not a nice place anymore.

Law abiding citizens should be allowed to protect themselves. Gun control laws don't stop criminals from committing crimes - they enable them to get away with it.

I agree with you about the cop's hands being tied to a certain extent. What I would like to know is why St. Mary's cops are busting drug dealers and users routinely and you never hear about a Charles county drug bust. Maybe St. Mary's police aren't as corrupt as Charles county's cops. Western Charles county probably has more drug dealers than any other place in the area. Especially Bryans Road area, and you never hear about any arrests for drug offenses in that area.

 

[glhs837]

He would change his tune quickly if he was only permitted to be armed while on duty. If after his shift, he was required to secure his weapon at the station house and be like the rest of us, I wonder how he feel.

This quoted for truth. Of course, the reply would be that the officer has training. He does, but anyone can be trained.

 

[TurboK9]

We've had this discussion several times on this forum. What are the police responsible for??

If you ask a cop, they say we don't need weapons to protect ourselves, we don't have to concern ourselves with our own security as they'll protect us, and make sure we are safe and secure. To the point if someone invades your home do NOT do anything to protect yourself.. run, hide, and call the cops to come protect you.

If you ask a "citizen" they'll tell you it's an individual's responsibility to protect themselves, and protect and secure their property, and they should be allowed to have the tools to do it.

So, if we all agree with scenario #1... Cops protect us, cops provide security, we don't have that responsibility anymore.. Shouldn't liability go along with responsibility??

If you want to remove the responsibility of my protecting my property, the lives of myself and my family.. and you (as the police) want to assume that responsibility shouldn't you also assume the liability?

If people break into my home and steal all of my worldly possessions, and the cops are responsible (by their own admission), shouldn't they be liable to replace all the stolen property because they failed to do their job?

OR is the other camp correct. The police department's job is NOT to protect, but to enforce and investigate? And if that is the case who is supposed to protect us if the cops can't (it's not humanly possible) and we aren't allowed?

Cops don't always take that side.

Years ago in St Paul, I was walking home from work alone, and got jumped by 4 dirtbags. I tried to fight, but 4 is tough, haha, got the living sh*t kicked out of me, but they only got $10 because I faked 'em out, haha.

The cop that found me beaten and bloody, staggering down the side of the road, told me I should carry a gun. I said I didn't have a permit. He replied that carrying without a permit is a misdemeanor, even if you use it, as long as you otherwise use it in self defense (fear of life, yadda yadda).

Suprising from a cop. I later looked up the law, found out he was right, and from then out packed a .357 when I was planning to walk home.

Glad my employer never checked my locker at work.

Of course, that was MN, not MD.

 

[Larry Gude]

Until the last presidential election, there was a debate as to whether healthcare should be more of a government responsibility or the individual. Now, the debate is how, not if, to get to total government responsibility.

Government involvement is what made it so bad of a problem in the first place and now, the self fulfilling prophecy, government is seen as the ONLY solution.

The day after 9/11/01 when we were under attack, yet again, by a definable, clear enemy (starting pretty much in 1993 with the first tower attacks) the government response was not "Hey, we're vulnerable. People should arm themselves so that when someone tries to attack people where they know you will be unarmed, you can stop them". It was "We're going to assume all of you are enemies (of the government) and, as the government is all that matters, we must protect the government. From you all."

Any measure of common sense says the solution to healthcare is more, not less, individual responsibility, including paying for it and taking better care of yourself.

Any measure of common sense says that we, the people, are safer on a plane if we are armed.

Any measure of common sense says that we, the people, are better off from crime if we are armed.

That does not serve the interests of the government. Oddly enough, that doesn't serve the interests of crime and our other enemies either.


:shrug:

 

[foodcritic]

We've had this discussion several times on this forum. What are the police responsible for??

If you ask a cop, they say we don't need weapons to protect ourselves, we don't have to concern ourselves with our own security as they'll protect us, and make sure we are safe and secure. To the point if someone invades your home do NOT do anything to protect yourself.. run, hide, and call the cops to come protect you.

If you ask a "citizen" they'll tell you it's an individual's responsibility to protect themselves, and protect and secure their property, and they should be allowed to have the tools to do it.

So, if we all agree with scenario #1... Cops protect us, cops provide security, we don't have that responsibility anymore.. Shouldn't liability go along with responsibility??

If you want to remove the responsibility of my protecting my property, the lives of myself and my family.. and you (as the police) want to assume that responsibility shouldn't you also assume the liability?

If people break into my home and steal all of my worldly possessions, and the cops are responsible (by their own admission), shouldn't they be liable to replace all the stolen property because they failed to do their job?

OR is the other camp correct. The police department's job is NOT to protect, but to enforce and investigate? And if that is the case who is supposed to protect us if the cops can't (it's not humanly possible) and we aren't allowed?

What "cops" are you talking to? Completely false assumption. Most police are probably in favor of law abiding citizens being armed.

The police are there to protect (when they can) and investigate when they can. Not really complicated stuff here.

Why are you blaming the police on your inability to protect yourself? Not the police's fault!!!

 

[zeerex99]

I've lived in states where "conceal and carry" permits were relatively easy to obtain. I've lived in states where openly carry was acceptable and lawfull. Now I live in MD, and have for the last 19 years where both are impossible, if not almost impossible.

I can say from experience that the rate of crime in all three types of places was really not that much different. When I was stationed in Alameda a long time ago I spent a night in Oakland when we arrived. Wonderfull place! Sort of a "where there's a will there's a way" scenario. I think the bottom line is that if someone is out to break the law, they're going to do it.

As far as what law enforcement's role is, I can't say that I'm entirely clear. I can say that if I'm home with my family and someone is coming through the front door there's going to be a response from me (or members of my family) that negates the threat.

No bravado, no threat, just response. I would rather err on the side of possibly being charged than to have to live my life with the thought that I did nothing and lost a family member (or my own life) over waiting for a response that could take too long.

I look at it this way; if I turned the dog loose and used a baseball bat I'd be in the same potential trouble. I'll save my dog the hassle and potential danger and make sure, to the extent I can, that my family and I don't become victims.

Just my two cents.

 

[BernieP]

No offense intended

Contray what it says on side of the car law enforcement officers (Police, Sheriff, or Trooper) are not there to protect us. The can only react, they respond when there is a report of a crime. They cannot intercede before there is a criminal act.

I think the reason you see so many law enforcement agcenies / officers come out against the public carrying weapons is that they are afraid of what damage an improperly trained user can do. They are also concerned about the weapon falling into criminal hads
It's one less weapon that can be fired at them either accidentally or on purpose.
Frankly, I agree with them though I would still say that we have the right to posess and use a firearm.
But if you are going to use a gun for home self defense, make sure it's the right firearm for the job, make sure you know how to use it and that you are prepared to use it. Practice, Practice, Practice.

Just remember, I'm for gun control. I use two hands.

 

[zeerex99]

One more little thought...why should the police have liability? What about the douchbag that comes into my house or commits a crime? Granted, most people who would do that couldn't provide any kind of restitution or they wouldn't be breaking into houses.

What's the answer? Jail time, life in prison??? I don't know. My personal thought is to take people like that, give them a trial and if convicted they go for plane ride. Pack a ton of them into the back of a smooth lined C5, climb to 20,000 feet over the desert, nose up and open the tail door.

If done consistently it might be provoke a little thought in anyone considering bad things.

Again, just my two cents.

 

[itsbob]

What "cops" are you talking to? Completely false assumption. Most police are probably in favor of law abiding citizens being armed.

The police are there to protect (when they can) and investigate when they can. Not really complicated stuff here.

Why are you blaming the police on your inability to protect yourself? Not the police's fault!!!

Who said anything about ME not having the ability to protect myself??

The question is why should the state take away our responsibility, and TELL us to do so without providing anyone to take the responsibility?

If we aren't ALLOWED to protect ourselves (has not one thing to do with ability to do so) who is going to?

 

[zeerex99]

The question is why should the state take away our responsibility, and TELL us to do so without providing anyone to take the responsibility?

If we aren't ALLOWED to protect ourselves (has not one thing to do with ability to do so) who is going to?

I don't know that the State is telling us we can't protect ourselves. I've been in a position of having to protect myself and was never charged with anything.

When you throw a firearm in the mix it gets a lot more complicated. Gun, baseball bat or fists and feet. Makes a huge difference in some places.

As I've said, I'll err on the side of common sense (to me) and self protection and deal with the rest later.

 

[vraiblonde]

If you ask a cop, they say we don't need weapons to protect ourselves, we don't have to concern ourselves with our own security as they'll protect us, and make sure we are safe and secure. To the point if someone invades your home do NOT do anything to protect yourself.. run, hide, and call the cops to come protect you.

I have never had a cop say that to me. In fact, it's been just the opposite - cops that I know and that know my living arrangement express interest in me being able to defend myself if need be. I was actually engaged to a cop a zillion years ago, and he was very into women, in particular, being able to take care of themselves because you may not be able to call a cop when you need one.

 

[AK-74me]

itsbob, many know I don't cut the police a whole lot of slack, especially over 4th Amendment issues. However, I've been through a lot of training with cops and the majority of the ones I have been in contact with agree with most of us, that if someone deserves to be shot then any law abiding citizen should be able to do the shooting.

 

[letmetellyou]

We've had this discussion several times on this forum. What are the police responsible for??

If you ask a cop, they say we don't need weapons to protect ourselves, we don't have to concern ourselves with our own security as they'll protect us, and make sure we are safe and secure. To the point if someone invades your home do NOT do anything to protect yourself.. run, hide, and call the cops to come protect you.

If you ask a "citizen" they'll tell you it's an individual's responsibility to protect themselves, and protect and secure their property, and they should be allowed to have the tools to do it.

So, if we all agree with scenario #1... Cops protect us, cops provide security, we don't have that responsibility anymore.. Shouldn't liability go along with responsibility??

If you want to remove the responsibility of my protecting my property, the lives of myself and my family.. and you (as the police) want to assume that responsibility shouldn't you also assume the liability?

If people break into my home and steal all of my worldly possessions, and the cops are responsible (by their own admission), shouldn't they be liable to replace all the stolen property because they failed to do their job?

OR is the other camp correct. The police department's job is NOT to protect, but to enforce and investigate? And if that is the case who is supposed to protect us if the cops can't (it's not humanly possible) and we aren't allowed?

Cops have no more say about whether you do or do not have a firearm any more than any other citizen. If you don't like the law, attack the legislature. Otherwise, stfu. Cops are paid to enforce the law. They have a right to an opinion just the same as you do. They don't create the laws, the legislature does.

 

[letmetellyou]

I have never had a cop say that to me. In fact, it's been just the opposite - cops that I know and that know my living arrangement express interest in me being able to defend myself if need be. I was actually engaged to a cop a zillion years ago, and he was very into women, in particular, being able to take care of themselves because you may not be able to call a cop when you need one.

Exactly!!!