Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

We get the police we deserve.  I’ve often written this, and I’ll address it again in some detail in the near future, but for the moment, consider this from Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:

The law enforcement system is being undermined by district attorneys funded by George Soros whose agenda is to prevent enforcement of laws, and politicians whose goal is to see those arrested released immediately without bail. We’re seeing that right now with rioters and looters almost immediately released. The next push is to defund the police.

Hollywood, The music industry. Television. Gone.

We still have the vote and can win elections, despite the disadvantage. But it’s not a guarantee. Which is why the left wants to subvert voting integrity.

All this time, you have seen bits and pieces, and figured that while you might not agree, it wasn’t a threat to our existence.

The wilding and looting should be your wake up call. When seconds counted, the police were pulled back by the policitians.

The goal is to destroy capitalism, and to seek revenge. The Black Lives Matter movement, founded based on fraudulent narratives of the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown cases, is led by anti-American, anti-capitalist activists. They have concocted a false narrative of mass murder of Blacks at the hands of police, when the statistics show otherwise. They will exploit George Floyd’s death mercilessly to drive that agenda. And they will have some success, because all the institutions listed above are behind them.

The goal is also to seize ultimate political power and use it to ensure America is, forevermore, a one-party country.  Never Trumpers and fellow travelers think they’ll be allowed some role in ruling the rubble.  As the song goes, they “don’t know much about history.”

Consider this too from Fuzzy Slippers, also at Legal Insurrection:  

Back in 2018, Katy Grimes wrote about leftist billionaire George Soros funneling millions into U.S. District Attorney races across the country.

Apparently, the investment is paying off now.  Soros-backed Saint Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner reportedly declined to prosecute those arrested for looting and rioting.  More than 30 people were released from jail.

Even when the police honorably serve the public by doing the vital jobs they’re hired to do on our behalf, anti-American prosecutors can throw it all away. Consider this from Fox News:  

A Virginia police chief [William C. Smith] held back tears over the weekend as he described how protesters allegedly set a house on fire while a child was inside over the weekend, and then blocked firefighters from responding quickly.

‘Last night, protesters intentionally set a fire to an occupied building on Broad Street,’ Richmond Chief Smith told reporters Sunday. ‘This is not the only occupied building that has been set fire to over the last two days, but they prohibited us from getting on scene. We had to force our way to make a clear path for the fire department. Protesters intercepted that fire apparatus several blocks away with vehicles and blocked that fire department’s access to the structure fire. Inside that home was a child.’

Arson, all too often results not only in catastrophic property loss, but murder.  This particular mob would have been delighted to see that child burned alive in the name of social justice.  When Americans see rampant lawlessness, and the police unable or unwilling to respond, they act rationally.  Even some D/S/Cs act rationally: Small Arms Analytics and Forecasting reports that compared with May 2019, May 2020 experienced an 80.2% increase in firearm sales.  This works out to 94% in single handgun sales, 66.3% single long-gun sales and other background check related sales increased by 48.2%. These figures include “multiple” sales where the various classes of guns couldn’t be determined.

There’s a venerable aphorism that a conservative is a liberal that’s been robbed.  Some D/S/Cs actually learn from up close exposure to reality and many are buying guns for the first time.  Many, sadly never will learn.  So buckle up, gentle readers, for a brief primer on the use of deadly force.

The Detroit Police, for example, have long had a 58 minute emergency call response time, when they answer 911 calls at all.  This is the nature of police emergency response in much of the United States. In some places it’s a simple matter of distance common in rural America, in others, a lack of money and manpower, in others crime is so rampant response to even true emergencies is rationed, and in others, incompetence plays a role. As we’re now seeing in Democrat ruled cities, the police are not allowed to do their jobs.  In some places, many of these factors are involved. Even in places with excellent and professional police agencies and response times, one fact remains: even if one can call the police, the police cannot possibly respond in time when lives are under imminent threat.

The police can’t protect everyone, they have no legal duty to do it, and they can’t be successfully sued if they don’t.  We are, when our lives are in imminent danger, on our own.

In June, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales.  Gonzales defied a custody decision and restraining order–ink on paper tends to take no action to save lives–and kidnapped his three daughters, ages 7-10, from his estranged wife’s yard. Gonzales killed the girls and eventually committed suicide by cop by shooting up a police station.  The police were called when the girls were kidnapped, but did nothing over many hours until they were finally forced to respond to Gonzales’ gunfire.  By then the girls were dead, killed earlier by Gonzales and driven to the police station in his pickup.  Gonzales followed them in death not long after.  My December 25, 2011 PJ Media article explores this incident in greater depth.

Cold comfort may be found in such situations only in the belief that Gonzales’ final destination was surely 180° opposite that of his innocent children.  In handing down this decision, the Court affirmed decades of precedent, which holds the police have a duty only to deter and investigate crime for the benefit of the public at large.  They have no duty to protect the life or property of any individual. Even though they did nothing to assist Mrs. Gonzales who so piteously and repeatedly cried out to them for help over many hours, even though they did nothing to save the lives of her children, they could not, and cannot, be held liable.

We hear much these days about police killing “unarmed” people, as though that fact—if true—means the killing was unlawful.  That’s not necessarily true, and the media seldom lets facts get in the way of a good racial narrative.  As Gropin’ Joe Biden said, “we believe in truth over facts.”

The Doctrine of Deadly Force:

This is another area where everyone must carefully follow state law.  The laws of some states are more lenient than the general principles of the use of deadly force, while some are more restrictive.  The question is: when is the use of deadly force justified?  General Answer: when necessary to halt the imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to self or another.

Andrew Branca, whose definitive book The Law of Self Defense, is must reading for anyone concerned about these issues, adds several other, related criteria/concerns:

Innocence:  the defender must not be the initial or unlawful aggressor. People engaging in mutual combat can’t claim innocence. Because they’re actively trying to harm each other with no way to tell how far the conflict will go, they’re not engaging in self-defense.  It is necessary to be able to demonstrate one had no intention of using force against another, and was, instead, forced to act defensively. When the attack is ended and no further force is necessary, one must stop. If they do not, they can, in that instant, become an unlawful aggressor even though they did not initiate the encounter.  In such a case, they lose innocence.

Imminence:  one can’t use force against a vaguely defined possible attack, or against an attack that might happen at some time in the future. The danger must be real, clearly about to occur, or already occurring, the attack must be imminent.  The law doesn’t require anyone to meekly absorb blows.  One need not wait for an attacker to land a first blow that might render them unconscious—or dead.

Proportionality:  any response to a threat must be reasonable.  A thrown piece of wadded up paper can’t trigger a gunshot.  This does not mean that a response can’t escalate if the degree of force used by an attacker escalates, but does require judgment. A knife thrust is generally not a proportional response to a shove, nor is a gunshot a proportional response to a verbal threat unaccompanied by clear intent and the means to imminently act on that threat

Avoidance:  Some states require retreat, if it is reasonably possible, before using force.  Even if clearly attacked, the victim is required to demonstrate they could not safely run away–avoid the conflict–before using force.  In effect, they must prove themselves innocent.  Others do not require retreat, or have a “Stand Your Ground” law. SYG laws are grossly misrepresented for political purposes.  They provide only that as long as one is lawfully present when and where attacked, they have no duty to retreat before responding to an attack.  An attacker is presumed to have ill intent.  Most also do not allow attackers—or their survivors–to sue their victims, which is entirely rational.  They do not allow anyone to employ deadly force outside the boundaries of its lawful use.  In any case, the smart thing to do, always, is to avoid any fight.

Reasonableness:  A reasonable person of the same knowledge, abilities and in the same circumstances would be compelled to use force.

And if all of this were not enough to digest, remember one needs to consider these—and more—factors, and make 100% correct decisions potentially while under imminent attack.  Do you, gentle readers, see why it’s best to avoid any physical confrontation?  This article may also be useful in considering these issues.

How does this apply to the idea of someone being unarmed?  A 5 foot nothing, 95-pound woman attacked by a 5’ 10” 180 pound man wielding no weapons would almost certainly be justified in using deadly force if the previous elements were present.  Virtually any woman is at a severe disadvantage when attacked by an “unarmed man.”  A 65 year old man attacked by a single 20 year old, or a group of teenaged thugs would also likely be justified.  Consider the Michael Brown case (the case archive is here).  

This was the case that spawned the lie “hands up; don’t shoot.”  Brown never uttered this or anything like it, nor did he ever have his hands up in surrender.  Brown was 18, 6’4” and nearly 300 pounds.  On pot, he was stopped after the strong-arm robbery of a convenience store.  The officer, Darren Wilson, was also over 6’ tall and weighed more than 200 pounds, but Brown rushed him, pinned him in his car, and leaning through the open window, mercilessly beat him and tried to get his gun.  In the struggle, Wilson was able to retain it—barely—and a shot was fired that slightly wounded Brown’s hand.  Brown retreated and Wilson was able to get out of his car and order Brown to stop.  Instead, Brown turned and made a head down, berserker charge.  Wilson finally stopped Brown with a shot to the top of the head and Brown fell, essentially at Wilson’s feet.

This was the incident that sparked the Ferguson riots, and really inflamed the Black Lives Matter “movement.”  Fortunately, all the forensic evidence supported Wilson’s account, and many honest Black residents of Ferguson that witnessed the event came forward and told the truth, the real truth, not the social justice truth.

Brown was not carrying a weapon, but he was a weapon, and beat and tried to murder a police officer.  It was Wilson’s duty to try to arrest him.  Wilson testified he was shocked by Brown’s violence and strength, comparing him to the Incredible Hulk.  Wilson, any reasonable police officer, would have believed that if Brown got his hands on him again, he would die, and even the anti-police, racialist Obama Department of Justice had no choice but to agree.

The police do get some rudimentary martial combat training, but just as with shooting skill, few are actual martial artists, yet they go out there every day and go hand to hand with the kind of people that would savagely and joyously beat, rape and murder the innocent.  Imagine the plight of a 5’6” male police officer, or a 5’4” female officer attacked by someone like Brown.

Considering the millions of contacts police officers have every year, the number of people unjustly dying in police custody is tiny.  There is no genocide of young black men being carried out by the police, just as there is no systematic racism in America.

D/S/Cs would disarm you, they hate the police and even want to totally disband them, they prevent the police from even attempting to protect you or your property, and want “reforms” that would make the police even less effective and would, in essence, allow criminals free rein.  And now, perhaps, gentle readers, you have a little better idea of an important issue the media would never tell you.

NOTE:  Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection provides a timely reminder of the falsity of the “hands up; don’t shoot” narrative.