blue state America, D/S/Cs, de-escalation, Jo Ann Hardesty, peaceful demonstration, political impediments to enforcing the law, Portland, red state America, rule of law, Seattle, The Constitution, third world war zones, understaffed police, vigilantism
I have often, in writing about firearms and general personal and family security issues told you, gentle readers, you’re on your own; you always have been. This is so for these general reasons:
1) There are very few police officers, far more criminals, and far, far more non-criminal citizens.
2) Most people would be shocked to learn how few police officers are on patrol in their community on a minute-by-minute basis. Police agencies are always understaffed because personnel costs are around 90% of police budgets. To put one officer on the street 24/7/365 requires the hiring of at least four officers. Three for three 8-hour shifts and one to cover for vacations, illness, court, training, and other daily issues. Those officers will not be independent patrolmen for about a year from their date of hire.
3) Major cities—most of which have been Democrat ruled for decades—are akin to third world war zones. Police response time to 911 calls is like that of Detroit’s: about an hour, if they can respond at all. When someone is breaking into your home intent on mayhem and murder, the police will get around to it in an hour or so—maybe.
4) In rural areas served by county Sheriff’s Departments, response time can be even longer, but only because of the very few deputies available and the very long distances they have to travel. In bad weather, they may not be able to respond at all.
5) Most police officers are not gun-smart. Many citizens are superior to them in knowledge, ability, accuracy and tactical proficiency. The officer responding to your call is likely barely able to qualify with their handgun, given generous passing scores, an easy course of fire, and as many attempts as they need to pass.
All of this and more, as bad as it is, assumes there are no political impediments to police officers doing their duty. Officers can reasonably believe they will not be ordered to ignore violent felonies committed in their presence. Officers can reasonably believe when they lawfully use force, they will have the backing of their superiors and their community. They can reasonably believe there is no class of people that may not be arrested. They can reasonably believe when they make a lawful arrest, it will be prosecuted, and hardened, dangerous criminals will not be back out on the street before they can finish their report on their arrest. They can reasonably believe when they make a lawful arrest, the criminal will face prosecution, not them.
I have also, from time to time, written about police executives, normally county sheriffs, telling their citizens to arm themselves because they can’t, due to budget cuts and political interference, protect anyone, though to date, no major city police executive has admitted any such thing regardless of reality. As regular readers know, the police have no legal obligation to protect any individual citizen, nor can they be successfully sued for failing to protect anyone. Their only legal obligation is to deter crime by their presence and investigate crime after it has occurred. In this, they are at least somewhat successful. Criminals try very hard to avoid committing crimes in the presence of the police—or at least they used to. And the police, depending on the place, may or may not have much success in solving various types of crime. If they have little manpower, or the most experienced officers are fleeing as from a pestilence, there will be little or no deterrence, and little or no case clearance.
It’s a new day in law enforcement, and a dark day indeed, as Fuzzy Slippers at Legal Insurrection reports the Seattle Police Chief has admitted the police can’t even protect themselves:
This letter is in response to the City Council’s banning of less lethal methods of crowd control and arrest, leaving officers essentially two options: (1) ask criminals pretty please to allow themselves to be arrested, (2) when they refuse, shoot them. Obviously, in places like Seattle, officers using any kind of lawful force are more likely to find themselves in jail than criminals, so the police have, reasonably and sanely, withdrawn and turned the streets over to actual anarchy. A local judge has, very temporarily, enjoined the enforcement of this new law, but the point is clear, and the police have been emasculated. It will be a very long time—if ever—before they are allowed to enforce the law again.
Consider this on Portland from independent reporter Andy Ngo at The New York Post:
The daily riots function to drain the city of resources and to weaken the morale of law enforcement and public officials. It’s working.
Last month, [Police Chief] Wheeler disbanded the Gun Violence Reduction Unit, claiming it unfairly targeted blacks. In the weeks since, there has been a 380 percent increase in shootings compared with the same time frame last year.
City Councilwoman Jo Ann Hardesty has taken police hatred further. She told Marie Claire magazine this week: ‘I believe Portland Police [Bureau] is lying about the damage — or starting the fires themselves — so that they have justification for attacking community members.’ She partially walked back her accusation after Portland Police Chief Chuck Lovell, who is black, asked for evidence of her claim.
“Even before the protests started, we were dealing with a catastrophically short-staffed police bureau,’ says Daryl Turner, president of the Portland Police Association. Going back to 2016, city leaders and Antifa-sympathetic activists have worked to denounce police at every opportunity. The anti-police sentiment in the city has led to early retirements and a policing philosophy of ‘de-escalation’ where cops mostly stay away from riots. Just this year, the bureau has had three different police chiefs.
‘We’re at a point where none of us knows what to do,’ says a Portland police officer who asked to be unidentified. ‘Some are thinking we just need to give the vocal minority and the politicians what they want: We go away and let the city burn.’
“De-escalation” in D/S/C ruled cities means allowing D/S/C criminals—and pretty much all others–to do whatever they want without consequences. Thus are citizens, including many black Americans, and many that have never owned a gun, buying guns and ammunition. It’s a reasonable response to unreasonable, even malicious stupidity on the part of the D/S/C politicians.
Police officers not allowed to enforce the law are little better than no police officers. In some ways, they’re worse, because they will inevitably be turned into political police, punishing the political enemies of those in power. If you think, gentle readers, we have a two-tiered system of justice now, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. The foundation for a communist system is being previewed and forged across the nation in blue cities and states. Officers that will refuse to oppress fellow citizens will find other employment. Those that remain will be only too glad to abuse the unprecedented power they will be given, and due process will be a thing of the distant past.
Will there be vigilantism? In some place it will become a necessity, just as it was before there was widespread, legitimate law enforcement. What other choice will the honest have? Neighbors will band together—they already are in many places—to protect their neighborhoods with force—that means guns, lots and lots of guns–and as things continue to deteriorate, due process will become a seldom-considered option.
D/S/Cs tremble in horror at rural law enforcement officers who, investigating a homicide, laconically ask “well, did he need killin’?” They see such comments as evidence of witless rubes endorsing murder. Actually, it’s just a direct way of asking whether a killing was justified rather than unlawful. Any competent police officer knows that when a citizen lawfully shoots a criminal, they did, indeed, “need killin.’ In a society where the police are politically prevented from doing their jobs, where they are so financially crippled they barely exist, or where they are entirely abolished, a great many more criminals are going to “need killin’,” and tragically, far, far more mistakes in the use of force are going to be the rule rather than the exception.
It’s always wise to be careful about what you ask for—you might get it–but particularly in red cites and states, wisdom is in short supply.
If current trends continue or worsen, this is the future for Red state America. If D/S/Cs take the White House, the Senate and the House, they will try to impose this future on the Blue states. If they do, the current insanity will seem tame by comparison. For an interesting take on that possibility, see this 2018 article by Larry Correia.
Are Normal Americans going to give up their guns to people that actively hate them, that call them vile names and ascribe the worst motives and behaviors to them? They’re going to trust these people who won’t protect their businesses, homes and lives against D/S/Cs shock troops not to turn even more totalitarian? I’ve a little secret for the self-imagined elite: you’re not, and Normal Americans are smart indeed, much smarter about the kinds of issues necessary to individual and societal survival than you.
But, gentle readers, until this is all sorted out, and we find out whether we’re going to live the rule of law under the Constitution, you’re on your own; You always have been.