No police protection!

March 1st, 2012

Fair use:

> Prevent Violence:
> Disarm the Police
> by Wendy McElroy
> Saturday, October 9, 1999
> Gun opponents who argue “the police will protect you” are a menace to your
> safety. They are also flat wrong. I am not referring to the overwhelming
> inability of police to combat crime. Why state the obvious? I am referring
> to
> the fact that the police have no duty whatsoever to protect you against
> criminals. That’s not in the job description of ‘police officer.’ The
> courts
> have recognized this fact for over a century.
>
> In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law
> enforcement officers had no duty to protect any individual. Their duty is
> to
> enforce the law in general. More recently, in 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the
> Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, “…there is no Constitutional
> right
> to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or
madmen.
>
> It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents… but it does
> not violate… the Constitution.” Later court decisions concurred: the
> police have no duty to protect you.
>
> Police vehicles routinely sport decals proclaiming sentiments such as
> ‘Proud to Serve!’ If they aren’t there to protect you, the question
> becomes,
> “Who are they serving?” The answer is clear: the police department exists
> to
> enforce the law. Policemen serve the government, not the people. And
uphold
>
> the law with total disregard for whether their actions create or prevent
> violence. For example, if government decides that certain forms of adult
> consensual crimes must not be tolerated, then the police will draw their
> guns
> and barge into otherwise peaceful bedrooms. To uphold an unjust law, they
> will create violence and victims.
>
> Those who blithely reassure you about police protection are doubly wrong.
> Not
> only is protection not the officers’ job, they may well be the ones who
> victimize you. Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, correctly
> observes that the American legal system is based on the English Common
Law.
>
> The modern American policeman dates back centuries to the role of the
> English
> Sheriff, who was paid by and accountable to the government, not the
> community. As the JPFO states, the main purpose of the Sheriff was the
> “enforcement of government decisions,” such as seizing property.
> “Maintenance
> of public order” was of secondary concern. Indeed, if the two concerns
> collided – as in the enforcement of victimless crime
> laws – the government invariably won.
>
> Americans revere the romantic Western notion of Marshall Dillon defending
> the
> schoolmarm against the Bang-’em-Up gang who swoop down like wolves on the
> prairie town. But, often, these sheriffs were hired by the communities and
> were responsible to the people there. Moreover, the townsfolk themselves
> routinely owned guns. What Americans are actually revering is an example
of
> a
> quasi-private police force functioning within an armed society.
> Unfortunately, this image still benefits the modern state policeman who is
> routinely glorified by television programs like Cops! Yet these
> state-employees are the antithesis of the Western sheriff. They are
modeled
>
> after the British Sheriff – they are responsible only to enforce
government
>
> policy and they often are the wolves.
>
> If policy makers want to prevent violence, they should consider disarming
> the
> police and encouraging gun ownership within the citizenry. There is
> historical precedent. In his book Frontier Justice, Wayne Gard describes
> the
> rampant corruption of politics and police in 1850′s San Francisco.
Violence
>
> soared until the SF vigilante committee revived (1856). Within three
> months,
> Gard explains, “San Francisco had only two murders, compared with more
than
> a
> hundred in the six months before the committee was formed.”
>
> At least until erring policemen acknowledge a duty to protect the life and
> property of individuals, ‘the people’ en masse ought to say ‘no more
donuts
>
> for you!’
>
> http://www.americanpartisan.com/cols/mcelroy/100999.htm
>
>