WHY Didn't Police Respond? I'll Tell You....

 

People keep asking, WHY? WHY didn't police wait for an hour before finally entering the building, while students and parents were PLEADING with them for help?

 

I'm going to re-state something here that I have stated many times on many different forums over the years, including FB. Perhaps people will finally be ready to listen.

 

No fewer than ten (10) Supreme Court rulings have affirmed that personal protection is the obligation of the individual citizen - not the police. The clearest opinion came in the SCOTUS ruling, City of Castle Rock, Colorado v Gonzales (I hope the irony of this is not lost):

"You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole. It is well-settled fact of American law that THE POLICE DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL, BUT TO PROTECT SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. IT IS WELL-SETTLED FACT OF AMERICAN LAW THAT THE POLICE HAVE NO LEGAL DUTY TO PROTECT ANY INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN FROM CRIME, EVEN IF THE CITIZEN HAS RECEIVED DEATH THREATS AND THE POLICE HAVE NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO PROVIDE PROTECTION" (emphasis added).

In addition to the Supreme Court rulings, the universal drawdown of law enforcement across the country means that there are fewer officers available to respond to such situations, and that the response time needed to marshal the remaining officers will be correspondingly longer. This makes the 2012 federal appeals court ruling in Woollard v Sheridan even more critical:

"As Judge Niemeyer points out, the Heller Court`s description of its holding as applying to the home, where the need "for defense of self, family, and property is most acute," suggests that the right also applies in some form "where that need is not `most acute.'" Id. at 468 (Niemeyer, J., concurring) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 628). This reasoning is consistent with the Supreme Court`s historical understanding of the right to keep and bear arms as "an individual right protecting against both public and private violence." Heller, 554 U.S. at 594. In addition to self-defense, the right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. See id. at 598. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment`s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and "self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be." Masciandaro, 638 F.3d at 468 (Niemeyer, J., concurring) (quoting Eugene Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. REV. 1443, 1515-18 (2009))".

The following statement appeared on the web site of Union Local 2544 of The National Border patrol Council, Tucson, AZ, relating to recent DHS training regarding active shooter incidents:

"Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings (referring to Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the Giffords shooting - added) would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. THE SHOOTERS IN THESE SITUATIONS DEPEND ON UNARMED AND SCARED VICTIMS. IT GIVES THEM THE POWER THEY SEEK. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm…. Calling 911 in these instances is obvious, BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT WAITING ON THE ARRIVAL OF UNIFORMED LAW ENFORCEMENT WILL ENSURE MORE PEOPLE ARE KILLED, INJURED, OR TAKEN HOSTAGE" (emphasis added).

By the way, I will remind everyone that it was the BORDER PATROL who took dow the Texas shooter.

 

And as Brendan Keefe pointed out in the report I recently posted here:

"****The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks**** (asterisks added for emphasis).

"In most states, concealed handguns are prohibited at schools and on college campuses even for those with permits.

"Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises.

"****Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers****" (asterisks added for emphasis).

So-called "gun free" zones have benefited no one but the shooters who disregard the designation.

Prohibiting teachers/staffers who desire to exercise their Second Amendment right to protect themselves and their students hasn't made them any safer.

 

Prohibiting lawful carriers from carrying on the job or while at the mall hasn't protected them from the shooters who don't give a tinker's darn about such prohibitions. 

 

You don't want to carry a firearm? Then, as it seems so popular to say these days during other debates, don't do it.

 

But get out of the way of those who DO want to exercise their CHOICE (see what I did there?) and their EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.