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.

A Response to the Texas Elementary School Shooting….

“COULD the peaceable principle of the Quakers be universally established, arms and the art of war would be wholly extirpated: But we live not in a world of angels. The reign of Satan is not ended; neither are we to expect to be defended by miracles…

“Whoever considers the unprincipled enemy we have to cope with, will not hesitate to declare that nothing but arms or miracles can reduce them to reason and moderation. They have lost sight of the limits of humanity. The portrait of a parent red with the blood of her children is a picture fit only for the galleries of the infernals… Kill a few and take the whole. Thus the peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned, while they neglect the means of self defence. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation (or criminal - added) refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves,” Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War”. 

“A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, and dares say to reason, `Be thou a slave'; who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.  

“The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons,” Cesare Bonesana, “Of Crimes and Punishment”.

It is time for society to realize that telling people they may not protect themselves and those around them is protecting no one.  All our so-called “gun free” zones are accomplishing is to give attackers easy targets.

In Preparation For Our Military Remembrances….

 I created this in 2021 as a down home way to explain the differences.  It isn’t flowery, just simple and to the point.  Anyone who has been involved with service - military or law enforcement - understands exactly what I am saying.

DHS Warns Of Danger To Churches…

 A recent DHS memo warns churches that violence towards churches in response to the leaked supreme court Roe v. Wade decision is likely.

And Justice For ALL….

 OK, I have to make the observation - for all the good it will do.

On April 4, 2022, an unarmed black man is pulled over in Grand Rapids, MI, because his tags don’t match the vehicle. During an ensuing struggle the officer shoots him in the back of the head while laying on the man’s back.  The incident makes the news, the victim’s name is released immediately, and it’s still in the news.

On April 28, 2022, a white 19-year-old kills his dad (discovered during a welfare check) in Kentwood, MI, a suburb of Grand Rapids.  He has a loaded firearm in the front seat of his vehicle in violation of Michigan law, shoots an officer in the hand while resisting arrest, but is safely taken into custody and is now awaiting trial. There have been zero updates about this case since that time, and the name of the young man has yet to be released.

I get it - different law enforcement agencies, different policies, different cultures.  That may factor in to some small degree, but nationally this is a reality that is beyond disturbing: white suspects, even obviously dangerous ones, are apprehended safely while black suspects, even unarmed, are assumed to be a threat to life and limb and injured or killed outright.  I wish I could say that such disparate outcomes are rare, but they aren’t, and I am tired and angry that they continue.  I back the Blue; I also expect the Blue to do better - to police THEMSELVES for problem officers.

End the war on crime.

Return to Serve and Protect.

Instituting “May Issue” A Little At A Time….

Once more, using an emergency - actual or contrived - to infringe on a Constitutionally protected (both state and US Constitutions) right.

First, an emergency that results in diminished law enforcement services, as has been the case during the pandemic, DEMANDS that citizens have INCREASED ability to protect themselves.

Second, setting aside the Constitutional considerations, the decision of county clerks to refuse to process cpl applications is a violation of Michigan law, MCL  123.1102, “A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols, other firearms, or pneumatic guns, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.”  A clerk may not unilaterally set aside state firearms laws, regardless of their motivation for doing so.

Third, Whitmer’s argument that cpl applications somehow require in-person interactions that endanger clerks and their staffs is disingenuous.  The entire process can be accomplished online, research can be conducted remotely.  Anyone with a computer or a smartphone, including the so-called “Obama phones”, can complete the application process without ever darkening the door of a clerk’s office; the cpl is mailed to the applicant upon completion.

Whitmer’s veto is without any basis in fact.  It represents an effort to enact a de facto “may issue” standard using an emergency as pretext.

http://www.yourmix1069.com/news/localnews/gov-whitmer-vetoed-legislation-to-allow-gun-permits-to-be-issued-during-emergencies/

He Is Certifiable….

Unreal.  

Trump actually suggests that we could send “peace keeping forces” into Mexico to deal with the border situation, a la Putin, calls Putin’s strategy “genius”.  An absolute madman.  

"This is genius," he said of Putin's decision on Monday to officially recognize the breakaway provinces and authorize the use of Russian military personnel to assist them. "So Putin is now saying it’s independent — a large section of Ukraine. I said, how smart is that? And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace, all right."

If these remarks don’t convince people that Trump is a madman and a dictator in the making, I don’t know what will.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-praises-putins-genius-incursion-into-ukraine-234001858.html

The Kyle Rittenhouse Road To Wealth….

I guess it’s a good thing I’m not a celebrity, politician, or athlete.

I said it PUBLICLY, I believe it, I stand by it: Rittenhouse is a murderer.  He should be facing federal firearms charges. His “trial” was a sham, a show trial, a kangaroo court that the judge and prosecution did everything in their power to prejudice and throw.  It was a blatant miscarriage of justice.  I don’t care that a “jury of his peers”, a jury HE CHOSE in a move by the judge that, as far as I know, is unprecedented in US jurisprudence, found him “not guilty”.

Now Rittenhouse wishes to profit from his notoriety.  Why work if you can sue your way to wealth?

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kyle-rittenhouse-says-hes-going-to-sue-whoopi-goldberg-and-other-politicians-celebrities-athletes-074102590.html

The Ukraine….

 “War is the ultimate criminal act, an armed robbery writ large. And it’s always about greed. It’s always a nation that wants something another nation has. And you defeat that nation by recognizing what it wants and denying it to them.”

— Tom Clancy

The Ukraine is a treasure trove of natural resources after which Putin lusts.  The Ukraine was the ONE republic over which Russia hoped to maintain control with the breakup of the soviet union.  And now he wants it back to help address Russia’s financial and tech crises.

Meijer, Inc., Abandons Its Previous Stance Regarding Lawful Defensive Firearms Carry….

 In 2019, Meijer, Inc. issues the following statement:

The safety of our customers and team members is our top priority, so we respectfully request that our customers do not open carry firearms at Meijer. We’ve made this decision because open carry can create an environment that makes our customers and team members feel unsafe.

While I support the right to lawfully carry a firearm openly, which is legal in Michigan, I also understand the thinking behind the request.

Over this weekend (2/13/22), however, that changed.

Meijer has now adopted a prohibition against ALL lawful carry.

As a result, I am taking my business elsewhere, and I am urging all Meijer customers who lawfully carry their personal firearms to:

1. Contact Meijer to voice your opposition to their new policy (616) 453-6711)
2. Boycott Meijer until they PUBLICLY reinstate their previous policy.