Warning, this article contains graphic descriptions and is not suitable for young readers.
Think about how good your home security is. You may have an alarm, possibly a baseball bat under the bed, a phone in every room so you can call 911 if necessary, and maybe you have a gun of some variety in the house. But what if you are one of the ones who don’t have any of that? What is your plan for protecting your home, and family? Have you even given it anymore thought than “Oh, I’m not worried, the police will protect me”?Did you know that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to protect you? The little catchy slogan “to protect and serve” you see on the side of police cars is just there as a means of self preservation (as long as you think you’re being protected you won’t want to get rid of the people who are doing the protecting). As a matter of fact, before the mid-1800′s in the U.S. and England, there was no such thing as a police force. It was considered a standing army, and people didn’t want to have anything to do with that. People were expected to protect themselves and their neighbors from criminals. In fact, they were even legally required to pursue and make an attempt to apprehend criminals. Even today, there are many small towns around the country that don’t provide their residents with a police force.

Now you’re probably saying, “well my town has a police force, why can’t I rely on them to protect me?” Well you can, if you want to put your life in someone else’s hands. But just remember that the people who make up the police force in your town have families that they would like to go home to, and I hate to break the news to you, but you’re not that important.

Now consider the case Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. In that case, three women were sleeping in their home when they were awakened by two men breaking in their back door. The two men entered one of the bedrooms and forced the woman inside to sodomize one man while the other raped her. The other two women heard the commotion, and called the police, telling the dispatcher that their house was being burglarized, and that they needed immediate assistance. This was at 6:23 a.m.. Four police cruisers responded to the dispatcher’s call of a “Code 2″ (even though calls of this nature should have been given a higher priority “Code 1″ designation). In the meantime, the two women climbed over to an adjoining roof to wait for the police. They observed the officers going to the front door and knocking (probably thinking that the burglars would open the door for them) and doing a brief drive around the house. They were gone by 6:33 a.m. only five minutes after their arrival.

The two women then crawled back inside the house to call the police again. This time, their call was simply recorded as “investigate the trouble”, and never dispatched to the officers. This was at 6:42 a.m. Shortly after, the two women thought that the police were inside the house, and made the mistake of calling down to their friend. Unfortunately, the police weren’t in the house, but the burglars still were. The burglars then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to leave the house and go to the apartment of one of the burglars. Over the next 14 hours, the women were raped, robbed, beaten and forced to perform sexual acts upon each other and the burglars.

The women brought suit against the negligent members of the D.C. police department, claiming that (1) the dispatcher failed to give their original call the proper priority code, (2) that the responding officers failed to conduct a proper investigation of the house to determine if the burglars were still inside and (3) the dispatcher’s failure to send out the 6:42 a.m. call.

Now if you’re as outraged as I am about this case as I am you’ll be shocked to learn that the first court’s trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the women. They then appealed the decision, but found that the appellate court wasn’t any more help. The following is a direct quote from the appeal’s opinion, “The Court, however, does not agree that defendants [the police] owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs [the women] with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection…This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”

Look up this case for yourself. All these facts and more are in there. It also cites other similar cases, for those who think that this is just the one case that “fell through the cracks”.

Now I don’t care if you go out and do anything different to protect yourself. Just that you realize the next time you hear about a law restricting an individual’s right to carry a gun, mace, knife, etc. it forces potential victims to rely on the police for protection, since they will no longer be able to protect themselves as well. Like the old saying goes, if you want a job done right, do it yourself.

• "We Wish you a Happy Holiday" Within the past few years, the left has made religion...
• Give me Liberty, or I’ll Shoot! A few months ago I was having a conversation with...

• Need a Security System For Your Home or Business? Checkout ADT We live in a very broken world. There's crime, poverty,...
• Furious Reaction To Sick Editorial Calling for Global One Child Dictatorship Sunday Paper - December 13th, 2009 Francis advocates brutal regime...

In President Bush’s State of the Union address yesterday, he mentioned his support for a rehabilitation program for convicts who will be released from prison in the coming year. As I understand it, the program will involve things like job placement assistance, half-way houses and vocational training so that the ex-cons will be able to find a job easier after their release. He claims that once they find good paying jobs, they will be less likely to commit more crimes.At first, like many other Americans probably did, I thought to myself, “hey this is a great idea. Once these criminals get some training they will get jobs, helping the economy, and will be less likely to get in trouble with the law again.” But then I thought “wait, why should we reward the criminals by giving them free job placement services, and free vocational training when other law abiding citizens have to struggle to find a job, and pay for the required education to get a job?”

It seems to me that if anyone is going to get government support for education or job placement, it should be the other way around, where the law abiding citizens get the assistance, and the criminals get nothing. Under the proposed plan, if someone is having trouble making ends meet with whatever federal aid they may be getting, it would almost make some sense to commit a petty crime, serve maybe 6 months to a year in jail, then receive free training and job placement while the taxpayers wind up footing the bill for something the criminals and law abiding citizens should be paying for anyways.

Personally, I don’t think that the government should be getting involved in this matter. People should not get rewarded for committing crimes, nor should law abiding citizens receive unearned money from the government, just because they can’t afford the training need to get a job.

No one ever said that life is easy, and that you deserve to get handouts from the government. I agree that some people are more privileged than others, but why should the more privileged be punished with higher taxes, just so that their money can foot the bill for someone else’s handout. Jails are supposed to rehabilitate their prisoners, not just offer them a place to live until their sentence is up. If the penitentiary system in this country was doing its job, we wouldn’t even have to consider this program for recently released prisoners.

• Are we Better off Un-Armed? Many politicians, government lobbyists and members of the "elite" media...
• Manufacturer's Liability Should the manufacturers of the products we use everyday be...

• Understanding Taxes on Retirement Job Income The government does a good job of making our tax...
• An Alternative Idea to Government Stimulus I have been thinking a lot how much easier all...

In Cincinnati, OH local police were called to investigate a 350 pound man, Nathaniel Jones who had fallen asleep on the front lawn of a White Castle restaurant, and then began acting irrationally. When the police arrived, the Jones began to attack the officers despite the officers’ repeated warnings to “stay back”. In self-defense, the two officers (of average height and build) used their nightsticks to try to thwart the attack by beating Jones on parts of his lower body. When the officers finally knocked Jones to the ground, they attempted to handcuff him and repeatedly ordered him to put his hands behind his back. Jones, however, would not listen. He kept struggling with the police, drawing even more blows from the officer’s nightsticks.

When Jones was finally subdued, the officers discovered cocaine, and some cigarettes which had been dipped in methanol (an ingredient used in the embalming process and is also used by people to get high) in his car. Upon a drug test performed on Jones, authorities discovered that he had ingested cocaine and PCP several hours before the incident. A short time after arriving at the police station, Jones suffered a heart attack and died.

His death has sparked the fire of several Black activists nation-wide. They claim that his death was a result of the officer’s actions, and that they were racially motivated. Members of Jones’ family claim that he was a caring and loving person who would never hurt anyone. Personally, I’ve never met him, but just by watching the video I’m fairly confident that his intentions were to hurt the police.

Let’s dissect this situation:

• Police officers arrive to find a 350 pound man acting irrationally. They move in to subdue him, only to further anger him and cause him to attack.
• The officers, in self-defense, club the man with their nightsticks, using care not to hit him in the head or to damage any vital organs.
• The man was under the influence of both cocaine and PCP, weighed 350 pounds, and had a bad heart.
• The man later dies after the incident.
• Liberal Black activists claim that the man died as a result of the police beating.

I personally agree in one aspect with the activists: the police did not act appropriately in this situation. If I was one of the officers, I would have put a few rounds into him, and called it a night. Instead, these officers gave Jones every chance they could to give up and be taken away peacefully. They did not start off swinging, Jones was the instigator. The part of the activists’ argument that I do not agree with is that the officers’ actions were racially motivated. If they were to put themselves in the officers’ shoes, where they had a man twice their size who they suspect is on drugs, and is attacking them, what would they do? Stand there and take the beating from the man, or defend themselves? I would hope that they would choose the latter. Then they claim that the officers’ actions caused this man’s death. I am 50-50 on this argument. Sure, if you get any 350 pound man really worked up, chances are they will have a heart attack. But if you take any 350 pound man with an already bad heart, get him high on cocaine and PCP, he’s almost guaranteed to have a heart attack, that much he did to himself, and I’m sure there was another self control problem somewhere along the line that led to him weighing 350 pounds.

Without the officers’ involvement in this situation, this man could have attacked anyone else who he came across. Instead of applauding the officer’s efforts to do their job, by protecting the public, these activists are trying to punish them.

This world is dangerous enough with terrorism in the back of everyone’s minds; let’s not make it more difficult for the police to do their jobs, by punishing them for subduing a threat to the public.

• A Look Back. Three Years Later Three years ago today, our country was under attack. The...
• Universal Healthcare - Who Does it Help? Ever since Canada and many European nations began universal healthcare...

• The Will to Evil A few weeks back, my weekly roundup contained a link...
• My Life in and Out of the Rough (The truth behind all that bull**** you think you know about me) - John Daly with Glen Waggoner Out of all the characters the game of golf has...