So they have no problem busting in to look for a joint but if there's actually someone KILLING YOU they can't do anything.
And all in a place where the government makes it as hard as possible for that woman to own a handgun.Multiple jacketed hollowpoints do a damn good job of stopping some shithead from stabbing you to death. Of course they don't do much good if they're sitting in a gun outside, waiting for a supervisor.This disgusts me.
This kind of crap will definitely break Jay G.'s Rage-o-meter. I do wonder if the Washington, D.C. Po-Po have ever heard of something called a "BACK DOOR!"
Wonder how the law suit will go.Legal precedent has already established that the police have no legal obligation to protect or come to the aid of citizens, a fact that makes prohibition of the means of self defense all the more despicable. Defense of yourself and yours has always rested with you, from the beginning, as the story of Cain and Able shows. No authority can be counted upon to protect you.
The department will no doubt handily win the lawsuit against it. I'd be surprised if it wasn't just summarily dismissed.
What a mess.I'm less angry with the police department than I am saddened by the woman's lack of self defense. You, and only you, hold the final responsibility for the safety of you and your loved ones.Not the police. Not the fire department. Not your husband or wife or sister or brother or son or daughter.You.
Fair to say that if they had a more sensible attitude toward making entries, that they'd keep the physical tools with which to do it handy?Either way, the perp will hopefully face fair and just punishment for his actions. Also, the police will hopefully get their bell rung hard enough to cause they to go back to first principles and consider their policies from there.Jim
That's a crying shame.I find it particularly disgusting that the 911 operator's instruction to the officers included mention of the screaming child that was "possibly playing." That little tidbit of information is beyond infuriating.At any rate, that's damn good advice, Breda.tweaker
SpeakerTweaker: That point hit me, too. No doubt that since the possibility exists that the child was playing, the safe (safe for the 911 person) thing to do is say that there MIGHT NOT be a danger.911 on phone: 911, can I help?Victim: Help! I'm being shot at!911 over dispatch: No hurry, sounds like a TV show is on loud.Victim: No - he has a gun and aaah! Just shot me!911 over dispatch: Apparently a woman is rehearsing for a play. Victim: Oh, my god, OH MY GOD!911 over dispatch: Cancel officers. Quite obviously this person meant to dial her church...
That sounds like what they do in the UK. Report of an armed criminal? They meet close by, but don't close in. (Those armed criminals are dangerous! Police can't handle that kind of violence.)Absolutely disgusting.
Alan is correct... sigh...
Bunch of bureaucrats who'd rather keep their job than actually do it.
Sadly, this family will get nothing but heartache from this lawsuit. SCOTUS has affirmed that the Police are in no way responsible for the lives of the individual, and failure to act can not be punished. Maybe this one will end up differently, but I doubt it.
Maybe some Disciples of the Boondock Saints might be able to do something. As the Monsignor said, The indifference of good men.I feel the need to go get a Tattoo!OR go practice some door busting...
Post a Comment