HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Bloomie can't understand ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 12:23 PM

 

Bloomie can't understand why US police don't all go on strike

'BLOOMBERG: Well, I would take it one step further. I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say, we're going to go on strike. We're not going to protect you. Unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe.'

After all, police officers want to go home to their families. And we're doing everything we can to make their job more difficult but, more importantly, more dangerous, by leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and letting people who have those guns buy things like armor-piercing bullets.

The only reason to have an armor-piercing bullet is to go through a bullet-resistant vest. The only people that wear bullet-resistant vest are our police officers. And that's true across this whole country. So we should -- at some point we have to understand this as our children or our grandchildren or us. But for the police officers, it's much more immediate. Because when you or I hear shots, we run away. They run towards it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/24/bloomberg_police_should_go_on_strike_to_push_for_gun_control.html


It's hard to take this 1%er seriously: "We're not going to protect you." Even his rich friends aren't protected by police. He, and possibly a mistress and family members and a few select others, are the only ones protected by police in NYC. Drawing a chalk line and performing an investigation are not protection.

I'm sure a policeman has been there when someone was attempting robbery, rape or murder. But counting on that for your personal safety is like depending on the lottery for your retirement. No one else gets police bodyguards composed of "soldiers" from his "army" but hizzoner.

It's interesting that Bloomie, out of his deep concern for public safety, wants to remove the deterrent effect of chalk line drawing, investigation, and after-the-fact arrest--at least until he gets his way on guns. What a guy!

7 replies, 863 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bloomie can't understand why US police don't all go on strike (Original post)
TPaine7 Jul 2012 OP
phantom power Jul 2012 #1
TPaine7 Jul 2012 #2
phantom power Jul 2012 #3
TPaine7 Jul 2012 #6
X_Digger Jul 2012 #4
GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 #5
gejohnston Jul 2012 #7

Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 12:26 PM

1. You seem to be implying that law enforcement isn't a crime deterrant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 12:33 PM

2. Re-read my last sentence.

 

Law enforcement is a deterrent, but not protection as that word is generally used.

If you were in a sticky situation and a cop came up and said "I'll protect you", you probably wouldn't imagine her attempting to catch your murderer. That's what they do, and it does have a deterrent effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 12:53 PM

3. I think I see what you are saying

To my way of thinking, deterrence is protection. In fact, I consider it to be the best kind of protection. However, I think what you are saying is that in some situation where that deterrence fails, then in that moment you aren't being "protected."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 01:38 PM

6. Yes,

 

but the situations where that deterrence fails are legion. (I admit that they would be more frequent without law enforcement).

Every time a person is killed, robbed, raped kidnapped, battered, assaulted, tortured or immorally intimidated, the deterrence has failed. And if you are one of the people for whom deterrence fails—who gets cornered in a parking garage, for example—real protection is the only kind that can help you. You will either have to be lucky enough for a police officer to walk in at that moment or you will have to defend yourself, preferably with a gun. (Or, in the Bloomie model, you can depend on your natural fighting skills or the goodwill of felons).

Another thing Bloomie is missing is that when Giffords was shot, an armed citizen ran towards the gunfire too. The shooter had been stopped by the time he got there, and he didn't shoot or even draw his weapon,IIRC, but he did run to the gunfire. Citizens have run to gunfire and have stopped mass shootings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 01:06 PM

4. It's not like the police are legally obliged to protect you in the best of times.

Riss v. City of New York - 1967

http://lawschool.courtroomview.com/acf_cases/10107-riss-v-new-york

Brief Fact Summary

Plaintiff was harassed by a rejected suitor, who claimed he would kill or seriously injure her if she dated someone else. Plaintiff repeatedly asked for police protection and was ignored. After the news of her engagement, the plaintiff was again threatened and called the police to no avail. The next day, a thug, sent by the rejected suitor, partially blinded the plaintiff and disfigured her face.

Rule of Law and Holding

The municipality does not have a duty to provide police protection to an individual. It has a duty to the public as a whole, but no one in particular.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 01:29 PM

5. Every cop I know supports concealed carry.

People who have CHLs are certified good-guys and are very rarely a threat to LEOs. It is the illegal carriers who are threats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 01:45 PM

7. funny you should mention that

Some cop asked me why I didn't carry. I told him my reasoning at the time (being rural and white, chances of being a victim is close to zero, not worth the hassle) He pointed out a flaw in my thinking at the time. He used the IHOP shooting some time ago as an example of "there is always wrong place wrong time"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread