Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Blind Man Shoots Robber In Chest

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
Township75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 07:39 AM
Original message
Blind Man Shoots Robber In Chest
A blind man reportedly shot at two men trying to rob him Tuesday night.

Police said a blind man who lives at the St. Clements Manor in Inkster, an apartment complex for the disabled, opened fire on two men who were trying to assault and rob him. One of the suspects was shot in the chest, Local 4 reported.


One more victim of senseless gun violence for the anti gunner statistics.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2436236/detail.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
1. Okey dokey
So it's safe when blind people are firing guns? I assume then that you would have been perfectly willing to stand nearby this incident?

I don't give a rat's ass about the robbers, and no "anti-gunner" is trying to defend criminals. I just don't think I would feel very safe living near a blind man who was willing to fire guns.

This headline could just have easily been, "Blind Man Shoots Good Samaritan" who was trying to help defend him against the thieves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Township75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I would be fine with it...
You seem to want to base your fear on what it COULD have been (i.e. Blind Man Shoots Good Samaritan). I will focus what did occur. The only people who were harmed were those that deserved to be.

BTW, blind doesn't always mean no sight....one can be legally blind, and have some limited vision. Do you think this guy just started shooting randomly?

Or maybe you feel the right thing for him to do was get robbed, and possible indure death or bodily harm...for safety reasons of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
will work 4 food Donating Member (184 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Good for him
One dead robber is way better than another dead good guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. *sigh*
Oh but of course, I would much rather have people get robbed, raped, and killed than let ANYONE have a gun. </sarcasm>

Why is it you "pro-gunners" have to throw that at anyone who displays the slightest skepticism about the "more guns, less crime" mantra?

Maybe there's a third way? As in RESPONSIBLE gun ownership?

I'd hardly say that I'm basing my "fear" on what COULD have been, when accidental shootings are obviously FAR from uncommon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Township75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Are you ignoring your 3rd way?
It would appear so. Why do you believe this man did NOT display responsible gun ownership? What in the article led you to believe that?

Do you think responsible gun ownership is not owning a gun?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Are you kidding us? Seriously...
"Why do you believe this man did NOT display responsible gun ownership?"
Uh......he's BLIND.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dustind Donating Member (154 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. if blind people can play baseball
why do you need to see to shoot. Lots of blind people even do target shooting, they shoot at an object emiting sound.

I guess you are some want-to-be elietist who knows what is best for everyone though. The world needs more people like you to tell the rest of us how to live our lives and how to defend ourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. And if frogs had waterproof asses
the swamp wouldn't be so wet...

Look, there's Alex Rodriguez and his seeing-eye dog!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. What MrBenchley said.
If a blind man has a gun and is willing to fire it, I don't want him ANYWHERE near me or my family.

DUH!?!?

The full article says nothing about him being "legally blind" or "nearly blind", just BLIND. As in, CAN'T SEE WHAT HE'S AIMING AT. He got really lucky, as even you must admit. Unless you just want to bash your stereotype "anti-gunners" some more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. He may fire wildly at the slightest sound
but he does so responsibly....(snicker)

I'm still trying to picture the scene with the "law abiding gun dealer."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CO Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I'm Picturing Something Else
How he GOT to the law-abiding gun owner. Driving the car with one hand, while watchig the road with the other...........

(Update on an old "Helen Keller" joke.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. What was especially bad
was that the seeing eye dog failed the background check...

People in the next room must dive behind furniture whenever this guy's phone rings...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CO Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Like The Old George Carlin News Headline
Police Fire Warning Shots Over Heads of Protesters
Dozens Killed in Second-Floor Apartments


:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dustind Donating Member (154 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. phone rings
Maybe he has one of those fancy phones that sounds different than a burgler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. And when it rings he answers the iron or the pistol
Too bad they don't sell senses of humor at gun shows....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dustind Donating Member (154 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. lol... (more)
That was funny but having known a few blind people (friends of friends) They have a habit of leaving things in regular organised places. Besides you can easily feel the difference between a phone and a firearm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. Why do you assume total (profound) blindness?
As in, CAN'T SEE WHAT HE'S AIMING AT.

The events as portrayed in the story suggest that his vision was adequate to enable him to effectively use a gun under the circumstances.

Unless you just want to bash your stereotype "anti-gunners" some more.

Judging by the number of messages I see as "Ignored" (thanks dustind for making me see the light) it appears there is a lot more bashing of pro-gun people than antis here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. And you're just assuming the opposite.
I.e., assuming he can see to some extent. Guess the story should have had more details, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Yes, the story is very short on information
Statistically my guess is better than assuming total blindness.

Most people who are classified as "blind" for tax purposes have some sight. Profound or total blindness is rare, only about 10% of the about 700,000 US citizens who are legally blind.

Here's a FAQ: http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Meadow/8921/qanda.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Slippery statistics
According to that site, "legally blind" means someone, who at best, sees 1/10th as well as a person who is "normal," with correction.

Obviously if the man in this story is totally blind, it's a danger to society for him to be wielding a weapon. On the other hand, if he just barely meets the legal definition, he could probably make out targets at close range.

So where in the middle is the line between "he's dangerous" and "he's just defending himself"? You seem to draw that line at the 10% of "legally blind" who are totally blind. I highly doubt that to be the case.

Or, answer me this: how many "legally blind" individuals are allowed to drive? If society doesn't believe a person has the visual acuity to operate a car, why should that same person be trusted with a gun?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. Apparently he sees well enough
Edited on Fri Aug-29-03 08:42 PM by slackmaster
To defend himself with a gun.

So where in the middle is the line between "he's dangerous" and "he's just defending himself"? You seem to draw that line at the 10% of "legally blind" who are totally blind.

I've never said any such thing. You were the one who assumed he was totally blind. I was pointing out that total blindness is relatively rare, therefore a legally blind person selected at random is unlikely to be totally blind.

Or, answer me this: how many "legally blind" individuals are allowed to drive?

Obviously none.

If society doesn't believe a person has the visual acuity to operate a car, why should that same person be trusted with a gun?

Operating a gun is much simpler than operating a car. Shooting defensively at a human target at close range does not require anywhere near the visual acuity needed to safely drive a car.

A person who is MINIMALLY legally blind may have pretty decent vision. You can have normal (20/20) acuity but a visual field reduced to 20% of normal and be legally blind. A person with vision like that could shoot competitively.

In one eye I see a little worse than 20/200 without glasses. If that was all the better I could see with glasses I would be legally blind. I'm quite sure I could shoot a handgun effectively out to 10 or 15 yards with that level of vision. I have tested this at an indoor range. Without glasses I can shoot my 1911 pistol well enough to put every round in the black, though I score lower than with glasses. Once you are used to a handgun shooting takes on an instinctive quality. It becomes an extension of your body, and aiming at a target is natural as long as you know where the target is. In darkness a blind person would have an advantage over a sighted shooter, as long as there is some cue (e.g. sound) as to the target's location.

Here's a test of your knowledge of shooting: When a well-trained shooter is sighted on target with a handgun with ordinary open (iron) sights, on what is his or her eye focused?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Wonder who sold a blind guy a gun
anf thought it was a good idea?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demsrule4life Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Why just don't you compliment him on good shooting
I have macular degeneration and cant pass the eye test anymore to be a cop. Now I work for a security company that does high risk protection. I know that my working years are getting limited. Our company has to shoot once a year for qualifcation. On one stage of fire have to shoot 5 rounds in complete darkness. I managed to get all 5 in the "X" ring. Guess it is good practice for me in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Bummer about your eyes
I have pretty serious eye problems too, but not degenerative.

Kudos to you on hitting the X-ring. As long as you can stay on the paper I support your right to shoot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
RoeBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
19. If he passed the Brady check...
...how could the retailer not sell it to him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CO Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Oh, I Don't Know..... Maybe COMMON SENSE????????????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoeBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-03 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #20
46. Seriously?!
You think a retailer should be able to discriminate against the handicapped?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CO Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #46
53. I Would Think There Should Be At LEAST A Minimum Sight Requirement
Helen Keller was blind and deaf - are you saying SHE should have been able to get a gun??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoeBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. I have to assume...
...that he was not totally blind. Legally blind only means 20/200 vision. http://www.icbvi.state.id.us/DEFBLIND.HTM

I would not propose a law to make it illegal to purchase a gun if a person is legally (or even profoundly) blind; just the same as I wouldn't preclude a blind person from buying a car. Now if they do something stupid with either object there are laws already in place to deal with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. There is no sight requirement to OWN a car
Why should a blind person not be allowed to collect guns?

I would agree there should be a mimimum sight requirement to get a concealed-carry permit, just as there is with a driver's license.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. Now how many blind people try to buy cars?
"And there's plenty of room in the front seat here for your seeing-eye dog....."

Evidently there's no argument too absurd for the RKBA crowd not to make.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. About The Same Number Of People........
....who buy cars and then park them in their driveways and never operate them on public roads, thus avoiding the requirement of having a license. Yet another brilliant RKBA argument.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. Nobody has provided any concrete justification for vision tests
Edited on Mon Sep-01-03 12:43 PM by slackmaster
For either car buyers or gun buyers. The only argument so far proposed amounts to the standard "common sense" platitude the anti-RKBA crowd so often falls back on when logical arguments are not forthcoming.

Most car owners voluntarily stop driving before they get into trouble caused by declining vision. My grandmother is 95 and still has a valid driver's license. She stopped driving about 10 years ago because she felt she could no longer see or hear well enough, but kept her car for an additional 3 years in case she needed to drive somewhere or be driven somewhere in an emergency. She also allowed a young woman who took care of her housekeeping and chores to use the car to get groceries. She finally sold the car when she moved into an assisted care facility that had no garage for patients.

Paladin and CO Liberal, you are both reasonable people, so I ask what would have been the benefit to society of confiscating my grandma's Pontiac when she stopped driving? Suppose she had a shotgun that she no longer used. Would you confiscate that as well? That is a logical extension of what you are implying: A vision test to merely OWN an object that has potential for misuse. I assume that by requiring a vision test for someone to be allowed to buy a gun that you would also want ongoing vision tests for the privilege of keeping one's gun.

Judging by the conspicuous lack of horror stories about blind people shooting the wrong target by mistake, it appears that gun owners are capable of exercising the same kind of judgement as car owners in regards to knowing when to stop USING the object with potential for misuse. Given the recent rash of car accidents involving elderly drivers, perhaps gun owners use better judgement than some drivers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. Granted......
...there's not a lot of news regarding unfortunate incidents involving blind people wielding firearms. However, I don't see how you can possibly advocate the blind having open-ended, untested access to guns, while at the same time supporting one of the most fundamental rules of gun safety----be absolutely sure of your target.

I have all the sympathy in the world for sight-impaired individuals, but that doesn't mean that I want them getting jobs as air traffic controllers, doing root canal work on me, or squeezing off a round in the direction of a suspicious noise.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-02-03 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #60
63. I strongly oppose requiring a license to own a gun
Edited on Tue Sep-02-03 09:08 AM by slackmaster
Under the present system we have a subset of the population that is prohibited from owning guns - Convicted felons, people adjudicated as mentally incompetent, people under certain restining orders, etc. Because those conditions all involve official actions by government, there is a paper trail; records can easily be computerized so in principle it's simple to maintain an accurate list. Once you are convicted felon, you go on the list. The only way to get off the list is to get a pardon or have your conviction overturned on appeal.

The only official record of whether or not a person is blind is his or her income tax records. But not all people who are legally blind are incapable of safely using a firearm. So it would not be reasonable to deny gun ownership to everyone who claims a tax exemption for blindness. How, then, would society solve the non-problem of blind people with guns?

Nanny-state fans would have to arbitrarily define some level of visual ability that anyone wishing to buy a gun would have to meet. That would require testing everyone who buys a gun: Gun sellers would have to purchase additional equipment and receive specialized training in order to interpret the test. And to make sure gun owners who experience degradation of their vision do not keep their weapons, gun owners would have to be periodically re-certified to ensure that they still meet the vision requirement (just as older drivers are).

All this in response to a story about a legally blind person who successfully and lawfully protected himself with a gun. I suppose if your goal in life is to impose a licensing requirement for gun ownership, any potential foot in the door will do no matter how absurd it seems to anyone who looks at the situation rationally.

:shrug:

I have a better idea: Leave things as they are now. The system ain't broke, so let's not fix it. I can think of plenty of valid reasons why a legally blind person might want to either buy a gun or keep a gun that he or she owned prior to becoming legally blind, but unlike those who wish to save us all from ourselves I would not require a visually impaired person to present a reason or pass any kind of vision test in order to excercise the right to keep and bear arms.

"...I don't see how you can possibly advocate the blind having open-ended, untested access to guns, while at the same time supporting one of the most fundamental rules of gun safety----be absolutely sure of your target."

I can't recall seeing that rule of firearm safety being stated with the word "absolutely", and just as no right is absolute it is not possible for a human relying on his or her senses to be absolutely sure of anything. You must be sure of your target, and sure of your backstop in case your bullet misses or goes through the target.

I can only judge by the result in the incident under discussion that the shooter was sufficiently sure of his target and backstop. He did hit one of his intended targets, and though the story is sketchy it appears that only things he was willing to shoot got shot. Based on that information I give him an "A".

People do not necessarily lose their minds or their judgement when they become visually impaired.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-02-03 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. Holler All You Want About A "Nanny State"
I've gotten used to such terms from you RKBA guys; references to a "nanny state" and "those who wish to save us all from ourselves" come right out of the Rush Limbaugh playbook, and show yet again the overwhelmingly right-wing influence on today's radicalized pro-gun movement.

And your willingness to sign off on blind people using guns, on the basis of a single, thankfully positive incident, is wildly unpersuasive. Why not give a razor blade to a baby to play with, and only get concerned if the infant happens to slice into a major artery? Same reactive, too-late-to-do-anything-about-it mindset......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-02-03 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. That's TWO positive incidents, and I'm not signing off on anything
I do not believe it is in the purview of our government to prohibit ownership of an inanimate object based on a person's physical handicap, nor should it be.

Why not give a razor blade to a baby to play with, and only get concerned if the infant happens to slice into a major artery?

First CO Liberal wants to lump visually handicapped people in with convicted felons, crazies, and people dishonorably discharged from the military, now you are comparing visually handicapped people to babies!

:argh:

Do you think blind people are all stupid? Do you think disabled people are not capable of adjusting their behavior to accommodate their physical challenges? Would you have allowed the crooks to steal everything that Connecticut man owned? I ought to sic the ACLU on you right now.

Same reactive, too-late-to-do-anything-about-it mindset......

There is plenty of evidence that babies cannot safely handle razor blades. There is no evidence that visually impaired people (and still nobody but CO Liberal has even attempted to define HOW impaired we're talking about) should not be trusted to own a firearm. Or a car. Or a razor blade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-02-03 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #58
62. Un-frrigging-believable
Hard to tell whether it's this thread or the "Professor Amar" thread that has more desperate, silly rubbish from the RKBA crowd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kimchi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
6. Good aim, bud.
He obviously had the Force with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
7. He must have used The Force
Good shooting!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
21. An extreme case, but an excellent example of why law abiding citizens
Edited on Fri Aug-29-03 03:35 PM by jody
keep and bear arms to exercise their inalienable right to defend self and property.

Replace the victim's blindness with other physical limitations, e.g. a 90 pound woman threatened by a 250 pound rapist, and it shouldn't be difficult to understand why firearms, particularly handguns, are chosen by law abiding citizens for self defense.


    Government cannot prevent criminals from keeping and bearing arms
    Government allows law enforcement officers to keep and bear arms for self defense against criminals
    Government is not required to defend a citizen against criminals
    Citizens have the inalienable right to defend self and property against criminals
    Therefore, law abiding citizens should keep and bear arms to put themself on an equal footing with criminals.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. Excuse me, but...
where does this:

Government is not required to defend a citizen against criminals

come from? Why do police go on patrols then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Do a google search with: police protect "not required "
Edited on Fri Aug-29-03 05:36 PM by jody
and educate yourself. :shrug:

ON EDIT ADD
The following is a pro-RKBA link but the cases cited are correct for your use.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Just answer my question, please.
Why do police go on patrols? Why don't they just wait until they're called?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. I said initially that SCOTUS has ruled that government is not required
to protect an individual citizen. Your question was conditioned upon my statement and you asked "where does this: Government is not required to defend a citizen against criminals come from?."

I and another person have provided links to you that confirm my statement.

Whatever the answer to your second question "Why do police go on patrols then" might be, it will not change the fundamental decision by SCOTUS that government is not obligated to protect an individual.

In that sense your second question is irrelevant and immaterial to the initial statement I made.

Perhaps police on patrol are completing their obligation to protect the community as a whole and not any single individual.

Have a nice day. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Welcome to the "Full Spin Zone."
Of course the police can't protect us individually every minute of the day. That's patently absurd to expect. But it has great shock value to throw it out there at those nasty "anti-gunners," huh?

The police DO set up stings, etc. to catch criminals before they can commit a crime against a citizen. You can't tell me that doesn't protect us individually - there's just no way to know which individuals will be spared from a crime because the police were proactive.

And if you are being threatened, the police ARE required to protect you individually. That doesn't have to mean an intruder is in your bedroom with a weapon pointed at you, meaning what good would the police be at that very instant.

The way you throw it around, it makes it seem like a police officer could be walking down the street, see you being held up at gunpoint, and just simply whistle and continue walking. Again, it makes for great shock value, but it's not a very realistic statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Can you back that up with a credible citation?
trotsky wrote:

"And if you are being threatened, the police ARE required to protect you individually."

I believe you are mistaken. Please read the full text of the US Supreme Court decision I quoted in reply #29. It's pretty clear that they do NOT have any obligation to protect an individual unless they already have that individual in custody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-03 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #38
43. Just explain something then.
Why do the police respond to calls? I mean, if it's so clear based on the SC decision that the police have no obligation whatsoever to protect the public, then why do they even exist? Why do they arrest people? Why do they set up stings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #43
47. Their job is to protect society by apprehending criminals
Edited on Sun Aug-31-03 10:05 AM by slackmaster
Why do the police respond to calls?

Because a call to the police indicates that criminal activity either has occurred is is presently occurring, therefore one or more criminals may be present. The police respond to the calls so they can apprehend and arrest criminals.

I mean, if it's so clear based on the SC decision that the police have no obligation whatsoever to protect the public, then why do they even exist?

To protect society by apprehending criminals.

Why do they arrest people?

They arrest criminals in order to protect society from them.

Why do they set up stings?

To catch criminals so they can arrest them, which protects society.

BTW police approach dangerous situations with extreme caution. The last time I called them to report a possible gunshot two doors away (which turned out to be a firecracker), it took them almost 30 minutes to show up. Six of them approached the house very cautiously in a tight group, with body armor on and guns drawn. Any shooting victim in that house would very likely have bled to death by the time the police arrived. I'm sure that one pair of officers could have been there within 10 minutes, but they did not begin their approach until three carloads were on the scene. (They parked a block away.)

Police officers' obligation to protect themselves is always at a higher priority than rescuing victims of crime. The constraints under which they operate are clear: Cops are not obligated to take heroic measures in the face of personal danger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. Here's an example of police not protecting an individual
Edited on Sun Aug-31-03 11:14 AM by slackmaster
http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1110_AP_Online_Regional___National__US_/59166161-c943-4382-a7a4-36e52d733704.html


Officials Probe Bizarre Pa. Bank Robbery

6 hours ago

By JUDY LIN, Associated Press Writer

ERIE, Pa. - A pizza delivery man told police he had been forced to rob a bank and asked authorities to help him minutes before a bomb strapped to his chest exploded and killed him.

On Saturday, federal agents and police in northwestern Pennsylvania were trying to solve the bizarre case of 46-year-old Brian Douglas Wells, who left to deliver a pizza to a mysterious address in a remote area about an hour before he turned up at the bank with a bomb strapped to his body.

No one else was hurt in Thursday's explosion, which happened in front of law enforcement officers as they waited for a bomb squad to arrive.

WJET-TV of Erie captured audio and video from Wells as he sat handcuffed in front of a state police cruiser. "Why is nobody trying to come get this thing off me?" he asked.


I'll tell you why - Because the officers who had handcuffed him to their car were too busy protecting themselves while they waited for specialists (bomb squad officers) to show up.

Do you think Mr. Wells' family will be able to sue the police for not acting more quickly to get the bomb off of his body? No! Why not? Because the police have no OBLIGATION to protect individuals. They have a DUTY to do whatever they can without putting themselves at undue risk, but they will not be liable for the death.

Why was the man handcuffed to a police car, which prevented him from attempting to remove the bomb himself? TO PROTECT SOCIETY AND THE COPS FROM THE BOMB!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. What's The Matter, Slackmaster?

Aren't enough law enforcement officers dying in the line of duty to suit you?

So the cops were waiting for the bomb squad to come take care of the bomb strapped to this poor guy? Well, jeez, what a bunch of chickenshits! Why follow established procedures and leave such a situation to trained experts, when they could have rushed in, gotten themselves blown to bits, and put a big ol' smile on your face.

The radical RKBA movement has a lot of unpleasant features, and this mindless hatred of cops is among the worst......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. You've made multiple incorrect assumptions about my attitudes, Paladin
I can't fault any of the officers for how they handled the situation. My point in posting the incident is to illustrate that protection of society in general and themselves takes precedence over their duty to protect an individual citizen.

The radical RKBA movement has a lot of unpleasant features, and this mindless hatred of cops is among the worst......

If you think I meant to disparage the police in any way you are badly mistaken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Yeah, Right

n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. What do you mean "Yeah, Right"?
Edited on Sun Aug-31-03 02:51 PM by slackmaster
Are you implying that my post was less than honest?

If so I want you to come right out and say it. I do not appreciate your negative attitude and sarcasm.

The amount of bigotry and hatred I experience as a victim on this board is appalling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Sorry, but what I said is correct. You say "a police officer could be
walking down the street, see you being held up at gunpoint, and just simply whistle and continue walking."

Yes that is correct. The officer would probably be fired, but the officer is not obligated to protect you. Victims have tried unsucessfully to sue police departments under similiar circumstances and their cases went nowhere.

It appears from your questions, that this issue is new to you. Please post a new thread to this forum if you find a SCOTUS decision that overturns that said:
QUOTE
A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.
UNQUOTE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-03 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. Are you sure?
Your comment seems to support my point. An individual officer can be fired for failing to protect a citizen being threatened. That would mean that he failed in his/her job duties - i.e., to protect. If it wasn't a requirement that he/she protect citizens, there wouldn't be any grounds for his/her dismissal, would there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-03 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. I said "The officer would probably be fired, but the officer
is not obligated to protect you." I said "would probably be fired" because I can't make a specific statement given the thousands of different law enforcement systems in the US. Whether that "probably" value is less than 1% or greater than 99%, I don't know and it's not relevant to my initial statement which triggered your reply to me.

Not withstanding that caveat, my statement "but the officer is not obligated to protect you" is correct. If you can show that the SCOTUS case I cited has been overturned, then and only then would you be correct.

Regardless of what you might believe, SCOTUS was very explicit when it ruled "A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services."

I have provided a seminal ruling on whether law enforcement agencies are obligated or required to protect an individual. They are not unless as SCOTUS said "It may well be that by voluntarily undertaking to provide petitioner with protection against a danger it played no part in creating, the State acquired a duty under state tort law to provide him with adequate protection against that danger. But the Due Process Clause does not transform every tort committed by a state actor into a constitutional violation.:

If you have another SCOTUS ruling(s) that casts doubt on the SCOTUS case I cited, please provide it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoeBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #44
55. Maybe this clarification will help...
...the Supreme Court protects the police department and individual officer from being sued by a citizen for it's (his) failure to protect. The individual officer is not protected from being fired but just from being sued by the public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-03 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. Makes one wonder why
the RKBA crowd has to rely on such nonsense, eh?

(Possibly for the same reason they're here calling for arming the blind.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-03 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. Exactly
Rely on fear and intimidation. We're the most armed industrial nation in the world, yet we also have the highest crime. Rather than address that basic fact, scare people with cries of "the police won't protect you!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-03 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. Please prove your implication "the police are required to protect you".
You can't but you persist in spreading false statments.

Once a person has been shown a SCOTUS ruling that refutes a statement "the police are required to protect you", then that person is no longer guilty of spreading false statements. According to DU protocols, the proper phrase is "your facts are wrong", so your facts are wrong. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #45
61. please prove your assertion
that anyone "implied" that "the police are required to protect you".

You say:

"Once a person has been shown a SCOTUS ruling that refutes a statement 'the police are required to protect you', then that person is no longer guilty of spreading false statements."

Can I assume that you meant to say that the person in question IS "guilty of spreading false statements" if s/he says "the police are required to protect you" after being shown such ruling??

Who cares. Unless you can establish that someone HAS said that "the police are required to protect you", all you're doing is ... spreading a misrepresentation. I suppose that's better than "spreading false statements". Not really.

What was SAID was this:

We're the most armed industrial nation in the world, yet we also have the highest crime. Rather than address that basic fact, scare people with cries of "the police won't protect you!"

Can you explain why you CHOSE TO INFER FROM THIS (chose to say that you inferred form this) that someone had said "the police are required to protect you"?

I'm not seeing any logical connection between the statement made and the inference you stated that you drew from it, myself. So I find it quite impossible to imagine why you would say that someone had actually IMPLIED what you chose to infer (chose to say you inferred). Myself.

"According to DU protocols, the proper phrase is "your facts are wrong", so your facts are wrong."

Perhaps you would be kind, and civil, enough to point out exactly what FACTS you are claiming to be WRONG. Hahaha. But, y'know, just to show that you aren't be the one who is ... whose facts are wrong.

"The police are not required to protect you." "Inalienable right to defence of self and property." Blah blah. My experience with on-line bot programs (e.g. Jabberwacky, hours of fun) is that they can be counted on to say something almost always irrelevant and often offensive ... and frequently to say it badly anyway, of course. The shoe continues to fit.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. It's basically a liability issue
Edited on Fri Aug-29-03 06:12 PM by slackmaster
If the government was responsible to protect citizens against crime, people could sue for damages when police fail to show up or do their job perfectly. They are responsible only for protecting people who are already in their custody (i.e. criminals and suspects).

This has been held up in several decisions in the US Supreme Court. Here is one example from the syllabus of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (USSC+):

"A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means."

There's a nice list of other decisions that say basically the same thing at http://www.dekalbcity.com/notrequired.html about halfway down the page.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Apr 21st 2024, 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC