The Church of Kharma Futures

The Rev's views on politics, events,faith, and the world. All content copyright Church of Kharma Future 2007-2015 All rights Reserved

Posts Tagged ‘police’

Responsibility where it belongs

Posted by revkharma on December 4, 2014

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) said that he plans to request federal funding for body cameras. It’s unclear whether Obama, who has made the most high-profile push for body cameras, will get congressional support for his proposal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/03/obamas-body-camera-argument-just-took-a-big-hit/

If the Mayor of  NYC feels that his police department needs to have their every move and interaction with the citizens of NYC recorded to prevent allegations of misbehavior he and the taxpaying residents of NYC are welcome to pony up their own cash to pay for it. The use of ‘federal funds’ in reality money confiscated from American Taxpayers around the nation, including from here in South Carolina, should be barred. There is no compelling overriding national interest. The police department of the City of New York may very well be one of the best in the world, But they are NOT the responsibility of the citizens of any other city in the nation.
Advertisements

Posted in administrative power, Big Government, change, Civil liberties, Constitution, distraction | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

To Serve and Protect (themselves)

Posted by revkharma on April 5, 2009

This week there was another rampage, this time in Binghampton, NY. A man armed himself, and walked into a ‘community immigrant center’ and began shooting.  One of the first to be shot managed to call 911 to request police assistance. Police reportedly arrived within minutes. From their own reports, they heard no gunfire, but waited more than  an hour before entering the building. (Emphasis added by me)

Police heard no gunfire after they arrived but waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers.

 and there is more:

The man believed to have carried out the attack was found dead with a self-inflicted gunshot wound in an office, a satchel containing ammunition slung around his neck, authorities said. Police found two handguns — a 9 mm and a .45-caliber — and a hunting knife.

Ok, so here we have a crazed man, armed, carrying a knife. The police are called. They turn out to answer a call for people in distress.  They arrive, and wait hours to make sure they are safe. I guess since they didn’t hear the gunshots, but were still afraid to enter the building. He also had a knife. I guess they couldn’t hear any stabbing noises either, but waited outside just in case. Imagine being inside the building, knowing the police have arrived, counting on them to help (after all, no one inside the building was permitted to be armed) and then waiting for an hour and a half before anyone actually walked into the building to ‘help’. We have been told for all our lives that it should be left to the ‘authorities’ to protect us. And here they show that they will not take a risk  to help those they have sworn to ‘serve and protect’.

Mark Steyn collects some horrific examples of police-style ‘protecting’ from around the country.  Time and again those we are told will be our last resort in times of danger have failed to uphold their  end of the deal.

I realize I run the risk of  tarring all with the same brush. I am not saying all police are delinquent.  Most police officers are diligent and devoted members of the communities they serve.  However, this is NOT the official policy of law enforcement in the United states. In a case from the District of Columbia ( Warren v District of Columbia) two crime victims sued after police failed to respond to multiple calls for assistance. The women were raped, tortured and beaten for over fourteen hours. The DC Court of appeals ruled that the police have no obligation to respond nor to protect someone from being the victim of a crime. The Police, nor the District could be held responsible for their failure to assist the women being assaulted.

This afternoon, in a radio report, the head of the police involved in the Binghampton Police discussed the case. He stated that the shooter had a bullet proof vest, showing that he may have planned to shoot it out with police.  He elaborated, saying that he thought the gunman must have been ‘ a coward’ because when he heard the police sirens he hid in a closet and killed himself.  This comes from the police who, armed with heavy weapons, arriving en mass on site, certainly with protective gear and without doubt bearing superior firepower, still refused to enter the building for an hour and a half, in order to protect the safety of the officers. NOT to protect the citizens they have legally disarmed. Not to pursue the lawbreaker. To ensure the safety of the police officers. 

Next time some bureaucrat tells you there is no need for civilians to carry guns, think of the police in Binghampton, NY. Think of the DC court ruling. Think of the RCMP officers described by Mark Steyn.

Then if you have not already done so, proceed to your nearest shooting range and practice. Practice as your life depends on it. It just might. Be prepared for the day it will.

Keep the Faith.

The Rev.

———UPDATE————

From The Corner at NRO this morning, ‘Jack Dunphy’ discusses the Binghampton,NY fiasco. Bringing his own police experienct to bear he writes the following: ( find it here)

 

re: Binghamton    [Jack Dunphy]

 

Mark Steyn echoes the frustration expressed by many at the failure of some police officers to react decisively to an incident of ongoing violence.  He cites a news story on the mass killing in Binghamton, New York, that told of officers arriving within two minutes of receiving the first call, but waiting “for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers.”

“What’s the point of calling 911, Mark asks, “if they arrive within two minutes and then sit outside for the rest of the day to ‘make sure it’s safe?”

The question is reminiscent of the Columbine massacre that occurred ten years ago this month outside Denver.  The delay in deploying officers into the school led to changes in policy in my own Los Angeles Police Department and in other agencies across the country.  In Los Angeles, officers responding to reports of shots fired within a school, a business, or what have you, must determine if they are facing an “active shooter” or a “barricaded suspect.”  In the case of the former, the first four officers on the scene are obliged to make entry, locate the shooter, and end his aggression.  In the case of a barricaded suspect, it is assumed that he has no access to victims inside, allowing the officers time to take whatever actions are needed to apprehend him.  If this involves waiting outside for the suspect to surrender or fall asleep, so be it.

But in a situation where, as in Binghamton, a suspect is known to have shot people, an hour’s delay in making entry strikes me as grossly excessive.  Even if the gunfire had ceased, the people already wounded deserved an all-out effort to provide them with medical care as quickly as possible.  I expect we’ll be learning that some of the victims bled to death while waiting for the help that came too late.  Knowing how police departments function as I do, I have no doubt that there were officers ready and willing to enter the building within minutes but were prevented from doing so by superiors who, in ordinary circumstances, make no decisions weightier than selecting which desk tray to place a piece of paper in.  These people had to be prodded from their desks when the trouble started, and their presence at the scene merely clogged up the decision-making process.

— Jack Dunphy is an officer in the Los Angeles Police Department. “Jack Dunphy” is the author’s nom de cyber. The opinions expressed are his own and almost certainly do not reflect those of the LAPD management.

 

 



Posted in Big Government, Civil liberties, Freedom, Gun crimes, Gun Laws, gun rights, Second Amendment | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »