http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m2/movieplay-nogunsforjews-yt.php
On Jan 28, 11:05 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > The police 'protect and serve' the state, not youTake your chances with > criminals rather than with the police. For one thing, criminals usually want > your property, not control over your life.Wendy McElroy- Wednesday 26 January > 2011 - 11:26:24 > Gun opponents who argue "the police will protect you" are a menace to your > safety. They are also flat wrong. I am not referring to the overwhelming > inability of police to combat crime. Why state the obvious? I am referring to > the fact that the police have no duty whatsoever to protect you against > criminals. That's not in the job description of 'police officer.' The courts > have recognized this fact for over a century. > In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law > enforcement officers had no duty to protect any individual. Their duty is to > enforce the law in general. More recently, in 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the > Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right > to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. > It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents... but it does > not violate... the Constitution." Later court decisions concurred: the > police have no duty to protect you. > Police vehicles routinely sport decals proclaiming sentiments such as > 'Proud to Serve!' If they aren't there to protect you, the question becomes, > "Who are they serving?" The answer is clear: the police department exists to > enforce the law. Policemen serve the government, not the people. And uphold > the law with total disregard for whether their actions create or prevent > violence. For example, if government decides that certain forms of adult > consensual crimes must not be tolerated, then the police will draw their guns > and barge into otherwise peaceful bedrooms. To uphold an unjust law, they > will create violence and victims. > Those who blithely reassure you about police protection are doubly wrong. Not > only is protection not the officers' job, they may well be the ones who > victimize you. Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, correctly > observes that the American legal system is based on the English Common Law. > The modern American policeman dates back centuries to the role of the English > Sheriff, who was paid by and accountable to the government, not the > community. As the JPFO states, the main purpose of the Sheriff was the > "enforcement of government decisions," such as seizing property. "Maintenance > of public order" was of secondary concern. Indeed, if the two concerns > collided - as in the enforcement of victimless crime laws - the government > invariably won. > Americans revere the romantic Western notion of Marshall Dillon defending the > schoolmarm against the Bang-'em-Up gang who swoop down like wolves on the > prairie town. But, often, these particular sheriffs were hired by the > communities and were responsible to the people there, not to the government. > Moreover, the townsfolk themselves routinely owned guns. What Americans are > actually revering is an example of a quasi-private police force functioning > within an armed society. Unfortunately, this image still benefits the modern > state policeman who is routinely glorified by television programs like Cops! > Yet these state-employees are the antithesis of the Western sheriff. They are > modeled after the British Sheriff - they are responsible only to enforce > government policy and they often are the wolves. > If policy makers want to prevent violence, they should disarm the police and > encourage gun ownership within the citizenry. There is historical precedent. > In his book Frontier Justice, Wayne Gard describes the rampant corruption of > politics and police in 1850's San Francisco. Violence soared until the SF > vigilante committee revived (1856). Within three months, Gard explains, "San > Francisco had only two murders, compared with more than a hundred in the six > months before the committee was formed." > At least until erring policemen acknowledge a duty to protect the life and > property of individuals, 'the people' en masse ought to say 'no more donuts > for you!'http://bit.ly/eUtXdL -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
