In this editorial, we find "When faced with an imminent threat, citizens are justified in defending themselves, even with deadly force. Michigan’s self-defense laws support that principle.
But citizens should not have to fend for themselves as a matter of course when it comes to public safety. Although Craig is right in saying the confrontations in a home invasions can’t be blamed on him, it must be his priority to re-establish — quickly — law and order in Detroit’s neighborhoods.
The chief is on record as saying more legal guns in Detroit would make the city safer, and has not backed down in advocating for appropriate self-defense. Craig is not encouraging vigilante-style violence, but rather defense in situations of imminent danger.
But not all Detroiters are capable of protecting themselves in such a manner. Relying on an armed citizenry is not the answer to Detroit’s effort to improve public safety. But Detroiters don’t feel confident in the police to protect them. That explains the rise in legal gun ownership.
The number of valid concealed pistol licenses in Wayne County increased by 10,000 from 2012 to 2013. At the beginning of 2013, there were just over 70,000 concealed pistol licenses in Wayne County, the highest rate of all Michigan counties. According to Michigan State Police, that number is now about 81,000.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140502/OPINION01/305020002#ixzz30bdscUrj
Yes, not everyone can use guns to defend themselves. Yes, the city and state have obligation to provide more protection. However, the right exists whether the police can protect everyone or most everyone or not. Of course, it is highly unlikely that any police force could do any of this. But such ability is irrelevant to the basic underlying, pre-existing natural law right.
By both state and federal court decisions, only the individual has the responsibility for self-defense. The police are not obligated by law to protect those not in view of the police.
ReplyDeleteThe police function primarily as janitors when violence is involved. You do not see headlines proclaiming that the police stopped assaults, home invasions or armed robberies except on very rare occasions--and those are statistically insignificant in number.
Art
Art: You are correct. Great point! Police have no legal obligation to protect any particular individual (except in certain special situations, e.g. person in police custody, police have formally promised protection). In most cases, the victim cannot sue the police because the police have violated no legal obligation by failure to protect. I suspect most people, esp. on the left, do not realize this. See the article on the Denver PD delay below. Denver PD and the employees involved will probably not be held liable. Immunity from liability is usually extended to 9-1-1- cases.
ReplyDeleteWell foot-noted:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html#4
Art