911 call goes unaided....no police available.....woman raped

This reminds me of what happened to my sister in-law. She lived roughly 4 city blocks from the city police station in Garden City MI.(Detroit suburb) This made her feel very safe until one morning at approx. 4am a unknown man was attempting to break into her house. She dialled 911 & was told "we don't have anyone to send now - if he gets in call back..." luckily she had the good sense to hit her car alarm which was parked on the street and the crack head took off. The police never came. She had always been anti-gun up to that point. The next day I went out and helped pick out a 12ga shot gun & took her to the range. She shoots it well & now understands what the police are really there for. Which is to take the report after the crime & put up the tape & draw the chalk outlines. She is now a strong 2A supporter.

FreeInAZ said:

This reminds me of what happened to my sister in-law. She lived roughly 4 city blocks from the city police station in Garden City MI.(Detroit suburb) This made her feel very safe until one morning at approx. 4am a unknown man was attempting to break into her house. She dialled 911 & was told "we don't have anyone to send now - if he gets in call back..." luckily she had the good sense to hit her car alarm which was parked on the street and the crack head took off. The police never came. She had always been anti-gun up to that point. The next day I went out and helped pick out a 12ga shot gun & took her to the range. She shoots it well & now understands what the police are really there for. Which is to take the report after the crime & put up the tape & draw the chalk outlines. She is now a strong 2A supporter.

Click to expand...

+1 :banana:

EMNofSeattle said:

No, see Gonzales v. Castle Rock and Warren v. District of Columbia there is not an individual "right" to police protection... the police only have an obligation to the "public at large". think about it, if you had a "right" to police protection then anyone who was the victim of a crime could sue stating their right was violated and that the police are responsible for damages for not responding fast enough....

Click to expand...

Great case- Thank you for that post.

What number of victims would qualify as " The public at large"? 2-5-12-20?

Lets say our perp knew the closes LEO was 45 miles away. He also knows of a local barn dance with maybe 10-12 couples. He decides he wants to rob and may be assault the local dancers and may be even beats one up.
One of the dance goers sneaks outside and calls the SP, only to find they are 45 miles away.
While talking with the SP dispatcher the citizen is discovered and shot and killed by the perp who also decides that he likes the feel of killing so he returns to the barn and happily kills 6 couples.
Hence he killed 13 citizens. Do you think 13 would qualify as " Public at Large"

TIA for all reply's

CCJ

If the rape victim was indeed a "prohibited person" as mentioned in one if the police comments, how does that change the argument? The government says she can't have a gun to defend herself with but also fails to have enough police available to respond when called.
Another idea probably best discussed in a separate thread is the idea of volunteer or paid on call deputies similar to firefighters. When you don't have money available for a fulltime fire department the answer is to form a volunteer fire department so you have someone who can get out of bed and show up when someone calls 911. Maybe the Sheriff should look into forming a reserve or auxiliary unit of unpaid but trained citizens who would be armed andto have limited arrest powers . These auxiliary deputies could be paged out the way volunteer firefighters are. The can show up and control the situation until the Sheriff or State Troopers arrive to take over and formally arrest the would be rapist.

EMNofSeattle said:

Eye, read the story, this department had 30 officers and had to lay off 25 due to a reduction in federal grants (that wouldn't be nessecary if th county could allow logging but the Feds declared the area a wilderness) they don't have any officers at all working at times and state troopers were dispatched from more then 50 miles away. There was no one to send already on patrol

Click to expand...

You can't blame the reduction in grant money that shouldn't have been there in the first place.......

sudden valley gunner said:

You can't blame the reduction in grant money that shouldn't have been there in the first place.......

Click to expand...

Technically, yes, the grant money shouldn't have been there in the first place BUT the federal government shouldn't own 75 percent of a county and shut down all that land from productive use while paying zero taxes to the local government.

It's a direct correlation AND causation. When the feds shut down logging, due to enviro wackos and their "hug a tree", "save the spotted owl", ad nauseum attacks on a sustainable industry, which was the basis of the entire local economy, the grant money was intended to replace the revenues lost. With more than 70 percent (nearly 75%) of the land in the country held by the feds there is no property tax base it is quite clear that the feds are the cause of the issue and that the grant money should still be paid.

Of course the locals would be perfectly happy to not have the grant money but to have their logging industry (and JOBS) back.

sraacke said:

If the rape victim was indeed a "prohibited person" as mentioned in one if the police comments, how does that change the argument? The government says she can't have a gun to defend herself with but also fails to have enough police available to respond when called.
Another idea probably best discussed in a separate thread is the idea of volunteer or paid on call deputies similar to firefighters. When you don't have money available for a fulltime fire department the answer is to form a volunteer fire department so you have someone who can get out of bed and show up when someone calls 911. Maybe the Sheriff should look into forming a reserve or auxiliary unit of unpaid but trained citizens who would be armed andto have limited arrest powers . These auxiliary deputies could be paged out the way volunteer firefighters are. The can show up and control the situation until the Sheriff or State Troopers arrive to take over and formally arrest the would be rapist.

Click to expand...

This is a local story for me and I am yet to see/hear/read anything that states the victim was a prohibited person. Can you provide a source for these "police comments"? Not saying she wasn't, just that I haven't seen or heard anything saying she was.

We-the-People said:

Technically, yes, the grant money shouldn't have been there in the first place BUT the federal government shouldn't own 75 percent of a county and shut down all that land from productive use while paying zero taxes to the local government.

Click to expand...

But isn't that EXACTLY what they did to the plains Indians? They told them they couldn't hunt buffalo anymore (and made sure by slaughtering the herds), and justified it by saying that the Federal government would feed them. When it DID feed them, it did so with rotten meat provided by corrupt suppliers... when they DID feed them... which they often didn't.

The [Federal] leopard doesn't change its spots...

Deanimator said:

But isn't that EXACTLY what they did to the plains Indians? They told them they couldn't hunt buffalo anymore (and made sure by slaughtering the herds), and justified it by saying that the Federal government would feed them. When it DID feed them, it did so with rotten meat provided by corrupt suppliers... when they DID feed them... which they often didn't.

The [Federal] leopard doesn't change its spots...

Click to expand...

Oh don't take me wrong. I don't think the feds should be paying for everything. But I also think they need to stop interfering and causing the hardships. I'd much rather they just whithered away to their Consitutional position with minimal powers and left things to the state and local governments. State governments are not blame free either.

Between the massive compliance costs of federal and state mandates....for instance you can't just hire an officer to protect the community, they must meet mandated standards.....you can't just put them in a car, it must meet mandated standards.....yadda yadda. In the case of my OP, I'm pretty sure the victim would have been very happy to have anyone show up and could have cared less if they met the state and federal mandates.

We-the-People said:

This is a local story for me and I am yet to see/hear/read anything that states the victim was a prohibited person. Can you provide a source for these "police comments"? Not saying she wasn't, just that I haven't seen or heard anything saying she was.

Click to expand...

WTP,
Sorry for any confusion. I was just going by a comment that was quoted in Post #11 of this thead. I believe it came from another website. I can't say how true it may be.
Keep us updated on this if you are able. I'm very interested in seeing the fallout from this.

Fallschirmjäger said:

Now, according to the police on other forums, if someone had reported a gun they would have "had to respond." Lesson learned here, guys.
.
Of course, if there had been a gun present the whole 'call the police' thing might not have even been an issue
.
Except that according to one report, the woman was a "prohibited person" and by law was prevented from having the means to protect herself.
.
Which kinda brings me back to 'lesson learned.'

Click to expand...

Can you point me towards that "one report"? First I've heard of it.

sraacke said:

WTP,
Sorry for any confusion. I was just going by a comment that was quoted in Post #11 of this thead. I believe it came from another website. I can't say how true it may be.
Keep us updated on this if you are able. I'm very interested in seeing the fallout from this.

Click to expand...

No problem on the prohibited thing. Asked that poster to provide a cite (see above post).

This incident happened back in August and the county recently denied a levy to provide more LE. If my memory is correct it would have nearly trippled the property tax rate. Don't quote me on that though as it's not part of the story I've committted to memory. It seems the underlying problem is that the county needs to pull the money from other areas....you know, those "sacred cows" and such.....and the people have repeatedly spoken at the ballot box. Unfortunately, it looks like the state is now going to try in intervene by usurping local control and forcing tax increase on the residents in the form of an income tax. That won't go over well either.

I have lived in locations where no police was available ... and it was highly populated (no a cabin in the woods) ... and oddly, crime was about zero..why? everyone owned guns and criminals knew it from lessons being learned the hard way.

IMO if we eliminated PDs entirely, crime might go down. If we got rid of most of the nanny state laws, crime would be almost zero.

Allow people to keep and bear arms as they should be able to ... and people can police themselves pretty well.

Circumstances warranting the display, or use of deadly force trump any disablement of the 2A right.

That principle of course begs the question as to how a " prohibited person " is going to have access to a means of using deadly force in self defense ?

Most people with a survival instinct can likely maneuver there way around that obstacle.

davidmcbeth said:

I have lived in locations where no police was available ... and it was highly populated (no a cabin in the woods) ... and oddly, crime was about zero..why? everyone owned guns and criminals knew it from lessons being learned the hard way.

IMO if we eliminated PDs entirely, crime might go down. If we got rid of most of the nanny state laws, crime would be almost zero.

Allow people to keep and bear arms as they should be able to ... and people can police themselves pretty well.

Click to expand...

I can hear the "Oh the streets would run red with blood" libtard screams of terror now. Not a bad idea in principal. Those who would not act responsibly & take responsibility for their own acts would learn quick or vanish! Win-win in my book

Here's the Hollywood spin on your idea...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2bVeqhzuSs

We-the-People said:

Technically, yes, the grant money shouldn't have been there in the first place BUT the federal government shouldn't own 75 percent of a county and shut down all that land from productive use while paying zero taxes to the local government.

It's a direct correlation AND causation. When the feds shut down logging, due to enviro wackos and their "hug a tree", "save the spotted owl", ad nauseum attacks on a sustainable industry, which was the basis of the entire local economy, the grant money was intended to replace the revenues lost. With more than 70 percent (nearly 75%) of the land in the country held by the feds there is no property tax base it is quite clear that the feds are the cause of the issue and that the grant money should still be paid.

Of course the locals would be perfectly happy to not have the grant money but to have their logging industry (and JOBS) back.

Click to expand...

I agree the Feds shouldn't own the property, they shouldn't own very much property at all. They then shouldn't create the moral hazards of people finding work on federal property.

That being said unfortunately they do, there should be no grant money paid because they stopped an industry on their property, the actors in this should all have realized it is not their property and that this could happen, and not expect to money to be stolen from others to support them, because they lost a living that was made on unjustly owned property.

The whole thing is a twisted cluster...........we now have people upset that there is not enough money to be stolen for "services" because there wasn't enough money given to them stolen from someone else.

sudden valley gunner said:

SNIP I agree the Feds shouldn't own the property, they shouldn't own very much property at all. They then shouldn't create the moral hazards of people finding work on federal property.

That being said unfortunately they do, there should be no grant money paid because they stopped an industry on their property, the actors in this should all have realized it is not their property and that this could happen, and not expect to money to be stolen from others to support them, because they lost a living that was made on unjustly owned property.

The whole thing is a twisted cluster...........we now have people upset that there is not enough money to be stolen for "services" because there wasn't enough money given to them stolen from someone else.

Click to expand...

+1

I was thinkin' about this yesterday. Somebody on here has Franklin's quote about democracy being two wolves and a lamb voting on dinner in his sig line. I saw it, and it prompted me to consider economics and consent to be governed--that is to say government without genuine consent.

Its the whole will of the majority thing. Even Franklin saw it coming, commenting at one time that the whole system would start to implode once the people realized they could vote themselves money. The underlying false premise being, of course, that the will of the majority has some special validity, overriding refused consent of the minority.

Of course, the will of the majority has no more validity than a king's divine right.

As long as anybody enforces government on others who do not consent to be governed, its going to be a mess. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the only way it can work is for a government to be a genuine Lockian mutual-aid society protecting and governing only those who consent to join that particular mutual-aid society. And, more importantly, that members can withdraw their consent and withdraw from that government whenever they feel like it.*


*Consider for a moment all the energy politicians spend on lying to their people. If they have such good ideas, let them persuade people about how good their plans are in order to obtain or maintain the genuine consent of the governed. It can't possibly take more time or energy than constructing and putting out the lies. The lies can only be a low-order ability to persuade (or) a snowjob to cover dirty deeds. If a politician has to lie in order to persuade about a good idea, he lacks the necessary skill/creative ability. Forcing government to come up with articulate, genuine persuasion based on the best interests of the governed by giving people the ability to opt-out of being governed aka withdraw their consent fits nicely, I think. Besides, if a particular idea is a good one, it shouldn't be so hard to get people to see it.

Nightmare said:

Do not nominate, even, a wolf in sheeps' clothing. Please become familiar with sortition, we're halfway there with Voter ID (pinakion) and voting-machines (kloteria). It is already used to select juries.

Click to expand...

Sortition: selection by casting lots.


While that might help somewhat reduce the number of sociopaths* who make it into elected positions, it does nothing for a majority voting themselves money from a non-consenting minority.


*Yep. I meant sociopaths. Recall the sanctions on Iraq after the first gulf war. The UN estimated 500,000 Iraqi children died from reduced food, medicine, etc. When asked about it, Madeline Albright did not question the figures. Nor, did she dispute the premise that children were dying. Nope. She said it was worth it! The slow and painful deaths of half a million kids!

Another example. Plenty in government understand the ramifications of Obamacare. Regardless of what they say, they can't not know. Who except a sociopath would knowingly force such a disaster on people?

Or, take one close to our own hearts. Gun control. You have to really hate people, or be totally cold and lacking in empathy, in order to render them defenseless against criminals. And, don't think for a moment that gun-controllers in government and out don't know the results. You might sway a ninny soccer-mom with an urgent appeal to emotion, but nobody can be connected to this subject for any appreciable length of time without coming to understand that decent people would be rendered defenseless against criminals, forced to cower and perhaps die.

You can make up your own list. Its not that hard. What sort of person except a sociopath would visit on people many of the things this fedgov and even stategovs do to us?

I pulled to U-6 statistics for a class yesterday. These statistics include, "Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force."

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

In April 2013, the number was at 13.9%.

We are heading to a point where the labor force is unable to sustain the burdens of entitlement programs. It's the Cloward Piven method in full effect. Eventually there will be a large financial collapse - in 2-3 years once the national debt hits 20 trillion, the Affordable Healthcare Act breaks the healthcare industry and employers' backs, and the bond bubble bursts.

Our politicians dance merrily around the fire as the country burns.

Cato the Younger said it best when he pointed out, "Cessation of work is not accompanied by cessation of expenses." SOMEONE has to pay even if another person has ceased working. The politicians have created an entire class citizenry that cannot contribute in any sense of mutual aid. In fact, the fourth or fifth generation is removed from any such ideals as the generational gap shrinks from 20 years to 15-16 years in some instances. There are some who exit the subsidized system, but many still use it through the guise of SSI or disability.

Sorry Dr. Franklin, they broke her.