H.R. 17: "Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual"

[jody]

H.R. 17: Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:

(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: ‘ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.’.

(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.

(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.

(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:

(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.

(3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families’ defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense. For example:

(A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Illinois, was shot at by 2 men who had just stolen $1,200 in cash and jewelry from his suburban Chicago service station. The police arrested Bennett for violating Oak Park’s handgun ban. The police never caught the actual criminals.

(B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro, North Carolina, was arrested for shooting an intruder in 1990. Four men broke into Biggs’ residence one night, ransacked the home and then assaulted him with a baseball bat. When Biggs attempted to escape through the back door, the group chased him and Biggs turned and shot one of the assailants in the stomach. Biggs was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon--a felony. His assailants were charged with misdemeanors.

(C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell’s store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges.

(4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them.

[yay]

1. I doubt this will go over well.

People don't want to know their precious police aren't liable to protect them.

[jody]

2. Informed people knew that already as clearly stated by SCOTUS in both DeShaney and Gonzales cases.

[frebrd]

3. Kick.

[yay]

5. que?

[jody]

4. Related material in DU poll, link below, and two other SCOTUS cases, DeShaney and Gonzales.

SCOTUS says self-defense is a personal responsibility, and if attacked by a criminal I will:

[Iktomiwicasa]

6. K&R

[rl6214]

7. There you go

Throwing logic and facts out there again. When are you ever going to learn? Logic and facts mean nothing.

[crimsonblue]

8. OK, so what are you trying to infer here?

[jody]

9. Nothing to infer, the bill is clear to all who are not comprehension-challenged. What are you trying

to infer by asking "what are you trying to infer here?"

[crimsonblue]

10. do you get enjoyment of putting random House Resolutions on DU?

Or are you trying to incite a flame war over gun control? You seem to get a perverse pleasure out of that.

[X_Digger]

11. Posting HoR bills that affect gun ownership in a forum..

whose stated goal includes- "Discussion of gun-related public policy issues"?? Shocking! Shocking, I tell ya!

[jody]

13. Why don't you educate your self about RKBA? A little knowledge might reveal to you

the various factors affecting a divisive, polarizing political issue, one of which is government is not obligated to protect an individual but there are some misguided, ignorant souls that don't know that simple fact.

Have a pleasant evening. :hi:

[virginia mountainman]

19. Nope, he is letting US, Democratic activists, KNOW,

Just what we need to contact our Legislators about....

After all, we all are supposed to be on the same team, protecting OUR Civil Rights.

[NewMoonTherian]

12. What I gleaned from it...

is that it's unrealistic to assume the police will be there when you need them, and that individuals have to take responsibility for their own safety. That means something different for everyone, ranging from concealed carry, to a taser, to nothing at all.

This leads me to the conclusion that concealed carry should be an option, and that applications should be processed permits granted or denied quickly. I also feel it shouldn't be prohibitively expensive(I define anything in the triple digits for a five-year license as prohibitive).

I'd be interested to know how others interpreted the article.

[rl6214]

14. I think

You are pretty much spot on here.

[57_TomCat]

21. I too believe...

you nailed it pretty well. :)

[Rabrrrrrr]

16. Inferring that the psychotic gun grabbers' mantra that "call 911!" will save everyone automatically

is a tale of utter fucking bullshit, and utterly ethically bankrupt, one that no right thinking liberal should ever spread.

The blood of every person who was convinced that the police will show up instantaneously, even with only a partially completed 911 call, is on the hands of every gun grabbing shitpile.

[east texas lib]

15. Same as it ever was...

One's personal safety is a personal problem. Some prepare and some do not. You pay your money
and you take your chances. ;-)

[Hoopla Phil]

17. It'd be nice if this makes it into law.

[virginia mountainman]

18. Great Post, the truth....

.....Seems to ALWAYS melt the Enemies of the US Bill of Rights.

[Scout]

20. NO ONE THINKS THE POLICE ARE AUTOMATICALLY GOING

to save them from crime, for fuck's sake. knowing this, we still don't feel that we absolutely must own a gun, that that is the only way to protect oneself. we are not paranoid, and we are creative and intelligent. we aren't obsessed with killing someone who tries to take our stuff.

get over this stupid crap.

just like everyone KNOWS guns are inanimate objects, and no one is blaming the object itself when it is misused. yet how many gun nuts post just such stupid comments?

when are you ever going to post something new and relevant jody? ever?

[jody]

22. H.R. 17 is new & relevant. If you don't recognize that simple fact, you have a personal problem. nt

[Tim01]

23. Yet it is always the argument against gun ownership.

Don't want a gun? Don't have one.

But just hoping you never need one is the same hoping you never need a seat belt. I'll keep my seat belt and my gun.

And if a gang of bad guys tries to snatch your wife in a parking lot, I'll be the one who tries to stop them.

[Scout]

26. i own a gun

i'm just not a paranoid freak about it. i didn't buy it once obama was elected, i don't feel a need to carry it around with me, i don't keep it loaded in the corner.

i DO hope i never need to use it. if you DON'T hope you never have to use a gun there is something wrong with you.

"snatch my wife" ... that's a laugh riot, i'll tell my husband! i don't need a big strong stranger with a gun to protect me in parking lots, so stay the fuck away from me.

"if a gang of bad guys tries to snatch your wife in a parking lot, I'll be the one who tries to stop them"
nice hero fantasy. do you jack off to it when you clean your gun? :rofl: that was a penis reference by the way, so you can make fun of me for it :rofl:

[Caliman73]

24. No one thinks that?

Why then do many people ask "Where are the police when you need them?" Why do people say, "We need more police on the streets to protect the community?" There are those people who do expect the police to protect them from crime and who blame the police for not protecting them effectively when something happens. When you present an extreme argument, sure you can seem correct. No one said the expectation is that the police will respond automatically or be around to prevent crime. Neither extreme is correct. I have never heard anyone say that everyone must own a gun either. That is a personal choice as to weather you exercise the right or not. What most gun owners want is to keep that right to at least the current level and limit infringement on it. We are creative and intelligent. There are several things we do to increase our safety, from installing alarm systems as deterrents, to getting dogs to help alert and defend, to taking self defense classes, to owning and practicing with firearms. To paint gun owners as people who are just itching to kill someone is a great illustration of the narrow mindset of people opposed to gun ownership.

Whether or not people understand that guns are inanimate objects, it rarely stops people from jumping to the conclusion that eliminating guns will decrease violence in society. That is typically the very first response that you hear. You do not hear, "We really need to increase funding for mental health services" or "We need to make sure that people have good jobs to go to and access to leisure activities to reduce stress." You rarely hear, "We need to educate people on the responsibility of gun ownership and fund safety courses." More often the response is, "Guns are evil", "Guns Kill", "we need to get rid of all guns".

Regarding the postings of "gun nuts". Sure, there are some people who advocate extreme positions. Some proponents of guns do step over the edge with their praise of firearms. There are also extremists on the other side of the argument who denigrate anyone who chooses to own a firearm as nothing but an animal or a sadistic killer. Just look at the forum here honestly and objectively and you will probably find a pretty equal amount of those comments from either side. Again, that you see only those comments posted by the pro-firearms side and not the anti-firearms side shows the narrow mindedness of your position.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. Why do you gun grabbers insist on posting such drivel?

I haven't seen any pro-RKBA people here say that everyone must own a gun or that guns are the only way to defend oneself. Why are you so deluded that you think that all criminals only want a ham sandwich when they break in your house and would never do anyone any harm if people were just more generous?