Public Safety v. Private Safety
Us v. Them?
In opposition remarks about legislation to enable citizen self defense,
the representative of the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers
Association declared that MSPOA viewed the legislation as a contest
between "public safety" and "private safety." This announced the
"us versus them" bias that some law enforcement entities may have.
Retired Los Angeles Police Department detective Joseph Wambaugh writes
fiction about police and policing. A very experienced observer of
police personnel, Wambaugh speaks through his characters about the
attitude and the worldview of police officers. Police officers,
Wambaugh says, see people as divided into two categories, cops and
perps (police slang for criminal perpetrators). Any person not
wearing a badge and not in prison, according to this attitude, just
hasn't been caught yet committing his or her special crime.
Is this the starting point for law enforcement entities to consider
citizen self defense? Is this the sort of respect law enforcement
leaders hold for the citizens they are supposed to serve? Is this
attitude leaking into Montana from high-density, urban centers?
These are questions worth pondering as we examine public safety, and
then private safety.
Public Safety
Terms. As used in this
examination, "police" and "police officers" includes sworn employees of
the Montana Highway Patrol and county sheriff's offices, as well as
those of city police departments.
Mission creep. Although
those who wear badges and guns were once commonly thought of as "peace
officers," the title has changed and they are now more commonly known
as "law enforcement personnel." With that change in descriptor
has come a change in mission. The mission of peace officers used
to be to keep the peace in their communities, especially by protecting
the weak from those strong and predatory who are always among us.
However, with the change to becoming law enforcement personnel it has
become the primary mission of those with guns and badges to enforce
laws - to apply the edicts of various levels of government, with
force if necessary. It is posited that this change in mission is
not desirable a for people who value individual liberty.
No duty to protect. The
oft-expressed motto of police "to serve and protect" has come to be a
misnomer. It has been firmly established in the Nation's courts
(e.g., Warren v. DC) that police agencies and police personnel have no
duty to protect any individual - none, but only a duty to provide a
general level of protection (which has not been defined) to the
community. This legal doctrine is well documented. [1- A, B, and C]
If a serial murderer is kicking in your door intending to murder you,
and you call 911 to ask for protection, police have no duty whatsoever
to even respond. If they do respond, they have no duty to respond
quickly. If they do respond quickly, they have no duty to do
anything effective to protect you once they do arrive.
Sometimes nobody answers 911 calls; Portland, OR, 2006 [2]
Sometimes no officers respond; Everett, WA, 2006 [3]
This is underscored by an incident in Bozeman. The
Bozeman Police Department responded to a 911 call about a
knife-wielding assailant at a convenience store in Bozeman. BPD
personnel surrounded the convenience store with guns drawn, and held in
that surround for 45 minutes while the knife-toting robber raped the
female convenience store clerk.
This is not to say that individual officers don't want very much to
protect innocent people. Most officers in Montana do.
However, current law says that they are not obligated to do so, and
inadequate or interfering policies too often lead to tragedies such as
the one in Bozeman.
Response times. A common
saying among those who believe in self defense is, "When seconds count,
police are only minutes away." This principle is nowhere more
accurate than in Montana, so much of which is rural. We live in
Montana for the lifestyle, not for the big money. Because Montana
is not a wealthy place, we cannot afford to hire enough police officers
to insure that they are likely be nearby at the moment any individual
needs protection. Even if we could afford to hire enough police
officers that one would be likely to be nearby when needed, we wouldn't
do so. To do so would give us a police state, the antithesis of
liberty so cherished by Montanans. We will never have short
enough response times for police officers in Montana to save victims of
quickly-propagating crimes. It is said, there will only be two
people at the crime scene - the criminal and the victim. This is
why police are sometimes called the "thin blue line," a very
thin, indeed, in Montana.
2006, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics [4]:
11.7% of police responses to crimes of violence were within one day or longer
Only 26.6% of police responses were within five minutes
32% of police responses were between six and ten minutes
Almost 42% of police responses took over ten minutes
Large cities have an average response time of seven minutes for high priority calls [5]
Brittany Zimmerman slain after 911 call, police do not respond; Madison, WI 2008 [6]
Response time to rural accidents in Montana is 1 hour 20 minutes [7]
Response time to high priority calls in Madison County, MT, is 28 minutes [8]
Arrest and case closure rates.
Since police cannot reliably interdict individual crimes, then their
function comes to be the cleanup crew. They bring the body bags,
crime scene tape and photographers to the incident. They attempt
to catch the criminal and bring the criminal to justice, and thereby
both get the criminal-minded off the streets and to create a deterrent
to others who might consider criminal acts. But catching
criminals is not that easy. In fact, only about 45% of violent
crimes are solved by police. Thus, a person who is not protected
by police, who is not able to protect himself or herself, and who is
murdered, can die with the scant comfort of knowing there is a small
chance that his or her murderer will be arrested (of whom only some
will be convicted). "Nationwide in 2007, law enforcement cleared
44.5 percent of violent crimes …" (FBI, Uniform Crime Report) [9]
Officer safety. Much ado
has been raised about armed citizens and officer safety. That
topic is certainly worth addressing. The mechanism of injury that
causes the greatest risk of loss of life and serious injury to police
officers is -- motor vehicles. Notwithstanding training, seat
belt usage, crash resistant vehicles, and other risk management tools,
motor vehicles are far the most dangerous part of police officers'
lives. Even if a police officer is adept or lucky enough to not
crash his own car, he or she is subject to being wrecked by some other
motor vehicle operator (happened recently in Montana). When out
of their cars, they are even subject to being run down by motorists
(happened not too long ago in Montana).
Motor vehicles are simply more dangerous to police officers than
firearms. So, if one looks at officer safety from an objective
risk management perspective, officers should be more fearful of motor
vehicles than of guns, too often their own cars.
According to FBI data, in 2007, 55 officers were killed by
gunfire. During that same period, 70 officer deaths are
attributed to motor vehicles. [10]
The only Montana police officer killed in 2008 was killed in a motor vehicle accident. [11]
If their own cars can be dangerous to officers, what about their own
guns? A study done of the Los Angeles Police Department
determined that 43% of all officers who were shot were shot with police
guns. This includes some officers shot in training
accidents. It includes accidental discharges (careless gun
handling) where an officer shot himself or herself or another
officer. It includes "friendly fire" incidents where a police
officer shot at a bad guy but hit a fellow officer instead. It
does not include incidents where a police officer's gun is taken away
and use against the officer (happened in Montana this decade).
And, tragically, it doesn't include officer suicides, an endemic
problem not well known about the police community. So, if a
person argues that guns are dangerous to police, one must also
acknowledge that police guns are probably as dangerous to police
officers as are guns in the hands of people who are not police officers.
In both the Los Angeles PD and SO, accidental firearm discharges and
friendly fire account for about 43% of officers shot. [12- A and B]
Private Safety
Private citizens use firearms lawfully to ward off attacks between 2
million and 2 1/2 million times each year (Dr Gary Kleck, Northwestern
University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol.
86, issue 1, 1995). [13- A and B]
Shots are actually fired by these citizens in only 8% of the instances of legitimate self defense. [14]
Victims who defend themselves with firearms are much less likely to be
injured (Robbery 7.7%; Assault 3.6%) than those who make no attempt at
self defense (Robbery 23.6%, Assault 55.2%) or who use other
means. [15]
Suppressing guns in the hands of private citizens does NOT reduce victimization by criminals:
"But the experience in other countries, even island nations that have
gone so far as banning handguns and where borders are easy to monitor,
should give [opponents of citizen self defense] some pause. These are
places that just can't blame the United States or other neighboring
states for the failure of their gun-control laws. Not only didn't
violent crime and homicide decline as promised, but they actually
increased.
"Great Britain banned handguns in January, 1997. But the number of
deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased 340%
in the seven years from 1998 to 2005. The rates of serious violent
crime, armed robberies, rapes and homicide have also soared. The
Republic of Ireland and Jamaica also experienced large increases in
murder rates after enacting handgun bans." Professor John
Lott [16- A and B]
More guns, not less, would prevent shooting massacres, as was recently
demonstrated in the Glasgow, Montana shooting incident. [17]
Finally, so-called "gun free zones" are among the most dangerous places in America. [18- A and B]
Public Safety versus Private Safety
A legitimate way to look at this issue is that for every individual police
officer killed by criminal (not armed citizen) gunfire in 2007, at
least 36,363 armed citizens were able to use firearms to ward off
criminal attacks. While the 55 officers lost are tragic, it pales
in comparison to the millions of citizens who were able to use firearms
to save themselves when police couldn't be there, or couldn't get there
in time - when police failed to protect citizens.
In terms of public policy and the large picture, there is absolutely no
question about which is more important to or beneficial to the public,
public safety (police protection) or private safety (citizen self
defense).
Public safety is clearly "Plan B," intended to provide the body bags
for victims and to bring some predators to justice. But "public
safety" should never be allowed to supplant "Plan A," or "private
safety," allowing private citizens the unfettered ability to protect
themselves.
End
© 2010, Gary Marbut
Endnotes
[1] A http://gunowners.org/sk0503.htm (Warren v. DC)
B https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUjo8epJG2A
C http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
[2] http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=34010
[3] http://www.katu.com/news/local/4749976.html
[4] http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv06107.pdf
[5] http://dailyuw.com/2008/1/9/faster-stronger-smarter-police-force/
[6] http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=22514
[7] http://www.bayareaduiblog.com/2008/11/Montana_named_worst_state_for.HTML
[8]http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:JJzwLNI74AkJ:Madison.MT.gov/departments/emergency_management/PubSafety/PSRptDraft112906.PDF+Bozeman+Montana+average+law+enforcement+response+time&hl=en&CT=clnk&cd=9&gl=us
[9] http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html
[10] http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2007/documents/summaryleoka2007.pdf
[11] http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2007/data/table_64.html
[12] A http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/17/local/me-guns17
B http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/Friendly-Fire--Discharges-Comprised-43-Percent-of-Shot-LA-Officers/1$32165
[13] A http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
B http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html
[14] http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html
[15] http://johnrlott.tripod.com/other/NCVS.html
[16] A http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/NationalPostGunBan062508.html
B http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece
[17] http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/FoxNewMGLCMVPS082807.html
[18] A http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/FoxNewsGunFreeZones042108.html
B http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDNIUGunFreeZone022508.html