DIAL 911 & DIE

Most Americans believe that their local police have a duty in law to protect them against criminals. They are wrong. Some of them are dead wrong.

And some of those who are dead wrong are dead because they have been duped by ignorant or dishonest politicians or police chiefs, who promise protection that they cannot give and have no legal duty to give. Some of these officials know they have no legal duty to protect the average person, and yet still support disarming law abiding people, the better "to protect" them from criminals!

U.S. law is based on English Common Law. In English Common Law "the Sheriff" is a government employee whose main job is enforcement of government decisions: seizure of property, arrest of persons wanted by the authorities, collection of taxes, etc. Maintenance of public order, a secondary duty, was done to the extent resources allowed.

POLICE PROTECTION = POLICE STATE

It was obvious -- 500 years ago in England and in America now -- that a sheriff could not be everywhere at once. It was -- and is -- equally clear that to protect every person would require an army of Sheriffs (or Sheriffs deputies) Maintaining an Army of police officers -- in effect a police state -- would nullify the Freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights. Neither the Framers of the Constitution -- nor their successors -- wanted to avoid the risk of harm to some individual arising from criminals' activity by creating a police state that inevitably would harm every individual.

POLICE STATE OR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS?

Instead, the Framers provided for a judicial system to deal with criminals, persons who abused the Freedoms provided by the Constitution. The Framers assumed that a law abiding person would largely be responsible for his/her own safety. As a matter of Law, that assumption still is valid.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT PRESUMES INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP OF ARMS

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is based on individual ownership of arms.

THE POLICE ARE NOT THERE FOR YOU

State and city governments -- rather than the Federal authorities -- are responsible for local law enforcement. So, only occasionally have Federal Courts ruled on the matter of police protection. However, in 1856 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that local law enforcement had no duty to protect a particular person, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that:.. there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.

RELY ON THE POLICE AND PAY HEAVILY

New York: Steady Threats from a Known Source Mean Nothing. Even someone repeatedly threatened by another has no entitlement to police protection until they have been physically harmed.

In 1959, Linda Riss, a New Yorker, was terrorized by an ex-boyfriend, who had a criminal record. Over several months, he repeatedly threatened her: "If I can't have you, no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." She repeatedly sought police protection, explaining her request in detail. Nothing was done to help her. When he threatened her with immediate attack, she again urgently begged the New York City Police Department for help: "Completely distraught, she called the police, begging for help, but was refused." The next day, she was attacked: a "thug" hired by her persecutor threw lye (sodium hydroxide) in her face, She was blinded in one eye and her face was permanently scarred. The Court of Appeals of New York ruled that Linda Riss had no right to protection. The Court refused to create such a right because that would impose a crushing economic burden on the government. Only the legislature could create a right to protection:

HELPLESS CHILDREN DON'T COUNT

Even defenseless children merit no special care. On 3 June 1985 in North Carolina police tried to arrest a man and his girlfriend, both of whom were wanted on multiple murder charges, and who were known to be heavily armed. The alleged murderers -- along with the "girlfriend's two sons, aged nine and ten years -- tried to flee in a car. As the police closed in after a running shoot out, the children were poisoned with cyanide and then shot in the head either by the mother or her "boy friend," one of whom then blew up the vehicle, killing both. The boy's father -- who had filed for divorce - sued the law enforcement agencies and officers for "wrongful death" of his sons. The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that: "the defendant law enforcement agencies and officers did not owe the children any legal duty of care, the breach of which caused their injury and death.

WRONGFUL RELEASE = WRONGFUL DEATH

Marvin Mundy murdered Jack Marshall in Virginia. Mundy -- convicted for carrying a concealed pistol -- was sent to jail by a judge who expressed concern that Mundy, "might kill himself or a member of the public." Mundy was mistakenly released from jail 8 days later. Nine days later he was re-arrested on an unrelated charge. Five hours later, the same jailer and sheriff released him, apparently without checking to see if that was proper. Three weeks later Mundy robbed and murdered Marshall. Marshall's widow sued, alleging negligence on the part of the sheriff and jailer, and asserting a violation of Jack Marshall's right to due process. The Court rejected the claim.

RAPE IS NO CAUSE FOR CONCERN

If direct peril to life does not entitle one to police protection, clearly imminent peril of rape merits no concern. Carolyn Warren, of Washington, D.C., called the police on 16 March 1975: two intruders had smashed the back door to her house and had attacked a female housemate. After calling the police, Warren and another housemate took refuge on a lower back roof of the building. The police went to the front door and knocked. Warren, afraid to go downstairs, could not answer. The police officers left without checking the back door.

Warren again called the police and was told they would respond. Assuming they had returned, Warren called out to the housemate, thus revealing her own location. The two intruders then rounded up all three women. "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual; acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of the intruders.

AN IMMINENT DEATH THREAT MEANS NOTHING

Even a person whose life is imminently in peril is not entitled to help. On 4 September 1972 Ruth Bunnell called the San Jose (California) police department to report that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had telephoned her to tell her that he was coming to her house to kill her. She was told to call back only when Mack Bunnell arrived. Some 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived and stabbed Ruth Bunnell to death. A neighbor called the police, who then came to the murder scene. The California Court of Appeals held that any claim against the police department: “is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act, Section 845, which states: `Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection."

WHAT WE NEED LEAST

GUN BANS AND WAITING PERIODS

"Gun control" is founded on a total misunderstanding of the role of the police in our society. "Gun control" advocates presuppose the police have a duty to protect every individual. But, as proved above, the police have never had this duty, and indeed, cannot have it so long as the Constitution remains in force. Therefore, bans on gun ownership - or imposition of a waiting period before a gun may be purchased -- simply give an attacker a legally protected window of opportunity to do you harm. Moreover, "gun control" makes the law-abiding person less able and willing to take responsibility for his/her own defense. We will never eliminate criminals. But we must do far more to curb them. That is what the Constitution requires. Many police forces are under strength. But it is quite clear that to enable the police to defend each and every one of us, would require us to set up here a police state that makes Joe Stalin's Russia look like a "love boat" cruise ship.

WHAT WE NEED MOST

NATION-WIDE CONCEALED CARRY

A law abiding person's security -- as a matter of Law and a matter of Fact -- is in his or her own hands. Even if we had effective criminal control -- and we are far from that happy state of affairs -- each law-abiding person would still be responsible for his/her own safety. Any law-abiding person should be able legally to carry firearms, concealed, as this is the best way to enable such persons to protect themselves. It is a potent deterrent: the criminal would not know who was, and who was not, armed. It would enable a person who had been threatened -- and was not entitled to police protection -- to have at hand the means to protect him- her-self.

CONCEALED CARRY IS NOT A PANACEA

A criminal would always have the advantage of the first shot. But if the intended victim(s) were lawfully entitled to carry a concealed firearm, the criminal's first shot could be his/her last. Licensing is not needed, simply because criminals now carry concealed weapons at will. Licensing would only affect the 99+ percent of Americans who own firearms and who do not abuse them. What purpose is served by the costly building of huge files on law-abiding people? Moreover, is not the presumption in U.S Law that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty? It is better that we enact and strictly enforce harsh penalties for concealed carry by those legally debarred from firearms ownership - persons with criminal records of violence -- the more so if commission of a crime were involved.

LIFE OR DEATH: IT'S UP TO YOU

Wise-up those who back "gun control" -- Federal, State, and local law-makers, law enforcement chiefs, prosecutors, and media personalities -- that the police have no duty to protect you. Let them know that their support for "gun control" puts your life at risk. Send them a copy of this paper. Urge them to ditch "gun control" and to lobby urgently for nation-wide concealed carry. Your life depends on it.

THE BOTTOM LINE

YOUR LIFE IS IN YOUR OWN HANDS

These cases -- and there are many others -- show clearly that under U.S. law:

No individual has a right to police protection, even when life is in clear and immediate peril.

There is no right to police protection simply because there are not enough police resources available to enable every person who feels threatened to be protected.

To make police officers answerable to individual citizens for a failure to provide protection would make police officers afraid to do anything for fear that an action -- or inaction -- would expose them to civil liability.

THIS IS UNAVOIDABLE

Life is risky

The police cannot be everywhere at once

It is impossible to hire enough police officers to protect every person who needs it or thinks he/she needs it

---

COMMENTS WELCOME

If you find any errors in the facts or logic of this web page, or simply differ in philosophy, I am interested in your feedback. Email Me. Please no unintelligible rants or raves. Sophomoric or un-referenced responses will be directed to the bit-bucket.

Order the book:
Dial 911 and Die
$ 11.95 (shipping included)
(Quantity discounts available)

JPFO, P.O. Box 270143, Hartford, WI. 53027
Phone (262) 673-9745 Fax (262) 673-9746

JPFO.ORG

Buy a copy of Dial 911 and Die for yourself. But more important, buy copies for friends and relatives who still believe the police will protect them. If it saves just one life, it's worth it!

This site is brought to you by...          

J.R. Whipple & Associates Over 25 Years in the Computer Business! We build the Best Computers on Earth. _______________________________________ Click the globe to visit us!