Saturday, October 9, 1999
Gun opponents who argue "the police will protect
you" are a menace
to your safety. They are also flat wrong. I am not referring to
the
overwhelming inability of police to combat crime. Why state the
obvious? I am referring to the fact that the police have no duty
whatsoever to protect you against criminals. That's not in the
job
description of 'police officer.' The courts have recognized this
fact for
over a century.
In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that
law
enforcement officers had no duty to protect any individual. Their
duty
is to enforce the law in general. More recently, in 1982 (Bowers
v.
DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held,
"...there is no
Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being
murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state
fails to
protect its residents... but it does not violate... the
Constitution." Later
court decisions concurred: the police have no duty to protect
you.
Police vehicles routinely sport decals proclaiming sentiments
such as
'Proud to Serve!' If they aren't there to protect you, the
question
becomes, "Who are they serving?" The answer is clear:
the police
department exists to enforce the law. Policemen serve the
government,
not the people. And uphold the law with total disregard for
whether
their actions create or prevent violence. For example, if
government
decides that certain forms of adult consensual crimes must not be
tolerated, then the police will draw their guns and barge into
otherwise
peaceful bedrooms. To uphold an unjust law, they will create
violence
and victims.
Those who blithely reassure you about police protection are
doubly
wrong. Not only is protection not the officers' job, they may
well be
the ones who victimize you. Jews for the Preservation of Firearm
Ownership, correctly observes that the American legal system is
based on the English Common Law. The modern American policeman
dates back centuries to the role of the English Sheriff, who was
paid
by and accountable to the government, not the community. As the
JPFO states, the main purpose of the Sheriff was the
"enforcement of
government decisions," such as seizing property.
"Maintenance of
public order" was of secondary concern. Indeed, if the two
concerns
collided - as in the enforcement of victimless crime
laws - the government invariably won.
Americans revere the romantic Western notion of Marshall Dillon
defending the schoolmarm against the Bang-'em-Up gang who swoop
down like wolves on the prairie town. But, often, these sheriffs
were
hired by the communities and were responsible to the people
there.
Moreover, the townsfolk themselves routinely owned guns. What
Americans are actually revering is an example of a quasi-private
police
force functioning within an armed society. Unfortunately, this
image still
benefits the modern state policeman who is routinely glorified by
television programs like Cops! Yet these state-employees are the
antithesis of the Western sheriff. They are modeled after the
British
Sheriff - they are responsible only to enforce government policy
and
they often are the wolves.
If policy makers want to prevent violence, they should consider
disarming the police and encouraging gun ownership within the
citizenry. There is historical precedent. In his book Frontier
Justice,
Wayne Gard describes the rampant corruption of politics and
police in
1850's San Francisco. Violence soared until the SF vigilante
committee revived (1856). Within three months, Gard explains,
"San
Francisco had only two murders, compared with more than a hundred
in the six months before the committee was formed."
At least until erring policemen acknowledge a duty to protect the
life
and property of individuals, 'the people' en masse ought to say
'no
more donuts for you!'
--------
Wendy McElroy is a regular columnist for the American
Partisan.
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *