Two parties
 

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

Don't just feel happy, feel lucky. I hope you'll tell us when get
mugged by an ex-con with an illegal gun in the city which takes guns
away from law-abiding citizens. It shouldn't be long now. And I want
to hear you cuss out Bloomberg. OK? ;)

I know I am lucky, to an extent. I'll be real lucky when I retire, (soon)
grin.
I do think that from the emphasis on punishment for all crimes, small and
large, starting in the Giuliani era, when also demographics changed, to the
continued emphasis on enforcement of laws, including those governing the
police, things have gotten better all over the area. I don't think that
laws limiting gun possession in the urban NE limits my freedoms.

And yes, luck has a lot of importance on a single personal level. Just
like driving drunk can go fine lots of times until one time it goes wrong.
Too bad for the other guy/gal. I don't want guns in the hands of just
about everyone. And I will let the police do their job.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Two parties
 

On Feb 2, 8:06*am, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote :

Don't just feel happy, feel lucky. *I hope you'll tell us when get
mugged by an ex-con with an illegal gun in the city which takes guns
away from law-abiding citizens. *It shouldn't be long now. And I want
to hear you cuss out Bloomberg. *OK? *;)

I know I am lucky, to an extent. *I'll be real lucky when I retire, (soon)
grin.
I do think that from the emphasis on punishment for all crimes, small and
large, starting in the Giuliani era, when also demographics changed, to the
continued emphasis on enforcement of laws, including those governing the
police, things have gotten better all over the area. *I don't think that
laws limiting gun possession in the urban NE limits my freedoms.

And yes, luck has a lot of importance on a single personal level. *Just
like driving drunk can go fine lots of times until one time it goes wrong.. *
Too bad for the other guy/gal. *I don't want guns in the hands of just
about everyone. *And I will let the police do their job.

You do realize that it's not the job of the police to protect you?
They are under *no* obligation to, even if by accident they happen to
be close. For that, you are on you own.

Two parties
 

"Han" wrote in message
...
Larry Jaques wrote in
:

And I will let the police do their job.

So you're saying you are perfectly willing to be a crime victim secure in
the knowledge that the police can then do their job. Their job is to track
down and arrest criminals. One does not become a criminal until they have
committed a crime. Until they do so, police have no way, nor do they have
any obligation, to do anything. Say your neighbor threatens to kill you. You
call a cop. The cop goes over and asks the neighbor if he threatened to kill
you. He says no. The cop comes back and tells you that since no crime has
been committed, there is nothing he can do but he assures you that when the
guy does kill you, he will come back and arrest him. Make you feel safe?

Two parties
 

Han wrote:

And yes, luck has a lot of importance on a single personal level.
Just like driving drunk can go fine lots of times until one time it
goes wrong. Too bad for the other guy/gal. I don't want guns in the
hands of just about everyone. And I will let the police do their job.

The police? You must STILL be drunk!

Police don't prevent crime directly - they investigate AFTER the crime has
taken place. Admittedly when someone calls 911, the crime is still in
progress, but most of the time it's over with. Speaking as an ex-cop, I can
tell you that maybe five times out of 100 we see the perp. But one hundred
times out of one hundred we see the victim.

Remember the maxims:
"When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!" or
"I carry a pistol because I can't carry a cop" or
"I have a weapon for exactly the same reason a policeman does - no more, no
less"

Two parties
 

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

And yes, luck has a lot of importance on a single personal level.
Just like driving drunk can go fine lots of times until one time it
goes wrong. Too bad for the other guy/gal. I don't want guns in the
hands of just about everyone. And I will let the police do their
job.

The police? You must STILL be drunk!

Police don't prevent crime directly - they investigate AFTER the crime
has taken place. Admittedly when someone calls 911, the crime is still
in progress, but most of the time it's over with. Speaking as an
ex-cop, I can tell you that maybe five times out of 100 we see the
perp. But one hundred times out of one hundred we see the victim.

Remember the maxims:
"When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!" or
"I carry a pistol because I can't carry a cop" or
"I have a weapon for exactly the same reason a policeman does - no
more, no less"

I am priviliged to live in a place where people are generally civil. And
yes, we all are vigilant and admonish teenagers who misbehave. When 3
years old, my granddaughter was escorted back to her home by a well-
intentioned citizen, because she seemed to be wandering around without
adult supervision. She was (with permission and foreknowledge of the
people involved) on her way from her parents' home to her grandparents'
home. Yes Radburn is nice:
http://radburn.org.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Two parties
 

Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

Don't just feel happy, feel lucky. I hope you'll tell us when get
mugged by an ex-con with an illegal gun in the city which takes guns
away from law-abiding citizens. It shouldn't be long now. And I want
to hear you cuss out Bloomberg. OK? ;)

I know I am lucky, to an extent. I'll be real lucky when I retire, (soon)
grin.
I do think that from the emphasis on punishment for all crimes, small and
large, starting in the Giuliani era, when also demographics changed, to
the continued emphasis on enforcement of laws, including those governing
the
police, things have gotten better all over the area. I don't think that
laws limiting gun possession in the urban NE limits my freedoms.

And yes, luck has a lot of importance on a single personal level. Just
like driving drunk can go fine lots of times until one time it goes wrong.
Too bad for the other guy/gal. I don't want guns in the hands of just
about everyone. And I will let the police do their job.

Just so you are clear -- the job of the police is to protect society, not
necessarily you personally. This has been established by law and judicial
rulings. Therefore, if you are a victim of a crime, they will attempt to
get to you as expeditiously as possible. If they get there in time, that is
to your good. If not, they will, in execution of their duty, gather
evidence, take statements, and attempt to find the perp before he commits a
similar crime. Many times, they aren't successful, so once again, they
investigate the next crime scene, take evidence and continue the
investigation. If you happen to be one of the victims while "they are doing
their job" it's too bad for you, but useful to the job of protecting society
because it provides additional information and evidence for the police to
use in their investigations.



--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Two parties
 

HeyBub wrote:

Han wrote:

And yes, luck has a lot of importance on a single personal level.
Just like driving drunk can go fine lots of times until one time it
goes wrong. Too bad for the other guy/gal. I don't want guns in the
hands of just about everyone. And I will let the police do their job.

The police? You must STILL be drunk!

Police don't prevent crime directly - they investigate AFTER the crime has
taken place. Admittedly when someone calls 911, the crime is still in
progress, but most of the time it's over with. Speaking as an ex-cop, I
can tell you that maybe five times out of 100 we see the perp. But one
hundred times out of one hundred we see the victim.

Remember the maxims:
"When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!" or
"I carry a pistol because I can't carry a cop" or
"I have a weapon for exactly the same reason a policeman does - no more,
no less"

There is a bit of a distinction to that final statement and one that they
make very clear to people taking CCW courses. The police carry to protect
themselves and others. The private citizen OTOH carries to protect himself
[and those near and dear to him]. Private citizens are under no obligation
to become involved in a crime scene other than as a good witness, they may
choose to become involved if they believe that someone's life is in danger.
Police are obligated to become involved, even if it puts them in personal
danger.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Two parties
 

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
If you happen to be one of the victims while "they are doing
their job" it's too bad for you, but useful to the job of protecting
society
because it provides additional information and evidence for the police to
use in their investigations.


That must be the rational of the antigunners. They feel that they should die
for the good of the community.

Two parties
 

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
HeyBub wrote:

Han wrote:

And yes, luck has a lot of importance on a single personal level.
Just like driving drunk can go fine lots of times until one time it
goes wrong. Too bad for the other guy/gal. I don't want guns in the
hands of just about everyone. And I will let the police do their job.

The police? You must STILL be drunk!

Police don't prevent crime directly - they investigate AFTER the crime
has
taken place. Admittedly when someone calls 911, the crime is still in
progress, but most of the time it's over with. Speaking as an ex-cop, I
can tell you that maybe five times out of 100 we see the perp. But one
hundred times out of one hundred we see the victim.

Remember the maxims:
"When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!" or
"I carry a pistol because I can't carry a cop" or
"I have a weapon for exactly the same reason a policeman does - no more,
no less"

There is a bit of a distinction to that final statement and one that
they
make very clear to people taking CCW courses. The police carry to protect
themselves and others. The private citizen OTOH carries to protect
himself
[and those near and dear to him]. Private citizens are under no
obligation
to become involved in a crime scene other than as a good witness, they may
choose to become involved if they believe that someone's life is in
danger.
Police are obligated to become involved, even if it puts them in personal
danger.

Or they work in Portland, Oregon where SERT gets called out to deal with
"potentially armed suspects", even After the police on scene have shot the
suspect.

Two parties
 

On Feb 3, 12:35*am, "CW" wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in messagenews:T42dnaMP2PFnmfTWnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@super news.com...
* If you happen to be one of the victims while "they are doing their job" it's too bad for you, but useful to the job of protecting
society
because it provides additional information and evidence for the police to
use in their investigations.

That must be the rational of the antigunners. They feel that they should die
for the good of the community.

No, they believe that *you* should die for the good of the community.

Two parties
 

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Remember the maxims:
"When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!" or
"I carry a pistol because I can't carry a cop" or
"I have a weapon for exactly the same reason a policeman does - no
more, no less"

There is a bit of a distinction to that final statement and one
that they make very clear to people taking CCW courses. The police
carry to protect themselves and others. The private citizen OTOH
carries to protect himself [and those near and dear to him]. Private
citizens are under no obligation to become involved in a crime scene
other than as a good witness, they may choose to become involved if
they believe that someone's life is in danger. Police are obligated
to become involved, even if it puts them in personal danger.

Nope. Police are not obligated, by law, custom, or common sense to become
involved. They often do but only because of their personal nature. My
training sergeant told me you always drive slowly to a "fight in progress"
call and hope it's over with by the time you get there.

On the other hand, there are those - police and civilian - who will rush to
the sound of the guns.

Two parties
 

Mark & Juanita wrote:
And yes, luck has a lot of importance on a single personal level.
Just like driving drunk can go fine lots of times until one time it
goes wrong. Too bad for the other guy/gal. I don't want guns in the
hands of just about everyone. And I will let the police do their
job.

Just so you are clear -- the job of the police is to protect
society, not necessarily you personally. This has been established
by law and judicial rulings. Therefore, if you are a victim of a
crime, they will attempt to get to you as expeditiously as possible.

To amplify, there is NO law requiring the police to protect anybody. Courts
have consistently held that the police have NO duty to protect anyone.

The D.C. Court of Appeals actually said it is "fundamental principle of
American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to
provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual
citizen." (Warren v. District of Columbia). See:
http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/...444_A_2d_1.pdf

Also DeShaney v. Winnebago County that any harm that come to a citizen is
the sole responsibility of the the attacker, not an agency of the state for
failing to prevent a crime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShane...nnebago_County

Also Castle Rock vs. Gonzales where the Supreme Court held a police
department cannot be sued for failure to enforce a restraining order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales


The actual JOB of the police is to catch the goblin, not protect society.
That some protection accrues when the do-bad is taken off the street is a
useful by-product, but certainly not the goal of the police.

Two parties
 

On Feb 3, 2:06*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
Remember the maxims:
"When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!" or
"I carry a pistol because I can't carry a cop" or
"I have a weapon for exactly the same reason a policeman does - no
more, no less"

* There is a bit of a distinction to that final statement and one
that they make very clear to people taking CCW courses. *The police
carry to protect themselves and others. *The private citizen OTOH
carries to protect himself [and those near and dear to him]. *Private
citizens are under no obligation to become involved in a crime scene
other than as a good witness, they may choose to become involved if
they believe that someone's life is in danger. Police are obligated
to become involved, even if it puts them in personal danger.

Nope. Police are not obligated, by law, custom, or common sense to become
involved. They often do but only because of their personal nature. My
training sergeant told me you always drive slowly to a "fight in progress"
call and hope it's over with by the time you get there.

Correct. The police are not obligated to protect you in any way.
This has long been established in case law. Their job is to document
violations and apprehend the culprits after the fact. If they do
happen to be there and decide to protect you, all the better.

On the other hand, there are those - police and civilian - who will rush to
the sound of the guns.

Fools rush in...

Two parties