Here is an often-used tactic to defend government police organizations from criticism. Whenever critics point out abusive tactics of police officers, defenders counter with: "And yet you won't refuse police help the next time there's a robber in your house!" This, we are told, illustrates that all police critics are "hypocrites."
This has always been a dishonest tactic, of course, since "consumers" of police "services" are forced to pay for the local monopoly police force, and have no other options. Government police forces have monopolized the marketplace and crowded out many private security services. Thus, calling the police to scare off some robbers on one's property is no more hypocritical than a critic of the local power company who nevertheless turns on a lightbulb. It's simply a matter of making do with a high-priced, low-quality monopolist when no competition is allowed.
Just how low these low-quality services are has become more apparent in recent months.
In the wake of yesterday's church shooting in Texas, for example, private citizens were the ones who shot back at the assailant, and then chased him down in a high speed pursuit. The police did nothing but write some reports afterward.
A few months earlier, as violence escalated during the Charlottesville riot in Virginia, the law enforcement agencies stood back and did little except crash a helicopter in the woods.
More
9 comments:
Truth is if your life is in danger and you need the police it will take 15min before they show up. Now if the only choice you have is to call 911 then I'm feel sorry for you. I will make calling 911 my last choice because I hate reports.
I believe in calling 911 after I have shot and killed the jerk breaking into my home. The article is so true. The police departments have grown by a factor of 10 since the 60's while the population has only grown by a factor of 3. Had to do something with all that money not being spent on the military.
I hate dying.
Don't make a bad mistake with the wrong person.
And NEVER believe anyone is going to be around to save you.
Take care of yourself and your family and F whoever wants to tell you "it's not your right".
We have something for them, too.
I wouldn't recommend that. Or least drag him in afterwards.
Ok snowflake
We have the right to life, but the right is taken away by government with the inability to defend that right except by use of the government's 99.9% after-the-fact "protection".
On your own > Unless there is a Good Guy with a Gun !!!!
The only snowflake here is the one that would be patterned on your scrawny meth head.
If someone who was armed were nearby to save you, would you mind if he was "not allowed" to be armed? Or would you tell him not to help and you would wait for a "legal" gun owner?
Post a Comment