Police have no obligation to protect you
While most bloggers are writing this week about Obama’s hopefully DOA universal health care plan, I’d like to talk about something else: personal protection. There is every day in this country one or more reports of someone successfully defending themselves, their families, their homes or all of the above with firearms. In many of the cases, lives of innocent would-be victims are thereby spared. But you likely won’t see the reports on TV, as the anti-gun lobby has lots of friends in local and network television.
I venture to guess that most people in this country think that it is the responsibility of law enforcement to provide them with personal protection. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the generic title implies, the role of law enforcement is to enforce the law. In a practical sense, that can only mean examining the crime scene for evidence, finding and arresting the criminals and turning them over to the court system for trial and punishment. In most cases when the police engage, the crime has already been committed.
Further, law enforcement agencies have no legal obligation to protect you and your family. In the landmark Warren vs. District of Columbia case, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court ruling that “the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection."1 The court further affirmed: “A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of those resources. … At any given time, publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate. Private resources and needs have little direct effect upon the nature of police services provided to the public. Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.”1
For background, in the early morning hours of March 16, 1975, appellants Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their rooming house. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men, who raped and beat the women for fourteen hours, this after one of the women had reported the break-in in progress to 911. Plaintiffs’ sued the “District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services.” The Court further found that the police had made at least two errors in responding to the 911 call, errors that a reasonable person could easily conclude significantly prolonged the attacks. So the conclusion is that even if law enforcement attempts to intervene on behalf of an individual or individuals, they have no legal obligation to do so and therefore cannot be held liable for any incompetence in their attempts to protect us.
Aside from the legal aspect, from a practical standpoint, if you are awakened to hear someone kicking in your back door, calling 911 will in many cases only ensure that police will arrive sometime later to take evidence from the crime scene, and perhaps measure the positions of the body or bodies. For example, average law enforcement response times to priority 1 emergency calls (life-threatening situations) in the city of Houston in 2005 ranged from 1 to 11 minutes, depending on the area of the city. It only takes a few seconds to die at the hands of an armed home invader.
So if law enforcement agencies don’t have a legal obligation to protect you and if they can’t reasonably be expected to respond in time to provide personal protection, who IS responsible? The answer is YOU!
This leads to the obvious moral question: Do I have a moral obligation to do everything I can to protect myself and my family, or should I simply trust God to do that? The quick answer to that question is pretty easy. God gave us brains and expects us to use them, so yes, He expects us to use whatever resources we can muster to protect our families. But on the other hand, a cursory examination of scripture doesn’t yield such an easy answer. After all, didn’t Jesus say “turn the other cheek - give him your cloak also – walk the second mile”?
I’m intentionally not going to reference the Old Testament, because we live under a new covenant. It is far more relevant and interesting to examine what Jesus had to say on the subject. Jesus said:
Mt 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.2
This is a commonly-misunderstood passage. Jesus didn’t mean for us to roll over and play dead whenever confronted by thieves or murderers. He was talking about being humble in the face of insults. The NIV Bible Study Notes commentary helpfully elaborates:
5:39 “resist”. Here it probably means in a court of law. “strikes”. The Greek verb used here means "slaps you with the back of the hand." It was more of an insult than an act of violence. The point is that it is better to be insulted even twice than to take the matter to court.3
And the Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary further clarifies:
While these four vignettes have powerful shock value, they were not meant to be new legal prescriptions. Verse 42 does not commit Jesus' disciples to giving endless amounts of money to everyone who seeks a "soft touch." Verse 40 is clearly hyperbolic: no first-century Jew would go home wearing only a loincloth. Nor does this pericope deal with the validity of a state police force. Yet the illustrations must not be diluted by endless equivocations; the only limit to the believer's response in these situations is what love and the Scriptures impose.4
Further, as Jesus was preparing to return to his Heavenly Father, he had this to say to his disciples:
Lk 22:35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered.
Lk 22:36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
Lk 22:38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.
After Jesus departed earth, the disciples would no longer have him present to protect them. While they would indeed then have the protection of the Holy Spirit, Jesus gave directions that they should depend on their own resources for sustenance and protection, i.e. use their common sense and their physical resources for providing for their well-being and resisting evil. And the NIV Bible Study Notes commentary states this:
22:36 “a purse . . . a bag”. … Until now they had been dependent on generous hospitality, but future opposition would require them to be prepared to pay their own way. “buy one”. An extreme figure of speech used to warn them of the perilous times about to come. They would need defense and protection.
A final passage we should examine is the one wherein Peter exercised his inalienable right to self defense as Jesus was about to be taken into custody by the Roman guard.
Jn 18:10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)
Jn 18:11 Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”
The fact that Peter was “carrying” says something. In addition to Jesus’ implicit approval of carrying a sword for self-defense, this was also an affirmation that Jesus’ instructions to buy a sword in Luke 22:36 was not just hyperbolic, but that He really did intend for them to be armed. So why His exclamatory reaction to Peter’s use of it?. Why would Jesus tell his disciples to buy a sword it he didn’t want them to use it? And why did he react with such apparent displeasure at Peter’s removal of the guard’s ear? I think Jesus, rather than disapproving physical self defense, was perhaps upset with Peter’s lack of faith and understanding. After all, Peter had witnessed Jesus performing many miracles, including miraculously evading many would-be captors. Jesus could have called down legions of angels to remove Him from impending captivity if He had wanted to. Jesus was willingly taking a path to a sacrificial death, and Peter was trying to interfere with that. And given Jesus’ instruction earlier to buy a sword, it defies reason that He would have been upset about Peter’s use of it just in self-defense. The Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary summarizes:
11 Jesus' command to Peter declared his disapproval of Peter's sudden and violent intervention. Had Jesus desired defense, he could have summoned angelic aid (cf. Mt 26:52-53). "Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" expresses both the necessity of his suffering and his absolute commitment to fulfilling his Father's purpose. The word "cup" connects this statement with the prayer in Gethsemane, which the other three gospels record (Mt 26:42; Mk 14:36; Lk 22:42). Though the writer must have known of Jesus' struggle, he recorded only the outcome. Jesus accepted the Father's will and calmly moved on to its fulfillment.
As a final thought on a Christian’s obligation to protect their families, I refer to an excellent article on the “Christian Gun Owner” website, wherein it is stated:
"Christians who believe that the U.S. Constitution was framed (including the second amendment) under the guiding hand of an almighty God, have an obligation to train with, obtain and keep arms to protect themselves, their families and their country."5
Unfortunately the current Federal administration is giving every indication that they would like to rescind the Second Amendment, or failing that, distort its meaning and intent or pass laws which seriously interfere with our inalienable right re-affirmed thereunder.
In summary, everyone past the legal age of 21 in Texas has made a decision, either consciously or implicitly, about gun ownership for self defense. Owning firearms is a very personal decision, and I certainly would never judge someone for the decisions they make about how to defend themselves and their families. There are certainly safety tradeoffs to be made, especially with children in the home. But for me, I have considered the imaginary situation where some authority figure approaches me and tells me I have a choice: 1) loose my lovely wife at the hands of a deranged killer, or 2) loose the life of the would-be killer. That’s an easy decision for me, and I choose to use any and all legal means to ensure that if ever faced with that choice, I’ll have the ability to choose option 2. I believe I have a moral obligation to do so. I don’t think I would be able to live with myself if something happened to my dear wife that I could have prevented. At the same time, I’ll do everything in my power to be a responsible, properly-trained gun owner and to never allow my firearms to fall into the hands of children.
Similarly, choosing to participate in the political process in support of rights granted under the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is a choice everyone makes, either implicitly or explicitly. And I choose to lobby for unfettered Second Amendment rights wherever I can. But that’s just me.
References:
1. Warren vs. District of Columbia, ruling December 21, 1981:http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf
2. Holy Bible, New International Readers Version, Zondervan Corporation
3. New International Version Bible Study Notes, Zondervan Corporation
4. New International Version Bible Commentary, Zondervan Corporation
While most bloggers are writing this week about Obama’s hopefully DOA universal health care plan, I’d like to talk about something else: personal protection. There is every day in this country one or more reports of someone successfully defending themselves, their families, their homes or all of the above with firearms. In many of the cases, lives of innocent would-be victims are thereby spared. But you likely won’t see the reports on TV, as the anti-gun lobby has lots of friends in local and network television.
I venture to guess that most people in this country think that it is the responsibility of law enforcement to provide them with personal protection. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the generic title implies, the role of law enforcement is to enforce the law. In a practical sense, that can only mean examining the crime scene for evidence, finding and arresting the criminals and turning them over to the court system for trial and punishment. In most cases when the police engage, the crime has already been committed.
Further, law enforcement agencies have no legal obligation to protect you and your family. In the landmark Warren vs. District of Columbia case, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court ruling that “the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection."1 The court further affirmed: “A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of those resources. … At any given time, publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate. Private resources and needs have little direct effect upon the nature of police services provided to the public. Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.”1
For background, in the early morning hours of March 16, 1975, appellants Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their rooming house. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men, who raped and beat the women for fourteen hours, this after one of the women had reported the break-in in progress to 911. Plaintiffs’ sued the “District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services.” The Court further found that the police had made at least two errors in responding to the 911 call, errors that a reasonable person could easily conclude significantly prolonged the attacks. So the conclusion is that even if law enforcement attempts to intervene on behalf of an individual or individuals, they have no legal obligation to do so and therefore cannot be held liable for any incompetence in their attempts to protect us.
Aside from the legal aspect, from a practical standpoint, if you are awakened to hear someone kicking in your back door, calling 911 will in many cases only ensure that police will arrive sometime later to take evidence from the crime scene, and perhaps measure the positions of the body or bodies. For example, average law enforcement response times to priority 1 emergency calls (life-threatening situations) in the city of Houston in 2005 ranged from 1 to 11 minutes, depending on the area of the city. It only takes a few seconds to die at the hands of an armed home invader.
So if law enforcement agencies don’t have a legal obligation to protect you and if they can’t reasonably be expected to respond in time to provide personal protection, who IS responsible? The answer is YOU!
This leads to the obvious moral question: Do I have a moral obligation to do everything I can to protect myself and my family, or should I simply trust God to do that? The quick answer to that question is pretty easy. God gave us brains and expects us to use them, so yes, He expects us to use whatever resources we can muster to protect our families. But on the other hand, a cursory examination of scripture doesn’t yield such an easy answer. After all, didn’t Jesus say “turn the other cheek - give him your cloak also – walk the second mile”?
I’m intentionally not going to reference the Old Testament, because we live under a new covenant. It is far more relevant and interesting to examine what Jesus had to say on the subject. Jesus said:
Mt 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.2
This is a commonly-misunderstood passage. Jesus didn’t mean for us to roll over and play dead whenever confronted by thieves or murderers. He was talking about being humble in the face of insults. The NIV Bible Study Notes commentary helpfully elaborates:
5:39 “resist”. Here it probably means in a court of law. “strikes”. The Greek verb used here means "slaps you with the back of the hand." It was more of an insult than an act of violence. The point is that it is better to be insulted even twice than to take the matter to court.3
And the Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary further clarifies:
While these four vignettes have powerful shock value, they were not meant to be new legal prescriptions. Verse 42 does not commit Jesus' disciples to giving endless amounts of money to everyone who seeks a "soft touch." Verse 40 is clearly hyperbolic: no first-century Jew would go home wearing only a loincloth. Nor does this pericope deal with the validity of a state police force. Yet the illustrations must not be diluted by endless equivocations; the only limit to the believer's response in these situations is what love and the Scriptures impose.4
Further, as Jesus was preparing to return to his Heavenly Father, he had this to say to his disciples:
Lk 22:35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered.
Lk 22:36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
Lk 22:38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.
After Jesus departed earth, the disciples would no longer have him present to protect them. While they would indeed then have the protection of the Holy Spirit, Jesus gave directions that they should depend on their own resources for sustenance and protection, i.e. use their common sense and their physical resources for providing for their well-being and resisting evil. And the NIV Bible Study Notes commentary states this:
22:36 “a purse . . . a bag”. … Until now they had been dependent on generous hospitality, but future opposition would require them to be prepared to pay their own way. “buy one”. An extreme figure of speech used to warn them of the perilous times about to come. They would need defense and protection.
A final passage we should examine is the one wherein Peter exercised his inalienable right to self defense as Jesus was about to be taken into custody by the Roman guard.
Jn 18:10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)
Jn 18:11 Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”
The fact that Peter was “carrying” says something. In addition to Jesus’ implicit approval of carrying a sword for self-defense, this was also an affirmation that Jesus’ instructions to buy a sword in Luke 22:36 was not just hyperbolic, but that He really did intend for them to be armed. So why His exclamatory reaction to Peter’s use of it?. Why would Jesus tell his disciples to buy a sword it he didn’t want them to use it? And why did he react with such apparent displeasure at Peter’s removal of the guard’s ear? I think Jesus, rather than disapproving physical self defense, was perhaps upset with Peter’s lack of faith and understanding. After all, Peter had witnessed Jesus performing many miracles, including miraculously evading many would-be captors. Jesus could have called down legions of angels to remove Him from impending captivity if He had wanted to. Jesus was willingly taking a path to a sacrificial death, and Peter was trying to interfere with that. And given Jesus’ instruction earlier to buy a sword, it defies reason that He would have been upset about Peter’s use of it just in self-defense. The Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary summarizes:
11 Jesus' command to Peter declared his disapproval of Peter's sudden and violent intervention. Had Jesus desired defense, he could have summoned angelic aid (cf. Mt 26:52-53). "Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" expresses both the necessity of his suffering and his absolute commitment to fulfilling his Father's purpose. The word "cup" connects this statement with the prayer in Gethsemane, which the other three gospels record (Mt 26:42; Mk 14:36; Lk 22:42). Though the writer must have known of Jesus' struggle, he recorded only the outcome. Jesus accepted the Father's will and calmly moved on to its fulfillment.
As a final thought on a Christian’s obligation to protect their families, I refer to an excellent article on the “Christian Gun Owner” website, wherein it is stated:
"Christians who believe that the U.S. Constitution was framed (including the second amendment) under the guiding hand of an almighty God, have an obligation to train with, obtain and keep arms to protect themselves, their families and their country."5
Unfortunately the current Federal administration is giving every indication that they would like to rescind the Second Amendment, or failing that, distort its meaning and intent or pass laws which seriously interfere with our inalienable right re-affirmed thereunder.
In summary, everyone past the legal age of 21 in Texas has made a decision, either consciously or implicitly, about gun ownership for self defense. Owning firearms is a very personal decision, and I certainly would never judge someone for the decisions they make about how to defend themselves and their families. There are certainly safety tradeoffs to be made, especially with children in the home. But for me, I have considered the imaginary situation where some authority figure approaches me and tells me I have a choice: 1) loose my lovely wife at the hands of a deranged killer, or 2) loose the life of the would-be killer. That’s an easy decision for me, and I choose to use any and all legal means to ensure that if ever faced with that choice, I’ll have the ability to choose option 2. I believe I have a moral obligation to do so. I don’t think I would be able to live with myself if something happened to my dear wife that I could have prevented. At the same time, I’ll do everything in my power to be a responsible, properly-trained gun owner and to never allow my firearms to fall into the hands of children.
Similarly, choosing to participate in the political process in support of rights granted under the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is a choice everyone makes, either implicitly or explicitly. And I choose to lobby for unfettered Second Amendment rights wherever I can. But that’s just me.
References:
1. Warren vs. District of Columbia, ruling December 21, 1981:http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf
2. Holy Bible, New International Readers Version, Zondervan Corporation
3. New International Version Bible Study Notes, Zondervan Corporation
4. New International Version Bible Commentary, Zondervan Corporation
5. Christian Gun Owner website:
outstanding! You certainly did your homework on this. It's people like you that we need as a member of the USCCA. Welcome.
ReplyDelete