You’ve heard it on the news and you read it on social media that no one needs 30 rounds to protect themselves and in fact let the police be that barrier to criminals from the populace. Personal statements of “I don’t need a gun” or “gun free zones are safer”. This discussion today will talk about why firearms are necessary for personal protection and yes, you need as many rounds as you can carry. Let’s dive in.
There are three cases in point to review one is McGaughey vs District of Columbia and Warren vs District of Columbia. Warren vs DC also encompasses a case of Nichols vs DC which is shown below.
In the case of Warren, we have three women and one minor girl in a boarding house in DC. Two men break into the house and the women not being on the same floor are not all discovered at once. The woman sharing the room with her daughter is attacked and is sexually and physically assaulted by the men. The other women call police on two separate occasions and state that the men are currently attacking their roommate and they can hear her screaming. The police dispatch does not assign a high priority to the case and police do arrive and knock and drive by and no further attempt is made to contact the people inside when they do not answer the door. The two other women had moved to a roof adjoining the house and observe the police although they do not cry out to them. The police leave, and the women move back into the house and call again stating the men are in the house and attacking their roommate. After a period, the women believe that the police have entered the house. There is no explanation why they believe that, but they call out to the other woman being raped saying the police are here. The men now aware of their presence attack them at knifepoint and spend the next 14 hours raping all three women without any police intervention. A direct quote from the case “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 Kent and Morse.”
McGaughey vs DC states she was out with friends, was separated from her friends and was later found by her friends stumbling, disoriented and disheveled. Believing their friend to have been drugged and assaulted they take her to Howard University Hospital where the staff call police. Police determine no crime committed and do not ask for a police rape kit to be performed. The hospital tells the friends to take the girl home and come back after she has slept. She does come back after she awakens with no memory of the previous night’s events and calls the police saying she was assaulted. The police refuse a rape kit and the hospital does not perform any examination. The woman and friends leave and go to Georgetown University hospital and restate their case that the woman was sexually assaulted and drugged. GUH calls police and are told the case is closed. They do not administer a police rape kit but perform a “forensic examination” and release the woman.
The third case is Nichols vs DC in which a man stops at a red light and is hit from behind by another car who begins to repeatedly slam into the back of his car. The drivers exit and proceed to beat the man, Nichols, in the head and face breaking his jaw. Police arrive and while the passenger in Nichols car state a witnessed assault the officer’s do not get identification of the assailants and let them go. Nichols sues the DC police for negligence. A direct quote from the case “On April 30, 1978, at approximately 11:30 p. m., appellant Nichol stopped his car for a red light at the intersection of Missouri Avenue and Sixteenth Street, N.W. Unknown occupants in a vehicle directly behind appellant struck his car in the rear several times, and then proceeded to beat appellant about the face and head breaking his jaw.”
These cases are all ruled against the plaintiff’s and move to appeal, meaning that each person, the three women sexually assaulted the one woman drugged and possibly sexually assaulted and the man physically assaulted lost their cases against the police stating the police failed to protect and serve them. The court ruled the police did not fail in their duty and it was sent to appellate courts to be reviewed. All the cases were affirmed stating the police had no obligation beyond what was performed to any of these citizens and the quotes from the cases are shown below.
“The public duty doctrine has long protected municipalities from negligence claims because it establishes that “[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large,” not to any specific individual.”
“Similar reasoning bars McGaughey’ s claim that failures in hiring, training, and supervising resulted in a negligent investigation. As the police have no duty to investigate any crime, they certainly have no enforceable duty arising from their management of the personnel who investigate the crime.”
“The trial judges correctly dismissed both complaints. In a carefully reasoned Memorandum Opinion, Judge Hannon based his decision in No. 79-6 on “the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.” See p. 4, infra. The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists. Holding that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants in No. 79-6, Judge Hannon concluded that no specific legal duty existed. We hold that Judge Hannon was correct and adopt the relevant portions of his opinion. Those portions appear in the following Appendix.[1]”
“The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason 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.”
So, reading that you ask yourself what duty the state has to me as a person and citizen paying taxes for services. The answer is nothing. What is a special relationship between the police and the individual? Job position or elected position? Co-worker or family member? What makes you special enough to require the police to protect you? The individual is owed absolutely no protective services from the state at all. The state must provide services for the larger populace meaning it must be available but not effective. Think about that for a second. Truly think about that, the police are under no obligation to come and rescue you in the middle of a violent encounter. None. Zero. Nada. In fact, they could arrive, see you have been beaten or assaulted in multiple ways and use their discretion to not do a thing and leave or not show up at all. Is this an indictment of police and law enforcement? No. It is not, but it is to point out that you are responsible for your own safety and security. Growing up many people would say “I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.” I was very young when I first heard this statement and didn’t truly understand that concept until I was much older.
Let’s look at one more case from Arizona. A woman was home alone when an intruder began to try and enter her house. She was extremely scared and called police as she retreated to her bathroom with a gun. The call is 6:57 long and it takes only a few seconds from the time the man is beating on the doors to breaking a window to coming into the home. You can hear the dispatcher telling the woman I have police coming to help you, they are on the way. By the time the police arrive the woman had been beaten by the man who found her in the bathroom and she shot him ending the beating. You can hear her voice tremble in fear and adrenaline as she berates the intruder, he lays there apologizing, and the dispatcher tries to tell her there is no need to berate him. I think berating him was less of a reflection of anger and more an exultation of winning a contest with her life as the prize. Imagine that someone is viciously doing you harm and you protect yourself and another person safe and sound tells you to pipe down and go outside and wait for the very people that do not have any obligation to save your life? Still minutes away the police can only listen to events while the woman does what she needs to do to live. What could’ve happened? Rape, beating, death? All could’ve been the result. What did happen? A small woman used a tool to defend herself. She shot him multiple times and even though it was only one attacker she did not put him down with one shot. What if it had been multiple attackers? What if they were prepared with body armor? How would she survive if 6 shots or 10 shots were all she had? Maybe that was all she had but what if the state stated that 10 shots were all you were allowed, and your life is only worth less than $10 worth of ammunition? You can hear the entire call on the link below.
There are many people that believe it will not happen to me. I don’t need that because I have adequate police protection. I live in a good neighborhood and no one would come here and hurt me. All of those are wrong. On average home invasions happen at night and the invaders usually enter through a sliding glass door. The first room they head to is a bedroom searching for the master bedroom is typically the case. This is from the statistics on the FBI’s webpage.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/burglary.
Please feel free to go check for yourself. The Heritage foundation shows a chart of people that have defended themselves in the United States. You can see that information in the link below.
https://www.heritage.org/data-visualizations/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/
So, what is the discussion about here and what is trying to be conveyed to you the reader of this blog post? You must be self-sufficient in everything you do in this modern age. One would think that goods and services, police protection and the good will of the people have become so good these days you can merely move through life in a wonderfully blissful manner without regard to your surroundings because we have such a civil society that nothing could happen to you. If you remember the riots that raged across the country in 2020 and neighborhoods invaded by those that had an axe to grind, legitimate or not in your opinion, but most definitely a mob. Remember seeing people accosted in restaurants by large groups and publicly derided if they didn’t hold up a fist or the burning and looting of businesses? It can come to your door at any time as an individual, small group or mob and you must be prepared to defend against all. It is to your advantage to own multiple types of firearms. Carry firearms, home protection, hunting and target shooting. All are useful tools in not only securing and preserving the free state but defending yourself now during the crisis, not cleaning up afterward and trying to catch the suspect that committed the crime. Clearer still, do not be a victim of inaction or paralyzed by public opinion. Research around a bit and you and realize that firearms are the great equalizer as a force multiplier. They are an excellent deterrent and can have long standing benefits as an investment.
I will conclude with this thought for you the reader. What is your life and the life of your loved one’s worth to you? I worked for a time in the motorsports industry and the shop had a great sign on the wall, “you want a $100 helmet, do you have a $100 head?” It still applies here. Make sure your entry level practice firearm is not your only tool to protect yourself. Have those tools to protect yourself always! Like the old AMEX commercial, don’t leave home without it. The quick run to the store or gas station can be the last run you ever make, and while you need not be paranoid and skittish one must be observant and have the tools available to even all the odds that could come up. This isn’t just for those smaller or less strong individuals. I have seen big strong individuals put to the ground quickly by someone intoxicated with chemicals or in a rage. Think it couldn’t happen to you? Think you will always be able to call police and they will show up to help you? Do your own research if you like and see how many cases exist and how many recordings from 911 calls of people that are waiting for police and die before they get there. You will be shocked. I was shocked when I looked for myself.
Practice with a laser indoors or at the range but you must practice being able to perform under pressure. The most important thing is to not be afraid. Understand you can defend yourself in all situations and you are equipped and trained to do so by your own hand and measure, be confident in that training you do.
Let’s talk about after the fight. In the link below you will find 2AShield with our unique affiliate link. We are proud to be a brand ambassador for 2AShield and have searched through all the various insurance programs out there and find this program to be the best. For less than $2 a day you can protect yourself and your spouse in case you need to defend yourself and you are then charged or sued. Many insurance programs have a clawback clause, meaning if you lose your case they come after you to recover costs, 2AShield does not have that clause. They will also cover you in all situations of legal weapons use. What does that mean? It means if you have a knife, baseball bat, firearm, you fists and feet or another tool to become that force multiplier to defend yourself or loved one you are covered! Click on the link below and sign up today!
– Dale Thompson