Police Warn Against 'Vigilante' Behavior
- Thread starter MoW
- Start date
im thinkin youre referring to the "brothers" smashing the liquor store (which also got torched )in oakland. the owners were warned to not sell to "african americans".
what a dilema
you open a store and dont wanna sell to them- thats discrimination
you open a store and do sell to them- store burns!
i wouldnt live in cali for nuthin...
what a dilema
you open a store and dont wanna sell to them- thats discrimination
you open a store and do sell to them- store burns!
i wouldnt live in cali for nuthin...
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
Here is a more specific link...
http://www.nbc11.com/news/5429519/detail.html
I find it amazing every time statements like these get made. Apparently the officer in question does not actually know what a vigilante is and based on his own definition, self defense or protection of property are vigilante acts.
To be a vigilante, you must disallow due process for a person accused of doing wrong. For example, the acts of a lynch mob to hang a person who has not been tried.
You can't have it both ways. Urging clerks and store owners not to have guns because guns may expose them to harm. Just what the hell did he think about the store vandals? What assurance can he give that the vandals will never resort to violence?
Moron.
http://www.nbc11.com/news/5429519/detail.html
I find it amazing every time statements like these get made. Apparently the officer in question does not actually know what a vigilante is and based on his own definition, self defense or protection of property are vigilante acts.
To be a vigilante, you must disallow due process for a person accused of doing wrong. For example, the acts of a lynch mob to hang a person who has not been tried.
You can't have it both ways. Urging clerks and store owners not to have guns because guns may expose them to harm. Just what the hell did he think about the store vandals? What assurance can he give that the vandals will never resort to violence?
Moron.
Well isn't that interesting... Normally the polcie cannot be held responsible for your personal safety, as has been proven in court time and time again. In this case though we now have the police specifically telling shop owners that the police will provide protection for them and they should not arm themselves.
Given the direct promise of the police to provide protection are the Oakland PD now open to lawsuits for failing to provide said protection? If they had not promised it they would have the same protection from being sued as every other police department. It seems to me though that by promising protection they have given up their immunity. Are there any lawyers out there who can provide a legal view here?
FirearmFan
New member
Seen on TV
I can't help but think the all the episodes of Cops, Real TV, or World's Craziest Police videos that show Law enforcement arriving after the start or at the end of the violence.
Think about it, you work in a gas station with a mini mart. A guy walks in, doesn't even look like a thug, and grabs a soda out the back. Comes to the counter as if to pay for it and pulls a gun on you demanding money. At this point, you are really beyond the protection of law enforcement unless they are right there and have a head shot.
The police are there to protect you, true. But that's if you get the opportunity to notify them or someone else does.I read another thread the other day that pointed out the average response time is at least 5 minutes. Here in Philly it's at least 10 - 15 minutes, unless you are bleeding on the floor, AFTER BEING SHOT! I just think politics and firearms don't mix when the politics are taking precendence over the personal safety of honest citizens.
I can't help but think the all the episodes of Cops, Real TV, or World's Craziest Police videos that show Law enforcement arriving after the start or at the end of the violence.
Think about it, you work in a gas station with a mini mart. A guy walks in, doesn't even look like a thug, and grabs a soda out the back. Comes to the counter as if to pay for it and pulls a gun on you demanding money. At this point, you are really beyond the protection of law enforcement unless they are right there and have a head shot.
The police are there to protect you, true. But that's if you get the opportunity to notify them or someone else does.I read another thread the other day that pointed out the average response time is at least 5 minutes. Here in Philly it's at least 10 - 15 minutes, unless you are bleeding on the floor, AFTER BEING SHOT! I just think politics and firearms don't mix when the politics are taking precendence over the personal safety of honest citizens.
Mister_Dinky
Moderator
"but promised protection for merchants"....
Yeah, and the check's in your mouth....
Yeah, and the check's in your mouth....
As the statement was made by an agent of the Police, with the approval of the Chief and the responsible government body, it could well be considered a binding agreement. That one would eventually wend it's way to the Supreme Court.
While I wouldn't want to be the test case, it would appear that someone who had their shop vandalized in a like manner could call them on their statement. Forcing them to recant would also open the police to demands that CCW, and other "appropriate" means of self-defense be granted, based upon an admission that they couldn't protect you.
Hmmmmm, sounds like they may just be hoisted on their own petard.
While I wouldn't want to be the test case, it would appear that someone who had their shop vandalized in a like manner could call them on their statement. Forcing them to recant would also open the police to demands that CCW, and other "appropriate" means of self-defense be granted, based upon an admission that they couldn't protect you.
Hmmmmm, sounds like they may just be hoisted on their own petard.
progunner1957
Moderator
Bottom line - "The Experts" can't save you; you are on your own
Police who think We The People have no business owning guns also seem to think We The Pepole have no business defending ourselves against violent attacks. They are "the experts" who are supposed to handle these things. We are supposed to sit by passively and take our beating until "the experts" arrive.
When We The People take action to guarantee our own safety, it proves the fact that "the experts" cannot guarantee our safety. It is a slap in the face to "the experts" because it challenges their own delusions of granduer that they are in control of crime and criminals. It also challenges their power and the role they play in society. It shows that they are not so in control after all.
On the other hand, pro-gun police know and acknowledge the reality of the situation: The police cannot be everywhere 100% of the time. They cannot stop 100% of crime and violence before it happens.
They know that until the police arrive, we are on our own.
Being prepared to deal with a violent attack will mean the difference between being a victim or being a survivor.
Police who think We The People have no business owning guns also seem to think We The Pepole have no business defending ourselves against violent attacks. They are "the experts" who are supposed to handle these things. We are supposed to sit by passively and take our beating until "the experts" arrive.
When We The People take action to guarantee our own safety, it proves the fact that "the experts" cannot guarantee our safety. It is a slap in the face to "the experts" because it challenges their own delusions of granduer that they are in control of crime and criminals. It also challenges their power and the role they play in society. It shows that they are not so in control after all.
On the other hand, pro-gun police know and acknowledge the reality of the situation: The police cannot be everywhere 100% of the time. They cannot stop 100% of crime and violence before it happens.
They know that until the police arrive, we are on our own.
Being prepared to deal with a violent attack will mean the difference between being a victim or being a survivor.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
It would be nice if the NRA and SAF took the really militant route of searching for a test case and pushing it through the system. While not a direct 2A case it will force an admission from the police themselves that they cannot provide protection, even when they promise it. This could only help our cause of enlightenning the sheeple.
The people of Oakland should definately be electing a new sherrif in the near future with bonehead statements like that. :barf:
The Left Coast certainly has some screwed up logic. Most police come by AFTER the crime has been committed. To enforce "justice" on the perpetrators. But if you are the local store owner who got shot because you did not get the cash out of your register fast enough, there is not enough justice in the world to give you back your life or the loss of your limb back. (In case of paralysis)
Another reason not to live in left coastville.
The Left Coast certainly has some screwed up logic. Most police come by AFTER the crime has been committed. To enforce "justice" on the perpetrators. But if you are the local store owner who got shot because you did not get the cash out of your register fast enough, there is not enough justice in the world to give you back your life or the loss of your limb back. (In case of paralysis)
Another reason not to live in left coastville.
Oh, so the police are going to stand guard at every cash register in every liquor store?
What kind of bullcrap promise is this, if it simply means that the cops will be doing what they've always been doing -- patrolling around the town and available by phone AFTER a robbery or attack has taken place?! How is it "protection" if the merchants will not enjoy, essentially, police bodyguards?
Thanks, "Desley." Oh, and "Desley," what's wrong with engaging in "the same type of behavior these vandals engage in" if it's what saves your life from them?
Is the test of behavioral propriety whether bad guys also do it? I guess we shouldn't breathe, because bad guys do it. We shouldn't wear clothes because they do that, too. And if a bad guy starts to punch me in the face, I guess I should let him, because to defend myself by punching him back is a horrible mistake, because "that's the same behavior these vandals engage in." :barf:
You'll forgive me if I deign to meet force with force, since meeting force with cowering tends to get one killed really easily.
-azurefly
You guys are missing the point.
The point of the police chief saying that they promise protection to everyone is simple. It's not anti-gun. It pro-enhanced-police-presence.
In other words, hire more cops, raise taxes from the sheeple, tighten the screws, more cops, job security for everyone in law enforcement, etc.
It has NOTHING to do with crime prevention or law enforcement or gun control. It's all a big scam to hire more cops onto the public payroll.
The point of the police chief saying that they promise protection to everyone is simple. It's not anti-gun. It pro-enhanced-police-presence.
In other words, hire more cops, raise taxes from the sheeple, tighten the screws, more cops, job security for everyone in law enforcement, etc.
It has NOTHING to do with crime prevention or law enforcement or gun control. It's all a big scam to hire more cops onto the public payroll.
Double Naught Spy
New member
No Rob, I think it is you who have missed the point.
If the 'Oakland Police' stated something this asinine as to state that it is counterproductive for store owners to protect their property, then they deserve the ire of the public. However, after reading the story a couple of times, my 'bias-o-meter' is ticking. NBC and their willing accomplice affiliates have never been known to be pro-law enforcement. And, controversy, whether real or manufactured, sells news.
Last edited:
Ouch! Pretty harsh considering that everything I said is true.
The police are certainly pro-police. They are also pro-police presence and anti-citizen enforcement or action (not talking about "vigilantism" here). Look at all the problems the guardian angels have every time they have a march. The police look upon them as almost vigilantes. The border patrol citizen militia's get the same eye and scrutiny. They originally had suspicions about neighborhood watch programs being vigilantes too. Paranoia is the province of the police not just the citizenry.
[sarcasm]And of course no police org is asking for more funds so they can hire more cops in order to fight crime. Instead, they're all taking extended vacations due to the low crime and law abiding nature of the citizens in their jurisdictions. And returning the excess budget from the sale of all that unneeded swat and riot gear, and armored assault vehicles. [/sarcasm]
The police ALWAYS want more funds for more officers and equipment and are ALWAYS at the forefront of the efforts to take away the ability of the people to protect themselves from criminals. "More cops, more money, more supression of the populace because it's us versus them" seems to be their real motto.
Of course, that's only my POV and your glasses may have a different tint of rose.
So, if you don't believe it, then it's some sort of commie anti-police plot?
While it may be possible that the comments and surrounding facts were edited for space reasons, I don't believe that the statements were "manufactured" by the reporter/media. Especially not after the NY Times, Dan Rather, etc. scandals. It's too easy to check on that stuff and the media loves to sacrifice it's own on the public scaffold.
And of course, the police are known for NEVER saying assinine things. Especially where guns and the rights of the people are concerned.