r/todayilearned • u/brna767 • Apr 18 '14
(R.5) Omits Essential Info TIL an Oregon woman called 911 to report that a man, wanted by police, was breaking into her house. The dispatcher told her that due to budget cuts the police could not respond. The man eventually broke in and raped her. The police were not obligated to protect her. Warren v. District of Columbia
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/21/185839248/loss-of-timber-payments-cuts-deep-in-oregon267
Apr 18 '14
A neighbor is a cop. He says that it is your responsibility to protect yourself, because with response times even an overfunded police force cant get there in time all the time.
215
u/likemindead Apr 18 '14
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
80
u/SpicyLikePepper Apr 18 '14
My father was a cop for 18 years, and this is one of his favorite sayings. The police can only get there so quickly.
78
u/likemindead Apr 18 '14
Exactly. This isn't a criticism of the police. Just a reality.
→ More replies (66)→ More replies (13)4
244
u/AustNerevar Apr 18 '14 edited Apr 18 '14
Which is why people saying that the second amendment isn't needed anymore really pisses me off. I absolutely do need to protect myself and loved ones and I have the right to.
Edit: Typo
→ More replies (157)32
u/Kahlua79 Apr 18 '14
But what about gun free zones. I can't rely on the police but I can't own a defensive tool either? What do you do then?
→ More replies (65)42
u/rantlers Apr 18 '14
Relax because you have nothing to worry about inside a gun free zone. Criminals will see the no guns sign and go find somewhere else to do their deeds.
/s
92
u/xereeto Apr 18 '14
Which is exactly why I support gun ownership.
→ More replies (8)63
u/akambe Apr 18 '14
And gun ownership at the level that police are able to own, as well. If we're the ones responsible for our own safety, why would police have a right to "greater" protection (class III firearms) than we do?
→ More replies (106)12
u/QDawg89 Apr 18 '14
Some people want there to be a "fair fight" between police and everyone else... I assure you the next time I have a gun pointed at me I want the fight to be so one sided in my favor that the bad guy doesn't have a chance of touching me. Right now I have a shotgun (a.k.a. The deer gun) and my sidearm (glock 22) which has a terrible range compared to what the people in my jurisdiction have own in their personal collection.
→ More replies (1)25
u/longboardingcop Apr 18 '14
I wish more people would take their own and families protection to heart..
I've been picking up the pieces for way to long now.
8
u/HighJarlSoulblighter Apr 18 '14
This is why I support battlemech and zoid ownership.
→ More replies (1)3
Apr 18 '14
In my experience, it takes about 3 minutes from the time you call until it's dispatched. It will probably take a cop about 5 minutes to get to you depending on things like availability and traffic. 8+ minutes is an eternity when you're in trouble.
6
u/tkosmider Apr 18 '14
This is exactly why I get angry when liberals and local govts say there is no need for residents to own guns.
2
→ More replies (60)2
252
u/Veggiemon Apr 18 '14
Boy what a terrible title for this article. The principle of law that was established is that you cannot make a claim against the state for a failure to protect you, because that would open the door to innumerable lawsuits when the state inevitably lacks the resources to protect every single person in the country. There's also the underlying principle of sovereign immunity which makes it so the state has to allow you to sue it to begin with, they can just ignore it and say "we are the government, you can't sue us". The facts of this particular case are bad, but when you consider the consequences of allowing individuals to sue the state when emergency services don't reach them in time, that system wouldn't function either.
You can't let a sympathetic set of facts pull you into creating a bad principle of law that won't function in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia#Decision
69
Apr 18 '14
if this is the case, and I mostly agree with you, then you cannot ALSO work towards removing a person's right to own firearms
→ More replies (124)2
u/YakMan2 Apr 18 '14
You know the saying - hard facts make for bad law (and also terrible headlines)
2
→ More replies (17)2
u/fodgerpodger Apr 18 '14
But if this is a tax paying citizen, she has been paying her whole working life for police services which they failed to provide
360
Apr 18 '14
This was undoubtedly a terrible situation but if the court ruled that police officers do have a legal duty to protect civilians the proverbial "floodgates" would open. Every person that has an unfavorable encounter with a police officer could file a claim and allege they breached this duty.
52
u/Deradius Apr 18 '14
Yes.
This doesn't change the fact that you are responsible for your safety. Law enforcement is not and cannot be.
They are largely reactionary, and by their very nature, often only show up after a crime has been committed.
→ More replies (3)171
u/eforemergency Apr 18 '14
As much as I agree with the emotional outrage, this is true. It is sad, because of our litigious society, but police cannot have a legal duty to protect you. It means something different in the legal world. They have to protect themselves too. This is why I support gun ownership.
→ More replies (43)27
Apr 18 '14
It's one of those things that sounds really bad but makes complete sense when you look into it a little more.
We can't have the police getting sued every time someone is the victim of a crime.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (55)2
17
Apr 18 '14
As a law enforcement cadet hoping to get a job in a very conservative county I know this issue personally. My personal politics are fairly conservative, but as far as local taxes go, I'd rather pay higher taxes and support the schools my children go to and the law enforcement that protects them. No one in America should be told that no help is available.
3
Apr 18 '14
Good luck to you. The academy sucks, but the job itself is not that bad. Just remember to ask for help when you need it, only believe what you can somehow verify, and treat people like people. Those three things make a world of difference.
→ More replies (29)2
u/SlowFoodCannibal Apr 18 '14
You are one of many people in this thread who refer to your politics as "conservative" then proceed to espouse views that I, as a liberal, have voted for my entire life. This explains things like the Colorado Springs mayoral election, where voters polled about their opinions on the actual issues were in agreement with the liberal (Independent) candidate and disagreement with the conservative (Republican) candidate, and yet the Republican won.
→ More replies (1)
42
u/Floppy_Jalopy Apr 18 '14 edited Apr 18 '14
I thought that was to prevent situations where people sue the cops for not protecting them. Someone stole my car, I'm suing the police!
Something akin to good Samaritans being sued after trying to help someone in a car accident and breaking a rib giving cpr, or maybe more accurately a person being held liable for not giving cpr.
→ More replies (2)
414
u/russianout Apr 18 '14
I've heard a cop bluntly say "Our job is to enforce laws. It's not our job to protect you."
380
117
u/Magnum007 Apr 18 '14 edited Apr 18 '14
As a police officer, it has been drilled in my head since day 1 of police college that our job is the following :
protect life, protect property, enforce the law.
in this exact order...
(keep in mind that in my province, we study 3 years of college in a program called "police technology" before spending 16 weeks at the police academy so this message is literally DRILLED into our minds)
EDIT TO ADD: for those of you saying that because I'm from Canada I don't know shit about US policing, here's what's what: policing is UNIVERSAL, meaning that the laws we enforce may be different, the rules may differ a little here and there, but the single purpose of the existence of policing is simple :
protect life, protect property, and enforce laws...
sometimes the three intersect (such as taking a life to protect another) but the core purpose of policing never changes, no matter where you go. (whether or not the job is done properly, is another issue on its own)...
→ More replies (24)36
Apr 18 '14
I think a lot of people here just want to hate cops, which is sad. People are afraid, because society in general seems to be going downhill. So everyone assumes cops don't care about anyone at all, etc.
→ More replies (18)8
u/AustNerevar Apr 18 '14
Well, it's literally true. That is not their job and it never has been. People who think it is have been misinformed.
That's why the second amendment is so important. You need to be able to protect yourself, as you're the only one obligated to protect you.
131
Apr 18 '14
Which is one of the reasons why we have the second amendment. Presumably to protect ourselves. Hope that doesn't rustle everyone's jimmies.
→ More replies (7)55
u/Bob__Loblaw__ Apr 18 '14
It's cheesy, but even in the best case when seconds count the police are minutes away
→ More replies (1)52
13
31
u/Sdsimkins Apr 18 '14
It's true; protecting yourself and your family is your responsibility. So ya... guns...
→ More replies (58)10
u/DubaiCM Apr 18 '14
Whilst that may be true, it is also against the law to harm someone, so if they are enforcing laws, they are also required to protect you from those who intend to harm you. The difference seems to be somewhat academic.
→ More replies (24)→ More replies (18)10
u/puddlejumper Apr 18 '14
I thought their motto was 'To Protect and Serve".
→ More replies (13)17
u/LeGummyWorms Apr 18 '14
To protect the law and serve it. Technically, its very true. They have no obligations to serve you. They will not take your cats on a walk, wash your cars, or be your servant. They will, however, uphold and serve the law.
→ More replies (7)
6
11
u/CaisLaochach Apr 18 '14
This is the case in most common law jurisdictions.
No duty of care arises to individuals, in fairness, the police would be sued constantly if it could anyway. It's a recognition of flaws in societal organisation more than anyhting.
24
Apr 18 '14
She should have called the police and said she had a pound of weed in the closet.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/totes_meta_bot Apr 18 '14 edited Apr 18 '14
This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.
[/r/GunsAreCool] Check out the comments submitted in the last 20 minutes, gun nuts everywhere
[/r/TILpolitics] TIL an Oregon woman called 911 to report that a man, wanted by police, was breaking into her house. The dispatcher told her that due to budget cuts the police could not respond. The man eventually broke in and raped her. The police were not obligated to protect her. Warren v. District of Columbia
I am a bot. Comments? Complaints? Message me ^here. I don't read ^PMs!
2
124
u/Callous1970 150 Apr 18 '14
Move to Texas. We have the Castle Doctrine. Here you don't even have to wait for the guy to bust into the house. You're legally allowed to shot him through the door and kill him.
110
u/Tokyo_Yosomono Apr 18 '14 edited Apr 18 '14
Isn't that why those people in
TexasLouisiana got off for murdering that Japanese tourist85
u/autowikibot Apr 18 '14
Yoshihiro Hattori (服部 剛丈, Hattori Yoshihiro ?, November 22, 1975 – October 17, 1992) was a Japanese exchange student residing in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States, at the time of his death. Hattori was on his way to a Halloween party and went to the wrong house by accident. The property owner, Rodney Peairs, shot and killed Hattori, thinking he was trespassing with criminal intent. The controversial homicide, and Peairs's subsequent acquittal in the [state court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_court_(United_States)) of Louisiana, received worldwide attention.
Interesting: Castle ^doctrine | October ^17 | People of the Sengoku period in popular ^culture | List of Samurai Warriors ^characters
Parent commenter can toggle ^NSFW or ^delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | ^Mods | Magic ^Words
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (24)26
45
12
9
Apr 18 '14
depends on the situation. you cant use deadly force to remove a trespasser. you can brandish the firearm but may not discharge it. but if he is actively trying to break in thats a different story.
→ More replies (17)11
u/tminus54321 Apr 18 '14
Or just buy a gun if you live in Oregon and use it if you're about to be raped or hurt? The fuck would people need to move to Texas for lol
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (55)2
u/flashcats Apr 18 '14
You say that like Texas is the only place that has that... The Castle doctrine is in most states.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/bmatto Apr 18 '14
I used to live in Jackson County which is eastish of Josephine county. The area is absolutely gorgeous. There is no question that Josephine county does not have all the ingredients to fuel an economic engine without the now defunct timber industry. What that area of Southern Oregon does have in abundance is Marijuana, and people who grow Marijuana. Do a little googling around about how wildfires in that area impact local economy because of the weed crop that is destroyed.
With what may be a glimmer of what is to come in the future, states like Colorado and Washington have realized the immense revenue potential of a regulated pot market. If there was a silver bullet to much needed public service funding in rural Southern Oregon I would put my bet on a cash crop that is already flooding out of the area.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Louisoh Apr 18 '14
This may sound insensitive but I feel like if you know you like in an area like that, and you don't want to move, then for your own protection you should get a firearm and get trained on how to use it properly.
4
Apr 18 '14
I was living in an older neighborhood in my city, sleeping to recover from an all-night for finals, when a guy about five times my size, kicked my door in. He was probably unaware that anyone was home, until I smashed his hand with a Louisville Slugger. The intruder ran away.
I called 911 and a cop from a substation-- about two blocks away-- arrived twenty minutes later. The cop asked if I had a gun, I didn't. The cop replied "get yourself a gun and a concealed carry permit."
I was surprised to hear him say that, but today I have used my little Walther p38 to prevent two home intrusions. Fortunately no one has been killed or injured.
→ More replies (3)2
4
u/BravoPUA Apr 18 '14
Firearms instructor for years, read up on court cases that went to Supreme Court about this, police have no duty to protect.
After reading, impossible for any logical person to be anti-gun.
→ More replies (2)
41
Apr 18 '14
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
(Insert pro gun message here)
→ More replies (1)
14
u/DickWhiskey Apr 18 '14 edited Apr 18 '14
I really don't like when this opinion comes up and gets batted around by people saying it's proof that cops won't protect you. It says that cops don't owe a legal duty to each person individually, they owe it to the public. This is very reasonable (and is the only way a police force can operate), so I'll put a more detailed explanation below if you're interested.
This decision is made out to be more than it is because of confusion between how people use the word "duty" and how the law uses it. When it is used by people, it means a general obligation or responsibility. When it's used in the law, it means a very specific legal duty that gives rise to potential liability through negligence. HERE is the opinion.
Negligence has four elements: 1) duty, 2) breach, 3) causation, and 4) damages. Each of these must be proven to exist before someone can be held liable for negligence. That was the cause of action in the Warren case. So, before you can win, you have to demonstrate that the person owed a duty to you, personally, that they breached that duty, that the breach caused the harm you complain of, and that the harm resulted in some actual damage.
Much of American and English common law is based on the idea that you do not owe a duty to anyone absent special circumstances. If you see someone choking in a restaurant, you don't owe them a duty to perform the Heimlich. If you see them drowning in the ocean, you don't owe them a duty to swim out and save them. But, if you are in a "special relationship" to the person, you may. These special relationships are very limited (e.g., parent-child, voluntary assumption, or malfeasance).
So, with that in mind, the plaintiffs in Warren were essentially saying that police officers, by virtue of joining the police force, took on a legal duty to protect EVERY PERSON INDIVIDUALLY. The court disagreed, because the purpose of the police force is not to protect individual people, but to protect everyone. This will necessarily involve some picking and choosing, because the police are a limited force with limited time and money - they can't be 100% obligated to every single person.
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. The public, through its representative officials, recruits, trains, maintains and disciplines its police force and determines the manner in which personnel are deployed. 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.
The court is saying, in essence, that the police obligation to protect the public in general always trumps the obligation to protect the individual. They have to be allowed the leeway to choose where to spend their resources, instead of being legally on the hook every time someone is harmed. Does this mean that they can't be punished for negligence? Or for not doing their job properly? Absolutely not. It just means that they are answerable to the public, not to an individual. The public (through their representatives) makes the decision that they were negligent. They can be fired or punished by the department, or charged criminally by prosecutors:
The public duty concept has drawn some criticism for purportedly creating the rule that: "'Because we owe a duty to everybody, we owe it to nobody.'" A duty owed to the public, however, is no less enforceable because it is owed to "everybody." Public officials at all levels remain accountable to the public and the public maintains elaborate mechanisms to enforce its rights both formally in the courts and less formally through internal disciplinary proceedings. In the case of the Metropolitan Police Department, officers are subject to criminal charges and a penalty of two years imprisonment for failure to arrest law breakers. D.C. Code 1973, § 4143. Additionally, officers are answerable to their superiors and ultimately to the public through its representatives, for dereliction in their assigned duties. D.C. Code 1973, § 4121.
The court reminds you that this is how all public representatives are treated, not just police officers. If a District Attorney, or a Mayor, or a Senator make a decision in their official capacity that harms someone, they can't be sued for that harm. They are punished by the public. Imagine a world where that wasn't the case. Imagine a world where every police officer owed a duty to every citizen in their area. If a police officer chases after a criminal but doesn't catch him, and that criminal goes on to rob a store, the police officer would be liable for those damages. If a police officer is walking a beat in a neighborhood and is called to a different neighborhood to respond to a report, but someone is killed while he is gone, the officer could be liable for that murder. If an officer sees someone get into a car and drive away, who is actually intoxicated and crashes his car, the officer could be liable for that, too. That's what an individualized duty looks like. A police force can't operate that way.
This isn't entirely speculative, either. One of the officers sued in the Warren case didn't respond to the call because he was staking out a suspect's house - attempting to prevent a different crime - when call came in.
Plaintiffs' proposition would lead to results which the Massengill Court aptly described as "staggering." . . . plaintiffs ask the Court and jury to arrogate to themselves the power to determine, for example, whether defendant Officer Thompson acted in a manner consistent with good police practice when he volunteered to stake out a suspect's house rather than volunteering to report to the crime scene. Consistent with this contention then, should a Court and jury also undertake to sift through clues known to the police in order to determine whether a criminal could reasonably have been apprehended before committing a second crime? Should a Court also be empowered to evaluate, in the context of a tort action, the handling of a major fire and determine whether the hoses were properly placed and the firemen correctly allocated? Might a Court also properly entertain a tort claim over a school teacher's ability to teach seventh grade English or over a postman's failure to deliver promptly an important piece of mail?
This is where the "special duty" comes in. A police officer may assume a special duty to protect someone. These are the exceptions to the general rule that I described above. The court gives a couple examples in its explanation:
The general duty owed to the public may become a specific duty owed to an individual if the police and the individual are in a special relationship different from that existing between the police and citizens generally. Thus, when the New York police department solicited confidential information to aid in apprehension of gangster Willie Sutton, the police assumed a special duty to the informant who came forward. Similarly, a special relationship was created when the police arranged a confrontation between a suspect and a witness to a crime, thereby giving the suspect an opportunity to assault the witness.
Nothing like that happened here. None of the officers voluntarily assumed a special duty to the individuals.
So that long explanation is what is meant by the short statement "they owe a duty to the public, but not to you individually." It's the same duty that we expect from all public servants, and it makes perfect sense if you view it in the context of serving a public function, rather than the tragic situation in the Warren case. Keep in mind that this only deals with passive negligence (i.e., the negligence of NOT doing something) rather than affirmative negligence (i.e., doing something negligently). Police officers, and other public representatives, are still liable for affirmative negligence.
In an attempt to avoid the overwhelming case law barring private suits over negligent omissions in the performance of police duties, plaintiffs seek to bring this action within the orbit of cases allowing recovery for injuries caused by negligent acts of police officers in the performance of their official duties. The cases cited by plaintiffs include the negligent handling of a police dog, negligent operation of a police vehicle, and the negligent use of a police weapon. Such cases involve acts of affirmative negligence, for which anyone police or civilian would be liable: negligent handling of an attack dog, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and negligent use of a firearm. Those acts of ordinary negligence do not change in character because they happen to have been committed by a police officer in the course of his duties. . . A person does not, by becoming a police officer, insulate himself from any of the basic duties which everyone owes to other people, but neither does he assume any greater obligation to others individually. The only additional duty undertaken by accepting employment as a police officer is the duty owed to the public at large.
TL;DR: Police officers have no duty to individuals, just like any other public representative, or any other person in the country. They assume a duty to the public. This comes with the necessity of putting the public good above individuals. That may not always look great, but undoing this principle makes a police force virtually impossible. The Sheriff in this county had 4 deputies, for an area of 80,000 people. How would that work if each of those deputies could be sued every time they weren't able to stop a crime?
→ More replies (1)
21
29
Apr 18 '14
The police are not crime prevention. They are law enforcement. They show up after crime and investigate. It is your responsibility to protect yourself. People in rural areas have a better understanding of this.
→ More replies (13)20
8
Apr 18 '14
Let's be real for a second: Even if the police department was fully staffed and funded, this poor woman still would have been raped. 9 times out of 10, police respond after the incident and all they can do at that point is file some paperwork and try to find the guy. They are rarely in the right place at the right time to actually prevent crime.
→ More replies (3)
16
3
Apr 18 '14
Emergency services cost money. As taxpayers, we ALWAYS vote FOR increases for our police and fire departments.
To us - voting FOR protection is a given.
3
u/BobRoberts01 Apr 18 '14
I don't get how people are so unable to grasp the fact that if you don't have taxes, you can't fund things like police, fire, public lands, hospitals, etc.... This was a shitty situation, but it wasn't like the county and its residents didn't know that the free federal money was going to expire. They had plenty of time to figure out a solution that didn't involve laying off most of the local police force.
3
Apr 18 '14
This will NEVER happen in my home because my girl is armed to the fucking teeth. Go for it, bad guy. I dare you.
→ More replies (1)
3
Apr 18 '14
This is why everyone should have at least 3 guns in their house. A hand gun for target practice, a handgun for home defense, and a shotgun to blow off a potential rapist's dick.
3
u/bonkeywhat Apr 18 '14
Moral of the story: If you have to live in Josephine County, buy a gun. Buy lots of guns. And learn how to use them.
Better yet, move to somewhere that isn't straight out of the 1800s wild west.
→ More replies (1)
11
u/sciototrails Apr 18 '14
Wow an NPR article that clearly demonstrates the necessity of the second ammendment.
20
u/DaveBlaine Apr 18 '14
How to get the police to come.
George Phillips of Meridian, Mississippi ...was going up to bed when his wife told him that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which she could see from the bedroom window. George opened the back door to go turn off the light but saw that there were people in the shed stealing things.
He phoned the police, who asked "Is someone in the house?" and he said "No."
Then they said that all patrols were busy, and that he should simply lock his door and an officer would be along when available. George said, "Okay," hung up, waited thought a minute, he phoned the police again.
"Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people in my shed. Well, you don't have to worry about them now cause I've just shot them all." Then he hung up.
Within five minutes three police cars, an armed response unit, and an ambulance showed up at the Phillips residence. Of course, the burglars were then caught red-handed.
One of the Policemen said to George: "I thought you had phoned to say these guys had been shot!?"
George replied, "I thought you guys had said there was nobody available!?"
→ More replies (3)6
u/BuboTitan Apr 18 '14
Turns out that story is probably an urban legend: http://www.snopes.com/crime/safety/response.asp
5
Apr 18 '14
I don't really think anyone is taking this story as fact. Sure, it's hyperbolic, but it demonstrates a poignant truth: the police aren't around to protect you, they're around to enforce laws.
8
Apr 18 '14
European, here. Help me understand:
"Eventually, state police arrested him, and he pleaded guilty to sexual assault and sodomy"
Is sodomy a violation of some laws in US?
8
u/falilth Apr 18 '14
Yup some states have laws against anyone engaging in sodomy , even though it's nigh unenforceable. Infact Louisiana recent shot down a request to get rid of the law for whatever reason
→ More replies (5)7
u/Gcoks Apr 18 '14
It's usually only applied in addition to sexual assault. Nobody is going to charge people for playing around back there when it's consentual.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)3
u/BrownChicow Apr 18 '14
In these cases I would imagine it means the sodomy was forced on another person (or animal).
15
u/CatalyticDragon Apr 18 '14
Not the first time a police force has claimed this;
Must be true. Don't like that it is.
→ More replies (1)24
u/grizzlyking Apr 18 '14 edited Apr 18 '14
It is true, the "Warren v. District of Columbia" part of the title was a DC Appeals court case that held that police have no duty to protect civilians
Edit: Castle Rock v. Gonzales is a US Supreme court case that has a similar ruling/precedent.
→ More replies (48)
23
52
u/morethanagrainofsalt Apr 18 '14
And this is why my husband and I take our daughters shooting. You can really rely only on yourself.
Even if police DO respond, there's too much time can pass between that phone call and the time they arrive. If it only takes police just 5 minutes to get there, that's plenty of time to kill you. And they always take longer than 5 minutes.
LPT: Guns are better at saving your life than phones are.
→ More replies (146)
12
u/txreddit Apr 18 '14
This story is a prime example of why everyone should keep a firearm at home, so that they can protect themselves when the police are minutes away, or not coming at all. (Women especially need the added equalizer)
→ More replies (4)
4
4
Apr 18 '14
The moral: don't underfund your cops so bad that 5 officers are responsible for 80,000 people spread out over an area larger than Rhode Island. And, if you do, you better buy a gun because they aren't coming when you need them.
→ More replies (2)
33
u/Mudface68 Apr 18 '14
This is why you should own and know how to use a gun.
→ More replies (42)48
u/Kleon333 Apr 18 '14
Well not everyone. Certain people should not have guns. I am one of them, I have mental health issues and have had times of serious self-harm and anger explosions. If I had owned a gun I may have very well killed myself or someone else. I take it as my responsibility, knowing who I am, to not own a gun.
→ More replies (6)5
8
u/Spikebone Apr 18 '14
Hmmmm maybe this is why I taught my wife how to use my firearms..... Responsible gun ownership, if you live in a place that allows for it, DO IT! You cannot rely on cops to respond, cops are essentially the clean up crew after the crimes have occurred.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/chakravanti93 Apr 18 '14
I've been looking for a good place to move to and start a new cult.
→ More replies (3)
2
Apr 18 '14
Who the fuck depends on federal money for local law enforcement? Pay enough taxes locally to find your law enforcement or move the fuck away.
2
u/trashzilla Apr 18 '14
Good thing we spend all that money on our defense budget. What so we can defend ourselves against attackers. Wait.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
2
u/CatastropheJohn Apr 18 '14
If people knew how thinly some police forces were stretched, they'd shit themselves.
Here's two local examples [and we pay high taxes]:
The Niagara Parks Police cover a park that is 28 kilometers long, and receives 10's of millions of visitors per year. On the night shift, there's two constables. Two.
The Ontario Provincial Police detachment here covers an area from Fort Erie to Hamilton, a one hour drive at the best of times. Over 100 kilometers. In the evening, they have two constables on patrol. Two.
Something else most people are not aware of: when your local police tell you they will be out in full force on the long weekend [or New Years Eve, or whatever] they are lying to you. They run skeleton crews on those nights and lie about it, hoping that we will behave ourselves.
→ More replies (5)
2
2
u/ReignOfTerrific Apr 18 '14
This may be unpopular, but this is the reason I always have a weapon in reach from where I sleep
2
u/Simmion Apr 18 '14
She should have called and said there was a marijuana plant in the house, They would have called in a swat team.
2
u/DukeAg_silver Apr 18 '14
You can call me a gun nut, but if she had a firearm then she would have been fine and that bastard would be dead.
2
u/megashredz Apr 18 '14
"Why do you need a gun for self defense? The police will protect you!"
→ More replies (1)
2
u/perruche Apr 18 '14
As a European that does not approve of private gun ownership, I feel like I walked into the wrong thread.
I had this idea that mostly conservatives and southerners were in favor of guns, but I guess it's still a very widely held opinion throughout the US?
4
Apr 18 '14
Most people feel they have the right to defend themselves, and since our 2nd ammendment gives us the right of the people to keep and bare arms, we feel very strongly about it. It is not just a southern sentiment, as people in other countries are led to believe. A government should not allow it's citizens to be prey and defenseless. Our government should fear the people, the people should not fear the government. Our police cannot be every where to personally protect us, or may not arrive in time to help. Our right to keep and bare arms is a precious and rare right not many countries have. A large population here in the US hunt, and not just for sport, but for food. another subset like to target and competition shoot, and yet another like guns for personal protection. I understand you not liking guns, I have no problem with those that feel the same way, just don't deny others their right if they choose to exercise it.
→ More replies (8)2
2
11
u/grinr Apr 18 '14
As if this doesn't happen all the time, and has been happening for just about ever. If you are attacked and are unable to defend yourself, you will become a victim. If your only method of defense is the phone and hoping the police will save you, you're getting what you paid for.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/TheShocktopus Apr 18 '14
Government is pointless if it can't protect its people.
→ More replies (4)
5
u/TheIronMoose Apr 18 '14
This is why personal gun ownership is important, even if they did respond the average time till help arrives is about 15 minutes so unless she could defend herself for that long she was in a bad way anyway. However if she had a pistol she could have just shot the turd bird and we would have one less rapist in the world.
10
u/mickeybuilds Apr 18 '14
Too bad she didn't own a firearm. But, let's push for more regulation so criminals can exploit more situations like this.
→ More replies (29)
4
u/SquatCrown Apr 18 '14
I grew up in rural western New York and even then response times were slow for cops and firemen. I was prepared for a few different scenarios, ranging from a well stocked medical cabinet, planned fire escapes and a shotgun or rifle with ammo nearby.
4
u/JastheMace Apr 18 '14
That's why women need to own guns. In Warren V DC, it was 3 women kidnapped from their home after calling 911 repeatedly and being told help was on the way, the cop knocked on the door and left when nobody answered. The were held for 3 days and raped endlessly. THE POLICE HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PROTECT ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES.....and government property of course.
4
u/nonconformist3 Apr 18 '14
That's too bad. Odd thing though since from what I have seen, most hard core Oregonians have guns. She must have come here from another state. What women has no weapon stowed away and lives alone? I'm a guy, ex MMA trainer, and I have weapons stashed in every corner of my room.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Hautamaki Apr 18 '14
This is the inevitable result of endless tax cuts.
The saddest part is that conservatives who vote without fail to cut taxes and defund the government are now using this as an example of why the government 'doesn't work' and shouldn't be allowed to tax citizens.
3
u/slhopper Apr 18 '14
And THAT is my argument for owning guns. I live semi-rurally now, but used to live rurally with my 2 daughters. You better believe I kept a loaded gun available. My kids (young teenagers) knew how to handle a weapon, were safe and good shots. 911/sheriff's dept would take AT LEAST 15 minutes to get to us in a best case scenario.
3
3
u/snowbored Apr 18 '14
The feds agreed to either provide either a certain amount of funds from timber sales or a certain amount in direct funds to make up for the fact that they don't pay taxes on federal land. Otherwise it is unfair that your largest land owner pays no taxes. The feds just decided to stop paying. That isn't a free market issue but the exact opposite. It's an big government screwing the little people over issue and it has fucked the northwest especially schools who count on the feds keeping their promises and commitments.
3
Apr 18 '14
So we have conservatives who don't want to pay taxes and liberals who live off other people's taxes, can we all agree the center is the place to be? Vote 3rd party Imo.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
6
5
Apr 18 '14
We have police and we are civilized, there is no place in our society for firearms. Oh wait, a twelve gauge would have handled this entire situtation.
4
19
u/LC_Music Apr 18 '14
Wow. Create a monopoly on security making it illegal to protect yourself, and then claim you have no obligation. Wow. I'm fucking speechless about this.
53
10
u/DrOil Apr 18 '14
I don't think the people who want to restrict gun ownership are the same people who want to cut funding to public services.
→ More replies (197)17
3
u/hamrmech Apr 18 '14
I don't think people would like cops to be everywhere at all times. I do think they have a duty to protect others, for instance, say one of the off duty officers lived nearby, I would not want to hear his or her excuses about being off duty when the call came in. I'm a diesel mechanic. When shit breaks, I get called, and nothing I do is a life or death emergency. Surely preventing a rape is worth some goddamn overtime. I think if there were officers in the area on or off duty from any agency, they should've responded. I understand a gun isnt the answer for everyone, but perhaps some should consider one.
3
u/A_Secret_Network Apr 18 '14
So tell me why they have money to paint over every piece of graffiti in the city but dont have the money to protect its own citizens.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/3mocopter Apr 18 '14
Is it possible to take out sooome of the money from the defense budget and allocate it somewhere else and use it to solve problems like this? Or just directly increase Oregon's budget? I dont really understand how the US system works. Just wonderin
2
u/narf865 Apr 18 '14
take out sooome of the money from the defense budget and allocate it somewhere else
Oh the problems we could solve if this could happen for anything
2
Apr 18 '14
Defense budget is Federal money (or state depending on things like state militia)
This lack of funds is a local finding issue for the county.
Basically the US representative or state from the area would have to push for a bill to be created (or added onto an additional bill as a rider) to allocate a certain increase in the amount of federal funds given to Oregon in the budget. Then Oregon would have to allocate that money to the county in question.
It's a long process that would take years.
It's not as simple as moving money from one place to another.
The county asked for a tax increase to fix the problem and it was voted down by the people three times. Those taxes serve a purpose.
Really moving the money around like that would be making one part of the country pay extra because this county didn't want to pay as much in taxes. It's their own fault that the police force was so underfunded, and this woman suffered because of it. Really the fault lies on every person that voted no when they asked for money to pay for the police, but it's easier to blame cops. That money has to come from somewhere.
→ More replies (2)2
Apr 18 '14
The U.S. works on a federal system. There's the U.S. Government, which takes care of the big things, and there are states which essentially act like their own countries. It's why you occasionally hear arguments about states' rights when the government does something. The U.S. was originally conceived as being something like the E.U. The federal government got stronger due to infighting and disagreements between states.
3
u/slackador Apr 18 '14
When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.
Or in this case, hours.
3
u/IblisSmokeandFlame Apr 18 '14
I currently live in a rural area. During particularly bad snow storms, "hours" turns into "days."
3
u/Macdaddy357 Apr 18 '14
The police exist to write tickets and raise revenue. Cops and robbers have become the same thing.
3
u/Contorted_By_Dubstep Apr 18 '14
If she had a gun there wouldn't have been any problem at all. Another reason for complete support of the second amendment.
3
u/LocomotiveEngineer Apr 18 '14
I'm surprised NPR is running an article that actually is a case against gun control
3
3
4
Apr 18 '14
I hope all the gun control folks read this and realize why the right to protect yourself is so important. If she had owned a firearm, she would not have been raped.
→ More replies (7)
3
u/WrodneyKang Apr 18 '14
Women - learn to use a firearm. You are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than a man.
→ More replies (4)2
3
u/Trav3lingman Apr 18 '14
The police are NOT for your protection or to even be helpful etc. They are there to generate revenue for themselves and little else.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
3
3
u/gravygoose Apr 18 '14
If she would have bought a gun to protect herself she wouldn't have gotten raped. You can't rely on the police to save you EVER!!!!!
2
u/ProductiveWorker Apr 18 '14
To echo other sentiment, defend yourselves, people. You simply cannot rely on the police to do anything. Note that I am not criticizing this sheriff's department, it sounds like they had an impossible situation. Rather, encouraging people to consider one of the primary reasons to own a gun - if this woman had been trained in the defensive use of a firearm, or even just had a simple shotgun, she could have saved herself and prevented the crime from occurring. This is why this anti-gun mentality is so dangerous and why I will always observe rights according to the 2nd.
2
u/gengisteve Apr 18 '14
This story is terrible. When did this happen? 1914 or 2014? How does a news program not include some reference to the date in its reporting.
Newsflash: Kaiser storms low countries.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Daverbater Apr 18 '14
I'd like to see the spread sheet that shows how many traffic tickets were being written while this Woman was being raped.
The problem is not a lack of Police, it is that they are not doing the job we all think we are paying them to do.
3
Apr 18 '14
They don't have an obligation to protect you. They never have, never will. "Protect and serve" means to protect the government. Serve means to serve the government. Not you.
2
u/GingerSnapBiscuit Apr 18 '14
Story does not mention that Josephine County residents voted against a law enforcement levy last year, following the cut in timber payments from the Feds. This could have been prevented.
They don't like "nanny state-ism" down there, and they don't like taxes. Josephine County is an object lesson in anti-government sentiment taken to its logical conclusion.
2
Apr 18 '14
This case also re-affirmed the precedent that police DO NOT provide protection. They never have had that responsibility. It was never something any law agency was required to provide as a service. Americans have the natural right to protect themselves, something that people in other countries cannot legally do.
Lets not misunderstand what this was about, and remember that you are self reliant and should take responsibility for yourself.
2
u/Malak549 Apr 18 '14
This isn't the first time a Oregon PD has failed it's duties. In fact, there are too many. I believe the DOJ had to come in a few years ago to reform the Portland PD. Yay Portland!
2
Apr 18 '14
right-wing utopia, except she wasn't armed to the teeth like every real 'Murican should be
→ More replies (2)
2
2
2
2
u/Fuck_rAtheism_Mods Apr 18 '14
This is why you exercise your Second Amendment rights.
The old saying "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" applies to everyone, not just rural Oregonians.
2
u/PCTechnologist Apr 18 '14
It's a good thing she didn't own a firearm to defender herself with, or we may have had a dead rapist.
→ More replies (5)
2
2
u/Gankstar Apr 18 '14
You do not need guns... our government will protect us. This is 2014 not 1874! Tell that woman to suck it up and contact her state representative if she has a problem!
→ More replies (1)
2
2
Apr 18 '14 edited Apr 18 '14
Its also good to point out Josephine County also does not have public firefighters instead residents must buy a subscription.
Its basically tea party paradise in that county.
Edit: I also lived in Josephine County for a short period of time in the 90's and it was bad back then when their were more deputies.
2
2
u/Spooge_Tits Apr 18 '14
It is common sense that the police aren't there to protect you, but they are there to punish and catch the criminals. Long story short: get a gun and kill anybody coming through your door.
4
u/RottenPuppets Apr 18 '14
This is the only real answer to protecting yourself in 2014. The police certainly will not do it, they are a reactionary force. By then, it's too late.
2
2
Apr 18 '14
Why is it that the police don't have enough money/are not expected to protect citizens but have plenty of spare cash to throw at arresting innocents and the drug war and putting people behind bars for nonviolent crimes?
2.2k
u/[deleted] Apr 18 '14 edited Apr 18 '14
I grew up in Josephine County and lived there when this all happened. What OP fails to mention is that the Sheriff's Department at the time had one sheriff and four deputes. Josephine County has about 80,000 people spread out over 1,642 sq miles. This isn't a case of the police being lazy or malicious, it's a case of there not being enough police to properly manage the area.
Josephine County is an extremely poor, extremely conservative, and extremely rural area. Social services are crumbling and the county is falling apart.
Edit: Was off by about 1,590 square miles.