Law Enforcement Officers Overwhelmingly Against Obama Gun Control

A  survey conducted by PoliceOne Gun Policy & Law Enforcement shows an overwhelming majority of law enforcement officials are against new gun control measures. The survey shows huge support for concealed carry by law abiding citizens and approval for law enforcement leaders’ across the country who have said they will not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions.

The survey, which involved law enforcement professionals at all ranks, was conducted online March 4-13. Survey questions were composed and compiled by PoliceOne staff and the Pretorian Group, PoliceOne’s parent company, according to a press release.

According to PoliceOne, the results show overwhelming rejection of currently proposed gun control legislation as a means to improve officer safety. Here are the results as outlined by PoliceOne:

• 86 percent feel the currently proposed legislation would have no effect or a negative effect on improving officer safety
• 92 percent feel that banning semi-automatic firearms, or “assault weapons,” would have no effect or a negative effect on reducing violent crime
• 91 percent said the use of a firearm while perpetrating a crime should lead to a stiff, mandatory sentence with no plea bargains.
• 59 percent believe increasing punishment severity for unlicensed dealers would reduce crime
• Respondents were more split on background checks, with 31 percent agreeing that mental health background checks in all gun sales would help reduce mass shootings, while 45 percent disagreed
• 71 percent support law enforcement leaders who have publicly refused to enforce more restrictive gun laws within their jurisdictions
• 82 percent believe gun buyback or turn-in programs are ineffective in reducing the level of gun violence
• 91 percent support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or have not been deemed psychologically incapable
• 80 percent feel that legally-armed citizens would likely have reduced the number of casualties in recent mass shooting incidents
• 38 percent believe the biggest cause of gun violence in the United States is the “decline in parenting and family values”. This was trailed by “overly lax parole and short sentencing standards” at 15 percent and “pop culture influence” (eg. violent movies and video games) at 14 percent

Chiefs of police from big, crime ridden cities are often cherry-picked by liberal politicians to testify before Congress about gun control, making it seem like more gun control is the only solution to reduce crime and that it is supported by the law enforcement community as a whole. The fact is, the opposite is true. Police chiefs are simply appointed politicians in the minority and don’t represent the boots, the majority, working under them when it comes to reducing gun violence and implementing more gun control.

Progressive Subversives take advantage of our First Amendment civil rights with their made up statistics and outright lies in their crusade to usurp Second Amendment civil rights in the United States.

By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ ‘the security of the nation,’ and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important. ~John F. Kennedy

Commuter Alert: Dallas is One of the Most Dangerous Cities in USA

Dallas police are looking for a suspect who shot and killed a security officer on Friday night.

The family of Rufino Hernandez said he died doing his job trying to protect the innocent who lived in a high crime apartment complex.

Cassie Hernandez couldn’t hold back the tears as she shared pictures and talked about her beloved father. “I just called him ‘Smiley,’ because he was always smiling really big,” she said.

The father of two was killed Friday night in the guard shack at the Pecan Way Apartments in South Dallas. Police said someone robbed him, stole his gun, and shot him. “It’s absolutely senseless with him,” said friend Brandon Moreno. “He had no enemies.”

Hernandez’ family said he wanted to open his own security firm because that’s what he loved to do. “He wanted to make sure that people were safe around him,” Moreno said.

Hernandez knew his job was dangerous. The apartment complex he guarded is considered by Dallas police to be among the most dangerous in the city. Dallas police officers don’t respond to calls there until at least four officers can enter together. Welcome to Dallas!

The apartments are north of Interstate Highway 20 between Highway 67 and 75. All three highways are major commuter routes to downtown Dallas and points north. Law-abiding commuters should seriously considering carry a fire arm in their vehicles. Non prohibited persons do not need a permit to carry a concealed handgun in their vehicle in Texas. Arm yourself and always be aware of your surroundings.

On Saturday morning, WFAA News 8 observed half a dozen squad cars respond to a minor incident at the complex.

“The police actually said he was crazy for being there by himself in those complexes,” Moreno said.

Hernandez would have been 43 on today. His family was planning a birthday celebration that now will be a funeral. “He always treated everyone good…,” Hernandez told WFAA, adding the two of them joked around as she drove him to work on his final night. She takes comfort in that. “I said, ‘I love you. Take care.’ But I know he’s with me and always going to be, and I know that,” she said.

Dallas police did not have any suspects in the murder of Rufino Hernandez. Dallas is a very dangerous city and murders happen almost daily in Dallas County. 

Gun Owners Can't Afford NOT to Support George Zimmerman

A highly decorated police officer who was shot five times last year delivered a harsh message Tuesday to a Wayne Circuit judge who handed down an “insulting” and “lenient” sentence to the convicted 25-year-old felonious thug who attempted to murder the officer during the commission of an armed robbery.

Detroit Police Officer Arthur Matthews, 40, was shot the morning of May 6, 2011, while off-duty at a Marathon gas station on Michigan Avenue and 11th Street.

Officer Matthews was at the gas station refueling his car when Proctor approached him and demanded, “Give me all your (expletive),” Matthews said.  “I see he’s got a gun in his hand,” said Matthews, recounting the shooting prior to the sentencing. “As he’s walking toward me, he racks the gun. My first instinct was to shoot him, but he’s got his gun out already and I can’t.

“He puts his gun to my temple and tells me he wants my money. I’m thinking I’m going to try to throw the money between his legs and make him turn around; then I’ll shoot him. But he gets nervous and says, ‘Don’t move. If you grab my gun I’ll shoot you in the face.’”

Matthews said he identified himself as a police officer. “I said, ‘What are you doing? I’m the police.’ But he started shooting. I knew I was hit but I felt no pain.”

Although Matthews said Proctor had the gun aimed at his temple, he was able to wrest it lower, so when Proctor pulled the trigger, he shot the officer five times in the legs and side. His left femur was shattered. A sixth bullet struck Matthews’ service pistol in its holster.

“I don’t know if his gun jammed or if he ran out of bullets, but he stopped shooting. I told him ‘You just shot the police.’ Then I punched him in his face. He starts yelling, and trying to regain control of the gun. Then he tried to run away. I don’t know if he was going to shoot me again, so I pulled out my gun and shot him three times.”

While that gunfight raged, Matthews said he believes friends of Proctor opened fire on the officer. “I was hiding behind a street pole,” Matthews said.

Matthews said he received death threats, and that police put a detail outside his east-side home for several weeks.

“I just can’t figure how someone who tries to kill a police officer can be walking the streets in a few years,” he said. “This is our criminal justice system.”

I can’t figure out how somebody who tries to rob and kill ANY citizen will EVER be walking the streets again.  This senario is repeated everyday in America.  We haven’t heard from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the liberal fascist main stream media, demanding justice in this case. Both Proctor and Matthews are African Americans.  There’s no money to be made on black on black crime by Jackson and Sharpton so they took a pass on taking a stand for justice.

The shooter, Christopher Proctor, pleaded guilty to two counts of assault with intent to commit murder, which each carry up to a life sentence. But Wayne Circuit Judge Ulysses Boykin on Tuesday sentenced Proctor to only 14-25 years in prison.

Matthews, who still uses a cane as a result of his injuries from the shooting incident, stood up in the courtroom and called the judge’s sentence “insulting.” The patrolman, based in the department’s northeastern district, was named last week by the Detroit Police Officers Association as one of several Officers of the Year.

“There’s a sea of emotions I’ve had since this happened,” said Matthews, who has been on disability since the shooting. “The (sentence) has been whittled down to 14 years. I find that very insulting. That’s kid gloves, not attempted murder.

“This is the message you send to police officers when we try to do our jobs?” Matthews asked Boykin. “I don’t expect any remorse from the defendant, but I did expect justice from this court.”

Boykin explained that he came to his sentencing decision after receiving “numerous letters from Mr. Proctor’s family.”  Proctor’s mother said her son is “a wonderful person, a hard worker and a great father.”  “He’s innocent, but he pleaded guilty because he knew nobody would take his word over a police officer,” she said.

Proctor had previously been acquitted on another homicide and shooting of two other bystanders and  while on probation of felony narcotics charges.

Under Michigan law: “Any person who shall assault another with intent to commit the crime of murder, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life or any number of years.”

Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor Thomas Trzcinski said his office didn’t cut a deal with Proctor. “There was no plea deal; (Proctor) just pleaded guilty to what we charged him with,” Trzcinski said.

Proctor had a gun. But it’s ludicrious to think a person needs a weapon to kill you. 

What would you do if a strong seventeen year old African American attacks you and starts hitting you in the face with his fists and you aren’t black?  Are you going to fight back?  Will you use deadly force as a last resort to protect your life no matter the race of the attacker?

What would you do if the assailant’s blows knocked you to the ground and you couldn’t get up?  What would you do if after the attacker got on top of you and started banging the back of your head it into the pavement as hard as he could, you where unable to physically stop him?  What would you do if you called for help and nobody came to your aid?  What would you do if you were not strong enough to physically stop the attack and the next blow could kill you or knock you unconscious?  Are you going to die or legally defend yourself using deadly force as a last resort if you are armed?

I know what I’m going to do.  And there is a good chance an over zealous, politically motivated prosecutor will charge me with murder without presenting the case to a Grand Jury (which is unconstitutional but happens in most states). If Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton and the media promote mob justice by playing the race card, anyone of us could be in the same situation as George Zimmerman.  If anyone of us uses deadly force to legally defend ourselves from death or serious bodily injury we will need help to finance our legal defense and post constitutionally excessive million dollar bonds. Innocent until proved guilty does not apply when the media mob tries your case in the court of Al Sharpton on MSNBC.

How can gun owners afford NOT to contribute to the George Zimmerman legal defense fund?   Please help.  If everyone who reads this post sends in just $5, it will be a significant contribution and make a difference. This is an opportunity for every gun owner in America to fight injustice while defending the second amendment civil rights of all Americans.

Bloomberg Suspends Constitution to Grab Guns in New York City

NYPD routinely uses “stop-and-frisk” practices to seize to search for and seize firearms.  These illegal searches result in arrests about 10 percent of the time.  Some of the arrests don’t result in seizures of guns or drugs or other evidence of a crime.  Many of the these arrests are for outstanding warrants and “disorderly conduct” which occurs after the stop.

Being an American means having certain rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That’s what it has always meant, and that’s what it will continue to mean in the troubled times before us. Most of us take these guaranteed rights and liberties for granted. Most of us live comfortable lives that never bring us in conflict with the criminal justice system. But in many ways, that’s a bad thing, for if you had seen the system as I did, you would never take your guaranteed rights for granted again.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, particularly when it comes to the American criminal justice system. Nowhere else does the state have greater raw power over an individual’s life, liberty, and property. And nowhere else are our constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms under such a relentless, subtle, and ultimately devastating attack.

NYPD’s own reports on its stop-and-frisk activity indicate that the police are stopping hundreds of thousands of law abiding New Yorkers every year to search for guns and drugs. But these stops are a violation of citizens Fourth Amendment rights because the Terry Stop “reasonable suspicion” is based solely on race. The vast majority of those stopped and frisked are black and Latino.

In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the United States Supreme Court  held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.” (392 U.S. 1, at 30.)

The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, “the exclusionary rule has its limitations.” The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

This is exactly what Gun Grabber Mayor Bloomberg is having NYPD illegally do.  These searches are clear violations of the Fourth Amendment and do not qualify as legal Terry Stops.  NYPD is intentionally violating the Fourth Amendment.  NYPD officer’s suspicions are wrong 90% of the time.  Obviously if they’re wrong 9 out of 10 times,  the officers don’t have reasonable suspicion.

The Supreme Court assessed the reasonableness of the police activity here by comparing it to activity that would ordinarily require a warrant. “… in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulatable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion.” In a situation where the police obtained a warrant, they would have brought these facts and inferences to the attention of a judicial officer before embarking on the actions in question. Post hoc judicial review of police activity is equally facilitated by these facts and inferences.

The Court also emphasized that the standard courts should employ is an objective one. “Would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate?” Lesser evidence would mean that the Court would tolerate invasions on the privacy of citizens supported by mere hunches—a result the Court would not tolerate. Moreover,

And simple “ ‘good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.’ … If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be ‘secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ only in the discretion of the police.” — quoting Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)

An analysis by the NYCLU revealed that innocent New Yorkers have been subjected to police stops and street interrogations more than 4 million times since 2004.  Nearly nine out of 10 stopped-and-frisked New Yorkers have been innocent citizens, according to the NYPD’s own reports:

• In 2002, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 97,296 times.
  80,176 were totally innocent (82 percent).
• In 2003, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 160,851 times.
  140,442 were totally innocent (87 percent).
  77,704 were black (54 percent).
  44,581 were Latino (31 percent).
  17,623 were white (12 percent).
  83,499 were aged 14-24 (55 percent).
• In 2004, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 313,523 times.
  278,933 were totally innocent (89 percent).
  155,033 were black (55 percent).
  89,937 were Latino (32 percent).
  28,913 were white (10 percent).
  152,196 were aged 14-24 (52 percent).
• In 2005, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 398,191 times.
  352,348 were totally innocent (89 percent).
  196,570 were black (54 percent).
  115,088 were Latino (32 percent).
  40,713 were white (11 percent).
  189,854 were aged 14-24 (51 percent).
• In 2006, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 506,491 times.
  457,163 were totally innocent (90 percent).
  267,468 were black (55 percent).
  147,862 were Latino (31 percent).
  53,500 were white (11 percent).
  247,691 were aged 14-24 (50 percent).
• In 2007, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 472,096 times.
  410,936 were totally innocent (87 percent).
  243,766 were black (54 percent).
  141,868 were Latino (31 percent).
  52,887 were white (12 percent).
  223,783 were aged 14-24 (48 percent).
• In 2008, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 540,302 times.
  474,387 were totally innocent (88 percent).
  275,588 were black (53 percent).
  168,475 were Latino (32 percent).
  57,650 were white (11 percent).
  263,408 were aged 14-24 (49 percent).
• In 2009, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 581,168 times.
  510,742 were totally innocent (88 percent).
  310,611 were black (55 percent).
  180,055 were Latino (32 percent).
  53,601 were white (10 percent).
  289,602 were aged 14-24 (50 percent).
• In 2010, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 601,285 times.
  518,849 were totally innocent (86 percent).
  315,083 were black (54 percent).
  189,326 were Latino (33 percent).
  54,810 were white (9 percent).
  295,902 were aged 14-24 (49 percent).
• In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times.
  605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent).
  350,743 were black (53 percent).
  223,740 were Latino (34 percent).
  61,805 were white (9 percent).
  341,581 were aged 14-24 (51 percent).
• In the first three months of 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 203,500 times
  181,457 were totally innocent (89 percent).
  108,097 were black (54 percent).
  69,043 were Latino (33 percent).
  18,387 were white (9 percent).

Police Under No Obligation to Protect You

I’ve written many times that law enforcement officers carry guns to protect themselves not you.  Some people think I’m kidding. I assure you that I am not.

In fact, “It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection.”

Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is “You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980’s when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole.”

Take personal responsibility for protecting yourself and/or your family by getting educated and trained and  legally arm yourself.  Legally arming yourself is a civic responsibility. Otherwise we risk losing our civil right to keep and bear arms.  Law abiding citizens who obtain concealed carry licenses protect themselves and their Constitutional rights. Guns save lives. When seconds matter, cops are minutes away.

Who has a duty to protect a person from harm? Parents have a duty to protect their children, but other than that, the short answer is nobody has that duty.

The ultimate responsibility for your protection is self protection, and you should take care to undertake that responsibility if you value your life and that of your loved ones.

Sources:

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales’ husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales’ family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one’s individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).

3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).

(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).

(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).“…a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen…” -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) “What makes the City’s position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her.” Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

(8) “Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public.”
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)