The Minnesota state legislatureis debating a measure that would amplify that state’s “Castle Doctrine” byrecognizing that innocent people have no “duty to retreat” in the face ofcriminal aggression.
This would expand existing legal protection for the defensive use oflethal force against homeinvaders -- including, where appropriate, the government-employed variety. That prospect is causing the local tax eaters’ guild to irrigatetheir skivvies.
Dennis Flaherty, executivedirector of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, complains thatenactment of the measure “could result in dangerous situations for policeofficers, who regularly enter homes without permission,” reports Twin Cities ABCaffiliate KSTP. “We’re fearful that people will react and shoot and ourofficers could be mistaken for someone that they believe is trying tojeopardize their safety,” simpers Flaherty. In encounters of the kindFlaherty describes, it would be more accurate to say that citizens would recognize police officers as people who “jeopardizetheir safety.”
In aninterview with Minnesota Public Radio, Flaherty stated the matter even morecandidly: “Officersafety is the primary concern that we have about this bill…. [E]very day inthe state of Minnesota, we have peace officers that are entering on somebody’sproperty – often times by stealth so that we have the element of surprise. Weare extremely fearful that with this shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentalitythat this bill establishes, that we will have officers that will not only be inharm’s way, but in fact will be injured or perhaps killed.”
The tacit subtext of Flaherty’s complaint is the assumption that in everyencounter between citizens and police, officer safety is the paramount concern,and citizen safety is of negligible importance. This is why, in thewords of the Rochester Post-Bulletin,“prosecutors, police chiefs and sheriffs across the state are lining up” tooppose the measure.
When intruders seek to enter ahome without permission, observed the Post-Bulletin,“those on the other side of the door don’t always know that it’s a policeofficer who is entering their residence. They might have been asleep, awakeningonly when they hear the sounds of a door being kicked in or footsteps on thestairs. Their judgment and awareness might be impaired by drugs, alcohol,mental illness or the belief that an abusive ex-boyfriend or rival gang membersmany have arrived with bad intentions.”
 |
| Minneapolis SWAT operator gets a medal for raiding the wrong house. |
A likelier scenario involves theeven deadlier possibility that the door has been forced open by state-licensedmarauders who can kill anyone within the dwelling with impunity.
So theappropriate remedy would be to abolish paramilitary police raids, correct? Notaccording to the Post-Bulletin’seditorial collective: “We’re with the law enforcement officers on this one….This [expanded Castle Act] would give people the impression that when theirfront doorknob is rattled in the middle of the night, they have free license toshoot first and ask questions later. That’s not a good thing.”
A license of that kind is “not a good thing” – foranyone other than fully accredited members of the state’s punitive priesthood,of course. Whenever one of the Regime’s costumed enforcers kills a mereMundane, he can usually avoid criminal prosecution simply by claiming that he “feltthreatened” by something – a furtive gesture, a momentary refusal to cooperate,a dirty look, or something else detectable only through the mysticalmind-reading facility that comes with a “peace officer” license and a piece ofgovernment-issued costume jewelry.
Critics of the CastleDoctrine bill complain that it is unnecessary, since Minnesota state statutesalready recognize that a homeowner defending his property against invaders –other than the government-employed variety – has no duty to retreat. The billwould expand legal recognition of that right to include any circumstance inwhich an individual’s life is threatened – and this, according to critics,would have disastrous consequences.
“There are just way too manysituations that could potentially escalate to the point of using deadly force[in public] where if someone would just walk away, the deadly force could havebeen avoided,” complainsFergus Falls Police Chief Kile Bergen. “That’s our job; we’re supposed togo in and apprehend these people. You as a citizen, that’s not yourresponsibility. It might be to protect yourself, but it’s not your job to ridthe world of dangerous people.”
Chief Bergen is particularlyoffended by the fact that the bill would establish a “reasonable individual”test for the use of deadly force. Although Bergen whines that this would givecitizens “more authority than a police officer has to use deadly force,” thatprovision would actually apply a standard similar to as the “reasonableofficer” test. The measure also criminalizes the act of disarmingcitizens unless this is done pursuant to a lawful arrest -- just as the state’s “resistingand obstructing” statute can be used to prosecute a citizen who disarms apolice officer.
If Chief Bergen actually thinkshis job has something to do with “rid[ding] the world of dangerouspeople,” he’s not only unqualified to be a peace officer, he’s a tragicallydeluded soul who should be kept away from sharp objects. More telling still ishis perception that everyday life is cluttered withsituations pregnant with potential gunplay.
That’s how police are trained toperceive the world: They see the public as an undifferentiated mass of menace,an all-encompassing threat to that most important of all human considerations, “officersafety.” This is why they are prepared to employ potentially lethal force atthe first sign of non-cooperation, and escalate the encounter until the Mundaneeither submits or is killed. They are prepared to shoot first in the sereneconfidence that the questions asked later will be intended to exonerate theofficer.
Bergen’s objections – which arequite representative of the police union’s opposition to enhanced Castle Doctrine protections – assume thatcitizens who take responsibility for protecting themselves will start thinkingand behaving like cops. No, this isn’t quite accurate: Even in the most extravagantworst-case scenario, the expanded Castle Law wouldn’t be taken as a generallicense for citizens to conduct home invasion raids, like the December 2007police assault on the home of Minneapolis resident Vang Khang.
It was after the exchange ofgunfire that the couple learned the invaders were the local SWAT team, whichhad been sent to the wrong address.
The City apologized for theunjustified raid – and thenpresented eight SWAT officers with commendations for “perform[ing] very bravelyunder gunfire.”
Accordingto Police Chief Tim Dolan, “the officers didn’t make any mistakes.” This would mean that they intended to raid the wrong house and expose innocent children to gunfire.
Apparently, that’s the stuff ofwhich contemporary heroism is made.
"The easy decision wouldhave been to retreat under covering fire,” Dolan declared. “The team did nottake the easy way out. This is a perfect example of a situation that could havegone horribly wrong, but did not because of the professionalism with which itwas handled."
How often do employees ofprivately owned businesses receive professional commendations after completelymessing up? Are awards of that sort routinely handed out to private employeeswhose incompetence endangers innocent lives, and results in extensive damage toprivate property?
More to the point: Would a private security company hand out bonuses and promotions to employees who terrorized an innocent family and perforated their home with automatic weapons fire? Of course not: Only employees of the State’s coercion cartelare permitted to behave that way.
Chief Dolan, not surprisingly, opposesthe “Castle Doctrine.” This is because “lessening the burden” on citizens whoconfront intruders would mean they might be “more willing to take shots at thepeople who are behind that door” – just as Vang Khang did the night Dolan’sstormtroopers invaded his home without a warrant or just cause.
The Castle Doctrine “isn’t goodfor public safety,” insists Dolan, who – like most of those in his profession –appears to believe that the police are the only part of the population worth protecting.
Obiter dicta
On February 19, I had the singular honor to introduce Dr. Ron Paul at a campaign event in Boise:
Thanks so much for helping to keep Pro Libertate online!
Be sure to check out Republic magazine, and sign up for a free digital subscription.
Dum spiro, pugno!
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar