In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Disarmed ? Defenseless ? Dead: It's the Law
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Disarmed - Defenseless - Dead: It's the Law
By Richard W. Stevens
Editor, The Bill of Rights Sentinel
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
You be the judge. Does it make any sense for the government to:
(1) issue a court order forbidding a woman's ex husband from having or being near firearms,
(2) take no significant action concerning the ex-husband's frequent death threats against the woman,
(3) require the woman to appear in court in an alimony/child support case against her ex-husband,
(4) forbid the woman from possessing defensive sidearms inside the courthouse building,
(5) fail to erect metal detectors or to check the ex-husband for firearms at the courthouse,
(6) post no warnings about the lack of security in the courthouse,
(7) fail to offer any added protection for the woman at the courthouse, and then
(8) disclaim any responsibility for setting up the conditions that enabled the ex-husband to shoot the defenseless woman in cold blood, right in front of their young daughter, inside the courthouse?
Isn't it immoral or crazy to position an unarmed woman in a confined space with a man who has repeatedly and credibly threatened to kill her, and then fail to either check the man for weapons or to offer her added protection? The California Supreme Court's recent unanimous decision in Zelig v.County of Los Angeles says it's legally just fine. The Zelig Court proclaimed loudly and clearly:
"It is well established that public entities generally are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime."
"The public entities and their policymaking officers and employees are immune from liability for any failure on their part to provide sufficient police services."
No Duty, No Protection
Lawyers for the dead woman's estate argued strongly that the government owed legal duties and should be liable. The defendant county government had created a dangerous situation by compelling the woman to attend the courthouse, by forbidding the woman from carrying a defensive sidearm, and by failing to warn her that she was practically undefended there. The police had tape recordings and documents proving the ex-husband had issued the death threats, but they failed to offer extra protection for her. The superior court itself knew the ex-husband posed such danger that it formally ordered him to disarm himself, but the courthouse had no metal detectors and did not check the ex-husband for weapons.
The California Supreme Court addressed each of these arguments and rejected them all. The Second Amendment apparently wasn't asserted. Showing no sorrow or regret, the Zelig Court noted how "gun control" laws had disarmed the victim: "the state, by enacting a general statute prohibiting possession of a firearm in any courthouse, curtailed her ability to arm herself in self-defense." The woman had no civil right to self-defense, however.
Bottom line: the government can disarm you, knowingly put you in danger without even a warning, refuse and fail to protect you from the known danger ... and get off scot-free when the danger harms or kills you.
Readers of Dial 911 and Die: The Shocking Truth About the Police Protection Myth would have fully expected the Zelig ruling to come down as it did. Citing laws and cases from every state, the book shows that the government generally owes no legal duty to protect citizens, and the courts routinely insulate the government from liability.
Worthless Laws
The Zelig case illustrates how "gun control" ideas endanger lives:
Fifteen day waiting period on sidearm purchases -- worthless.
Law forbidding civilians to possess firearms in courthouse -- only stopped the victim, not the perpetrator.
Court order that forbade ex-husband from possessing firearms -- didn't stop him when he wanted to kill.
Sign proclaiming law against civilian possession of firearms in courthouses -- advertised where defenseless victims could be found.
Law that immunizes government entities and officials if they fail to protect threatened citizens - means government agents have less incentive to protect victims.
Concealed carry permit system that registers gun owners with the government -- worthless in courthouses that forbid all civilian firearms possession.
Zelig is only the latest court case proving that governments don't accept the responsibility for the harm caused by "gun control" laws that disarm the victims and empower the killers. Laws and court decisions in almost all states take the same route.
You can seize the opportunity to prove the dangerous evil of "gun control" ideas in all states by getting copies of Dial 911 and Die. For nearly every state and territory, there is a chapter in Dial 911 and Die that shows how the government makes no promise to protect individual citizens from criminal attack, even when the attacker is known and the threats are imminent. The anti-gunners cannot answer this argument ... it's the law... and it makes civilian disarmament policies look both foolish and deadly.
Call JPFO at (800) 869-1884 or click on http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm. Order Dial 911 and Die - only $11.95 postage paid (U.S. only).
Thank these sponsors for this column:
Fred's -- Military M-14 Stocks & Accessories
Fulton Armory -- Precision M1 Garand, M14, M1 Carbine & AR15 Weapon Systems
Hodgdon Powder Company, Inc.
S.W.A.T. Magazine -- To subscribe, call: (800) 673-4595
Paladin Press - For a catalog, call: (800) 392-2400
JPFO members & supporters
Copyright c 2002, by Aaron Zelman. Permission is granted to reproduce this article in full, provided that JPFO contact information, website and phone number are included.
http://www.jpfo.org/commonsense14.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By Richard W. Stevens
Editor, The Bill of Rights Sentinel
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
You be the judge. Does it make any sense for the government to:
(1) issue a court order forbidding a woman's ex husband from having or being near firearms,
(2) take no significant action concerning the ex-husband's frequent death threats against the woman,
(3) require the woman to appear in court in an alimony/child support case against her ex-husband,
(4) forbid the woman from possessing defensive sidearms inside the courthouse building,
(5) fail to erect metal detectors or to check the ex-husband for firearms at the courthouse,
(6) post no warnings about the lack of security in the courthouse,
(7) fail to offer any added protection for the woman at the courthouse, and then
(8) disclaim any responsibility for setting up the conditions that enabled the ex-husband to shoot the defenseless woman in cold blood, right in front of their young daughter, inside the courthouse?
Isn't it immoral or crazy to position an unarmed woman in a confined space with a man who has repeatedly and credibly threatened to kill her, and then fail to either check the man for weapons or to offer her added protection? The California Supreme Court's recent unanimous decision in Zelig v.County of Los Angeles says it's legally just fine. The Zelig Court proclaimed loudly and clearly:
"It is well established that public entities generally are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime."
"The public entities and their policymaking officers and employees are immune from liability for any failure on their part to provide sufficient police services."
No Duty, No Protection
Lawyers for the dead woman's estate argued strongly that the government owed legal duties and should be liable. The defendant county government had created a dangerous situation by compelling the woman to attend the courthouse, by forbidding the woman from carrying a defensive sidearm, and by failing to warn her that she was practically undefended there. The police had tape recordings and documents proving the ex-husband had issued the death threats, but they failed to offer extra protection for her. The superior court itself knew the ex-husband posed such danger that it formally ordered him to disarm himself, but the courthouse had no metal detectors and did not check the ex-husband for weapons.
The California Supreme Court addressed each of these arguments and rejected them all. The Second Amendment apparently wasn't asserted. Showing no sorrow or regret, the Zelig Court noted how "gun control" laws had disarmed the victim: "the state, by enacting a general statute prohibiting possession of a firearm in any courthouse, curtailed her ability to arm herself in self-defense." The woman had no civil right to self-defense, however.
Bottom line: the government can disarm you, knowingly put you in danger without even a warning, refuse and fail to protect you from the known danger ... and get off scot-free when the danger harms or kills you.
Readers of Dial 911 and Die: The Shocking Truth About the Police Protection Myth would have fully expected the Zelig ruling to come down as it did. Citing laws and cases from every state, the book shows that the government generally owes no legal duty to protect citizens, and the courts routinely insulate the government from liability.
Worthless Laws
The Zelig case illustrates how "gun control" ideas endanger lives:
Fifteen day waiting period on sidearm purchases -- worthless.
Law forbidding civilians to possess firearms in courthouse -- only stopped the victim, not the perpetrator.
Court order that forbade ex-husband from possessing firearms -- didn't stop him when he wanted to kill.
Sign proclaiming law against civilian possession of firearms in courthouses -- advertised where defenseless victims could be found.
Law that immunizes government entities and officials if they fail to protect threatened citizens - means government agents have less incentive to protect victims.
Concealed carry permit system that registers gun owners with the government -- worthless in courthouses that forbid all civilian firearms possession.
Zelig is only the latest court case proving that governments don't accept the responsibility for the harm caused by "gun control" laws that disarm the victims and empower the killers. Laws and court decisions in almost all states take the same route.
You can seize the opportunity to prove the dangerous evil of "gun control" ideas in all states by getting copies of Dial 911 and Die. For nearly every state and territory, there is a chapter in Dial 911 and Die that shows how the government makes no promise to protect individual citizens from criminal attack, even when the attacker is known and the threats are imminent. The anti-gunners cannot answer this argument ... it's the law... and it makes civilian disarmament policies look both foolish and deadly.
Call JPFO at (800) 869-1884 or click on http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm. Order Dial 911 and Die - only $11.95 postage paid (U.S. only).
Thank these sponsors for this column:
Fred's -- Military M-14 Stocks & Accessories
Fulton Armory -- Precision M1 Garand, M14, M1 Carbine & AR15 Weapon Systems
Hodgdon Powder Company, Inc.
S.W.A.T. Magazine -- To subscribe, call: (800) 673-4595
Paladin Press - For a catalog, call: (800) 392-2400
JPFO members & supporters
Copyright c 2002, by Aaron Zelman. Permission is granted to reproduce this article in full, provided that JPFO contact information, website and phone number are included.
http://www.jpfo.org/commonsense14.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
What do you do if the unthinkable happens on your next flight? You'd know if you took a class that teaches how to foil drunks and hijackers
Printer-Friendly Version
E-Mail This Story
Find More Stories Like This
Imagine you're sitting in the aisle seat, bored, cranky, and tired. God, you hate to fly. O.K., being in first class makes it better, but a six-hour flight is a six-hour flight. You've talked to the person next to you just enough to be reasonably confident he's not a terrorist, but that has left 5 hours and 55 minutes to kill between London and New York. Three hours into the flight -- when even landing in Greenland isn't a quick option -- you're suddenly jolted from your two-gin-and-tonics-should-I-have-another? stupor by a commotion at the front of the plane.
Story Continues Below Ad
A man has grabbed the flight attendant and is threatening to snap her neck -- and it looks like he means it. In this post-September 11 world, emboldened, angry passengers push their way forward to defend the flight attendant. A burly guy is even rushing from somewhere behind first class toward the front. Thank heaven he looks big and strong -- he'll probably be able to subdue the guy while other people tie him up with the belts and scarves you've been collecting from passengers eager to help however they can.
COMPLETELY FOOLED. Before you know it, however, the big guy has stuck something onto the cockpit door. It's an explosive, he announces. The safety of the entire plane has been endangered. You now realize that in focusing on saving the flight attendant, everyone overlooked the guy who got to the cockpit door. He was able to get there because the disruption was merely a diversionary tactic.
Welcome to a Defensive Travel-Corporate Safety Training Program from Flight Watch America, an outfit composed of business travelers and corporate safety specialists. The goal of the group, which was started in September, 2001, by California businessman Don Detrich, is to provide public education and training to assist in thwarting crime and terrorism. I was invited to participate in a four-hour seminar on Aug. 16 in New York City with some two dozen other media people. It was eye-opening, empowering, and yes, a little scary.
The scenario described above is just one of the various simulations that trainers Michael Maudlin and wife Dana Maudlin orchestrate over approximately 90 minutes that allow for audience participation. They create situations ranging from a drunk passenger harassing others to incidences of air rage -- which they claim is on the rise since September 11 -- to terrorist threats.
LAST LINE OF DEFENSE. Passengers will always outnumber the "bad guys," they point out, and alert, trained travelers could be not only the last line of defense in any of the above situations but, very possibly, the critical one. Alleged shoe bomber Richard Reid, for one, was subdued by fellow passengers on Dec. 22. If a threatening situation arose, they ask, who wouldn't be willing to do something? But who would know just what's required?
The organizers believe that fear can either cause people to fall to pieces -- or it can help them focus on appropriate action. They also contend that those who have been educated and exposed to different scenarios -- albeit simulated ones -- are more likely to choose an appropriate course.
The Maudlins are both former police officers -- and Dana is now a flight attendant. They emphasize that passengers should act only under the instructions of uniformed flight crew to assist them or act only if the flight crew is incapacitated.
FLYING WHILE INTOXICATED. After an hour talk peppered with statistics about flight safety, definitions of air rage, examples and anecdotes, as well as an explanation of the WATCH technique and how to use it (see below), Michael and Dana move us to a section of the room where chairs are set up to simulate a flight cabin.
Michael will play a passenger, Dana a flight attendant. At various points, Michael will stop the action, giving the 25 or so attendees a chance to talk about what's going on. I choose an aisle seat near the front of the plane, just as I do on real flights whenever I can.
The Maudlins start us off slowly, with Michael playing an obnoxious passenger whose constant drinking makes him the kind of jerk you get as far away from as possible in a bar -- not an option on a crowded flight. In the first "skit" he's a coach passenger who insists on sitting in first class, with Dana trying to encourage him to go to his own seat.
Finally, he snaps, and throws a drink at the attendant. Some people yell at him. Others rise from their seats to go toward him. Others just sit in shock.
STRONG MESSAGE. Michael stops the scenario and asks what everyone thinks would be appropriate action at this point. Answers include trying to reason with the bellicose traveler to doing nothing, to attempting to subdue the guy.
We're told talking to the man might only exacerbate the situation, which hasn't escalated to the point where physical intervention -- attempting to tackle or grab the passenger -- would be warranted. An effective alternative would be for people to stand up -- and do nothing. The mere sign of a group acting in concert communicates a surprisingly strong message, Michael says.
Michael and Dana go through the act again, and this time, when he hurls his drink, about 10 of us stand up. Even I can sense the difference between a silent but physically cohesive group and the disorganized, noisy mob we were before.
PROTECT THE COCKPIT. The scenarios escalate in intensity, culminating with the one I first described. In each case, action is stopped, we "passengers" offer our thoughts and reactions, and the Maudlins give us feedback. Michael makes the point that the cockpit is a terrorist's Holy Grail. Sure, he can blow up a plane if he has a bomb, but if he wants to do serious damage on the ground, he needs control of the plane.
Passengers should do everything they can to prevent the cockpit from being breached. In the eyes of most terrorists (i.e. those not trained to fly), everyone on the plane is expendable, except for the pilot.
We also got some advice on what to do in other situations: crashes, mechanical failure, a sick passenger, how to evacuate, how to best protect yourself physically. But the lecture parts of the seminar weren't nearly as effective as the simulations.
LESSON LEARNED. You could tell me 20 times to beware of someone making a move toward the cockpit while an accomplice is causing a diversion, but nothing beats seeing it happen, even as a simulation, to sear the lesson into one's memory. From now on, I'll look with more than a bit of suspicion at anyone going to the bathroom or asking for a second drink during a flight.
Is a seminar like this borne of paranoia? Even a somewhat skeptical New Yorker like myself might have thought so a year ago. Not now. Sure, statistics and common sense indicate that a crash or mechanical failure is more likely than a terrorist situation, but face it -- what are you really scared about?
God forbid I should ever be called upon to do anything more than stand up and look threatening when an obnoxious drunk gets out of line on a flight. But if I have to do more, I now have the knowledge and preparation to at least try.
The WATCH List
Who: Who and what are around you, at the airport and on the plane.
Assess: Assess any antisocial behavior that you see.
Tools and Timing What tools do I have with me to subdue an attacker? What tools are within reach?
Create a solution Communication, checklist for neutralization of the threat, and consider the consequences of your actions.
Help Ask a flight attendant if you can be of assistance, and consider whether any action you're contemplating will help or hinder.
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/aug2002/sb20020828_5064.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878