Allegiance and the Duty to Protect Updated

The interwebs are all abuzz about the murderer Dorner. There are some really fascinating discussions concerning the manhunt, why he flipped out, and what the ramifications are. Still others wonder about his true motives.

Some, it seems, think the lefties are rooting for him because of the alleged entrenched racism in the L.A. department. Others worry that given the anti-police sentiment in certain quarters he’ll find sympathizers who might aid him. Imagine if there were 10 people like him out there. They could bankrupt the state with all the police overtime. When Dorner burned his truck in the mountains near Big Bear it sent a frenzy of police activity there to search 200 cabins with SWAT teams and a search of the mountainside to no avail. Dorner knows these guys are burning through overtime looking for him. They will have to rest- at the very least work in shifts.

What is known is he has the Los Angeles police on their heals. Knowing their tactics, techniques, and procedures as well as all their unmarked cars, and in some instances home phone numbers has Dorner in their OODA Loop.

That, and the growing anti-police sentiment in L.A. as more and more innocent people are shot at has the public asking why police get better protection from one assailant then the general public. Specifically, why do some 40 police officers get round the clock protection?

Beck said Los Angeles police have launched more than 40 security details to protect law enforcement personnel and others they believe are Dorner’s targets, based on the Internet posting.

The police have enough problems with rogue cops. This thing doesn’t need to escalate. It needs to end. Before uncomfortable questions get asked, like does the protection of security details for 40 police officers create a new class of citizen? How can the state promulgate laws to disarm the public- that they have no duty to protect-while affording their co-workers around the clock security? Who is paying for that?

The public cannot get that sort of protection, why do the police? They have firearms for self protection. If a member of the public feels threatened, they have a waiting period before they can pick up a weapon. Then it may be too late.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1981 the police are not obligated to protect citizens.  The police in L.A. can muster all the firepower they want, while you and I will be disarmed.

The duty of the [State] towards its subjects is to govern and protect. The reciprocal duty of the subject towards the Crown is that of allegiance.

As you can see from the Supreme Court Warren decision  in 1981 and going as far back as Calvin’s Case where protection is withheld by the sovereign no duty can be required.

Thus, when the agents of the government, the police, protect themselves before they protect you, they have created a new class of citizen, one that is more important than yours.

 Yikes! This is how people like D.B.Cooper and Bonny & Clyde become legends in their own minds.

One comment

  1. What disturbs me the most about the most recent hysterical cries for more and stricter gun control is the accompanying insistence that only the police and military should be allowed to possess firearms. The pitfalls of such simplistic thinking seems obvious to me.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

The Teri O'Brien Show

%d bloggers like this: