Bloomberg tells cops to go on strike for expanded gun-control laws

posted at 12:01 pm on July 24, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Every once in a while, politicians provide examples of cluelessness so compelling that it’s incumbent on us to point it out. Last night, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg went on CNN’s Piers Morgan show to discuss the need for expanded gun control in the wake of the massacre in Aurora, Colorado last week. Bloomberg suggested that police across the country go on strike to demand greater gun control legislation (via NewsAlert):

“I don’t understand why police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say we’re going to go on strike, we’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe,’’ he told CNN’s Piers Morgan.

“Police officers want to go home to their families. And we’re doing everything we can to make their job more difficult, but more importantly, more dangerous, by leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them and letting people who have those guns buy things like armor piercing bullets.’’

Where to start with this nonsensical idea?  First, we have laws in most jurisdictions that prevent first responders such as police and fire agencies from going on strike at all, because of the public safety consequences.  Bloomberg is literally calling for anarchy in the streets as a way to extort unconstitutional infringements on liberty — by the police.

Perhaps Bloomberg missed a couple of civics lessons in school (which would explain more than a few of his initiatives), but police don’t get to write their own laws and impose them by force on the populace.  Neither do they get to decide whether and when they will enforce the law or let criminals run rampant in order to terrorize our communities into complying with their idea of what the law  should be.  In America, the people create the law, and the police uphold and enforce it.  If individual police officers don’t like the law, they can work through the democratic process to change those laws, or they can find another line of work.

Finally, though, Bloomberg’s proposal would only reinforce the truth that citizens have to defend themselves from crime.  Only in rare cases do police directly “protect” a citizen or keep a crime from occurring.  They respond to crimes in progress or crimes already committed in order to investigate and arrest those suspected of committing crimes.  One key reason for the Second Amendment is to prevent the need for the kind of police state necessary to protect people who refuse to defend themselves properly.  The founders understood that the local constabulary could hardly be expected to prevent thugs, ruffians, thieves, and murderers from committing crimes in the very moment, and knew that an armed citizen would at least have the ability to defend himself.  If police around the nation walked out on strike, that truth would suddenly become acutely apparent — and people would demand access to firearms to properly defend themselves, and not just during the strike, either.

We’ve seen a lot of foolish commentary in the wake of the Aurora shooting, but this may be the most irresponsible yet — and from an official in high office, no less.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Another self-loathing hypocritical fascist. Man I really hate this guy.

Buttercup on July 24, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Has anyone told Bloomberg about the 1975 Albuquerque police strike? Crime rates went down.

PersonFromPorlock on July 24, 2012 at 3:01 PM

That’s because the criminals were off the streets.

Dante on July 24, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Holmes was obviously protesting the new healthcare law — Bloomberg

John the Libertarian on July 24, 2012 at 4:11 PM

This is absolutely, positively SUBVERSIVE!

esnap on July 24, 2012 at 4:17 PM

We’ve seen a lot of foolish commentary in the wake of the Aurora shooting, but this may be the most irresponsible yet — and from an official in high office, no less.

Obama and Bloomy in the Choom Gang together….

StompUDead on July 24, 2012 at 4:18 PM

We’ve seen a lot of foolish commentary in the wake of the Aurora shooting, but this may be the most irresponsible yet —

I’m curious why you consider this to be irresponsible, and why it matters that it’s from someone “in high office”?

Dante on July 24, 2012 at 4:30 PM

How about he gives up his body guards and then talks about gun control? Oh wait, he might have to actually learn how to defend himself. America has to stop listening to this moron. Of course since he was on CNN only 4 people in America saw the interview.

RZuendt on July 24, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Depends on what kind of slingshot :-) Its NY state, after all…

riddick on July 24, 2012 at 2:48 PM

I think wrist rocket type sling shots are illegal here in NY.

KW64 on July 24, 2012 at 4:31 PM

UPDATE: New York Magazine’s Dan Amira points out that Bloomberg’s comments may have come close to violating the Taylor Law, which forbids public employees from encouraging strikes.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/bloomberg-taylor-law-strike-police.html

Resist We Much on July 24, 2012 at 4:55 PM

I’m curious why you consider this to be irresponsible

Dante on July 24, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Oh, I don’t know, perhaps it’s because the sitting major of a city is telling the police to go on strike, giving criminals free reign to wreak havoc?

John the Libertarian on July 24, 2012 at 5:09 PM

mayor

John the Libertarian on July 24, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Bloomberg is an unmitigated, out of touch liberal jerk. Unfortunately, he fits right in with the majority in that leftist enclave.

rplat on July 24, 2012 at 5:17 PM

How the hell was this guy ever a republican?

Even Meghan McCain isn’t this dumb.

Alberta_Patriot on July 24, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Law, smaw, what does Bloomberg care about the law? The law’s for the ‘little people’ not the prince. He can pick, choose and consume all the empty calories he wants surrounded by armed protection while telling ‘the peons’, his ‘lessers,’ to wash down their polyunsaturated cake with diet soda and insisting they lie down unarmed on their bedroom floors to wait patiently to be shot by intruders so the police can outline their body in chalk once they arrive 10 minutes too late. Bloomberg’s a scary guy. He’s an east coast city guy too, rich to boot, probably hasn’t ever found his home in a dodgy neighborhood or 40 miles from the nearest police station or ever had to hunt for his supper in a location that wasn’t stocked for tourists or where he wasn’t accompanied by a guide. I’m always looking for a third party. This guy isn’t the guy I want at its helm.

limmo on July 24, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Oh, I don’t know, perhaps it’s because the sitting major of a city is telling the police to go on strike, giving criminals free reign to wreak havoc?

John the Libertarian on July 24, 2012 at 5:09 PM

I have no idea in which world you are a libertarian, but it certainly isn’t this one.

Dante on July 24, 2012 at 5:29 PM

One would think that NY’ers would tire of this phony little tyrant Bloomberg and run his azz out of town.
el Vaquero on July 24, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Don’t know many NYers, do you?

They’re really not that bright. There’s just a whole lot of ‘em. New York City is basically a carnival . It’s not real life.

Cleombrotus on July 24, 2012 at 5:29 PM

I say that all Americans should be required to own a serviceable firearm or pay a fine to cover the costs associated with police crime response for failing to do so.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 5:41 PM

I say that all Americans should be required to own a serviceable firearm or pay a fine to cover the costs associated with police crime response for failing to do so.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Why? The police have no legal obligation to protect you or to even respond to a call. Let’s do away with the police and let the private market handle it.

Dante on July 24, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Your final point was precisely what I thought as I heard this nut bag had said this.

“Bloomberg’s proposal would only reinforce the truth that citizens have to defend themselves from crime”.

Yep, if there are no cops on the beat then we’d all go out and buy more weapons to protect life and property.

Maybe Bloomberg is secretly trying to help us! lol because his idea would actually empower citizens to take a more active role in their own personal security, rather than relying on law enforcement that’s on “strike”.

What a moron.

fatlibertarianinokc on July 24, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Blooberg is coercive totalitarian scum. Nothing less and nothing more.

rayra on July 24, 2012 at 5:49 PM

The police have no legal obligation to protect you or to even respond to a call.

Dante on July 24, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Perhaps that’s true in Bloomer’s NYC, but not where I live.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 5:51 PM

“I don’t understand why police officers across this country don’t stand up

..because you blithering idiot, we are not privileged people in our society. We are just like anyone else until we go to work and clean up YOUR screwups. We have family members, friends and children to have the RIGHT to protect themselves with, yes, F I R E A R M S and you need to shut your trap.

TX-96 on July 24, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Perhaps that’s true in Bloomer’s NYC, but not where I live.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 5:51 PM

It’s true everywhere. Court confirmed. You’re on your own, even as you pay for these union members that have more Second Amendment rights than you.

MadisonConservative on July 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Perhaps that’s true in Bloomer’s NYC, but not where I live.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 5:51 PM

That’s true everywhere, and has even been affirmed by SCOTUS.

Dante on July 24, 2012 at 5:56 PM

The one politician I dislike more then Obama. This moron even makes Pelosi seem sane.

tom2789 on July 24, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Bloomberg rises to the occasion and falls short once again.

chickasaw42 on July 24, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Dante on July 24, 2012 at 5:56 PM

All the more reason to require people to have the means to defend themselves.

And yes, there are many law enforcement functions that would be better done by deputized civilians. Such as enforcement of traffic laws.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 6:02 PM

MadisonConservative on July 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM

They were indeed required to assist. Their failure to do so in this case did not meet the standard of negligence for which the PD was sued.

The court noted that because the police are only under a general duty to provide services to the public at large

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 6:04 PM

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 6:04 PM

That isn’t the only case regarding this matter. There are at least 10 court decisions, some of which were made by SCOTUS.

The police have no duty or obligation to protect you or to respond to a call.

Dante on July 24, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Here’s some gun control I think we can all get behind.

ATF using your tax dollars + Washington bureaucrats = ?

jaime on July 24, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Dante on July 24, 2012 at 6:11 PM

The police have a duty to enforce laws. But you knew that and you’re taking this discussion off topic to avoid talking about Bloomer’s moronic statement.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 6:16 PM

I say that all Americans should be required to own a serviceable firearm or pay a fine to cover the costs associated with police crime response for failing to do so.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Great idea and completely constitutional just don’t call it a fine, it’s a tax.

Buttercup on July 24, 2012 at 6:26 PM

The police have a duty to enforce laws. But you knew that and you’re taking this discussion off topic to avoid talking about Bloomer’s moronic statement.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 6:16 PM

They do not.

I disagree that Bloomberg’s statement is moronic. I am in agreement with him in regards to the police going on strike. I want them off the street. Crime would go down, and our civil liberties wouldn’t be infringed as often. It’s a step in the right direction.

Dante on July 24, 2012 at 6:29 PM

I am in agreement with him in regards to the police going on strike. I want them off the street. Crime would go down, and our civil liberties wouldn’t be infringed as often. It’s a step in the right direction.

Dante on July 24, 2012 at 6:29 PM

If police were on strike and off the street, crime would go down? It takes a loony lefty to believe so. I agree our civil liberties would be infringed less often without cops around to infringe on them, but that’s not a very good trade off in my book.

Give me guns and give me cops, I say.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 6:38 PM

If police were on strike and off the street, crime would go down? It takes a loony lefty to believe so. I agree our civil liberties would be infringed less often without cops around to infringe on them, but that’s not a very good trade off in my book.

Give me guns and give me cops, I say.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Yes, crime would go down. You’re removing a large criminal element from the street.

But all of your posts have been proven wrong, and instead of sitting back and mulling over these strange, challenging facts and reexamining your think, you resort to name calling.

Dante on July 24, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Yes, crime would go down. You’re removing a large criminal element from the street.

Cops are a “large criminal element?” Fascinating.

But all of your posts have been proven wrong, and instead of sitting back and mulling over these strange, challenging facts and reexamining your think, you resort to name calling.

Dante on July 24, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Sorry. You can pat yourself on the back, but that doesn’t make you right. You see, they’re called “law enforcement officers” for a reason. You may want to call them a “criminal element” or “donut eating officers” but that’s your hang up.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 6:50 PM

If police were on strike and off the street, crime would go down? It takes a loony lefty to believe so.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Wrong again. You’re doing badly, and I really dislike Dante.

Another illustration of the deterrent effect of civilian handgun ownership is the contrast between the Albuquerque police strike of 1974 and the Liverpool, England police strike of sixty years ago. The unprecedented increase in criminal activity in Liverpool while the strike lasted has been used as a classic example of the need for police services.13 But when Albuquerque police went out on strike, storekeepers openly armed themselves and citizens patrolled their neighborhoods with pistols and shotguns. Not only did major crime not rise – it dropped to lows that Albuquerque had not seen in years.

MadisonConservative on July 24, 2012 at 6:51 PM

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 6:04 PM

And I didn’t respond to this earlier because your selective reading was complete and utter denial. If police are not liable for not providing adequate police services, then the only obligation they have to defend us is moral…and many police officers aren’t.

MadisonConservative on July 24, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Sorry. You can pat yourself on the back, but that doesn’t make you right. You see, they’re called “law enforcement officers” for a reason. You may want to call them a “criminal element” or “donut eating officers” but that’s your hang up.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 6:50 PM

This is the common response when a person who believes in government and believes in the police has their worldview turned upside down. It’s usually accompanied with, “It says to serve and protect” on their logo/badge/whatever.

Dante on July 24, 2012 at 6:53 PM

MadisonConservative on July 24, 2012 at 6:51 PM

+ 100..Excellent post!..:)

Dire Straits on July 24, 2012 at 6:54 PM

If police are not liable for not providing adequate police services, then the only obligation they have to defend us is moral…and many police officers aren’t.

MadisonConservative on July 24, 2012 at 6:53 PM

But police are liable for providing protection. That you could cite some selected circumstances under which they cannot be sued does not change that fact.

And yes, an armed citizenry is a better deterrent to crime than a police force. I have not disputed that.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 6:59 PM

But police are liable for providing protection. That you could cite some selected circumstances under which they cannot be sued does not change that fact.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 6:59 PM

From the link earlier:

The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists.

That’s not “selected circumstances”, and if that’s all you think that case is, you didn’t read the damned thing. This wasn’t a case of a simple robbery. This was assault, rape, and kidnapping. This covers the gamut of the crimes most people want protection from. You’re in serious denial to just keep saying “yes they do”. No. They don’t. Accept that and shift your paradigm to the fact that police not only cannot protect you when someone invades your home, but they have no legal obligation to do so.

MadisonConservative on July 24, 2012 at 7:04 PM

MadisonConservative on July 24, 2012 at 7:04 PM

You’re playing a word game. The bold section clearly refers to the matter of liability for failure to do what is their duty. It is a measure of whether a legal claim can be made against the PD. It is NOT a statement relieving them of or denying that they have the duty to provide protection.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 7:08 PM

The bold section clearly refers to the matter of liability for failure to do what is their duty. It is a measure of whether a legal claim can be made against the PD. It is NOT a statement relieving them of or denying that they have the duty to provide protection.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 7:08 PM

If you can’t sue the cops for failing to do their jobs, what exactly holds them accountable for their jobs?

MadisonConservative on July 24, 2012 at 7:13 PM

MadisonConservative on July 24, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Not much, aside from the ballot box. However, just because a law is unenforceable does not mean that a law is not legal. The same here. Just because we cannot enforce LE’s duty through civil action does not mean that they don’t have such a duty.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Not much, aside from the ballot box.

That’s the point. You can’t do anything but vote, and even here in Wisconsin Walker was afraid to apply the collective bargaining restrictions to police and fire.

However, just because a law is unenforceable does not mean that a law is not legal. The same here. Just because we cannot enforce LE’s duty through civil action does not mean that they don’t have such a duty.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 7:17 PM

If a law cannot be enforced, there’s no point in even calling it a law. You’re relying entirely on lofty notions, rather than demonstrated power(more specifically, lack thereof) to hold government agents accountable. You can tell them they have a duty all they like. You can tell a criminal holding a gun on you that what they’re doing is illegal. You’ll have the same effect in both cases — the choice is up to them, and you are at their mercy.

MadisonConservative on July 24, 2012 at 7:25 PM

MadisonConservative on July 24, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Correct. Two points.

First, personal arms are one’s best defense and we have the right to carry them. On this we can agree.

Second. As a practical matter, LE typically does their duty to their abilities and does offer a measure of protection to those who carry and don’t carry alike. Just because we can’t sue them for failure to carry out their duty does not mean that they generally don’t try to perform it and that there are not political consequences for their failures.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 7:32 PM

First, personal arms are one’s best defense and we have the right to carry them. On this we can agree.

100%.

Second. As a practical matter, LE typically does their duty to their abilities and does offer a measure of protection to those who carry and don’t carry alike. Just because we can’t sue them for failure to carry out their duty does not mean that they generally don’t try to perform it and that there are not political consequences for their failures.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Yes, typically, they do. However, the more I read about encounters with all levels of law enforcement, from cops to SWAT to FBI to ATF to TSA and on…the more cases I find of thugs on power trips with zero regard for the rights of anyone except themselves. Now, I’m not applying this description to all cops, or even a 51% majority. However, as government continues to grow and the agents of that government display more criminal behavior, I’m at the point where I expect no better from your average beat patrolman than I do from your average child-molesting airport security goon.

MadisonConservative on July 24, 2012 at 7:42 PM

MadisonConservative on July 24, 2012 at 6:51 PM

If all police forces disappeared tomorrow not all places would become Albuquerque. It would probably be a mix of Albuquerques and Liverpools.

NotCoach on July 24, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Mayor Bloomin’ idiot wants the police to refuse to even try to defend the citizen until the citizens agree not to defend themselves?

I’ve had three encounters with police while carrying a handgun. 2 at accident scenes and one were I might have been pushing the speed limit a bit. In each case I did as I had been instructed to do and handed the officer my carry permit along with my drivers license. In 2 cases the cops freaked, told me to put my hands on the roof of their car so that they could remove my weapon! and 1 of those I had to remind to give me back my firearm. Like I had done something wrong or threatening. The 3rd guy just shrugged his shoulders and thank me for helping at the accident scene.

All in all I don’t put a lot of faith in the police protecting me.

conservativecaveman on July 24, 2012 at 8:31 PM

You’re playing a word game. The bold section clearly refers to the matter of liability for failure to do what is their duty. It is a measure of whether a legal claim can be made against the PD. It is NOT a statement relieving them of or denying that they have the duty to provide protection.

MJBrutus on July 24, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Again, this is not the only court case. That ruling was from 1981 or so. SCOTUS has since ruled that the police have no duty to protect, even when a court-issued protective order exists.

Learn.

Dante on July 24, 2012 at 9:11 PM

If all police forces disappeared tomorrow not all places would become Albuquerque. It would probably be a mix of Albuquerques and Liverpools.

NotCoach on July 24, 2012 at 8:13 PM

No, but all places would become heaven on earth.

Dante on July 24, 2012 at 9:13 PM

That goes for people like Bloomberg on the far right left and Marxists like Obama on the far left.

FloatingRock on July 24, 2012 at 12:32 PM

fify

Dunedainn on July 24, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Thank God for term limits…oh, wait a second here…?

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 24, 2012 at 10:01 PM

How the hell was this guy ever a republican?

Even Meghan McCain isn’t this dumb.

Alberta_Patriot on July 24, 2012 at 5:18 PM

We got half the GOP Congress like him (at the least), do you really need to ask?

riddick on July 25, 2012 at 1:15 AM

This is the one thing I find tiresome about this otherwise excellent site. The cop hate. Ok folks, first off? Most cops are CONSERVATIVES. Second, most support the 2nd Amendment, and the right of the people to carry. Third, most went into law enforcement to HELP people, not to bully, not because they’re immoral, or thieves.

This article is about BLOOMBERG making a completely moronic statement; one MOST cops disagree with. Which is why you won’t see cops rising up and demanding guns be taken off the street even if it were legal for them to do so.

Some people are pointing to the SCOTUS ruling about cops not being here to protect you. You’re right. Cops are NOT here to protect the individual, but instead to PROTECT SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. Which is why most cops are in favor of people owning and carrying firearms; they see the after effects of crime FAR better then YOU do sitting in your comfy computer chair talking about matters you have no clue in while patting yourselves on your backs about how tough you are for ‘sticking it to the man’. Sorry, I digress. But honestly? Some of you should be posting on D-Kos or Huff-Po, your comments belong there. Anyways, a society is a group of people living under LAWS. If there are no laws, there is no society. Many of the laws you you complain about Cops don’t like either, but guess what? They were hired to enforce the laws; ALL of them, not just the ones they like. Don’t like a law? Lobby your congressman to change it and hate the moron who wrote it, as well as the morons who voted it into law, and the moron who signed it. NONE OF WHOM were police officers.

wolfva on July 25, 2012 at 5:55 AM

. Second, most support the 2nd Amendment, and the right of the people to carry. Third, most went into law enforcement to HELP people, not to bully, not because they’re immoral, or thieves.

Which is why you won’t see cops rising up and demanding guns be taken off the street even if it were legal for them to do so.

Which is why most cops are in favor of people owning and carrying firearms;

wolfva on July 25, 2012 at 5:55 AM

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Dante on July 25, 2012 at 7:39 AM

Let’s see, I’ve been in law enforcement going on 25 years. I attend international law enforcement conferences. I speak with law enforcement officers of all stripes. I base my knowledge on facts. You, Dante, base your ‘knowledge’ on…what exactly? Nothing more then what you want to believe. You WANT to believe that cops are bad, so they are. Facts don’t matter to you. Police officers die to protect people, and you won’t beleive it. Police officers put themselves at risk to defend people, you won’t believe it. Instead, you’ll just scream at the world how everyone except YOU is wrong, only YOU have all the answers, don’t listen to anyone but YOU.

Whatever. You’re a brick wall, but you have that right. We’ll continue to defend your right to believe in nonsense, to believe the worst of us. We’ll die to protect you. And when one of us catches you literally pissing on our grave afterwards, sure you’ll be arrested. But only because you committed a crime, not because of your nonsensical viewpoints.

Of course, you might also have a screen test on the way to the bullpen, but hey, we’re only human.

wolfva on July 25, 2012 at 8:14 AM

A great man said,

“There was a time in my life when I thought anyone who was too concerned about the police must be ‘liberals.’ Then I began to wonder why I should single out one category of government employees in whom to have naive confidence.”

Dante on July 25, 2012 at 9:00 AM

wolfva on July 25, 2012 at 8:14 AM

How shocking that one who worships government force would defend government force.

Dante on July 25, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Generally, the police are good and do intend to serve and protect. Over time though, the police have really become entrenched behind an us vrs them mentality that, while understandable on some levels, doesn’t always serve the general community which the police swear to protect.

In the Aurora shooting, police arrived quickly and seemed prepared to enter the theater and take immediate action if they found an active shooting situation. That was unnecessary as it appears the shooter was done at the time and ready to be taken without resistance. The active shooter response had changed from Columbine where individual police officers, many of whom wanted to go in while the shooters were still active, were prohibited from doing so do by the chain of command due to policies in place at the time. They were required to form a perimeter and only to advance into the building clearing one area at a time. It’s possible that kids died during that period in uncleared areas. Teacher Dave Saunders bled to death as anxious people in the room where he lay begged for help for him and pleaded to be allowed to carry him out or hand him through the window. They were told to wait and wait and wait and essentially threatened not to do anything until the police got to them…which was too late to save Teacher Saunders.

Police are generally good guys but they can’t be everywhere right away, and in situations where their safety is also at stake, it is important that we all are prepared to take a roll in protecting ourselves and each other.

limmo on July 25, 2012 at 10:54 AM

This article is about BLOOMBERG making a completely moronic statement; one MOST cops disagree with. Which is why you won’t see cops rising up and demanding guns be taken off the street even if it were legal for them to do so.

wolfva on July 25, 2012 at 5:55 AM

I offer as rebuttal New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina.

The cops and national guard had no legal authority to go house to house and demand a disarmed citizenry, but that’s exactly what they did.

More disturbing, that’s what they got. Was there a single incident of a citizen who owned legal firearms resisting this illegal action? Not that I’m aware of.

And it will be the same pretty much everywhere else. The vast majority of people will freely give up their arms when confronted with force by cops.

This isn’t hatred, it’s history, but I understand why you’d jump to that conclusion. What else do you have?

runawayyyy on July 25, 2012 at 12:03 PM

This is the one thing I find tiresome about this otherwise excellent site. The cop hate.

wolfva on July 25, 2012 at 5:55 AM

Get over it. Your entire statement is as subjective as any of our statements about cops, and contains many statements that are equally subjective. Maybe most cops you know are pro-Second Amendment. I know several who are anything but, as they hovered their hands over their weapons while surrounding and intimidating my unarmed self for…having lawfully open carried(the only way to carry legally at the time) in a grocery store that I had been open carrying at for years. Additionally, during the fight for Concealed Carry in Wisconsin, numerous police groups came out against it. The police chief of Milwaukee stated that if they saw anyone open carrying(completely legal), they would put the person on the ground, disarm them, and then determine “whether they had a right to carry it”.

Wisconsin ain’t the only one. There are numerous videos of encounters with LEOs while carrying, from Vermont to Arizona, where the cops exert maximum intimidation and minimum awareness of the rights of citizens or the laws of the state. A cop in Massachusetts took the aforementioned Milwaukee police chief’s attitude to an even greater extreme, confiscating a man’s firearm AND license…and the Massachusetts Supreme Court said that was just peachy.

All this from who? Unionized government agents with guaranteed Second Amendment rights, the ability to kill unarmed citizens without penalty, and zero legal obligation to protect citizens.

And with all this in mind? I STILL treat police officers with respect and give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they’re better in small towns than they are in big cities(especially in a liberal s**thole like Madison)…but then again…

MadisonConservative on July 25, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3