Thursday, January 21, 2010
SHOULD POLICE ARREST PEOPLE FOR FIGHTING BACK AGAINST CRIMES
Dear Editor:
I’m writing in response to the question you have asked on today’s blog. The question that is in questioned is “Should police arrest people for fighting back against crimes?” In my opinion I believe no. Citizens of the world have a right to protect their selves, family, and property, especially if harm comes to them. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval Britain and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers. In the Tennessee Code Annotated it clearly states:
40-7-113. Disposition of person arrested by private person. —
(a) A private person who has arrested another for a public offense shall, without unnecessary delay, take the arrested person before a magistrate or deliver the arrested person to an officer.
If every citizens has a right to due process under the United States Constitution then every citizen have a right to protect themselves. There were 989 residential burglaries reported to Memphis Police from November 1st through November 30th of 2009 alone. Why not protect yourself.
We live in an era when people are really getting out of control will rudeness, anger, and with crime! This is a perfect time for people to become proactive and do something about the problem. It’s time to take a stand; the police can’t be everywhere at one time. It’s my understanding that the Memphis Police Department has a shortage of police officers anyway. By the time the police arrive at your home the burglar had already assaulted you and took all your goods. Indeed, free ownership of guns may often reduce armed crime. The current round of official gungrabbing began after the Hungerford massacre back in August 1987. But the wrong lesson was learned then. Just consider what might have happened had someone else beside Michael Ryan been carrying a gun in Hungerford High Street. He might have been cut down before firing more than a few shots. As it is, he killed nearly 20 people before armed police could be brought in to stop the shootings.
Think of the burglaries, rapes and other crimes that might never happen if the victims were armed, and therefore able to deal with their aggressors on equal terms. Anyone can learn to fire a gun. And nothing beats a bullet. As the old saying goes: “God made men equal, and Smith and Wesson make damn sure it stays that way.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People do have the right to defend themselves, but they too as possible victims have to abide certain governmental restraints, because if not anyone can go around killing or harming someone else (possibly unlawfully) all under the name of self-defense. One must educate themselves with the knowledge and understainding of the law concerning self-defense on what one can and can't do as an victim in order to avoid a possi-ble jail term on their behalf. Every individual should have the right to protect themselves, to sustain their life, freedoms and peace, but if its done out of ordinance with the law, they may find themselves as the criminal and not the victim. Because in most cases the victim will have had to be physically harmed in some form or fashion before him/her will be almost safely presumed as the victim protecting his/her own life from an life threatening danger. Unfortu-nately in most of these cases the victim has already been harmed before retalliation, there-fore the self-defense laws of our gov't needs to be reformed. Also, in most cases a self-de-fense retalliation must be proven to be plausible beyond an reasonable doubt, and even after that the judge is going to want to know what did you do to apprehend (stop) the protruder without killing him/her or fatally wounding him or her.
ReplyDelete