Authorities say an off-duty police officer leaving an Anaheim fast-food restaurant with his 6-year-old daughter shot and killed a man who attacked him in the parking lot. [More]What a great outcome.
Too bad Southern California "authorities"--particularly Orange County Sheriff (and Oath Breaker) Sandra Hutchens--would rather see you and your child dead than "allow" you to be armed.
That's because our lives aren't as valuable as those of Sandra and her "Only Ones."
[Via Harvey]
7 comments:
I don't understand how this is an "Only One". It seems the off duty officer used legitimate self-defense.
Matt, are you kidding?
here you go? What I would have said over there if I wasn't a mere mortal.
excuse me, but didn't this happen in one of those jurisdictions where only cops and a very few "connected" people are authorized to carry the tools of self defense.? Doesn't Sheriff Hutchens have a policy of not issuing CCW's for citizens, not cops?
Don't get me wrong, I think this thing came out the way it should have. I have noticed though that many of the comments by cops for cops state the importance of not being helpless out in the public, even off'duty. I agree with that. The difference is, I don't think anyone should be forced to be helpless as most non-cops are in this jurisdiction.
I also do not understand the "only ones" implication. The fault lies with the state government for failing to allow citizens to defend themselves, not with a cop for exercising his right to self defense. I put the blame on the state, not the individual. IF Matt and I are wrong, please explain.
This is PRECISELY an "Only Ones" story. The cop is the only one allowed by law to have a gun. That's what "the only ones" is all about--I maintain and add to this archive to refute the widespread perpetuated belief that police are the only ones we can trust to be armed.
It doesn't matter that this was a righteous shoot. What matters is the same right would have been denied to you and me under force of law and he could exercise it by virtue of his government employment. You and I would be facing charges. Because we're not "only ones."
Do you think "only ones" is synonymous with "cops"? It's not. I've tried explaining that numerous times and even included a description in my sidebar:
About "The Only Ones"
The purpose of this feature has never been to bash cops. The only reason I do this is to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly. And it's also used to illustrate when those of official status, rank or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they're involved in gun-related incidents.
Thanks for the clarification, David. However, regardless of your intent, many of the replies I see to your "only ones" posts are so rabidly anti-cop to the point of anarchism. Those people worry me, with or without guns, and taint the purpose of your "only ones" posts. Law enforcement should and must be held to a higher standard than the public due to their "cover" of authority. But when I see replies showing a "shoot first" anti-cop attitude it really is a turn-off. I know that is not your fault, so keep up the good work.
I try to keep a light hand on comments but still not give trolls a toe-hold. I will at times delete threats that are not directed at me, and try to always delete spam, off-topic thread hijacking and anything anonymous that calls someone else a coward. But opinions that are on topic are generally for you guys to hash out.
Post a Comment