Dial Project Safe Neighborhoods and Die

Correspondent Mack sent me a timeline of related news stories that give us a real-world illustration, not only of how relying exclusively on "The Only Ones" to keep people safe is unwise, but also how government programs designed to deter crime can actually contribute to it.

September 2005: A delusional reptile, street name "Lump," bursts into a neighbor's home, killing a woman and wounding a man.

August 2006: A jury convicts said reptile.

April 2007: Turns out the police had earlier found said reptile--a convicted felon--with a gun, and rather than charge him, deferred to the feds to prosecute. The murder victim's mother sues the city and the officers involved.

October 2007: A judge dismisses the lawsuit on the grounds that--among other things--police can't be liable for failure to act and there is no affirmative duty of police to protect individuals absent a "special relationship."

Nothing about this story changes my often-stated belief that being a convicted felon per se should not be an automatic disqualifier from firearms possession. As I've repeatedly maintained, those who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian, and it certainly sounds like said Lump was a beast in need of a keeper.

That said, we can't spread the word loud and far enough that the law exempts police from any duty and attendant liability to protect us. That is a key element often missing from the "gun debate" and it shouldn't be, as it is a powerful and persuasive argument. The best tool I know for proving this is Richard Steven's excellent classic: "Dial 911 and Die."

The other point of note is how local law enforcement, by relying on federal government welfare programs like NRA-endorsed Project Safe Neighborhoods, will continue to produce the results we would expect from laziness , lack of accountability, and abdication of responsibilities.