California Passes Law Allowing Citizens to Refuse to Help Police Officers [More]Good.
I see many law-and-order types having apoplexy over this, and at the risk of being condemned as a contrarian (or worse), they are not thinking this through.
Haven't we seen enough evidence to stop buying into the special "Only Ones" privileges and immunities lie?
I will decide who I will help, and when and under what circumstances. Perhaps I saw the lead-up to confrontation and believe it was started with inappropriate aggressiveness. Perhaps I will exercise my right to not be complicit in enforcing an edict I disagree with (like arresting an "I will not comply" patriot.) Think of it as pre-jury nullification. Perhaps in order to help, I will have to reveal my own noncompliance with a diktat (like maybe having a defense weapon on my person in "May Not Issue" CA.)
Perhaps if you want my help, you ought to act like you deserve it.
Perhaps I don't choose to offer anyone an explanation beyond BFYTW.
[Via several of you]
ADDENDUM: Now if they want to activate the citizen militia and afford all proper considerations for uninfringed RKBA, we can start talking terms.
I have never understood the logic of my state critters passing the law that compels me to place my own life in danger to assist law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you -- it is, or should be, MY decision to risk my well being or not. The LEOis being paid to do a job and I am compelled to be a "volunteer" i a possibly violent encounter?
At what age does that requirement expire? Jury duty expires, but the assist law does not? If I am aged and/or physically restricted, and I am both, I am required to jump right in on request?
Not likely to happen.
It's California where it's fairly difficult to get a carry permit -- the thing that would allow you to be in a condition where you COULD help a policeman-in-distress. I suppose citizens could come to their aid with broomsticks, but we're told never to bring a broomstick to a gunfight...
ReplyDeleteNon-issue, more than likely.