What about the protectors?

There was recently an incident in Israel that has really sparked controversy. Two peaceful palestinian Arab terrorists approached and pounced on a young 20 year old soldier at the guard post adjacent to the Tel Rumeida neighborhood and both stabbed him. They were “neutralized”, not killed, but “neutralized”. One of them was wearing a heavy coat despite the warm weather. And what, oh what, dear sheepdogs would that make one think? Well, if this isn’t the first thing that goes across your radar, pieceful palestinians are known to enjoy detonating bombs and themselves. Heavy coats cover such things. The pieceful palestinian terrorist that had just stabbed a young soldier began moving and several bystanders began saying “watch out, he has a bomb”. In fact the military WAS worried he had a bomb and had already placed a call for the sappers who had not yet arrived.

Now, how did this get to be such a big deal? There are LOTS of terrorist stabbing attacks in Israel these days. Well, this one was filmed by the anti-Israel, anti-semitic leftist NGO B’Tselem. Interestingly, without sound. Equally interesting to me, is how B’Tselem has been reported to be at the site of several of these attacks to film them. But that’s just me. But since it was filmed without sound, you don’t hear the bystanders warning he’s moving and might have a bomb. A soldier shoots the terrorist in the head. There is another video,

Politicians, and very sadly to me, the upper echelon of the IDF were quick to pounce on the young soldier. B’Tselem had released their video and version of events to the media and rather than investigating, politicians do what politicians shouldn’t do before investigating, they open their mouths and crap pours out. The young soldier was initially charged with murder, that has been downgraded to manslaughter. And he is still in custody.

Would you like to know who is siding with the soldier? Magen David Adom , emergency medical services in Israel, has said their rules were followed by their personnel on the scene. Their rules state that their medical crew does NOT approach a wounded terrorist until it has been cleared by security forces. Originally someone in the IDF had said the terrorist had been checked and there was no bomb. If that is the case, no one seemed to know it. Not MDA, not the bystanders and not the soldiers or the young soldiers commander who has also said there were concerns. Who else? Ramle Mayor Yoel Lavi

“The strategic security establishment of the state of Israel is dealing with a large number of stabbings and car ramming attacks, and instead of giving the response they are passing off the judgement and responses to a lone soldier,” said Lavi. In his comments he noted how the government has not put down the Arab terror wave, and instead left soldiers to deal with the threat on an individual basis.Lavi told Arutz Sheva, “when you pass along the judgement from the Chief of Staff to a soldier, mishaps are liable to occur. They aren’t succeeding in dealing with the terror, and instead pounce on an outstanding soldier and place him in handcuffs.””Instead of embracing the soldiers they put them in handcuffs, that isn’t how an establishment that loves its soldiers acts. The soldiers are acting in a complicated reality and the commanders aren’t giving any response.”

Who else? A whole lot o’ ticked off Israelis that are very tired of going to the market and seeing 60 year old women stabbed, or young fathers trying to stop a stabber being killed. Some of these attackers are young girls and boys.

So why am I, here in America writing about it? I’ve been thinking about Sally’s story in A Walk On The Dark Side. How Sally felt so vulnerable walking to her car and the group that started smashing car windows just as she got there. There is a thin blue line here in America that is suppose to separate and protect the innocent in society. That line of protectors is something that is world wide. Well, mostly. In civilized countries anyway. But it seems that the protectors are under attack. In Israel where the IDF and innocent civilians are the target daily of pieceful palestinians the soldiers are tasked with protecting themselves, each other and civilians. In America the Police, Sheriffs office and Highway Patrol the same.

But it seems the world has lost sight of values and what is important. Just in the last few years we’ve seen more than once politicians open their yap with things like “The Police acted stupidly”. Really? Report of a burglary? The rush to condemn the officer in Ferguson who shot a thug who was charging him? Gov. Jay Nixon opening his yap with “Justice for __________”. The young thugs family went to the UN to demand justice. The UN is quick to condemn Israel when she defends herself and her citizens. Even senile old communist Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders lied in his lament about Israel killing 10,000 pieceful palestinians. Apparently “The Bern” is unaware they use schools and hospitals to launch rockets. I guess anyone who has heard his speeches promising free goodies to everyone is aware he can’t do math. In case you don’t know it, the IDF has a “Purity of Arms” code they have to abide by. This article does a really good job of explaining what that has got them at this point.

The UN and the politicians are so concerned about the rights of terrorists and thugs. I want to know who is concerned about the innocent people affected by these criminals? Who is concerned about the Fogel family asleep in their beds and slaughtered? Who is concerned about the baby who had it’s head smashed in with a rifle butt? The family out shopping or standing at a bus stop? Who is concerned about the people that go to work, take care of their lawn and their families and just want to live out their lives? Apparently not the politicians, the upper echelons of law enforcement or military or the UN. Why aren’t they?

There was already a lack of law enforcement available in Sally’s part of town, how will this work out when the continued focus is on protecting the criminal and good people don’t want any part of making law enforcement or the military a career? Why do the job when every day in addition to the dangers you face, you face the danger of becoming a scapegoat in some politically correct blame game when some ignorant politician opens it’s yap. Will there be a fatal hesitation introduced into the response by law enforcement or the military because of political correctness at the expense of their lives or the lives of the civilians they are charged with protecting?

In Israel there has been a public outcry in defense of the soldier. In America I haven’t seen so much of that in defense of our law enforcement. Perhaps we are now going to be in a position where we need to defend our protectors.

But what I really sorrow over? Is when and why did the focus leave the innocent to favor the guilty.


12 thoughts on “What about the protectors?”

  1. Sheila,
    Before you get all gushy about the police, go here: http://www.policemisconduct.net
    No, they’re not all like this but until those who are not begin cleaning out those who are, I have little hope that things will get better no matter how much they are “supported” or “appreciated” by the people they actually do NOT have any duty to protect.

  2. I agree. But there are population segments out there, and here I’m thinking of elderly that physically are not able to carry, or those under-age that are more dependent upon law-enforcement. What about the shop-owners in Ferguson? They had done nothing wrong, invested all they had in making their businesses successful and yet the police and National Guard were not allowed to stop the riots. Same in Baltimore.

    Sgt. Charles Martland being kicked out of the military for stopping a child rapist? These are situations that having nothing to do with the decision to carry, for the most part. There were armed shopowners guarding their shops and those survived. But even so, if shops were owned by people that couldn’t get enough friends to stand out front with them, they don’t deserve to have their business leveled because the police were afraid to intervene.

    Cases such was Warren vs. DC have shown they have no duty to protect, despite what the cars say. They do however, do dandy chalk lines and try to figure out who did whatever they did to you when they did it.

    Of course there are bad law-enforcement, there are bad everything, and if good people decide that it’s no longer a career field where they can serve honorably, we’re fixin to have a lot more of them. Those that want it for the power it gives them. The Federal Government’s idea of a good officer is like the horiuchi that bravely shot a unarmed woman holding a baby in the head. Want more of them, or more like Joe Arpio, Richard Mack and David Clarke?

    My question is, when and why did the focus of a story become not about protecting the innocent victims, but about protecting the terrorists and thugs? Loretta Lynch’s comments after the San Bernadino terrorist attack were that she was afraid for the muslims? The German police were to stop using the word “rape” in their reports regarding the New Year’s eve plethora of assaults. http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/08/german-cops-we-were-ordered-to-remove-the-word-rape-from-migrant-criminal-report/
    What? The women shouldn’t have gone out to celebrate New Years Eve like they always had?

    The political class is ceasing to be concerned with protecting the law-abiding and is far more concerned about the criminal. I find this odd, very odd. Why do you suppose that it is happening?

    1. It isn’t “odd” at all. That’s the way it has always been. I suspect you just have not been looking at it closely enough. Without the “criminals,” the police, etc. would have no excuse to control the population… so they really don’t want fewer of them. As real crime has decreased decade by decade, those in control have made more and more things into “crimes.” A coincidence? Hardly.

      And each individual IS responsible for their own life and safety, despite the lies of those who would treat them as cattle. And when a person is unable to actually defend themselves, they need to rely on family, neighbors and such professional security as they may be able to afford. Unfortunately, a great number of people have bought the lie that the police are there to protect them, and will “save” them if attacked. The vast statistics (however imperfect) demonstrate that it is impossible for the police to actually protect any individual, and the “law” makes it very clear that they have no actual obligation to do so!! Even the supreme court has made it plain that the police have no “duty” to protect an individual, and cannot be sued for failure to do so. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html

      So, whether the police exist or not, benevolent or not, the only real chance for an individual is to take that responsibility for themselves and others seriously. The only other option is to “call 911 and die.”

      I’m 70 years old, partly disabled, hearing impaired. I have invested considerable time and effort into learning how to defend myself in spite of the problems. I carry a gun every day, everywhere. And I teach others to defend themselves optimally as well. That’s what I do to take responsibility for my own life and safety. That’s one of the ways I spell freedom…

  3. No argument as to the way to increase control is to increase the laws and penalties. Straight out of Atlas Shrugged, no argument on the “duty” to protect. As Warren vs. DC and others proved. No argument we are all responsible for our own protection.

    Y.B.’s video is more what I’m getting at.

    I know growing up the response to rape was “she shouldn’t have been there. She shouldn’t have worn that”. Then feminists began to label that what it was, which is nonsense. Of course now you have MDA, which says rape is a minute death is forever, don’t kill the rapist. Which is in the same category I’m looking at. More concern for the criminal than the victim of the crime.

    I personally kind of think the tipping point was George Zimmerman. He was attacked, he used a gun to defend himself. But this became a feeding frenzy where it was like his wounds weren’t serious enough to have allowed him to defend himself as his head was being slammed into the sidewalk. Black Panthers stood in the street and on TV publically put a bounty on his head. The media ran endless pictures of cherubic 12 year old aspiring thug, not current ones showing what he had become.

    This is the first case that really comes to my mind where in recent history the focus from media, the national government and groups of people were much more concerned about the rights of the criminal that the life of the victim. This is where I would put the tipping point.

    Sgt. Charles Martland stopped a child rapist. For this he is losing his career and being kicked out of the military. I don’t think it’s been this way in the military all that long. I think in the past (but I certainly have no first hand knowledge) that sort of thing would have been expected not punished.

    Mama Liberty, you teach. It would be like you teaching a young woman to shoot and she goes on to get her CCW. She is out shopping with her 6 month old baby, she is rushed by a thug high on drugs charging her with a knife in the parking lot of the grocery store. She shoots and kills him. She and her child are safe. The media, #whateverlivesmatter, Loretta Lynch and Chris Matthews go after her. He only had a knife, she didn’t HAVE to kill him. Thugs parents & aunt go on CNN sobbing hysterically “he was a good boy, he was going to college (with his D- avg) and sang in the choir (when he was 2 and lived with grandma) he had plans. She didn’t have to kill him.” Then Loretta Lynch says she is going to be investigating you for your responsibility in training a killer. Why didn’t you train her to fire a warning shot? Why didn’t you train her to shoot for his legs?
    I don’t think that is typically how things have been treated in the past. I think that it was “jeopardy, ability, means” and if those three things were there, done.

    So I kind of think the turning point was Zimmerman, but others may have a different event in mind. I’d like to know.

    1. That whole thing of “she shouldn’t have been wearing that” is a bit tricky.

      One of the things we are advised to do is to avoid stupid people doing stupid things in stupid places. You simply avoid trouble that way. Not wearing a revealing outfit in a bar full of drunk scumbags is pretty much in the same category. Yet NO ONE thinks (in the first case) that you are somehow at fault for what happens to you if you do go deal with stupid people doing stupid things in stupid places…but that’s what we allegedly are thinking when we advise women not to go to rough bars “dressed like that.”

      There has to be a clearer distinction made between advising people how to avoid bad situations…and blaming them legally for what happens when they don’t.

    2. And Sheila, I think you’re right about Zimmerman’s case. I think a lot of people got carried along in the anti-Zimmerman hysteria. But then on the other hand…a lot of other people saw that hysteria for what it was. It was much more stark than (say) the Rodney King/LA riots sort of thing, and you could see the divide continue with Ferguson.

      The problem is there are far too many people in government, at the highest levels, on the wrong side of that divide (most, but not all, police in the street are better than their bosses).

      As for the sort of “he only had a knife, why’d you shoot him” logic you touched on (it wasn’t your main point, I know), anyone who reads this thread and doesn’t know how utterly silly that is needs an education. If I run into someone with a knife who knows how to use it, the only place I want to be is 100 meters away with a scoped rifle.

      1. Steve, I had to shoot a man to save my life 34 years ago. He attacked me with his bare hands. I was at home, and he was initially trying to steal my car. Here is the whole story if you are interested. http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/?page_id=846

        It’s a big, big subject, and we’re never going to know what’s best for every person in every situation. In the meantime, we can only do our best. For me, that means avoiding trouble, avoiding confrontation as much as possible, and training hard to deal with it whenever it might come to me anyway. Teaching people to do that is not “blaming the victim,” even though we all have complete responsibility for our own choices and actions. I carry a gun because I am not responsible for what others choose to do (or “feel”)… and I am not going to be a helpless victim either.

        George Zimmerman was the perfect example of why someone who defends himself must not be required to be a perfect saint. He was put through the wringer, with a lot of powerful anti-gun opposition, yet was acquitted. He went on to prove that he was very much human and at times not too bright fella… which did nothing to detract from the fact that he simply defended himself against someone trying to kill him. I suspect if that had happened here in Wyoming, nobody would ever have heard of him.

        1. ML,

          I’m not sure if you’re trying to disagree with something I’ve said, or support it. (I don’t see a disagreement here, maybe you do?)

          I’m somewhat familiar with your story from past communications, and I see zero, zip, nichevo, nada wrong with what you did. Or what Zimmerman did. Alas, there are plenty of asshats out there who are making a “hobby” of second guessing such things under various rationales (e.g., claims of “racism”, etc., as if I should give an airborne copulation what color or ethnic background the guy who’s trying to rob/maim/kill me is).

          In the end, when ‘it’ goes down, we are the first responder. Hopefully we are prepared and can win the fight. CZ does it, for me.

          1. No real disagreement, Steve. Except this:

            “The problem is there are far too many people in government, at the highest levels, on the wrong side of that divide …”

            Which people in any non-voluntary government are NOT “on the wrong side?” They ALL have one goal: control and power over everything. They strive for this with lies, theft and murder. They don’t have any other way to get what they want, and they are becoming more and more bold; not even hiding it anymore.

            That’s what I can’t understand… why people who truly want to live in individual liberty would give any room in their minds for non-voluntary government of any kind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *