I am often dismayed by the vapid, flaccid attitude of police agencies after a private citizen defends themselves. That is, after all, what the whole concealed carry movement is about–self-defense. All too often, some mealy-mouthed toadie gets up in front of the media and goes on about the dangers of using a gun to defend yourself rather than congratulating the would-be victim for their courage and resolve in the face of danger. It is sad to see the depth to which we, as a society, have sunk.
Consider, for a moment, the incident that took place last Monday at a San Jose, California, jewelry store. Two armed robbers enter the store. When they commanded the lady who owns the store to produce the loot, she produced a pistol instead, firing a shot in the direction of the bandits and sending them running. She defended herself in a terrifying, highly-stressed situation and came out of it all unscathed. Now, what do you think the San Jose Police Department had to say about it?
Albert Morales, the San Jose Police spokesman, said, “We don’t recommend (drawing a gun or firing). We would have preferred that they just go ahead and comply with the request or demands of the robbers. Again they were after material items that could be replaced and again our biggest fear is that somebody would have gotten hurt, injured and possibly even died.”
How’s that for letting criminals know where they stand in San Jose? I can hear the collective sigh of relief coming from thieves, robbers, pickpockets, burglars and others who have made larceny their profession in and around San Jose. The police prefer compliance to self-defense, submission to standing your ground. No charges were filed, since the shop owner did not actually commit a crime, but Morales made it clear that the police, and presumably the City of San Jose, feel about her exercise of her right to defend herself.
That is the real crime in all of this. Morales is not scolding the thieves, he is scolding the victim. By doing that, he is telling the criminals of San Jose that they should not have to fear the people they prey upon; that the police feel their pain and would like to keep anything so untoward from happening to them ever again. Morales is worried that someone might have died. He’s right, the lady shop owner could have died. She could have been raped first and then killed. The possibilities of what they might have done to her are staggering. None of that happened, of course. She ensured that by drawing her weapon and pulling the trigger, a clear message to the robbers that their own lives were in peril. That was a message they heeded, running headlong out of the store and into a waiting SUV.
Law enforcement has to be made to understand that the armed citizen is not a threat or a problem for them to solve. Instead, they should appreciate such citizens for doing something that police have never actually been able to do: lower the crime rate. The rise in the number of armed citizens has lead to lower rates of violent crime across the board. Why? Because more often than not, the armed citizen actually shoots at their assailant. For any San Jose (or Chicago, New York, Washington D.C., etc.) cops who might be reading this, that means the would-be victim makes it dangerous to be a criminal. As a result of the increased danger, there is less crime. It is no more complicated than that.
Here is the video: Police Want Victims to Comply with Robbers