LEO Preference: Let the Thieves Rob You

[Bapak2ja]

I did a brief check and did not find this on INGO. Hope it is not a dupe, but if it is I will delete this post.

Interesting discussion about a jewelry store owner defending her property.

California Police Wish Gun Owners Would Just Comply with Robbers - Gun News at Guns.com

This prompted the local LEOs to publicly announce that they prefer folks just comply with armed robbers rather than defend life and property. I find it interesting that LEOs actually think appeasement is a wise course of action—ignoring the potential for a pistol-whipping or an execution after complying with the demands of evil people.

I have not heard such advice from an Indiana LEO. Another advantage of life in the Hoosier state!

Looking forward to INGO insights.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Of all the officers that make up the San Jose police department, they picked that guy as their spokesperson?

Instead of simply using the term "armed", this take implies that both thieves had guns:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=8899010

 

[Bapak2ja]

Interesting to see the different slant taken in the two presentations of the same event. Still, the LEOs prefer the public to be robbed over exercising their right of self-defense.

Thanks for the link!

 

[jsharmon7]

Of all the officers that make up the San Jose police department, they picked that guy as their spokesperson?

Instead of simply using the term "armed", this take implies that both thieves had guns:
San Jose Jewelry store owner shoots at robbers | abc7news.com

It's unfair to say that "police" suggest such a course of action simply because one police officer made such a statement. It would be like Fenway making a statement and the media regarding it as "gun owners believe that..." Well, not really, just one of them may believe that.

 

[BDBHoover]

I'm with jsharmon on this one... Cannot condemn every officer due to one....

 

[CTS]

Interesting to see the different slant taken in the two presentations of the same event. Still, the LEOs prefer the public to be robbed over exercising their right of self-defense.

Thanks for the link!

That's a pretty far stretch to make from this article. I think most police respect a citizens right to protect themselves.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

It's unfair to say that "police" suggest such a course of action simply because one police officer made such a statement. It would be like Fenway making a statement and the media regarding it as "gun owners believe that..." Well, not really, just one of them may believe that.

Oh, I completely agree...

I just think that it is odd that when that specific department made the decision to choose an individual to represent them.... that guy was who they picked....

Then again, their spokesperson was attempting to communicate to California residents, so maybe it was a sound plan over there.....

 

[rgrimm01]

Maybe an offering of peace beads, vegetable quiche and/or sushi would have turned the would be robbers away?

 

[jsharmon7]

Oh, I completely agree...

I just think that it is odd that when that specific department made the decision to choose an individual to represent them.... that guy was who they picked....

Then again, their spokesperson was attempting to communicate to California residents, so maybe it was a sound plan over there.....

Sorry, my post was intended more for the OP, I was just adding on to what you were saying. I didn't mean for it to sound like you were saying something you weren't.

 

[Bapak2ja]

No pejorative intent expressed or implied in my posts above. I recognize that one LEO does not a department make, but the view expressed does give the impression this is the view of the department—especially as the point was made in both articles.

I will assert that the fact that one officer spoke on behalf of the department, was cited in both articles, and has not been corrected or repudiated by others in the department since the article was published, it certainly implies that this is the considered and official view of the department. If the department desired to repudiate the view expressed by that member of their department, the senior officers could easily do so.

The two articles do take noticeably different slants on the same event. The bias of the reporters is noticeably different. Both, though, take note of the LEO comment recommending compliance rather than resistance.

Thanks for the interaction!

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

The big difference between Indiana and California....

A storekeeper in Indiana wouldn't have missed....

 

[Bapak2ja]

The big difference between Indiana and California....

A storekeeper in Indiana wouldn't have missed....

 

[redneckmedic]

With all that said... most self defense instructors advise that complience is the best answer as well.... I know I know it depends on the situation and all, y'all are just dying to put two in the chest and one in the head.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Also, what do you expect a PD to say?

There's an absolutely HUGE pricetag placed on liability these days.

If a PD were to come out and publicly state "We wish that all legal firearms owners would shoot robbers with extreme prejudice".... That simply opens themselves up to too many lawsuits from all involved parties.

They just cannot publicly say anything different.

Chances are very high that if you were to speak to most of the officer personally and off the record, they'd be all for a homeowner defending themselves with as much force as needed. Not that I'm a cop, but trust me when I say that they're sick & tired of the criminals too.

-J-

 

[Classic]

This was not just one LEO. He was a department spokesperson, meaning he was speaking for the department. Unless they later walked back his words it appears that is their position.

BC on compliance with the criminal. That may very well get you shot with your own weapon.

 

[drillsgt]

Also, what do you expect a PD to say?

There's an absolutely HUGE pricetag placed on liability these days.

If a PD were to come out and publicly state "We wish that all legal firearms owners would shoot robbers with extreme prejudice".... That simply opens themselves up to too many lawsuits from all involved parties.

They just cannot publicly say anything different.

Chances are very high that if you were to speak to most of the officer personally and off the record, they'd be all for a homeowner defending themselves with as much force as needed. Not that I'm a cop, but trust me when I say that they're sick & tired of the criminals too.

-J-

I suppose it could work both ways, what if I had the means to defend myself but instead remember the words of the police spokesman who must know what he's talking about; I then am beaten or shot for my compliance wouldn't the same lawsuits be involved?

 

[drillsgt]

This was not just one LEO. He was a department spokesperson, meaning he was speaking for the department. Unless they later walked back his words it appears that is their position.

BC on compliance with the criminal. That may very well get you shot with your own weapon.

This is actually a fairly common response by police spokesmen and I have heard it quite often, even here in Indiana. It usually follows a story where the police praise the individual for saving themselves or others and then slide in the "but, we usually recommend..." at the end.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

This is actually a fairly common response by police spokesmen and I have heard it quite often, even here in Indiana. It usually follows a story where the police praise the individual for saving themselves or others and then slide in the "but, we usually recommend..." at the end.

Because they see people killed or beaten severely all the time that attempted to defend themselves. In some instances, by simply tossing them a $20 bill would have bought their lives. In other cases, people that complied were not so lucky.

Not everyone that attempts to resist a strong arm robbery comes out unscathed.

 

[GunnerDan]

This is actually a fairly common response by police spokesmen and I have heard it quite often, even here in Indiana. It usually follows a story where the police praise the individual for saving themselves or others and then slide in the "but, we usually recommend..." at the end.

Well, since the police have the same First Amendment as I do, they can recommend all they want, but you come into my home or my business to rob or do me harm, I will shoot to kill and have no problems with it at all. No, I am not going to execute someone like the crazy fool in Minnesota, but I will shoot to kill. If the police try and tell me that I should have complied with some robbery suspect I will tell that particular officer he shouldnt be wearing the badge that he is a disgrace to the profession and to get out of my home/store/wherever and request a supervisor.

Gunner

Gunner

 

[GunnerDan]

Because they see people killed or beaten severely all the time that attempted to defend themselves. In some instances, by simply tossing them a $20 bill would have bought their lives. In other cases, people that complied were not so lucky.

Not everyone that attempts to resist a strong arm robbery comes out unscathed.

I can tell you this, I will NEVER go down without a fight. I am not just going to comply with someone because they want to do me or my family harm.

Gunner