A holiday shooting “was at least the sixth time since 1985 that would-be robbers have been killed by store clerks or store owners in Wichita,” a story in The Wichita Eagle reported.
“Prosecutors have ruled that the five earlier shootings were ruled justifiable, and they said an initial review of the Thanksgiving night shooting does not indicate that there was any criminal wrongdoing by the clerk,” the report continued.
But while the clerks had a legal right to defend themselves—and to possess the means to do so—police officials could not resist using the media megaphone to throw cold water on the idea.
Capt. Brent Allred oxymoronically advised “…to avoid confrontation if possible during an armed robbery. Typically you want to comply with what they want … We always say that if you can be a good witness, that’s the best thing you can do … If they want money, give them the money. Money is not worth getting hurt over.”
The money is not what’s being threatened. And to trust the moral character of scum who would threaten your life over the contents of a convenience store cash register presents its own risks.
Not that a San Jose police spokesman considered that in the aftermath of a thwarted jewelry store robbery, where the female owner fired a shot at two would-be masked, hoodie-wearing, gun-pointing robbers, causing them to flee.
“We don’t recommend (drawing a gun or firing),” Sgt. Albert Morales told ABC7 News. “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.”
These aren’t just isolated misstatements by a few misinformed officers. More often than not, particularly among urban law enforcement agencies, it’s their position of preference, and it feeds right into the longstanding talking points promulgated by the gun-grabbers.
“The best defense against injury is to put up no defense—give them what they want, or run,” Handgun Control, Inc. founder Pete Shields, who has advocated a total handgun ban, wrote in 1981.
For some law enforcement agencies, that advice is official policy. The Illinois State Police website offered defense tips for women, advising fighting back may “…cancel any other options,” since your attacker may only wish to “…degrade and humiliate” you. Instead, they offer an escalating strategy that graduates from claiming to have an STD, to vomiting, to, ultimately, stabbing assailants with a rat-tailed comb, with the caveat “Use of a firearm to protect yourself or property is not recommended.”
Stories of victims who complied with all demands and were murdered anyway abound, along with stories of citizens who successfully defended themselves and others with a firearm. But these are rarely mentioned as a counterbalance when the authorities get a media opportunity to stump for helplessness.
Give attackers what they want? What if, after you bare your throat and cede all decision-making to remorseless reptiles, you find out what they want is you?
By David Codrea
Get More Gun Rights