A Big City Chief Gets It

[GaryS]

Detroit police chief: Legal gun owners can deter crime

Craig said he started believing that legal gun owners can deter crime when he became police chief in Portland, Maine, in 2009.


"Coming from California (Craig was on the Los Angeles police force for 28 years), where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation.


"I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed."

Someone from Maine can fill in the details, but a very pro 2A friend of mine who lived in Portland for years told me that Portland chiefs had a history of playing games with CCW permits. To the point that they were slapped down by both the courts and the legislature. The PD had a reputation for harassing people who open carried, which is legal in ME.

I suspect that Craig changed his orientation reluctantly at first, but then became a believer.

If only more chiefs were like this.

 

[Ogandydancer]

This is what makes me glad of My county Sheriff. He is very pro CCW. He has openly made the statement to the press and media that it isn't the people who CCW that he worries about it's the one's that illegally carry. This is why he gets my vote every time he comes up for re-election. I just hope we will get another one as good when he retires. "Good ole Guilford Co NC".

 

[jrs70]

Living 5 miles north of Detroit I'm glad the new Chief get's it.

 

[Hodgin]

I'd guess a substantial number of guns in intercity Detroit are held by people involved in crime, perhaps more than half, and even higher percentage in high crime neighborhoods.

Anything that puts fewer guns in criminals hands and more guns in law-abiding citizens hands, especially in high crime areas, is a good thing.

 

[Steve in Vermont]

Some people are starting to question the "9-11" mentality so many folks have come to rely on. Threatened by a criminal? Call 9-11. (I once was speaking to a person who had been threatened. The idea of his providing any form of self protection was foreign to him, as his statement to me proved. "I don't need to protect myself, that's what I pay you for".) I don't think I was conveying a high enough level of compassion for his problem.
Anyway, a little more responsibility for your own safety is a good place to start. It's just to bad many of our (state and local) governments make this so difficult.

 

[RWJ]

Tell him to read....

Some people are starting to question the "9-11" mentality so many folks have come to rely on. Threatened by a criminal? Call 9-11. (I once was speaking to a person who had been threatened. The idea of his providing any form of self protection was foreign to him, as his statement to me proved. "I don't need to protect myself, that's what I pay you for".) I don't think I was conveying a high enough level of compassion for his problem.
Anyway, a little more responsibility for your own safety is a good place to start. It's just to bad many of our (state and local) governments make this so difficult.

Warren vs District of Columbia
(444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

"By a 4–3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists." (emphasis added).

Maybe that will change his outlook.

Maybe he's just "special".....

 

[GaryS]

The gist of Warren was the duty of the police to protect the public is "general" in nature and not owed to specific parties.

Which means what Steve in Vermont said. In the end, we are all responsible for our own protection and that of our loved ones.

The problem is that places like DC not only won't provide protection, they do their very best to deny people within its borders the opportunity to protect themselves.

Warren vs District of Columbia
(444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

"By a 4–3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists." (emphasis added)

Maybe he's just "special".....

 

[RWJ]

Agree

Steve was right. I just threw this out there for those that want a quick response to those that offer the "that's what I pay your ........for". We'll have to send Steve for some compassion training in-service .

 

[steelslaver]

I don't need any fire extinguishers around because I pay for the fire department.

I don't need a first aid kit because I have health insurance.

I guess he doesn't need a brain either. That's why we have scientists.

 

[GaryS]

Steve was right. I just threw this out there for those that want a quick response to those that offer the "that's what I pay your ........for". We'll have to send Steve for some compassion training in-service .

Will that be before or after the "cultural sensitivity" training? Or as I referred to it, "re-education camp".

 

[Travis15R]

I remember Craig from when he was here. I've never lived far from Portland for the last 15 years. The police chief now is nothing like that

 

[Steve in Vermont]

Steve was right. I just threw this out there for those that want a quick response to those that offer the "that's what I pay your ........for". We'll have to send Steve for some compassion training in-service .

Been to a version of compassion training, it was called "sensitivity training" (I know others have gone through this, you know who you are, you're the ones smiling right now). One of my reprimands occurred when I told a person we were limited in our ability to protect his property. He stored heavy equipment in a quarry overnight and it had been vandalized. I spoke to a nearly farmer and he said he'd allow the guy to store his equipment next to his home. The equipment owner then told me in no uncertain terms that he wasn't driving his equipment 1/4 mile every night, that protecting his property was our problem. Obviously my response wasn't pc, hence the classes. I did learn a lesson from these classes. To tell people what they, and the department, wanted to hear, not what they needed to hear.