In recent years – I’m going to say the last six to eight – we’ve seen a number of incidents where someone uses force to defend themselves or their home. Across the nation laws differ with regard to “castle doctrine” and “stand your ground” laws. While the discussion about such used to only involve legally armed citizens and/or people in their own homes, after a couple of mainstream-media-sensationalized (read ‘manipulated’) events, the discussion grew to include law enforcement. Particularly after the Ferguson incident, some people started to call for officers to retreat from a criminal rather than standing their ground to fight and arrest a subject. One prominent “civil rights leader” even said that a mandate should be put in place that officers should be required to run from a lethal force incident rather than using lethal force in return. Um, no. Not just “no,” but “oh hell no!” There’s a reason for my reaction and it’s NOT because I’m eager to pull the trigger or potentially take a life. It’s because I took an oath and I take that oath seriously.
First and foremost, whether you’re a police officer or not, you have a right to defend yourself from harm or loss. You have a right to use force to defend yourself from assault and, in my opinion, you have a right to use force to protect your property. You most assuredly have a right to defend your family from threat of harm, violence or loss. Somewhere, somehow, in some abstract philosophical discussion, this right has been minimized in its basic value.
When we start arguing the value of life as compared to the value of property… when we start arguing the value of a criminal’s life versus the value of an innocent’s life… when we start arguing the value of a criminal’s liberty versus the value of a peaceful society… when we start arguing anything on behalf of the criminal, then we’ve already turned a corner we never should have approached. EVERY American citizen has innate rights, given by almighty deity and recognized in that wonderful documents our fore fathers penned called The Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
Recognizing that, we also need to recognize that there’s just no way our founding fathers were so stupid as to think that a man committing a crime should have his rights weighed HEAVIER than the person he was victimizing. And make no mistake, that’s what we’re talking about here: worrying more about the criminal’s rights and well-being than the victim’s. Consider just how silly this is.
If a man (the criminal) takes a weapon and uses it to go rob another man (the victim), only ONE of them has committed any wrong. The criminal committed a crime. The victim was, well… the VICTIM. He did nothing wrong. In our society today, however, thanks to the court system which permits (or even mandates) a lawyer to argue motivation on behalf of his client, we see VICTIMS being blamed for the actions of the criminal. “Well, if that man hadn’t been walking down that dark alley…” “If that man hadn’t been using his phone where it could be so easily grabbed…” “If that woman hadn’t dressed so provocatively…”
Let’s get something straight: no matter what the behavior of the VICTIM, it’s not an excuse for the actions of the CRIMINAL. The criminal should be held responsible for his own actions and no matter what excuses he might make for why he committed a crime, we first must consider HE COMMITTED A CRIME.
Now, apply this to the “stand your ground” laws. If a criminal is in the process of committing a crime and the victim defends himself, the defense is NOT a crime. It is the victim’s right. If the criminal ends up on the losing end of the stick because the victim is unafraid and is very successful in his defense, the criminal all too often gets viewed as a victim – quite inexplicably. He’s still a criminal. He’s just a criminal that was punished by the results of his own stupidity. He’s a criminal who received “street justice” (which we also call Karma) before receiving the justice of our legal system.
Now, second, let’s apply this concept to the law enforcement professional. A police officer, deputy sheriff, etc takes an oath to protect and serve. S/He takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and to enforce the laws of his state/county/city/jurisdiction. If s/he takes that oath seriously, then there is no backing off permitted. They are required by their oath and duty to stand their ground. Retreating is the equivalent of surrendering to the criminal – even if it’s just incrementally.
Law enforcement professionals, as part of their duty to protect and serve, are required to stand and face the threat. In fact, sometimes they’re required to aggressively hunt the threat (as in Active Shooter situations). Make no mistake: they are afraid. They are in fear for their own health and wellbeing; BUT – they took an oath to put the welfare of the innocent ahead of their own. Understand, however, that does NOT mean that they’ll put the wellbeing of a criminal ahead of their own. While they work to insure that the criminal’s rights are never violated, the law enforcement professional still has a duty to enforce the law, and if that means fighting or arresting the criminal then they will do so – and they are legally empowered to.
Our society today – if you believe the mainstream media - seems to be leaning toward tying the hands of law enforcement so that the only tool they have to enforce the law and effect an arrest is nice language. It reminds me of scenes from the movie “Demolition Man” wherein the officers of the future have no weapon except a glow rod (a kind of nightstick/TASER combo that you just TOUCH the bad guys with) and no training in self-defense, hand to hand fighting, and absolutely no guns. When a criminal is set loose among them, the officers are nothing more than primary victims; targeted first and quite incapable of enforcing the law.
That is unacceptable. Law enforcement professionals have a job to do and we cannot do it effectively if we prioritize the feelings of the criminals ahead of the wellbeing and values of the law abiding citizens we serve. We cannot back down unless it is done for a strategic reason. We cannot retreat, run away, etc just for the sake of not harming a criminal. Our DUTY is to stand the line; fill the gap; hold the line. Use whatever phrase you’d like. Our DUTY is to be that line of defense that protects law abiding citizens from criminals – and if we have to hurt the criminal, physically or emotionally, to do so, then the criminal should recognize that as a possibility before committing the crime.
To all those who think that criminals should be molly-coddled, treated nicely, handled with kid gloves, etc, I say this: STOP. Instead of demanding the police be nice to criminals, why don’t you demand that criminals stop committing crimes?
Stay safe.
Lt. Frank Borelli (ret), Editorial Director | Editorial Director
Lt. Frank Borelli is the Editorial Director for the Officer Media Group. Frank brings 20+ years of writing and editing experience in addition to 40 years of law enforcement operations, administration and training experience to the team.
Frank has had numerous books published which are available on Amazon.com, BarnesAndNoble.com, and other major retail outlets.
If you have any comments or questions, you can contact him via email at [email protected].