And then there’s this.
In a directive handed down by Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner Andrew Crisp, Victorian Police Officers have been ordered not to shoot at vehicles to halt criminals including times they are being used as an offensive weapon aimed at officers. Yes, you read that correctly.
Sure, arguments for and against this directive can be validly made. Disabling a vehicle or it’s driver with a firearm is a difficult task in a high duress situation, and given the grossly inadequate firearms training given to Police one can argue that it could possibly exacerbate the situation in certain scenarios. However, and a big however, firearms are there for the safety of the officer. A car can easily be weaponized and injure/kill someone and I firmly salute any officer who disobeys this directive in defence of their or someone else’s life. It’s already saved the life of an officer.
Overall, this directive from Victoria Police is incredibly black and white and ignorant of many variables. I would also argue that Victoria Police are opening themselves up for a massive lawsuit from the first officer who dies or is seriously injured as a result of making the workplace less safe for it’s employees.
It’s not just this directive causing issues. It’s essentially the latest in a string of criminal empowering, anti-Police and anti-public safety measures taken by the Andrews government. Should we be surprised given the ongoing East-West Link fiasco, the CFA stand off and the leasing out of the Melbourne Ports (wow, it’s suddenly as if he magically has the cash to pay the unionistas in the CFA now)?
This is the same Victorian Government and Victoria Police who:
– implemented the ‘no pursuit’ policy (because a small number of chases ended in injury)
– weakened the bail laws and anti-gang legislation
– has lost control of the violent crime wave
– continually states that they’re undermanned and are closing stations down
– has a gun crime epidemic despite Lord Howard’s laws
– is now telling it’s front line officers not to shoot at criminals in vehicles
– is tragically struggling with Police PTSD and suicides
And on top of that, they’re against people forming vigilante groups to protect themselves where it has failed to protect it’s citizenry.
So in other words: “Yeh there’s increased violent crime and we don’t have enough cops to protect you, the ones we do have can’t chase criminals or protect themselves adequately, and crooks are getting out earlier and off lighter thanks to us. Oh by the way, they might have illegal firearms they imported and we can’t stop, so we might have to punish the law abiding firearm owners again. But don’t you dare go protecting yourselves, or you’ll be in serious trouble.”
And how does Andrews and sidekick Police Minister Lisa Neville respond? “Oh, well we’ll make carjacking and home invasions more illegal then.” Right after they racked their brains to legislate a specific offence against drive by shootings earlier in the year, much to the disappointment of all of us that are outraged that drive-bys are now illegal. Looks like the party is over, folks.
It’s the messages being sent to the public and the criminals are what are absolutely unconscionable. All the Andrews’ government has essentially done is continually empower the criminal element and render the frontline Police and public inert. And that is unacceptable on every level. When you’re letting Mick Gatto off with a fine for an illegal firearm but continually going after law abiding firearm owners, we have every right to be cynical. But look out, they’ll have another taxpayer funded summit. That’ll show those criminals who is boss.
And in the case of Melbourne’s Apex Gang, and the Middle Eastern Crime Syndicates who employ them and are largely responsible for this latest crime wave – where is Australian Border Force? What happened to all the tough rhetoric and uniforms? Are we seeing visas cancelled and deportations? No, we are not because “something something political correctness”. Remember, this is socialist Melbourne. Because even if you do claim refugee status and come to Australia, live off welfare and public housing on the tax payer dime ahead of the nearly 40,000 wait list (in a city with a homeless crisis) and then decide to throw it back at the tax payer by stealing, bashing and intimidating them, you’re just a marginalized victim and should not be sent home because it’s “racist.”
This is what happens when you let authoritarian, predominantly socialist bureaucrats with no idea what they are doing make decisions. Sounds awfully like the National Firearms Agreement review don’t you think? But it’s also what members of the public morbidly deserve when they don’t hold the government to account. Sure, you can sit there on social media and protest in the comments section but at the end of the day if you aren’t getting in the Police Minister or government’s ear, then do we really have the right to feel outraged? Of course, politicians like to ignore us, lie, deceive, etc but if enough sustained pressure is brought to bear they will crack – no one can take sustained pressure and Australian state and federal politics is full of examples where this is the case. How’s life treating you Jo Ann Miller?
So what are the solutions?
There is one frustratingly silly argument that arises every time this comes up. I.e. The “We need more police, judges, laws, etc” crowd.
More police is fine. But, the reality is it takes on average 18 months to recruit, train and deploy a new constable from application to graduation. In that 18 month time period more Police will resign, retire, get sick, go on leave, take workplace compensation or be assigned to light duties as they have been injured on the job. It costs over half a million dollars per new Police officer in associated costs and that means taxes. Also in that 18 month time period, more offenders will commit crime for Police to do a mountain of tedious paperwork, only for said offender to get off on a light sentence and re-offend thanks to judges unwilling to bestow decent sentences and a throng of ambulance chasers profiteering from casting criminals as “victims”. Both of which have negative effects on Police morale.
Does the court system need to be reformed in terms of accountability of judges and magistrates? Absolutely. Is mandatory sentencing the answer? In my opinion no, it’s a can of worms. Are more laws the answer? No, and please stop it with that mentality that continuing to legislate against people who are minimally affected by more legislation is of any consequence.
It is time to get serious about Castle Doctrine and empowering the citizenry to fight back against the criminal element. For a country that almost unanimously leapt to the defence of Ben Batterham, the doublethink hypocrisy when people shriek about allowing vetted, law abiding members of society to carry self defence tools is just stunning. This attitude needs to change.
As much as the statist authoritarians believe that deferring your ability to defend yourself in an emergency for an average 15 minutes, to a minimally trained, overburdened third party when you only have seconds to respond, they are therefore denying you your right to adequately protect your life and property. I and many others don’t believe in being a victim should we be faced with the dreaded scenario (and I can only speak from my experience as someone who fought off a home invasion earlier this year with a machete, boy they ran when they saw that – but it could’ve been different).
Avi Yemeni has the right idea. These gentlemen had the right idea. So did this man when confronted with a carjacker. Because the answer certainly isn’t more of the same corrupt, toothless bureaucracy that clearly has no interest in protecting those it allegedly democratically represents.
Jeff Cooper’s words are still most apt: “if violent crime is to be curbed it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the Police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore, what he must be taught to fear is his victim.”