Thieves broke into five U.S. Forest Service Police vehicles as the officers slept at an Albuquerque hotel, taking off with several high-powered rifles, laptops and radios.It's interesting because it illustrates the concept of "gun flow." It also offers a chance to explore the concept of shared responsibility.The officers discovered the thefts at the Sheraton Uptown early Thursday morning and called Albuquerque police.
As police investigated, Bernalillo County firefighters responded to a fire on Albuquerque's West Mesa, where they discovered some of the stolen laptops, radios and documents burning.
Officials are focusing their efforts on the weapons, which are still missing. The fire destroyed much of the evidence, making the investigation that much harder.
In a case like this, obviously the thieves are the guilty ones. But, doesn't their guilt presuppose the cops had secured the weapons properly? In other words, what if the officers had forgot to lock their vehicles? What if they had left the guns unsecured on the back seat? Would they then share in the responsibility?
One example of shared responsibility that no one seems to have a problem with is the case of the Oklahoma pharmacist. Some of the folks who have criticized me about my ideas on shared responsibility, whether it be brutal killers who have suffered from addictions or child abuse, or the idea that legal gun owners share in the responsibility for gun crime in general, have no problem with the fact that the pharmacist, who is charged with 1st Degree Murder, wouldn't have had to do it if the kid hadn't have tried to rob the store. In their view, it was the dead teenager's fault, not the pharmacist's.
In the case of the stolen Forest Service guns the police officers have become unwitting players in the unstoppable flow of guns that continually feeds the criminal world in America.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"But, doesn't their guilt presuppose the cops had secured the weapons properly? In other words, what if the officers had forgot to lock their vehicles? What if they had left the guns unsecured on the back seat? Would they then share in the responsibility?"
ReplyDeleteIs there anything at all in this article to suggest that the vehicles were not locked? Besides, would they be less "guilty" of theft if there were less locks in place?
Again, thieves commit a crime and the victims are to blame. I suppose then you are one of those that believe that women that dress suggestively share the responsibility for rape?
"In a case like this, obviously the thieves are the guilty ones."
ReplyDeleteWhy is it obvious in this case and not others MikeB? Because it involves authorities and not regular citizens?
We all know you censor comments that put you in shared responsibility for criminal actions, don't we?
In other words, what if the officers had forgot to lock their vehicles? What if they had left the guns unsecured on the back seat? Would they then share in the responsibility?
ReplyDeleteNO MIKE! The criminals STOLE those weapons. No one made them do it. They made a conscious decision to engage in theft.
If I leave my car unlocked and someone steals it, am I to blame? Why do you ALWAYS blame the victim? Is it some strange pathologicial issue for you?
Funny, you censor comments when we apply your bogus "shared responsibility" theory to you. Seems you don't like having it applied to you, only to us.
So should the police be disarmed to prevent the flow of firearms to criminals from this source?
ReplyDelete"Thieves broke into five U.S. Forest Service Police vehicles"
ReplyDelete"In a case like this, obviously the thieves are the guilty ones."
I would say that thieves are the guilty ones when they steal anything from anybody.
Why you use the word "obviously" when the victims are LEOs is truly baffling.
No, I don't say the police should be disarmed.
ReplyDeleteI use the word "obviously" because there was no indication in the article that the police might have been at fault. I'm just trying to challenge you individual responsibility guys when I say suppose they had failed to secure the weapons properly. Mike W. says even in that case, only the thieves would be responsible. Let's go further. Let's say the cops took the guns out, placed them on the sidewalk, went inside the motel and forgot all about the guns. The would be thief walks by, picks up the guns and makes off. Would the cops be partly responsible in that case?
Ah, a nice little fantasy strawman. How cute.
ReplyDeleteSo they had it in their vehicle and you blame only the criminals. I have it in my house and you blame me.
How convenient.
Third - Such are the logical inconsistencies MikeB twists himself into trying to defend an indefensible position.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly makes him, and the positions he advocates for look bad.
Guns also flow from the police to the law-abiding...
ReplyDeletePrint ShareThisROSWELL, Ga. — A Georgia liquor store clerk credits his police officer son with giving him two life-saving gifts — a cell phone and a gun.
Joseph Wescott says the phone he slipped into his shirt pocket stopped a knife to his chest when a robbery suspect attacked him at the store in a northern Atlanta suburb. He then reached under the counter for the .40-caliber handgun and shot the man.
"The knife that he had looked like it was about 10-foot long," the 67-year-old Wescott exclaimed.
When the suspect lunged at Wescott, he fell back and the knife struck the battery area of the phone, the clerk said. He then fired one shot at the man Monday night.
"That was the first time I had ever fired that gun," he said.
Police said Carlos JeanPeirre, 34, is recovering from non-life threatening wounds and faces multiple charges including aggravated assault and attempted robbery.
Wescott's son, Jason, said he gave both gifts to his father to keep him safe.
"Something like that can happen in a split second and it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it," Jason Wescott said.
After the attack, Joseph Wescot said he used his cell phone to call 911.