It’s sometimes said that insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
If that’s true, it doesn’t speak well of gun control advocates’ mental health, insofar as they repeat the same ritual after every high-profile firearm-related crime, with little or no lasting impact on public opinion or national policy.
Their standard procedure is: immediately misreport basic facts of the incident; unleash the indignation of anti gun politicians and celebrities on social media;
condemn the NRA and anyone else who offers thoughts and prayers while awaiting reliable information;
demand the same types of gun controls that failed to prevent the incident; insist that the gun debate has reached a turning point;
and abruptly stop talking about the incident when emotions cool and facts emerge that show how existing gun controls failed.
The defining tactic in this whole chain of events is to seize and define the narrative in the immediate aftermath of the event before anybody actually knows what happened.
The website Vox.com, however, took this tendency to new depths by using a double-murder/suicide that took place at a video game competition in Jacksonville, Florida, to re-run nearly word-for-word an article the outlet had published in May after a firearm-related crime in Sante Fe, Texas.
In both cases, the author used his limited propaganda window to express opinions that gun control advocates usually shun in the calm, cold light of reasoned debate.
“What America likely needs,” he wrote, “is something … like Australia’s mandatory buyback program — essentially, a gun confiscation scheme — paired with a serious ban on specific firearms (including, potentially, all semiautomatic weapons).”
Yet if it’s crazy for gun control advocates to expect different results from doing the same thing, it’s equally crazy for Second Amendment supporters to ignore what the opposition says when they believe they have the leeway to really speak their mind.
Simply put, when someone tells you he wants to take your guns, the only safe bet is to take him at his word.
This is the reality of the gun control agenda: its adherents see guns as the problem and the absence of guns as the solution. Everything they do is geared toward the goal of reducing and eventually eliminating civilian firearm ownership.
The only variable is the speed at which they’re willing to accomplish this objective. Sometimes they’re willing to do it by attrition, with an eye toward the gradual tapering off of new gun owners.
But the temptation to extol mass firearm confiscation is one many simply cannot resist when their outrage is in full bloom.
To be fair, the Vox author admitted that his plan is not viable in the short term and that “[p]art of the holdup is the Second Amendment.” He was quick to endorse whatever “milder” gun control the U.S. will tolerate in the meantime, while it works up the will “to take the action it really needs.”
But again, let’s not kid ourselves about what this “milder” gun control really accomplishes.
It’s certainly not public safety, a fact illustrated by the Jacksonville incident itself. According to media accounts, the alleged perpetrator bought the pistol he used in his crime in Maryland, which has one of the nation’s strictest gun control regimes.
He then reportedly used that pistol to commit a multiple-murder/suicide in a state known for a more lenient approach to gun control. The scene of the crime was also a gun-free zone.
And while the media is indulging in its usual obsession about what “should have” stopped him from buying gun, the alleged perpetrator cleared every “evidence-based polic[y]” the Vox author suggested might at least lead to “reduced injuries and deaths.”
This includes Maryland’s licensing and background check requirements, its expansive mental health disqualifiers for firearm ownership, and even its “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazine bans.
This was “state of the art” gun control in 2013. It was Maryland’s “solution” to “preventing” something like what happened the year before in Newtown, Connecticut.
And now that it has failed so publicly, the Maryland legislature is said to be considering – you guessed it – even more restrictive gun control.
Because, ultimately, the only thing that gun control accomplishes is conditioning the public to accept ever more gun control under the false premise that we’re somehow just a few laws short of overcoming the problem of human evil.
Come to think of it, that’s a pretty good definition of insanity, as well.
David Hogg, the posterboy for the modern gun control movement. (Photo: Facebook)
While participating in an anti-gun march in Massachusetts over the weekend, gun-control crusader David Hogg posted a hair-raising and head-turning ultimatum to Smith & Wesson.
Hogg told the popular firearms and ammunition manufacturer, headquartered in Springfield, via Twitter, that it had to fund “gun violence prevention research” to the tune of $5 million annually and cease making certain black rifles or else…
Hogg and his posse of moonbat millennials would “destroy” S&W.
“We will destroy you by using the two things you fear most,” wrote Hogg. “Love and economics 🙂 see you soon.”
David Hogg
✔@davidhogg111
·
Dear, Smith and Wesson should you not choose to be morally responsible by
1. By funding gun violence prevention research with 5 million dollars annually.
&
2. Stop manufacturing guns that are illegal under the 2004 Massachusetts assault weapons ban
David Hogg
✔@davidhogg111
We will destroy you by using the two things you fear most.
It didn’t take very long for folks on Twitter to point out the obvious flaw with Hogg’s plan. For a boycott to be effective, the protesters must be active consumers of a company’s products.
Executive Fiat in Action! Rhode Island Governor Bans Guns in Schools
byS.H. BLANNELBERRY
Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo with school commissioner Ken Wagner. (Photo: Fox RI)
The ruling class in Rhode Island this week banned guns in public schools with the exception of law enforcement.
Gov. Gina Raimondo made the announcement Wednesday alongside school commissioner Ken Wagner.
“It isn’t hard: Guns don’t belong in schools. Even Mississippi bans non-law enforcement officials from carrying guns onto school grounds,” said Raimondo in a press release.
Quick fact check. Raimondo’s wrong. Mississippi does allow individuals with enhanced concealed carry permits to bring firearms onto public school property.
“As we start a new school year, our students cannot wait a minute longer for the General Assembly to take action on the Safe Schools Act,” she continued. “The Rhode Island Department of Education has issued a binding directive to every school district that immediately bans firearms from our kids’ schools.”
In other words, instead of allowing government to function the way it’s supposed to, with lawmakers making the laws, Raimondo enacted an order by executive fiat.
Gina Raimondo
✔@GovRaimondo
Guns don’t belong in schools.
This directive comes in response to uncertainty among education leaders and members of the community, and a lack of consistent practice across district lines.
RIDeptEd@RIDeptEd
Effective immediately, until such time as the underlying laws are clarified, no one other than active law enforcement is allowed to carry a firearm on school grounds.
Wagner backed up that play by suggesting there was some sort of confusion about the existing law.
“It’s our job to protect kids and their teachers,” said Wagner. “Inconsistencies among laws, regulations, and local policies and practices create confusion, producing the exact kind of unsafe environment the law is intended to prevent. As we start a new school year, this directive provides clarity, until such time that the underlying laws are reconciled.”
There was no confusion about the law. Concealed carriers were allowed to bring firearms into public schools. Plain and simple. Raimondo and Wagner just wanted to put a stop to that. The question is why? Because if it’s really about protecting kids and teachers then they have it all wrong. They should ban cops before they ban concealed carriers. Seriously. Research shows that when compared to cops, concealed carriers commit fewer homicides, firearms violations, misdemeanor and felony offenses. Concealed carries are more law-abiding than cops and are convicted at a lower rate. The question can be asked, then, who presents more of a threat to “the children”? The average cop or the average concealed carry?
Please, I’m not suggesting that law enforcement and armed student resource officers don’t belong in schools. Just pointing out that this assumption by government that all cops are White Knights has real limitations. When you break it down the truth is that Raimondo and Wagner aren’t against guns in schools, they’re just against armed citizens having guns in schools. And based on data and what we know about concealed-carry culture that position doesn’t hold water, especially if one accepts that armed resistance is the best way to foil a would-be killer. What they need to recognize is that cops are not the only good guys with guns, they’re not the only ones willing and capable of confronting an armed attacker.
Suppose a young Rhode Island mother has a concealed carry permit because her crazy ex physically abused her and her son. When she goes to pick up her son from school, that crazy ex now knows that she is unarmed. She is vulnerable. What’s stopping him from attacking her in the parking lot? The cop that’s way inside the building? As they say, when seconds count…
Anyways, what’s not clear, at least at this point, is the penalty for those concealed carriers caught violating Raimondo’s order. I reached out to her office for clarification. We’ll see if she responds.
What follows any controversial deadly encounter caught on camera is a barrage of opinions from keyboard commandoes and wannabe legal experts claiming to know “the truth” about the circumstances surrounding the shooting, about whether the use of force was justified, about what will happen to the defendant, etc. etc. etc.
While it’s fine for average Joes to weigh in, it’s quite another when they attempt to pass off their opinions as real expertise.
In an attempt to elevate the level of discussion out here on the Interwebs, GunsAmerica reached out to two attorneys to get actual professional insight on that fatal shooting in a Florida parking lot last month that has everyone talking (see video above).
One is a defense attorney who specializes in all things 2A-related and who regularly handles firearms criminal defense cases; the other is a 2A-friendly prosecutor with tons of jury trial experience prosecuting murders and an Iraq war vet.
Both asked that we not disclose their identities because they’d rather not deal with butthurt Internet trolls messaging them at their offices.
The Q&A:
Question 1. To start, let’s forget Florida law and the specific details of the case for just a moment, and just ask a general question. Under what circumstances, if any, is one justified in using deadly force against an individual who just shoved him or her to the ground? Seems to me that if there’s not a glaring disparity of force in play, like maybe a grown man violently shoving a fragile 90-year-old woman to the ground and seriously injuring her, then it’s hard to think of a situation when a shove warrants the use of lethal force. Your thoughts? Defense Attorney: I agree. I think it’s really a stretch to think there’s ever a time that you could simply shoot someone for just pushing you to the ground. Usually, to justify using deadly force you need to have a reasonable belief that you are going to be seriously injured or killed.
Being pushed just doesn’t get you there. I’m not sure that a disparity of force would even get you there unless you reasonably believed the violence was going to continue and that this was your only chance to survive being killed.
If we want to get creative, we could argue that a push could be deadly if it was over a cliff, or into a speeding car, raging river, etc. Even that is different from the facts here because in those examples it’s not the push that will cause you the imminent harm, it’s the landing. Prosecutor: Let me put it this way. Unless you are made of glass and your bones will shatter from the fall, you do NOT have the right to use deadly force from a mere shove to the ground. The jury is not going to buy that as a reasonable use of force in any state. Question 2. Turning to the case, the available facts indicate that 47-year-old Michael Drejka shot and killed 28-year-old Markeis McGlockton in July after McGlockton shoved Drejka the ground. What prompted McGlockton to push Drejka was the fact that Drejka had confronted McGlockton’s girlfriend who had parked in a handicap space at a convenience store in Clearwater, Florida. Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri initially announced that he would not arrest Drejka because the shooting “is within the bookends of ‘stand your ground’ and within the bookends of force being justified.” He added, “I’m not saying I agree with it, but I don’t make that call.” We found out this week, however, that Pinellas County State Attorney Bernie McCabe is charging Drejka with “manslaughter.” “I went through it all and made the legal decision that that is the charge that we could prove,” McCabe told NBC News. There’s a lot to unpack here, but is it common for there to be such a disconnect between the way law enforcement analyzes a case and the way prosecutors analyze a case? I mean there’s a huge gap between “That shooting was lawful, so no arrest” and “Nope, that’s manslaughter,” right? Defense Attorney: It’s actually pretty common for law enforcement to get this stuff wrong. This is complicated stuff. Remember that most of the time law enforcement aren’t lawyers, they didn’t go to law school or pass the bar. They get trained and taught by lawyers and, let’s face it, even lawyers get stuff wrong regularly.
Most people don’t know but there is a prosecutor on call in most counties all night long to answer legal questions for police officers.
In fact, if law enforcement didn’t ever make mistakes there’d be almost no need for defense attorneys. Also, the prosecutor, in this case, had time to review the video, read the police reports, study the law, and make a decision on what he feels he can prove to a jury.
The police had to decide on the scene what to do without the benefit of hindsight, and they chose not to arrest.
I’m sure the reason Drejka is being charged with manslaughter rather than murder is because there’s a defense to murder if provoked by a hit or a push called the “heat of passion” wherein you have an uncontrollable state of mind. It doesn’t usually get you off, but often will reduce a charge from murder to manslaughter. Prosecutor: I’m finding it very hard not to criticize law enforcement on this. They should have been able to see the video immediately at the scene, and we depend on them to understand the basics.
It was patently the wrong call. “Within the bookends of stand your ground?” BZZZZ! Wrong! Stand your ground means that Drejka did not have to run away. It did not (and would not in Florida or any other state) relieve Drejka of the need to “reasonably believe[] that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself” before he shoots! Florida Code 776.012, 776.013.
That reasonable belief that deadly force is needed to save is written into every self-defense law in the nation, including Stand Your Ground states. Any presumption of innocence in this case was clearly rebutted by the video depiction of the crime. Yeah, the cops got it wrong. Embarrassing. Question 3.Speaking of Stand Your Ground, which states in part, “A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony…” does it apply to this case? Defense Attorney: I think that you’re looking at the wrong part of the statute. What you’re looking at are the requirements to use deadly force or to threaten someone with deadly force. We often call those the requirements for self-defense.
If you don’t meet those requirements and you use deadly force you could be charged with murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, or aggravated battery. If you don’t meet those requirements and you threaten someone with deadly force you could be charged with aggravated assault, or brandishing.
Generally, “stand your ground” literally means that you don’t have a duty to retreat or run if you’re in a place that you are legally and lawfully allowed to be in. In plain English, you don’t need to run if you aren’t breaking any laws or if the conflict isn’t your fault.
It does not give you the right to use deadly force. The only the time a person can use deadly force is if that person, “reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony…”.
Imminent death would be death that is just about to happen, death on the verge of happening, death that is going to happen at any moment, etc.
Great bodily harm would be things like, loss of a limb or organ, brain damage, rape, etc.
The majority of states have Stand Your Ground laws. When you combine Stand Your Ground with the Self Defense laws it allows law-abiding citizens to protect themselves or others from people that would kill or seriously injure them and removes the requirement to run away from danger. It’s that simple.
Also, in this situation, I think you could make a case for McGlockton having the right to stand his ground and protect his girlfriend. The facts, as I understand them, are that Drejka was harassing McGlockton’s girlfriend for parking in a handicapped parking space.
Drejka is not law enforcement and has no right to be enforcing the law. There’s a possibility, depending on the level of harassment, that McGlockton was legally defending his girlfriend when he pushed Drejka. Prosecutor: Agreed. Stand Your Ground laws meant that Drejka did not have to run away. But that doesn’t mean he could blow this guy away without any reasonable fear for his life. Leftists like to treat this case like Stand Your Ground actually allows the use of deadly force here. That is misinformation, and when misinformed conservatives agree with it, they are playing into liberal hands. Question 4. It appears from the video that McGlockton made no further attempt to physically harm or attack Drejka. Yet, Drejka drew his gun and fired anyhow. Supposing that’s the gist of it and there’s nothing else to contradict that analysis, does that rise to the level of imminent death or great bodily harm? Defense Attorney: I certainly think that Drejka made a huge mistake. I didn’t see any actions from McGlockton that made me think Drejka was in imminent danger of death or bodily harm. McGlockton had no weapon and his body language wasn’t aggressive after the push. It looks to me like he wanted Drejka to leave his girlfriend alone. I don’t know what was said but usually it takes more than words to create imminent danger.
I’m a huge believer in self-defense, stand your ground, and the Second Amendment. I would struggle with being Drejka’s defense attorney in this case because I think he took a life that he wasn’t justified in taking. Prosecutor: This video just flat-out convicts Drejka. It’s just so hard to justify shooting someone as they walk away. It just makes it impossible to effectively argue that Drejka had a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm. Question 5.Lastly, what advice would you give to concealed carriers who find themselves in a situation where they notice someone breaking the law, assuming it’s not a forcible felony? Defense Attorney: Most of the time my advice is to call 911, be a good witness, take notes, pictures, or video and try not to get involved. If it’s a forcible felony (rape, kidnap, murder, etc.) or someone is in imminent danger of serious injury or death, then you have a harder decision to make. Proceed with caution, be skeptical, and avoid shooting your gun unless it’s absolutely necessary. If it is necessary, make sure you hit what you are aiming at. Afterward, don’t talk to the police or anyone else until you’ve consulted an attorney. Prosecutor: For misdemeanors, don’t try to be the police – call them instead. If someone is being attacked, just remember that you have to reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm before you use deadly force. And remember you have to live with your decision long term.
I don’t know what started me down the rabbit hole of gun control and racism (maybe it’s all this “identity politics” talk by the mainstream media) but I came across this 2017 NRA-produced video on Youtube (see above), conveniently titled, “Gun Control’s Racist History.” It’s a pretty good primer on the racist roots of gun control and follows in the footsteps of a two-part series produced by JFPO in 2009 called, “No Guns for Negroes.”
The other thing I realized in my search is that there’s a lot of great content in the GunsAmerica archives on the subject. Paul has written at least two cogent editorials on the matter which are worth checking out: “Eric Holder Racist Anti-Gun Rant Victimizes Minorities,” and “The Problem is Black People? – Inner City Gun Violence, Obama, Bloomberg & China.”
What one quickly realizes is that gun control has always disproportionately affected poor and working-class people, but particularly blacks. Many laws following slavery were crafted with the sole intent to deny blacks their right to keep and bear arms. That tradition has continued over the years with laws targeting inexpensive firearms, e.g. “Saturday Night Specials” and the adoption of may-issue concealed carry standards that give law enforcement the capacity to arbitrarily prevent “certain people” from bearing arms.
Today it’s not postbellum racists leading the charge to suppress blacks from owning guns but anti-gunners. What they don’t understand, or maybe they secretly do, is that disarming America only creates more victims. And since black people are the ones most frequently victimized by bad guys with guns, they are in essence creating more black victims.
As Paul notes in his editorials, instead of disarming law-abiding blacks they ought to be empowering them to learn how to defend themselves, their families and their communities. Shift the paradigm from a community of victimhood to one of an elevated level of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency. The truth is that the venerable black leaders of the ’60s like MLK and Rosa Parks always preached that latter approach (it’s why MLK and Parks obtained a gun license). It’s only in recent decades that black leadership, under people like Barack Obama and Eric Holder, has been pushing blacks to sacrifice their rights at the altar of the Nanny State, which works simultaneously to undermine individual liberties and line the pockets of those in power.
University of Utah Instructor Ostracizes Concealed Carriers & Loses Fairfax, VA –-(Ammoland.com)- In an outrageous attempt to punish anyone exercising their Second Amendment rights, a University of Utah instructor tried to isolate concealed carry holders by forcing them into a tiny corner in the back of the classroom.
The unnamed graduate teaching assistant told her students on the first day of class this week that anyone carrying a firearm would be forced to stand in a “3 x 3 taped square on the floor in the very back of the classroom.”
University of Utah Anti Gun Syllabus
Despite the fact that Utah is one of ten states that allows for campus carry, the instructor claimed she had the right to “restrict elements of the Second Amendment” in the class, adding that bringing a gun to class is “absurd, anti-social, and frightening behavior.”
The professor created a bizarre “Second Amendment Zone… that does not include a desk, because desks are reserved for students who respect the personal and psychological safety of their classmates and instructor.”
This absurdity did not sit well with at least one student. The 23-year old concealed carry permit holder, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, alerted a friend who then contacted Utah State Representative Karianne Lisonbee. Rep. Lisonbee was on the phone immediately with officials at the University of Utah who took swift action against the instructor.
In a statement provided to the NRA, a University of Utah spokesman said the instructor was forced to redact the syllabus and apologize to students. Officials also removed the instructor from any teaching this semester.
The university said the class syllabus “violated both state law and university policy.
“I am very pleased with how it turned out,” said Lisonbee. “I am very pleased the university handled it so quickly.”
Before the instructor could remove her syllabus from her class website, the anonymous tipster grabbed a screenshot of it as evidence of her outrageous anti-gun bias.
AmmoLand Editors Note: If any of our readers know the name of this teacher please let us know in the comments below.
*******************************
Well that was not handled well by this “Instructor”. It seems to me that she could of thought this one out a little better before hand.
As a Retired Teacher, I like to think that I would handled this issue this way.
“Hey guys with a Permit. I would like to talk to you later about this during my office hours. Okay?” Then I am sure that a fair & equitable deal would of been reached.
As is it now, I am willing to be that this instructor career just took a major hit. As like any Boss out there, you do not want any problems during your shift.
If my Wonderful Readers have a better idea feel free to hit the comments button. Or better yet hit the Paypal Button. As I am looking to get a new toy soon in 22-250. More on that later!
Grumpy
John Apter warns the public ‘are already suffering’ and ‘are going to suffer more’ ( PFEW )
The British public are being “failed” because huge demand and stretched resources mean police are not responding to crimes they would have dealt with in the past, the new head of the Police Federation has warned.
John Apter, who has been a police officer for 26 years, told The Independent that policing in some areas was “broken” and said that government cuts had created a “crisis”.
“We are moving into an area where some crimes will not be investigated, whereas two to five years ago they were,” he said.
“We can’t do everything – there are going to be situations where we simply can’t deliver the policing we want to deliver.
“In those cases we are failing the public but that’s not the fault of police officers on the ground, and in some cases it’s not the chief constable’s fault. You can only slice the financial cake so many ways and you have to prioritise … the public are already suffering and they are going to suffer more and more.”
Last year the Metropolitan Police announced the creation of a new “crime assessment policy”, which gave officers new guidelines on when to stop investigations.
Details suggested that incidents involving a loss of under £50 would not be investigated, as well as offences where there is not a “realistic chance officers will be able to solve it”.
Shoplifting, car crime and criminal damage were among the “lower level” offences being downgraded amid a rise in violent crime, sex offences and 999 calls.
Scotland Yard said the measures were needed to “balance the books” as the force works to make £325m savings by 2022.
Cressida Dick: ‘Naive’ to think cuts to police haven’t had impact on rising crime
In response to questions by The Independent, several other forces said they had implemented measures aiming to make better use of their “finite resources”.
Thames Valley Police has changed its policies on dealing with shoplifting and drivers who flee petrol stations without paying for fuel “to reduce demand on the frontline”.
The force is giving business owners packs allowing them to collect their own evidence and CCTV footage for police, so officers can investigate without travelling to the scene.
“New structures have been designed to provide more flexibility to ensure Thames Valley Police better prioritises, and effectively and efficiently targets resources to the areas of greatest need,” a spokesperson said.
West Yorkshire Police chief constable Dee Collins said her force had to “completely change the way we work”.
“We have to make incredibly difficult decisions, as we seek to balance significantly reduced resources against very high levels of demand” that is often not crime-related, she added.
“I would really like to dispatch more officers to more victims on more occasions than we do but given the current situation and demands for our services, sadly we have to be realistic and pragmatic.”
Bedfordshire Police said the increase in “hidden crimes” like cyber offences, modern slavery and sexual exploitation had changed policing dramatically in recent years.
Deputy chief constable Garry Forsyth said the force had started giving appointments to victims of crimes where there is no threat to the wider public.
“We have to make difficult decisions every day about the crimes we can respond to and whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a full investigation,” he added.
“Obviously we will always prioritise those high-harm crimes which change people’s lives, where there is a threat to the public’s safety, but we are exploring a range of options where there might be alternative resolutions to dealing with incidents to help maximise our officers’ time.”
The teenagers murdered in London in 2018
A Leicestershire Police spokesperson said it was using “limited resources most effectively to deliver public value for money”, adding: “We have to prioritise investigations that cause the highest harm.”
The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) has been urging police forces to use the “Thrive” model which prioritieses emergency calls according to “threat, harm, risk, investigation possibilities, vulnerability and engagement”.
“Every police service is facing continuous challenges re financial constraints and service delivery, demand and resourcing to public expectations and needs,” said a document published last April. “Each service has adopted its own approach, project and programme thinking regarding future policing delivery.”
North Yorkshire Police said the system is not a “one-size-fits-all-policy” on different crime types and still allows a bespoke response for each incident.
“There is no doubt that we have to manage our resources carefully and cannot attend every incident that’s reported to us,” a spokesperson added.
“Over the past year Thrive has helped us to reallocate around 2,000 hours of police-officer time from incidents that didn’t really need police attendance to incidents where they can make a real difference.”
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary’s annual report found that forces are failing to respond to low-priority crimes because of “significant stress” caused by budget cuts and rising demand, saying that prioritisation assessments can sometimes “be misapplied or poorly managed” and put people at risk.
Inspectors also warned that if a victim’s first experience with police is not positive, they may not report crimes in the future.
Research published exclusively byThe Independent earlier this month showed that confidence in the criminal justice system is declining among victims, with one woman saying her experience left her wondering “what is the point in ringing” the police.
Police forces have been working to improve their technology and procedures, but many cite the impact of “unprecedented” demand driven by factors including increasing 999 calls, rising violent crime and complex sexual offence cases and fraud.
Sajid Javid promised police officers he would fight for more funding shortly after being made home secretary (PA)
The number of police officers in England and Wales has fallen to a record low after plummeting by around 22,000 since 2010, while the past year has seen homicides rise by 12 per cent, knife crime by 16 per cent and robbery by 30 per cent.
The government says there is no conclusive evidence of a link between rising crime and falling police officer numbers, but Mr Apter insisted there was “absolutely” a relationship, adding: “The demand has massively increased while officer numbers have considerably been cut.
“The maths just does not add up and the government are purely responsible.”
Almost half of all criminal investigations are being closed with no suspect identified, and the proportion ending with someone being charged or summonsed to court fell to just 9 per cent in the year to March.
Mr Apter said funding cuts were also increasing the strain on police officers themselves, amid a rise in long-term sickness and a record number taking second jobs to supplement their incomes.
“The reality is that policing in some places is broken, we are most certainly in crisis and that is a direct result of the pressure the government has put on by a reduction in funding,” he added.
“I’m not saying that in the early days of austerity there were not efficiencies to be made, but what we are finding now is that we’ve been cut so much we start to become inefficient.
“We’re not giving the service we want to the public and we’re certainly not looking after our officers as much as we should be.”
Sajid Javid has promised to fight for more resources for policing in a government-wide spending review but admitted he has “no magic wand” to increase funding.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “Police have the resources they need to carry out their vital work and we have provided a strong and comprehensive settlement that is increasing total investment in the police system by over £460m in 2018/19, including funding for local policing through council tax precept.
“However, we know the nature of crime is changing. That is why the policing minister spoke to every police force in the country to understand the demands they are facing and why the home secretary, in May, committed to prioritising police funding in next year’s spending review.”
University of Utah Instructor Ostracizes Concealed Carriers & Loses
