|
| | | | |
|
|
Dial 911 and
Die
by Robert A. Waters
I recently conducted an online
interview with Richard Stevens, Attorney at Law, author of "Dial 911 and
Die." The book was published by Mazel Freedom Press, Inc., in 1999. Go to http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm
if you'd like more information about this book.
To say that "Dial 911 and Die" is one of the most important
pro-freedom books of the year is an understatement.
In the interview, Stevens wrote, "When it comes to self-defense, people
must not give up their personal right to arms to the same government that owes
them no duty of self-protection." And that is the premise of the
book--hundreds of court cases have established the principle that law
enforcement agencies do not exist to protect individuals. Therefore, Stevens
argues, it is criminal for cities, states, and the Federal government to pass
gun control laws which take away the individual's right to protect himself or
herself.
Stevens graduated magna cum laude from the University of San Diego School of
Law. He taught for several years at the law schools of George Washington
University and George Mason University. Currently, he specializes in preparing
trial court motions and appellate court briefs in Washington, D. C. Stevens is
also Editor of the Firearms Sentinel, a publication of Jews
for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
RW -- Do you think the average
American realizes that most law enforcement agencies cannot be successfully
sued?
RS -- Many people have never thought about it. That is why it shocks most people
to learn this truth, and sometimes it takes a while for the enormity of the
facts to set in.
RW -- I look at your book as a wake-up call to America. If government can't
protect citizens, we have to protect ourselves. Do you agree?
RS -- I agree, but I put it the other way around. We have the right and duty to
protect ourselves and our loved ones. The police cannot guarantee our safety,
and they often cannot prevent crimes. Meanwhile, the law says the police don't
have to protect us as individuals.
RW -- I like the fact that you used real-life stories to illustrate points you
wished to make. How did you locate the cases you wrote about?
RS -- There are two main sources of the law: the statutes enacted by state
legislatures, and state appellate court decisions. There are standard references
and legal encyclopedias that I used to get started. From the standard
references, the legal encyclopedias and digests of cases, I located the court
cases.
After reading the cases, I used the Shepard's Citations books to discover
whether the cases were still in force or had been reversed or overturned. If the
cases are still valid statements of law, then they were used in the book.
RW -- Which cases affected you most (of those you wrote about)?
RS -- Hartzler vs. City of San Jose (California). This one completely shocked
me. In law school, we had been learning how manufacturers owe legal duties to
buyers of products to be sure the products are safe; how landlords owe legal
duties to tenants to protect them from foreseeable criminal attacks; and how
homeowners owe legal duties to make sure that visitors don't trip and fall on
their property.
Then we turned the page and found that governments owe no legal duty to do the
one thing that you'd think they are supposed to do: protect citizens from
criminal attack.
Another case that really bothered me was the DeShaney Case in Wisconsin. The
county welfare authorities placed a young boy with an abusive father who
tortured and beat him until he was permanently mentally damaged and had to be
institutionalized. There were lots of warning signs and the county case worker
saw tons of evidence that the child was being abused, yet the case worker failed
to intervene. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not require
states to protect their citizens, such as this young boy.
While I have to agree with the court's decision on strict legal grounds in this
case, I was horrified by the larger moral issue: why can the government agency
charged with protecting children escape legal liability for failing to carry out
that duty--when a homeowner can be successfully sued if a would-be burglar trips
and falls on the owner's property?
In another case, Ford vs. Town of Grafton (Massachusetts), a woman got a
restraining order to protect herself from a crazed violent ex-boyfriend. But the
police didn't enforce it and the boyfriend attacked her and nearly killed her.
This case is particularly appalling because the police actually advised the
woman to "get a gun" since they couldn't protect her. The court in
that rabidly anti-firearms state later used the "get a gun" warning
against her. The court said that the police adequately warned her and therefore
had no duty to protect her.
RW -- At the end of the book, you've included a chapter entitled,
"Forty-five stories with a happy ending." Why?
RS -- To show that citizens can successfully protect themselves using firearms,
and that guns do save and protect lives.
RW -- What would you like for readers to take away from your book?
RS -- That you are responsible for your own protection. If you give up your
right to armed self-defense and accept a telephone number for protection, then
you trust a system that legally owes you nothing.
The book also gives you the tools to confront gun control advocates. Citizens
must ask the hard questions: "Mr. Mayor, the law says that the government
and the police have no duty to protect me and my family from criminal attack.
Why do you want to make it harder for me to obtain and use firearms with your
'gun control' proposals when you aren't legally responsible to protect me?"
RW -- Thanks for agreeing to be interviewed. I highly recommend your book. It is
a great read, and provides a harsh dose of reality to those who would accept gun
restrictions. It also provides a compelling rationale for opposing the
gun-banners.
Mr. Waters is the author of The
Best Defense: True Stories of Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves with a
Firearm.
|
|
|
