It’s no secret that the police are under no obligation to protect you but it’s probably not common knowledge that the police use people as political pawns. A police department in Oregon allowed a woman to be sexually assaulted because they were pissy about recent budget cuts:
“Uh, I don’t have anybody to send out there,” the 911 dispatcher told the woman. “You know, obviously, if he comes inside the residence and assaults you, can you ask him to go away? Do you know if he’s intoxicated or anything?”
The woman told the dispatcher that Bellah previously attacked her and left her hospitalized a few weeks prior to the latest incident. The dispatcher stayed on the phone with the woman for more than 10 minutes before the sexual assault took place.
“Once again it’s unfortunate you guys don’t have any law enforcement out there,” the dispatcher said, according to Oregon Public Radio.
The woman responded: “Yeah, it doesn’t matter, if he gets in the house I’m done.”
Police say Bellah choked the woman and sexually assaulted her. He was arrested by Oregon State Police following the incident.
This situation is an example of Washington Monument syndrome. If you haven’t heard of Washington Monument syndrome it’s the name given to the phenomenon where government agencies cut the most visible programs whenever their budgets are cut. This strategy is meant to directly make the lives of people more miserable in the hopes that they protest and demand more funding for whatever agency is cutting the visible program. It appears that the police department in question was pulling such a move when they told her no units could respond.
This story demonstrates another thing, the dangers of centralized security. I’ve discussed the advantages of decentralized security before but the most important point in regards to this story is that decentralized security doesn’t suffer complete failure due to any single component failing. Police not responding may not have resulting in the woman being sexually assault if she had access to a firearm or some of her neighbors had access to a firearm and the legal ability to respond to phone calls for help.
Relying on the state for security results in a complete lack of security, especially when a state agency is pissed off because of budget cuts and decides to throw a temper tantrum instead of coming to the aid of a person in need.
Until I became concerned with 2A issues, I had no idea the police had no obligation to protect individual citizens. And I am constantly surprised at how many people are still unaware.
Yeah, most people probably assume, and rightfully so, that the entity that claims a monopoly on security services would actually provide security services. As it turns out, not so much.