Wednesday, September 27, 2006

From the Comments on the Cooper article

A Nony Mouse posted this in response to the Cooper article:

... to say that you are better protection then professionals is, er... silly (I'd rather not use a stronger word) According to this article, the President should NOT have his body guards, because after all, you can't trust them. Instead, he should be packing a gun himself. Good luck with that!

I do agree that even with body guards, one would be wise to pay attention and be armed, but you will NOT be your BEST protector. If nothing else, you are ONE person, and you can't do the job of 10. I'm sorry, this article takes an otherwise sane and logical argument (you should protect yourself) to an extreme by using ABSOLUTE arguments that you, and you alone are the best, and frankly ONLY person that can protect you. Hope Bush doesn't listen.


And why are you not your own best protector?

You state -- and I quote: "
to say that you are better protection then professionals is, er... silly" unquote.

I ask you, why is it silly?

For further enlightenment, let us step into the Wayback machine and set it for November of 2004. The place is Santiago, Chile -- the closing dinner of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.

In particular, we should focus upon the black Cadillac limousine, from which President George W. Bush and the First Lady of the United States are descending.

Notice the man holding open the door of the limousine. Allow me to introduce Special Agent Nick Trotta, he is the second lead on the Secret Service Security detail assigned to the President.

Arguably, there are none more professional in their duties than the American Secret Service, and there are few who are their equals.

President and Mrs. Bush walk up the stairs and greet their hosts, the President and First Lady of Chile.

Do notice the absence of security.

Where, you ask, is the Secret Service? Look outside the building. Look at the bottom of the stairs. See the scrum of Chilean Security Forces? That is President Bush's Secret Service detail which is being detained in head-locks and full nelsons.

Notice that despite the blows and chokeholds being dished out by the Security detail of President Bush, they are
not getting through the crowd of Chileans.

I turn your attention to the inside of the building, where the President of the United States stands -- unprotected by his professionals. This is the part you should pay attention to: watch President Bush walk outside of the building; observe him walk up to the full-on brawl between his professionals and the locals; and witness him push Chileans out of the way, reach over the scrum, grab his professional and pull his professional out of the fray.

Now, tell me again that it is "silly" to think that you are better protection than the professionals?

For several minutes, President Bush -- whom you used as your example --
was his own protection.

Why should you think it is any different for anyone else?

Let us re
-enter the Wayback Machine. This time, we shall set it for July 9, 1982. The place is London, England. Buckingham Palace, to be exact.

It is just after 0600 local time. Here is Queen Elizabeth the Second, constitutional monarch of Great Britain. She has not one, but two military units tasked with her protection at home. There is a Metropolitan Police Special Operations Bureau tasked with her security and protection at home. There are innumerable servants, footmen, maids, butlers and whatever devoted to her protection.

So ... let us cast our gaze upon the mentally-ill man sitting at the foot of her bed. Notice, if you will, the steady fall of blood from his hand and the broken half of a bloodied ashtray he holds.

As soon as the Queen notices this intruder in her chamber, begin counting on your watch. I wish you to count off twelve minutes. This is the length of time it will take for help to arrive.

Twelve minutes. Long time. She will attempt to summon help no less than three times during this conversation -- keep counting, do. Despite the phone calls from the Queen, it still takes twelve minutes for help to arrive.

Here you are, telling me that it is "silly" ... keep counting off those twelve minutes, sirrah! ... to think that you yourself are better protection than the professionals. Tell me, do: here is the Queen, herself, yet where are her professionals? Ten minutes away?

What protection are her professionals providing, that she, herself, isn't doing already?

Tick, tock. Tick, tock.

This is 1982. Surely, this is a lesson?

Let us go to 2003. Windsor Castle, on the anniversary of the 21st birthday of Queen Elizabeth's grandson, Prince William.

The man you want to watch is dressed as Osama bin Laden. Not the best choice in this post-9/11 world, but what the hell, right?

No, watch. Yes, he is scaling the wall. Oh, security got him ... no, he's talking his way past them -- now he's up on the stage with Prince William in front of most of the British Royal Family ... he just kissed Prince William on not one, but both cheeks.

Do you think kissing range is knifing range? I do.

Where is the Royal security, the professionals we are "silly" not to trust?

Do you think kissing range is pistol range? I do.

Where are the bodyguards?

Do you think kissing range is suicide bomb range? I do.

But, here is Prince William, heir to the throne of Great Britain, with only himself for protection.

*sigh*

The President of the United States has unparalleled bodyguards, can afford unparalled security ... yet, those bodyguards aren't always there. The President had to tend for himself for those long seconds.

The Royal Family of great Britain have unparalleled bodyguards, can afford unparalleled security ... yet, failures happen. The Queen had to tend for herself for twelve long minutes. Her grandson had to tend for himself for the duration of having a mic snatched and two kisses planted.

And yet, here you are to tell me that it is "silly" to think that each man is a better guard of himself than hired professionals are.

Feh.

LawDog

31 comments:

cleanhead said...

AMEN, Brother!

cleanhead said...

Also, good job President Bush was man enough to go out and retrieve his bodyguard. Clinton would have sent Hilly out instead....

Anonymous said...

I also seem to recall that Kennedy was surrounded by Secret Service agents & still was killed.

The only person you can always be sure will be with you, is you.

Alex said...

Ouch! That's going to leave a mark.

Art Eatman said...

And add that state courts, federal district courts and SCOTUS have all said essentially the same thing: The police are not obligated to protect the individual, but to preserve the peace and order of the community.

(Doesn't mean most cops won't do the best they can, but they can't be everywhere in town at every moment.)

That's just another way of saying, "It's up to you."

Art

Anonymous said...

You don't actually expect people like said A Nony Mouse to actually take responsibility for themselves, do you? Why, folks like you are always around to gun the guy down or take the bullet. It's your job, what you're paid for and all that.

People like that dearly love to surrender any and all freedoms so they don't have to make decisions pertaining to their lives. Much easier to allow the government to live it for them. Why concern themselves with their own safety, health, and wellbeing?


"The police are not obligated to protect the individual, but to preserve the peace and order of the community."

Aye. They're peace officers. Seems to me the courts are actually doing the enforcing of the laws. Never could get my head around the whole "LEO" thing.

frhe sjgg said...

Very very sadly true !

Both the Queen and Prince William could be very dead despite all the alleged safety precautions....

I like your blog - just found it and added it to my favorites list !

Please come visit me at:

http://www.MakeMyCopCome.blogspot.com

I think there are stories you would enjoy reading !

Be safe.
Sincerely,
Anne Elizabeth

wolfwalker said...

LawDog,

I agree your mouse got it wrong, but I also think perhaps you and Colonel Cooper could benefit from a subtle change in your wording. You are not necessarily your own best protector. A 60-year-old woman or a 50-year-old politician can't possibly be as good as a 25-year-old commando-trained bodyguard at any kind of combat. You're only your own best protection if you have no better protection immediately available. What you always are is your own last line of defense -- which isn't the same thing. But you should always make that last line as strong as it can reasonably be. Carry a weapon you know how to use. Learn some martial arts. And be prepared to use them if you must.

(I must admit, I find the image of President Bush packing heat into a UN General Assembly meeting to be irresistible. No doubt a large number of his political enemies, both foreign and domestic, would promptly eliminate themselves by means of various stress-triggered health issues....)

Anonymous said...

Commando-trained bodyguard? Give me a break...

One doesn't need to be trained "at any kind of combat" as they aren't bloody likely to encounter zombies or alpacas hell-bent on spitting everyone to death whilst on a trip to procure some vittle fixin's.

Anonymous said...

2 thoughts, one to the entry.

What do you think the odds are that President Bush doesn't carry a weapon?

second to one of the comments here, Clinton wouldn't have sent Hillary. He would have allowed himself to be taken hostage, tried to "talk" to the people, then come out and bad mouth the secret service.

Pedro the Ignorant said...

I don't think I have ever read a better rebuttal to the "wait for the professionals" line of BS.

Well said, lawdog, and especially gratifying to hear it from a serving LEO.

BobG said...

"Also, good job President Bush was man enough to go out and retrieve his bodyguard. Clinton would have sent Hilly out instead...."

She would have been more intimidating...

Nathaniel Firethorn said...

Oh, and by the way... word is that the President is armed, with a 1911 that he keeps in his nightstand. Nancy Reagan was too.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=125747

1894C said...

Nicely done LD as always.

Sailorcurt said...

Obviously any mouse is one of those critters who are utterly helpless and incapable of fending for themselves. One of those poor creatures who, rather than facing up to their situation and attempting to remedy it, prefer to live under the illusion that being a sheep (or mouse) is preferable to being a sheepdog (or a Pit Bull Terrier...mine is quite adept at running down and de-lifing the any mouses that like to hang out around here).

Erik said...

And as the original article states, several people have been killed by their own bodyguards.

If you do have bodyguards, you are the one that picks them, and that makes you ultimately responsible for your own protection. Not your bodyguards, but you.

Justin said...

The point brought up by the anonymous poster is completely academic from the standpoint of anyone who can't afford to hire bodyguards.

Cooper's statement is just fine so far as I'm concerned.

Art Eatman said...

"One doesn't need to be trained "at any kind of combat" as they aren't bloody likely to encounter zombies or alpacas hell-bent on spitting everyone to death whilst on a trip to procure some vittle fixin's."

And nobody ever had a car wreck on the way to the vittle store? Nobody's house ever caught fire while they were at the vittle store?

There's this thing called "insurance". It's for dealing with highly unlikely events.

Self-defense capability is for the "aren't bloody likely" events.

:), Art

DiamondMair said...

I'm totally bemused by A Nony - few years back, I was working 1stCivDiv @ Naval Hospital, Portsmouth, VA - I'd been brainrinsed by cops back in PA, against my becoming proficient in firearms - anyhoo, I'd just been paid, cashed my paycheck, gotten the requisite money orders for bills - I'm on a pay phone, checking on a friend in the hospital - feel a "push" at my shoulder - suddenly, my purse with cash, MO's, etc., is hightailing it across a major thoroughfare - I drop the phone & take off after the guy - he gets away, I call the cops - they catch him, take me to the police station to ID him - cops asked if I was willing to press charges - I said hell Yes!! - when I got home & was talking with various people about it, several of my friends wanted to know what I was thinking, he could have had a gun - I was such a PO'd former WM, it was never even an issue ..................... what most folks don't recognize is the sense of violation, followed by outrage - 'til you've been there, don't overanalyze the decisions/actions of others .......................

Anonymous said...

I am the original A Nony Mouse that stirred this up. Wolfwalker said (very well) what I was TRYING to say. It was the wording. I totally agree that you are your LAST LINE OF DEFENSE. I disagree with you are your BEST defense.

And no, I am NOT one of the people that doesn't want to take responsiblity for my own safety. But I also don't believe that I am safer now then I would be if I could afford 5 trained body guards. I also understand, that since I can't afford the 5 body guards, I'm pretty much my ONLY defense, but I have no illusions that I also am vulnerable, since I don't have a paranoid desire to be double checking every shadow in the yard, something I would expect paid guards to do.

Anonymous said...

See, that's just the point all the others made, Mousy: you keep expecting somebody else to do for you what you won't, for whatever reason, do for yourself.

Cindi

LogEyed Roman said...

That's it. I was going to pass on this, but the original Anony Mouse has really offended me.

Okay, Anony. You said in your first post, which starte this off, first of allin the first place:

... to say that you are better protection then professionals is, er... silly (I'd rather not use a stronger word) According to this article, the President should NOT have his body guards, because after all, you can't trust them. Instead, he should be packing a gun himself. Good luck with that!


This wasn't just "badly worded"; it is a gross calumny. First of all, if you're going to call someone a name, just come out and call them a name. Don't be demure about it and pretend you're being civil. You are being catty and sly, which is much worse than open name calling. Second, and worse, you are attributing an inference, that the article is taking a position that you'd be better off with no bodyguards. That's a silly position, of course, but there is in fact nothing in the article that could possibly be interpreted that way. It was your uncivil intention to mock the position taken any way you could rather than soberly disagree with it that was the reason you said that.

You are not a mouse; you are troll in mouse's clothing.

Now to try to backpedal and say that it's just the wording and you only really meant that you actually agree with the more sensible position--sorry. Whatever position you take now cannot cover up your unfairness and bad manners. The effort to do so rather than come clean only exacerbates your troll behavior.

Also, the original wording could not reasonably be interpreted to say that the principal can do more than ten guards, etc. Again, that's your attributing a silly position to LawDog's post which does not fit it, in order to try to make it look silly.

As to the "best protector", that position stands. Of course the principal would most likely use their own capability as a "last line of defense", but they must also be prepared to be the "first responder" if an attacker slips through the cracks. Even with the best-organized defense, that risk cannot be avoided. The defense always has the weakness that it's reactive, and to have an effective defense 24/7 for years is nearly impossible.

Then there's the principle that Erik pointed out, that you are responsible for picking your bodyguards--or, at least, I would add, accepting the arrangements. The responsibility for our safety ultimately always lies with us, unless we are too young, old, sick, etc., to take care of it ourselves. As LawDog said elsewhere, Mother Nature is shacked up with Murphy, and they both hate you. Personally.

Anyway, having gotten some of the outrage out of my system, let me end by reiterating, perhaps a bit more calmly, Anony Mouse, that you were in fact rude and unfair to make the attributions of silly, stupid positions that you did. Mouse, it's a poor way to make your point. People will be put off and not want to listen to you. "Oh, it's just that troll-mouse who puts words into your mouth to make themselves appear smarter." Get smarter, Mouse. Clean up your manners.

--LER

Bob said...

LD, that's the best and most on-point piece I've seen regarding personal responsibility for one's own protection -- even better than the Colonel's. A common theme on combatcarry.com is exactly that -- PERSONAL responsibility for PERSONAL protection.

I'll certainly welcome Law Enforcement after the fact, but it is ludicrous to believe you/they will be there to prevent an incident. There aren't enough of you and, as already observed here by others, it is not your job in the first place.

Do I believe an incident is likely? No. Nor do I believe a car accident is likely, nor a flood to occur in my house, but I have insurance for both. My concealed carry weapon is just such insurance.

Like most people, the risk to me does not warrant bodyguards and I couldn't afford them anyway. However, in the real world, at my age and with my physical limitations, other than observing and avoiding, my CCW is the best I can do, and I do hope to never draw it other than in training/practice, but if necessary to defend my life, I am trained, and continue to train (important), to use it.

I expect no trouble and will actively seek to avoid it if presented, but I simply refuse to be a sheep.

Thank you for the post. I read here every day. If nothing is new when I drop in, I go to an oldie and read again. Thought provoking, informative, and entertaining -- irresistible!

Anonymous said...

I'm mustanger98 on thehighroad.org and I've been following Lawdog's articles for a while now. Good stuff.

"...the principal would most likely use their own capability as a "last line of defense", but they must also be prepared to be the "first responder" if an attacker slips through the cracks. Even with the best-organized defense, that risk cannot be avoided. The defense always has the weakness that it's reactive, and to have an effective defense 24/7 for years is nearly impossible."

The first thing I thought of reading that was the one scene from "We Were Soldiers" when the NVA soldier got inside the US position and tried to kill Col. Moore from close up and Col. Moore (Mel Gibson), surrounded by his own men, shot him dead. But it surely needn't be wartime for such a situation, however unlikely, to arise. We, regardless of our situation as military, police, or private citizen, just have to be as prepared as we can be and live our lives and deal with it as best we can when it happens... if it happens.

The Northwestern Diamondback of THR said...

Maybe "best" isn't the right word, but the Colonel was in the right vein. Let's try:

You are your own FIRST and LAST line of defense. (There may be others in between.)

FIRST because you have some degree of control in selecting your guardians, and you have the capability and responsibility to vet and clearance them, and to screen out the would-be infiltrators.

LAST because if your protection detail is neutralized/terminated/otherwise unavailable, you have to hold the line yourself until an evac team can get in to extract you.

Me with a gun on hand and ready, in my opinion, beats an entire platoon of James Bonds, Mack Bolans, or more realistically Colonel Coopers stuck in another wing of the building. They're no use if they're not with you and operational when the organic fertilizer makes high-velocity contact with the rotary air-circulator, right?

Just an opinion, worth exactly what y'all paid for it.

Anonymous said...

"Art Eatman said...
"One doesn't need to be trained "at any kind of combat" as they aren't bloody likely to encounter zombies or alpacas hell-bent on spitting everyone to death whilst on a trip to procure some vittle fixin's."

And nobody ever had a car wreck on the way to the vittle store? Nobody's house ever caught fire while they were at the vittle store?

There's this thing called "insurance". It's for dealing with highly unlikely events.

Self-defense capability is for the "aren't bloody likely" events."



So you think one must be trained as a commando?

Training's fine. I encourage it. I'm however not real big on hyperbole. At least I hope it was hyperbole...

Sailorcurt said...

So you think one must be trained as a commando?

Training's fine. I encourage it. I'm however not real big on hyperbole. At least I hope it was hyperbole...


Darn, I've really got to remember that technique. It's really easy to win an argument when you get to make up your opponents positions.

There should be a name for that...oh...there is...strawman.

At what point, specifically, did Art even IMPLY, let alone directly assert that one must be "trained as a commando" to mount an effective defense?

For one not real big on hyperbole you sure did sling it.

Guess that's why you didn't deign to grace us with your name.

Anonymous said...

At what point did I ever bring up car and homeowners insurance?

Kristopher said...

Anonymous said...

At what point did I ever bring up car and homeowners insurance?
-SLAP

Stop trying top change the subject.

Getting too hot in here, little troll?

Anonymous said...

Troll? Yeah, that must be it because our opinions don't mesh. Can't have that.

A couple of you (note: not Art) need to get a damn life. Take your false internet bravado, workday frustration, Walter Mitty syndrome, sexual dysfunction, financial frustration and other sundry feelings of insignificance off to some tender ass who gives a damn. Sorry, but your aren't close to what you wish you were by being "direct" online. You're still nothing, as, in a way, we all are.

The idea that a 60 year old can't effectively defend herself from the average threat (see also: not zombies or any other gun board fantasy) is ludicrous. So is the idea that anyone can't defend themselves if they aren't trained as a "commando". *That*, was my point.

Anonymous said...

Dog,

You are exactly on target... and if I might may I add a brief story that illustrates your point?

WAY...way back when Harry S. was president, the White House was under rennovation... as a result President and Frau Truman were living across the street at Blair House.

Blair House was the location Puerto Rican terrorists (later pardoned by Jimmy Carter) chose to try to kill the President and his wife... they succeeded in killing a member of the Secret Service Uniform Service.

When the shooting started, Secret Service troopers headed for the sound of gunfire to defend the President. The SS guys quickly resolved the affray, but were shocked to discover Harry S. standing by them as they mopped up with his (uh... how do I put this politely... "bring home" from WWI) 1917 .45 revolver in hand (no, I don't know if it was S&W or Colt's... though I hope it was S&W)ready to defend his wife and his person. Reports say Truman told the SS there was no way he was going to be the only one to miss a good gunfight... Sure hope the story is accrate... but it was told to me by someone in that organization who probably does know.

Now, ole Dog, THAT is what is needed... The President should be armed everywhere he goes... never know when he might have to join the fight.

Keep up the good work.

Chuck