top of page
  • Writer's pictureBrad Parker

130 Shots Fired While On Hold with 911

Lack of Police Response While Violent Crime Increases Impacts Our Self-Defense Mindset

Photo of shell casings with the headline 130 Shots While on Hold with 911.  The subhead is that the Lack of Police Response Shape our Self-Defense
Lack of police response as violent crime increases should be shaping our self-defense mindset and skills.

Nothing new here that we have not already covered. But let's consider this story to be another data point reinforcing what we know is happening and what we need to do in our training.

Imagine being on hold with 911 for 28 minutes while bad guys fired 130 shots outside your home. That's what happened recently to a friend of mine in Atlanta.

And he recorded the whole thing.

This was IN Atlanta. Not in a rural area, but in the city.

It took 28 minutes on hold before he was able to talk with a human. It took 35 minutes from the start of the call for officers to arrive and, by then, all they found was a silent street and shell casings. The gunfight had been over for a few minutes.

They missed it.

35 minutes for LE to arrive at a gunfight. While he waited on hold. What if the guns had been pointed at him instead of each other?

Unfortunately, his story is not unique. Not for Atlanta. Not for a lot of the country. Probably not for where you live.

When seconds count, police are minutes away. Police can't be everywhere instantly and we've made it worse. As a society, we have undermined law enforcement and caused thousands of great officers to leave the profession.We've got 100,000 fewer officers on duty than we did just a few years ago. 700,000 down from 800,000.

Calls are more frequent and many departments require 2-3 officers to respond to calls that used to only require 1.

It means that, if something happens, you're on your own. Possibly for a long time.

YOU need to be able to have the skills (not just the tools) to be a tactical first responder.

Self-Defense Mindset During Civic Fracturing

1. First, we have to accept that we are in a new and deteriorating situation from an economic, social, and cultural situation. Currently all the signs point to these trends continuing to get worse before it gets better.

2. We must become more aware of our surrounding environment. It's a more dangerous world now and attacks can come in the environments in which we live, work, and transition through.Look up. Take out your earbuds. Get a baseline of what normal looks like. Be aware of unnatural and potentially violent behaviors from others.

3. Get First Aid training. At the minimum, seek out the Red Cross training for First Aid and CPR.

4. Get in shape. Strong people are a visual deterrent to criminals. Strong people perform better under stress. Strong people have the physical abilities to fight better.

5. Get training in hand-to-hand defense. Practice. Practice. Learn to fight. Seriously. This will also help you in #4 above.

6. Get training in armed self-defense. At the minimal level, get your concealed carry permit or license as dictated by your state. Here's what you should be training for: multiple attackers -- at close range. And they have weapons.

7. Take responsibility for the protection of yourself and your family.​ The courts have repeatedly told us that the police have now responsibility for your safety. For example, we covered this in the post Self-Defense in a Collapsing Society:

The Police are Not Responsible for Our Safety

The kicker that negates all of the urging for us to call and wait for the police is the legal principle that law enforcement (and the system) is not responsible for our safety. Yes, let's call 911 or 999 for emergency response, but don't count on any helpful response in time to truly make a difference.

That's because the U.S. Courts have repeatedly -- repeatedly -- found that police have no duty to any one of us:

  1. Warren v. District of Columbia. A case of three women and a child who endured 14 hours of torture at the hands of two intruders. They called police repeatedly. Judge Hannon based his decision in No. 79-6 on "the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists. Holding that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants in No. 79-6, Judge Hannon concluded that no specific legal duty existed.

  2. Castle Rock v. Gonzales. A woman called the police numerous times about her ex-husband taking her three children in violation of an existing restraining order. The father subsequently murdered the children. The court found Colorado law has not created a personal entitlement to enforcement of restraining orders. It does not appear that state law truly made such enforcement mandatory.

  3. DeShaney v. Winnebago County. DeShaney was a child who was being beaten by his father. The county department of social services, and several of its social workers, received complaints about the abuse and beatings. They did not remove the child from his father's custody. The father finally beat the child so severely that he suffered permanent brain damage. The court found the State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.

The court's bottom line: Don't blame us. We're not responsible for the safety of you or your children.

We must act as it no one is coming to help us. We are on your own.

Seriously. We are on our own. We are not guaranteed to any protection from the legal system.

Okay, so you are convinced to take personal responsibility for your self-defense. But...I don't even know how to start. What should I do first?

2 views0 comments


bottom of page