Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DC Deputy Mayor Quander insists residents shouldn’t defend themselves

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DC Deputy Mayor Quander insists residents shouldn’t defend themselves

    Washington residents are up in arms, though not armed. With violent crime up 40 percent in the first two months of the year - including double the number of robberies at gunpoint - residents are looking for ways to protect themselves. Elected officials and police have no solution.

    Take Benjamin Portman, who lives on Capitol Hill, part of the 1st District, where violent crime has increased the most. A total of 110 incidents have been reported in 2012, a 69 percent jump, according to statistics obtained by The Washington Times. Two weeks ago, Mr. Portman’s male roommate and his girlfriend were robbed by three armed men in ski masks as they walked home on a well-lit street.

    That spurred Mr. Portman to attend a community meeting on the increased violence, which was held last week by D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh, Ward 3 Democrat. Mr. Portman asked officials why the city makes it so difficult for law-abiding residents to register guns and refuses to allow them to carry weapons outside of the home.

    As you can see in the video below, Paul Quander, the District’s deputy mayor for public safety and justice, responded that crime victims should give the criminals what they want. Mr. Portman protested, saying, “But how do you know you’re going live and survive? You’re completely at their mercy.”

    Mr. Quander thinks victimhood is preferable to self-defense. “The problem is, if you are armed, it escalates the situation,” Mr. Quander told residents. “It is much better, in my opinion, to be scared, to be frightened, and even if you have to be, to be injured, but to walk away and survive. You’ll heal, and you can replace whatever was taken away.”

    Kristopher Baumann, head of the D.C. police union, also was at Ms. Cheh’s meeting. “Having the deputy mayor for public safety publicly announce that being victimized is something we, as residents of the District, must accept is disgraceful,” he told The Washington Times. “At the same time, Mr. Quander failed to offer a single short- or long-term solution to fighting crime in this city.”

    The police officer added that, “This is a mayor who, as chair of the Council, cut 400 police positions and failed to enact tougher laws for repeat offenders. Now we know why. His crime fighting strategy apparently involves giving up and just living with being scared. Accepting violent crime and victimization is not an acceptable trade-off for living in the District.”

    The Washington Times caught up with Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier on Wednesday and asked for her reaction to Mr. Quander’s comments. The police chief did not remember exactly what was said, but she said she thought Mr. Quander was referring only to victims of theft, not physical assault. “We always say, if you are a victim of a robbery, your best thing to do is comply and try to be safe,” the chief said.

    Mr. Portman said Chief Lanier approached him after the meeting, but he left unsatisfied. “I think if the chief realized that the police cannot protect us all the time, everywhere, she might come to the conclusion that it’s the right thing for her to recommend relaxing the gun-control laws in the city,” he said in an interview. “I have the right to protect myself if the police can’t.”

    While the council is working to ease some registration requirements, that’s not enough. The city needs to recognize that the Second Amendment guarantees not just the right to keep arms at home, but also to bear them. Doing so would give criminals reason to think twice before assaulting residents.



    Link to article: http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...n-be-a-victim/
    Originally posted by SSD
    It has long been the tradition on this forum and as well as professionally not to second guess or Monday morning QB the officer's who were actually on-scene and had to make the decision. That being said, I don't think that your discussion will go very far on this board.
    Originally posted by Iowa #1603
    And now you are arguing about not arguing..................

  • #2
    Anyone who is still using the term "bandit" is clearly out of touch.

    I would love to see the statistics of innocent bystanders being shot by someone with a concealed carry permit defending himself. I doubt there are any but in my world it's probably few and far between.

    Yesterday in my local paper there was a clerk of a convenience store who closed up, was walking to his vehicle with his night drop and was approached by a "bandit" aka a thug, scumbag, predator and held at gunpoint. It took the clerk seconds to draw his concealed weapon and kill the guy. So now you have all the sheep coming out of the woodwork saying he didn't have to kill him, he could of just scared him, blah, blah blah.

    This is happening more and more each day. I'm not paranoid by any means but "running away" or giving them my hard-earned money is not an option for me.

    Comment


    • #3
      sigpic
      Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun.
      And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Multi Tasker View Post
        Anyone who is still using the term "bandit" is clearly out of touch.

        I would love to see the statistics of innocent bystanders being shot by someone with a concealed carry permit defending himself. I doubt there are any but in my world it's probably few and far between.

        Yesterday in my local paper there was a clerk of a convenience store who closed up, was walking to his vehicle with his night drop and was approached by a "bandit" aka a thug, scumbag, predator and held at gunpoint. It took the clerk seconds to draw his concealed weapon and kill the guy. So now you have all the sheep coming out of the woodwork saying he didn't have to kill him, he could of just scared him, blah, blah blah.

        This is happening more and more each day. I'm not paranoid by any means but "running away" or giving them my hard-earned money is not an option for me.
        IMHO once you illegally threaten another with bodily harm to force your will upon them, your life is forfeit.....MAYBE you will get out of it alive, but if you do not, oh well.

        Bill
        Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

        Comment


        • #5
          I should have added this commentary in the original post but here goes: The decision to resist rests with the victim (or potential victim). They must make the conscious decision in an instant as to what their course of action will be. While passive compliance may be the right answer, so may active and determined resistance with whatever tools are available. In the recent and sharp increase in armed robberies in the District of Columbia the victims have provided accounts of vicious assaults even while complying with these “bandits” as the esteemed Deputy Mayor suggests.

          It should be noted that with enhanced penalties for carrying an illegal firearm in the District when combined with the act of armed robbery, theft, and vicious batteries that often accompany these crimes that the “bandits” will likely take to killing their victims as the judicial consequence for the ultimate crime is ultimately the same as the compounded offense of armed robbery.

          Sadly in DC while the laws related to self defense are on the books, it is an affirmative defense; meaning that the defendant has the initial burden of raising it and a victim must then introduce sufficient evidence of self-defense.
          Originally posted by SSD
          It has long been the tradition on this forum and as well as professionally not to second guess or Monday morning QB the officer's who were actually on-scene and had to make the decision. That being said, I don't think that your discussion will go very far on this board.
          Originally posted by Iowa #1603
          And now you are arguing about not arguing..................

          Comment


          • #6
            In other words, what the councilman should have said: "Well I've never been robbed so I have no idea where you are coming from, and I think it's better that you die before you kill an innocent perp who's just trying to make a living."

            What a joke, unfortunately not susprising either welcome to 2012 where every perp has more rights than you do.

            Comment


            • #7
              Someone needs to arrange a meeting for Paul Quander, the District’s deputy mayor for public safety and justice to become a victim to see if he enjoys being a victim.

              Hell, he's probably got body guards. Jackass.
              sigpic

              "Po Po coming through!" all rights reserved DJS



              'Do we really need 'smart bombs' to drop on these dumb bastards?'

              http://www.snipercompany.com/

              M16/AR15/M4 Armorer

              Comment


              • #8

                More liberal hypocrisy from anti-gunners who are protected by security personnel.....with GUNS.

                This deputy mayor from DC - and others of his ilk - are the kind of people who make "duct tape moment" a common phrase in our political lexicon.


                The comments above reflect my personal opinion as a private citizen, ordinary motorist and all-around good guy.

                The aforementioned advice should not be construed to represent any type of professional opinion, legal counsel or other type of instruction with regard to traffic laws, judicial proceedings or official agency policy.

                ------------------------------------------------

                "Ignorance on fire is hotter than knowledge on ice."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by VA Dutch View Post
                  [color=blue]
                  More liberal hypocrisy from anti-gunners who are protected by security personnel.....with GUNS.
                  +100000 ^
                  ||

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think everyone will agree that the deputy mayors opinion concerning what it best when it comes to being attacked by a bandit is stupid, reckless, unrealistic, (I could keep going, but my thesaurus is all the way in the other room, and I just sat down) etc. What also bothers me about this arse-clown though, is his arrogance. First, the deputy mayor interrupts the young man asking the question, then smugly tells him to let him finish crapping out of his mouth, errr, I mean speaking. His tone is condescending and his concern for the citizenry appallingly absent. What a delta bravo.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I doubt there's a way to change his not in touch with reality view/belief

                      I would however ask him if he expect the police to protect every citizen then why did he get rid of 400 of them when crime stats were only going up? Then ask him how he would feel about disarming whoever protects his sorry ***. If he's good enough to have armed protection does that mean in his view that his life is more valuable then your average joe?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It should be noted that with enhanced penalties for carrying an illegal firearm in the District when combined with the act of armed robbery, theft, and vicious batteries that often accompany these crimes that the “bandits” will likely take to killing their victims as the judicial consequence for the ultimate crime is ultimately the same as the compounded offense of armed robbery.
                        In the 70s La. law was that armed robbery was 99 years flat.No other option,while manslaughter anywhere from 5-30 years,therefore if you were going to rob someone it would be prudent to go ahead and kill them as the penalty if caught would be less.Thankfully,this has been rectified to the point if you participate in a felony where someone is killed(on purpose or accidental) it is 1st degree murder ,even if you did not do the actual killing.
                        Sleeping Giant. They're not fat and happy anymore. They are hungry and increasingly angry. That is not a good recipe for a "Puppies and Rainbows America".

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by zeplin View Post
                          Hell, he's probably got body guards. Jackass.
                          Originally posted by VA Dutch View Post
                          More liberal hypocrisy from anti-gunners who are protected by security personnel.....with GUNS.
                          My thoughts exactly. (Including the "jackass" part.)
                          I'll bet he gets chauffeured around in a limo, too, and has about as much chance of meeting up with a "bandit" as any of us have of meeting the Frito Bandito.
                          Or maybe, like Feinstein, Schumer, and some other hypocrites, Quander has a License To Carry.
                          (Second Amendment Hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein Pack Heat)
                          --
                          Capital Punishment means never having to say "you again?"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The sad part is this type of attitude is becoming more and more common. Even worse, the people the think like that are in positions of power. It makes me sick thinking of the direction the country is heading in.
                            "Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
                            Watch your words, for they become actions.
                            Watch your actions, for they become habits.
                            Watch your habits, for they become character.
                            Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              “The problem is, if you are armed, it escalates the situation...
                              It is much better, in my opinion, to be scared, to be frightened, and even if you have to be, to be injured, but to walk away and survive. You’ll heal, and you can replace whatever was taken away..."

                              -Paul Quander



                              In the founding ideals of this nation, it's rather explicitly implied that the maniacs and tyrants are the ones destined to live in fear.
                              Last edited by Carbonfiberfoot; 03-10-2012, 12:25 AM.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 3557 users online. 164 members and 3393 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X