Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Politics

How Gun Control Left 23 Dead

Feb. 12, 2013 12:44pm

Kayleigh McEnany is a writer and political activist who founded RealReaganConservative.com. She is also a contributor to the International Business Times. She […]

Kayleigh McEnany is a writer and political activist who founded RealReaganConservative.com. She is also a contributor to the International Business Times. She graduated from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and studied at Oxford University.

[ x ]

realreaganconservative@gmail.com

Author's Website

In a matter of mere moments, the bustling, social hub in Killeen, Texas transformed into a bloody warzone at the hand of a deranged, coldblooded killer. What was once Luby’s Cafeteria became a mass grave that sunny October day in 1991.

50 shot. 23 dead. Hundreds robbed of a mother, father, sibling, or friend.

All of this despite the nation’s strictest gun laws.

Dr. Suzanna Hupp, a survivor of the shooting, is just one of the survivors who believes carrying a gun could have made a difference for her and her parents who were mercilessly killed.

“I reached for my purse… But then I realized that a couple of months earlier, I had made the stupidest decision of my life. I took my gun out of my purse and left it in my car because, as you well know, in the state of Texas it’s sometimes a felony offense to carry a gun in your purse,” Hupp lamented in a testimony before Congress.

Texas gun laws had left Hupp unarmed, unprotected, and unable to save her family.

In Texas, as in nearly a dozen other states at the time, citizens did not have the right to carry a gun in public. The New York Times reported, “Texas, despite its Wild West image, has been among this group since the mid-19^th century, shortly after it entered the Union.”

Even so, George Hennard, the Luby shooter, managed to not only break the law by carrying two weapons illegally but also to slaughter nearly two dozen unarmed innocents.

Texas and nearly a dozen other states recognized this, which is why they took up efforts to revise their gun laws and allow responsible residents to carry concealed weapons.

Suzanna Hupp went on to testify before Congress on concealed handgun laws, and became a member of the Texas House of Representatives (image: youtube)

Rather than shouting partisan inaccuracies and politicizing a national tragedy, the nation chose to look at the facts, and the facts were clear: states that allowed citizens to have concealed carry permits were no more dangerous. In fact, many proved safer, including the state of Florida.

The New York Times acknowledged that, “Florida’s experience has generally provided strong arguments for proponents of the right-to-carry bills, including the National Rifle Association… Even those who opposed the measure said it had not led to the increase in violence they had feared… handgun-related homicides in Florida dropped by 29 percent from 1987 to 1992….”

But in the national response to Sandy Hook, the facts have been ignored. Instead, there has been a rash attempt to implement gun control legislation, much of which would have done nothing in the way of stopping Sandy Hook or Luby.

Like the nation did in the aftermath of the Luby shooting, we should pause to consider the changes we are seeking to make. Would they have truly made a difference?

Both the Luby and Sandy Hook shooters had nearly 15 minutes to execute their reign of terror, giving them plenty of time to pause and reload on several occasions.

How would limiting magazine clip capacity have averted their ruthless massacres?

As the left frantically tries to push through their anti-gun agenda while the time is ripe, reforms that could have actually made a difference fall by the wayside.

For instance, it’s clear both Lanza and Hennard had severe mental issues that were left untreated. Nearly a week before the Luby massacre, Hennard quit his job, mused openly about killing someone, and kept telling his co-workers “watch and see, watch and see,” People reported. And the day before the shooting, Hennard even exploded with rage and began screaming obscenities in a local diner.

Instead of buying into the left’s half-baked, insufficient gun control agenda, why aren’t we working with the mental health community to try and put together troublesome signs like these? Where is the push to expose and remedy mental illnesses in clearly deranged people?

There is no such push because the left has hijacked Sandy Hook as a justification for measures they have long looked to implement, and they have done this at the expense of true reform.

As the left tirelessly looks to implement strict gun control measures, now is the time for America to heed the words of Suzanna Hupp, lest we find ourselves with a tragic repeat in the long line of mass shootings: “My state has gun control laws. It did not keep Hennard from coming in and killing everybody. What it did do was keep me from protecting my family.”

Related Contributions on Guns in America

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (60)

Saff SGT
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 8:28pm
Gun control 2000 years ago..>> Jesus ask his disciples do you have a sword? They answered back no we don’t. Jesus said: go buy one for personal protection. true in the bible. So if weapons were good enough for Jesus i think they are okay for all Americans

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Carboy
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 8:54pm
  How about a quote of that scripture….cause i don’t recall that one.
  
  Report this comment
- OngoingFreedom
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 9:48pm
  Luke 22:35-38
  
  And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, ” No, nothing.” And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘A nd H e was numbered with transgressors ‘; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:35-38 NASB)
  
  Report this comment
- kingmat3
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 9:54pm
  it is in Luke 22:36
  36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. KJV
  
  Report this comment
- banjarmon
  Posted on February 13, 2013 at 12:02am
  LIB Politicians want gun control because they are afraid of Free people with guns!
  BE a FREE MAN or BE a SUBJECT
  
  Report this comment
- Ollie123
  Posted on February 13, 2013 at 10:23am
  Carboy, the scriptures there, won’t hurt you to look it up, and if you don’t find it then refute it. Out constitution by law, protects us citizens with the 2nd amendment right to carry and bear arms, with “No infringements” all these gun laws our an infringement, the 2nd amendment takes precedents over all other laws!! The gun laws are illegal, and are to be defied at every step, no if’s and or butts.!
  
  Report this comment
- Ronin Gael
  Posted on February 13, 2013 at 11:09pm
  ….and he that hath no sword, let him sell his cloak, and buy one. Luke 22:36
  Lord, look. Here are two swords…..It is enough. Luke 22:38
  
  Best to read the full context in Luke…but pretty straightforward. Christ told his Apostles to arm themselves.
  
  The oft quoted and misused Gospel of Matthew, verse 26:52, describes Simon Peter drawing a sword to defend Jesus against his arrest by Temple Guards the Garden of Gethsemane. He is rebuked by Jesus, who tells him to sheath the weapon: “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Matthew 26:52, King James Version)
  
  Was Jesus conflicted? No. He was consistent. He expected his men to be armed….BUT to use those arms to resist the Guards (they were outnumber anywhere from 3 to 10 to 1) would have meant their deaths and the end of their missions….more importantly, Peter was resisting the will of God and the mission of Jesus to stand trial and be crucified for our sins.
  
  Note He said….put up your sword in its place….not throw it away. He further cowed the guards with his voice of command and the Apostles to a man slipped away still armed.
  
  Were it not for armed and courageous soldiers of Christ armed and fighting for the Cross and Christ…..Christianity would have been extinguished by the Moslem or Tartar invasions…and the Reformation would have died in flames as Luther and his supporters were burned as heretics.
  
  Ther
  
  Report this comment
quiltgal
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 7:55pm
Does anyone really think that a stupid sign proclaiming “Gun Free Zone” (read “Crime Free Zone”) is going to scare off the criminals and psychos? In fact, it may have the opposite effect. What idiocy. Liberal lawmakers are SO disingenuous. They actually expect us to believe this is a solution. The only solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- MK2
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 9:03pm
  My boss put one on the door at work when they passed ccw in our state we had a argument about it I told him if I wanted to do harm to someone that sign would not stop me they change the hand book we can’t even carry a pocket knife but we have utility knives at every bench makes no sense I told him I could knock over a rack over on someone with a forklift and dump five tons of casting or grab a piece of steel and make a machete in less then thirty seconds but he said it makes him sleep better I guess it makes him think he is making it a safer place,what ever
  
  Report this comment
VotersOfNY
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 7:48pm
Once again the left is trying to solve the problem backwards. Instead of figuring out how to get and keep ILLEGAL guns off the street, they want to take LEGAL guns away from the people. Can you imagine how much more crime there will be if criminals KNOW that people aren’t carrying guns and they are?

There is also another and probably the MAIN reason the left wants to get our guns. They don’t want us to be able to protect ourselves from THEM when they takeover this country and turn it into a dictatorship.

They know people are at the breaking point already with Obama’s edicts and will soon have had enough of his taking everything they have away from them, money, property and personal freedoms.

Work on ways to keep ILLEGAL guns off the streets and then maybe we’ll listen to some ideas about gun control. Same as immigration. CLOSE THE BORDERS before you have amnesty, morons.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
nighttrainno9
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 7:37pm
“Gun free zones” are suicide zones. Criminals ignore the laws, only
the honest citizens try to follow them. So, gun laws make honest
citizens vulnerable while making criminals braver. The idiots in washington
know this, so were left with two possibilities, the polititions are as
crooked as the criminals or they actually want the citizens dead.
YOU choose, either possibillity sucks.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
tankyjo
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 7:36pm
Can’t wait for brian williams to report this tonite! Oh? Never mind.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Patriot Rider
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 5:57pm
Gun free zones are the killing fields of evil. Criminals don’t respect laws so a sing stating “This is a gun free zone” is worthless. “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
SpeakSoftlyAndCarry
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 5:01pm
In 1919 Germany adopted a new form of Liberal Democracy Government (later dubbed the Weimar Republic by historians) and soon after banned all firearms. As this new Liberal Democracy badly mishandled Germany’s economic problems, and their economy worsened, the crime rate became so bad that in 1928 Germany repealed their gun ban and allowed their citizens to own firearms for self-protection with one condition…all firearms had to be registered and records of firearms kept by local law enforcement agencies. In 1932 the National Socialist Worker’s Party (Nazi Party) won control of the government. In 1938 the German Government passed the Nazi Weapons Act which mandated the confiscation of all weapons owned by German Jews and other German citizens deemed as “undesirable” by the German Government. The confiscation process went fairly quickly since the German Government had all of the names and addresses of all firearm owners. The very next year the German Government began rounding up and exterminating 6 million of those “undesirable” men, women and children that they had disarmed the previous year.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
NavET-SS
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 4:53pm
Maybe everyone that is a victim (or their families) of gun violence, where there are restrictions against carrying a firearm, should sue the restricting organization (city, county, state, etc, or theater, school district, etc.) for not protecting us from the evil people they allowed to come in and hurt people.

If they don’t have absolute guarantees of maintaining our safety they should not be allowed to restrict our ability to keep ourselves safe.

Suing everyone may get the point across that they better not tell us we will be safe without our guns if they are not willing to ensure that we are protected.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
jscottkemp
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 4:53pm
Make no mistake, gun control is more about control than it is about guns.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- dktrdktr
  Posted on February 13, 2013 at 4:21pm
  You got that right!
  
  Report this comment
sandrunner
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 4:38pm
Those that want gun control are accessories to the murders.

because gun control gives murders free access to murder.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SUNTZU
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 11:25pm
  How could that be
  has’nt murder been outlawed.
  
  Report this comment
Rickfromillinois
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 4:35pm
Stop trying to confuse the control issue with facts! It’s how people “feel” about it that is important, not whether it will make anyone safer or not. (sarcasm)

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
omgfolks
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 4:31pm
Lawmaker, Politicians, please take note: I do not want be made a criminal because you guys want to rape the 2nd Amendment. This is what is going to happend to millions of citiznes with your gun control push. People fought and died for our rights, for our constitution. Who are you to criminalize the nation for exercising our rights? Stop wasting tax payer money on a debate that is older than dirt. We were given this right to protect ourselves from you! When goverment takes away guns then criminals will have the upper hand and the cops will be drawing chalk lines, or worse Tyranny! Stop and think about all those who paid the sacrifice before you, stop and think of your Oath to defend the constitution, Just Stop this non sense perriod.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
mattmo79
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 4:07pm
A family friend was murdered in the Luby’s shooting, she left 2 children and husband who was seriously ill at the time. While she was lying on the ground Hennard walked up to her and put a bullet in the back of her head. As the article states, gun laws didn’t prevent this mass murder and will never prevent a mass murder.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
dawghowse
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 4:02pm
Gun Control is only about CONTROL. As good as the police might be … they draw chalk lines more often than not.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
term limits for congress
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 3:51pm
From a Tyler Perry movie (sorry)
“You go ahead and call the Po Po. They’re gonna be here in 10 minutes. That’s gonna give me 9 minutes to kick your a$$.”

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
term limits for congress
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 3:46pm
Hupp’s logic goes against the regime’s truth. The regime’s truth is the only truth. Praise Allah.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- whywonder
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 3:57pm
  con
  I see you’ve adopted the language of rushbo. Regime? Was bush presidency a regime? reagans regime? We live in a republic and in 4 years you can try another way, by voting. By the way, it was a good thing that woman had a gun in her purse and stopped that shooting at newtown…oh wait.
  
  Report this comment
- missdagnytaggart
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 4:27pm
  Praise be to the republic
  
  Report this comment
- term limits for congress
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 6:59pm
  wonder
  Newtown was a gun-free zone, so the woman couldn’t have a gun, silly. Shoulda had some laws against that… oh wait.
  
  Report this comment
- xjeeper
  Posted on February 13, 2013 at 5:03pm
  Obama is a regime because he is ruling, Bush was on the way there. The Reagan presidency was an Administration because that is what he did, abiding by the separation of powers.
  
  Report this comment
wmcritter
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 3:34pm
The biggest fallacy people believe is that the police / government are responsible for our safety. They are not. The responsibility lies with you and you alone. The police are our employees that we hire to assist us with our security and safety, but hiring them does not transfer responsibility to them. It’s like hiring a maid service to clean your house, they are paid to do a job, but you are the one responsible for the cleanliness of your house. This is why Democrat voters sit in their house and drown in New Orleans: they believe that somebody else is responsible for their safety, not their own fool selves.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Tom K
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 4:16pm
  @ WMCRITTER : The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Police do not have the responsibility to protect any single citizen. That pretty much leaves it up to us to protect our families and ourselves. Suzanna Hupp lost her Father AND Mother in that Cafeteria that day in 1991 as she obeyed the law, as it was on the books at that time, and helplessly witnessed her parents’ slaughter. Try to imagine her total anguish. She resolved to change the law and she did. Liberals do not understand this issue but we can educate some of them – the ones that can still think. ” . .shall not be infringed . . ” !
  
  Report this comment
tonypro
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 3:02pm
Dr. Suzanna Hupp is a trooper. I have nothing but respect for her accomplishments standing up against the criminals in D.C.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TotallyNotATroll
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 2:29pm
Couple of inaccuracies here, but Lanza was being treated, he was on an anti-psychotic drug that is known to have side effects that in some people can actually cause psychotic behavior. Second is that a lot of people are calling for mental health checks, but again they go off the rocker by forcing mandatory checks on people before purchasing a gun, or allowing even a nurse with no proof to send the police to your house and take your guns. Neither of these is common sense, and in some of these cases in order to stop Lanza it might take turning our country into a fascist police state, which it is nearing now in a lot of ways. Crazy is as crazy does, things like this will always happen, probably the best solution to the whole problem is to require a year to pass before any law can be written naming an incident as its origin. Knee jerk is bad in legislature, always is.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ChiefGeorge
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 2:28pm
We will lose this battle unfortunately, not for lack of will or a strong debate or even the fact that the 2nd A protects this right. No! We will lose because of the lack of political will from the Right to stand up in DC.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TotallyNotATroll
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 2:43pm
  Sad but true, a lot of the right is giving up, tired of the fight and incessant whine of the left. The left remains a vocal minority in at least what they espouse even among the left. I fear we lose and the ensuing bloodshed that will inevitably follow. Either a civil war, or at least hundreds of incidents of fighting when the police come for your guns.
  
  Report this comment
- Recceman90
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 3:07pm
  We get the Rinos we voted for and the consequences for supporting them.
  
  Report this comment
- anothercomment
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 3:48pm
  @Chief
  This makes me angrier that Obama and his EOs, green grants and world golfing summits. The Congress we send to Washington is there because we want them to push back, oppose the illegal proceedings from the office of the President (who is doing his job by promoting his liberal progressive agenda) therefore providing the ‘balance of power’ as it is designed. These representatives elected by the people are MIA, voting on trivial issues while avoiding issues they fear will end their lucrative lifetime careers. (as “Greg of The Five” says: the barnacles of government)
  And they are still attempting to ‘redesign’ the GOP.
  Too late, I am now looking for that third party candidate that will call it like they see it, (respectfully) and vote accordingly.
  
  Report this comment
- common_sense_donkeys
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 6:21pm
  Fighting? Look at what happened after Katrina. The only fight I heard of was from a little old lady while hundreds of others surredndered their arms after demands from national gaurd troops and local sheriffs depts.
  
  Report this comment
thewhiteright
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 2:17pm
To restrict the individual citizen from possessing arms having military characteristics subverts the individual citizen’s ability to assure the right to maintain sufficient armament to guarantee the advantage of liberty and validate separation from any government action that would impose infringement against the liberties of the individual citizen.

To subvert the 2nd Amendment is in violation of the sworn oath of the elected official and treason against this country and the individual citizen.

The day you hand over your (equally matched/armed) ability to resist the government, is the day you allow the creation of a doorway to slavery and oppression. Be warned this doorway is purposely and relentlessly being created by obama’s regimen. He was placed in power for in his own words to “Fundamentally Change America”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- battles
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 4:23pm
  The truth is also that there is no reason to ever argue about what Obama and the democrats could or should do. Obama and the democrats do not care a wit about the slaughter in Sandy Hook, except to try to exploit the crime unto their own agenda, to try to use such horrors to confiscate guns from Americans, unto the purpose of disarming to gain unhindered control of the nation and Americans. As with Bill Clinton, they actually relish in such horrors because they hope that it can be used to further their gun confiscation agenda. I firmly believe that as with the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal, that Obama and the democrats would and just might orchestrate such a school massacre in the future themselves.
  This is a continuous grab for totalitarian control. Obama and the democrats are an extreme evil and must be resisted, even unto arms and death. The taking of any form of currently available gun and/or magazines that hold 30+ plus rounds ‘shall not be infringed’. We are dealing with psychopaths when we deal with Obama and the democrats.
  
  Report this comment
red_white_blue2
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 2:09pm
When you really think about it, its pure logic. Police are only of help after the fact-most of the time. It is rare that a perp is still in action when they arrive. It is in those moments that the public is left to defend itself. What good is it to take guns away from those who want to protect others when the perps have guns, and get them easily.
I support open carry like the old west. Let everyone see it on you. Let them see the handle, the muzzle. Are you going to try and mess with them? You walk in a bank to rob it and know most everyone has a gun..are you more or less likely to attempt the crime.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Lord_Frostwind
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 2:52pm
  Response time varies greatly by community, on average you’re going to wait around 20-30 minutes after a call, 15-20 for an active shooter call. That, however, can be problematic because the first arriving officers likely aren’t going to charge into an active gun battle, they’ll be securing the site so that they don’t add more casualties to the battle. It has changed since the recent school shootings, but most of the time they will wait for tactical units to arrive.
  
  Don’t even ask how long that will take.
  
  If your life is in danger, you are going to need to protect yourself. Sorry folks, but law enforcement isn’t superman, we can’t be there as soon as someone pulls out their gun.
  
  Report this comment
- skyguy51
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 9:37pm
  Liberals/Progressives will never admit that there are just some people in this world who are plain out mentally sick or just evil. And in typical group think liberals refuse to accept any responsibility for their own protection and actions. To that mindset all they have to do is write another law and put up a “No guns allowed” sign, and everything will be peachy keen fine. Another name for people who think this way is “victims”.
  
  Report this comment
OniKaze
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 1:50pm
Common Sense…. Too bad it’s not TOO common anymore….

If you treat EVERYONE like they are carrying a gun, you are FORCED to be “nicer” to people… After all, who wants to be shot simply for being a jerk???

GUNS SAVE LIVES… LIBERAL POLICIES END LIVES!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
mikem1969
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 1:41pm
More proof that LAW ABIDING CITIZENS with guns could have save lives. Imagine that, but the left will of course ignore this because they can’t have their thug friends put in danger by a law abiding citizen holding a gun.

GUN CONTROL IS NOT ABOUT GUNS, IT IS ABOUT CONTROL.
Resist tyranny loudly.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- turkey13
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 2:14pm
  I have a carry permit and if I can’t go some where with my Taurus Judge loaded with .45/.410 mixed in the chamber. I will have my Titan double barrel derringer in my boot loaded with .410 on top and .45 on the bottom in my boot. I’v noticed that thugs go into areas where a sign states it is a gun free zone. These same places refuse to put up signs stateing “Thug Free Zone” So to protect myself and my wife one of us will be armed, if not both of us.
  
  Report this comment
- mikem1969
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 2:21pm
  You said it Turkey, my next investment will be a gun I can strap to my leg as a backup.
  
  Report this comment
team1blazer
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 1:38pm
Police can’t stop crime (unless they are at the scene). It is up to ARMED citizens to protect ourselves and those around us from criminals. An armed populace is a polite populace.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- mikem1969
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 1:49pm
  Don’t tell the left that, they say they can protect you from everything with bigger government. I protect my home with an ar15, 12 ga, and various other firearms.
  
  If they come to take your guns, give it to them muzzle first.
  Resist tyranny loudly.
  
  Report this comment
- OniKaze
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 1:54pm
  Police are not SUPPOSED to stop crime… That is NOT the job of the police…
  
  Police are only responsible for tracking down, and catching criminals after the fact…. After all, you cannot arrest someone UNTIL they have done something wrong… If you do, it’s “Unlawful Arrest”….
  
  You point is as true as it could be however… Police CAN NOT save you…. They can only punish people that hurt you…
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on February 12, 2013 at 2:43pm
  Per several court decisions, including SCOTUS, police have NO obligation or duty to protect any individual citizen. They have no duty to even show up. Their job is to investigate crime after the fact, put a chalk outline around your dead body, and “try” to investigate and track down the person who did it. Even IF they find the murderer, it’s not due to “fine detective work”, it is usually because the guy is a multiple offender, prints on file, happens to get pulled over for speeding or DWI or whatever other unrelated offense and the warrant shows up. Basically, dumb effing luck.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.