Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Followup on chicago police complaint blog:

I read an article over at I'll take liberty that hit home, I haven't really done anything except sit behind my keyboard and post, so I decided to email the Chicago police officer Lt. John Andrews who posted a 3000 word diatribe about how the Chicago police are failing.   It was a modified re-write of a comment I responded to on a newspaper.

Dear Officer Andrews,
I sympathize with your frustrations, and am glad to see you using your
right to speak up about them!  I have some things to say that I don't
know if you'll like hearing, but I know the solution for Chicago:

If the police didn't force citizens to depend on the Police, people
would be able to defend themselves, having a naturally reducing effect
on violent crime, thus reducing the stress and danger for the Police.
The Police just don't trust normal citizens, and it shows. Why are
LEO's the "only ones" who are allowed to carry a weapon to defend
themselves in an admittedly dangerous area? Is it because they're
better than us? More trustworthy than us? If they're better trained to
use the simple point and click interface of a modern firearm, why is
that training not available to citizens? Why do the police insist that
citizens will only appreciate them once we've been victimized? I mean,
it's not like LEO's would be in close enough proximity to stop it. If
a citizen was attacked and had a small amount of marijuana on them,
what do you think an average cop would be more interested in...
investigating the attack, or ruining that citizen's life in some
self-righteous war on drugs? Doesn't that make citizens twice to three
times the victim?

You know, even if you haven't, others in your department have treated
citizens in an unconstitutionally sound way, even if it's backed up by
the supreme court, it can still be unconstitutional.   Next time you
search someone's car, think about what would happen to you if you
searched Thomas Jefferson's Carriage in the same manner.   Next time
you charge someone with with a felony level Aggravated Unlawful Use of
a Weapon for transporting a gun incorrectly, think about which part of
that person's right to keep and bear arms you are infringing, then
look up perjury to see what crime you just committed.   Next time you
think you're the only one trained enough to defend yourself with a
firearms... quit.   No one's forcing you to get paid to be a member of
a class of individuals to which laws don't really count (as evidenced
recently by John Killackey), you can quit, and be an engineer,
business owner, pilot, professional motorcycle driver, truck driver...

The Citizens already know that when seconds count, the Police are just
minutes away, and the Police would rather a citizen be dead holding a
phone, than alive with a firearm... because they're the only one's
enough to handle protecting you.

I apologize if that sounded harsh, it is has honest as I can be.  You
can't help a city that won't trust the people that live there to do
the right thing with the rights granted to them with the US
constitution.  If you're like me and believe there's more good people
in the world than bad, you would be unafraid.  If you think there are
more bad people than good ones, then you really don't need to be in
Law enforcement.

Take care, and hang in there,


To Which Officer Andrews responded with:

You assume much that you don't know. Your paradigm is skewed. LoL.

There is a difference between those who make laws and those that enforce them.

Think deeper!

John Andrews (Sent via BlackBerry)

To Which I responded with:

Thank you for your insight Officer Andrews,
As a fellow motorcycle rider, would you be willing to talk to me about
what I don't know, better yet, ride with me, and share your insight?
To respond to what you stated, there is a difference between those who
make laws, and those who enforce them.  I understand this, but the
lawmakers are not arresting people, they're simply passing laws that
enable it. Every police officer who takes the Illinois state oath
pledged to support the U.S. Constitution, and the state constitutions
and they should know where the line is, and which laws cross it.   Or
has that oath become more formality in which those who take it do not
fully grasp the meaning of what they are saying or doing?   Believe
me, I want more than anything to be on your side, as long as you and
others in your uniform want to be on mine.  I am not just a jerk
behind a keyboard, I will meet with you, and have friendly
conversation, hell, I'll even buy you lunch if for nothing else than
your bravery to speak out about the issues with your department... that
deserves a lunch on me!

Take care, and have a safe and good night,

I wished to be respectful, yet persistent on the real root of their problems.  I am certain that if the Chicago Police allowed citizens to carry, violent crime would go down very quickly.   Petty theft I fear would still be on the rise with Chicago's unemployment rate estimated at 15%, but theft without human targets would be the shift after those human targets are allowed to fight back.  

So to answer Jennifer's question, "what are we going to do?"   My plan is to attempt to engage my oppressors in polite, meaningful conversations, showing them that I'm a person of integrity, and hopefully a few of them might actually get it!


  1. I believe if one asked Andrews about his Personal feelings on gun control... They might be surprised that he fully supports concealed carry by law abiding citizens

    1. I have no doubt Mr. Andrews would support concealed carry... but that wouldn't change the fact that as a police officer he would be in the situation where he may have to charge someone with a life ending felony, simply for exercising their constitutional rights of bearing arms.