Judge Lefkow: My Family Lost Its Safety
- Thread starter Vernal45
- Start date
- Status
Specialized
Member
Okay, I've Heard Enough...
Folks, sometimes I don't believe what I hear on these forums. This is one of those times.
Let's forget the human angle to this story for a second, that this woman lost her mother, and her husband, and that her daughter found the bodies. That she hasn't slept a full night since, and probably won't for a long while. Let's put aside the fact that the press turned it into a circus with white supremacists, anti-government and anti-judge bogeymen supposedly running organizations and pulling strings from behind bars to extract revenge. Forget that stuff for a minute.
Judge Lefkow has a job, and that job is to use her experience, training, and good sense to pass judgement upon the legal arguments presented by opposing sides in court cases. It is inevitable that in every case, at least one side will be unhappy with the verdict, but it is also a given in our society that both sides must abide by the judge's decision. That is the essence of why we have a judicial branch of the government in the first place. Those that are so unhappy that they illegally retaliate against the judge are absolutely doing so as a direct result of her doing her job as proscribed by her employer.
Police officers and other law enforcement officials are not in this same position; in fact, whether you believe or acknowledge it or not, it is very seldom that any random police officer's actions result in some form of illegal retaliation toward that officer. Unlike judges, not every action a police officer takes results in someone being unhappy, not by a long shot. However, it is clear that in some cases this very thing will happen, so police are provided with the tools to protect themselves (not their families or homes, mind you) *and* the community in general, which is their primary mission, in the form of weapons including guns, and body armor in some cases as well. While efforts are made to keep their addresses private, they are not (so far as I know) provided with home protection of any kind.
Now in the case of a LEO, they are fully cognizant of the need for protection for themselves and their families. At our PD, there is a plan for emergency situations where all immediate family are to be assembled and protected, since all available personnel will be out on the streets, protecting the community. The concept of self-protection is quite apparent in those situations.
For judges (and for that matter, other government employees subjected to the ire of individuals as a direct result of their job actions), this same danger is more real, more immediate, and completely ignored. Judge Lefkow's friend that offered a conversation with her if she felt threatened -- do you know what that would have become? He would likely have tried to help her build a case for protection, and that's a very far cry from actually being protected. It takes time, and those requests almost never get granted. This woman didn't see it coming, had no idea (like LE at the time) who the perpetrator might have been (their big guess was waaaay off base), and had no defense other than the supposed anonymity of her address information, which turned out to be posted on the internet like many others by people that hate the government.
As for the argument that she should buy her own alarm, put up a wall, etc., with her own money just because she makes more money than you -- that's your problem, not hers. If your company refused to buy you the necessary safety equipment to perform your job because you make a salary and they aren't profitable yet, would you accept that? Get over yourselves and your "wallet envy".
Judges aren't "ordinary citizens" like us, but it's not because they're somehow better than us -- it's because we have asked them, and they have agreed, to perform a difficult job that by its very nature will inevitably cause conflict between people by forcing a a resolution to their legal conundrum. They are supposedly protected while they work by the US Marshals, but that threat doesn't subside when they clock out. For doing the work they do, we owe them protection measures that are commensurate with the risk they take. An alarm system for their homes is not inconsistent with that risk.
By that same logic, I think every citizen (you and I, cops, judges, etc) that is not a convicted felon or alien, illegal or "legal", should have the right to carry a concealed firearm for personal protection nationwide. In my mind, the only special dispensations from this would be open carry while hunting and for uniformed LEO's, different standards of shoot/no-shoot based on role (private citizen, LEO, etc), and other similar practical considerations. I think some level of training and proficiency should be required, just like it is for driving, and that for some positions these standards should be higher. But for those who agree to do jobs for our society that put them and their loved ones in harm's way, they deserve to have home protection in the form of alarms, etc., as a benefit of their employment. Whether you agree with their politics, logic, and world-view or not.
When an unhappy taxpayer took Howard Longley, the IRS District Director for the Oklahoma City District, hostage in our building back in the mid '80's, I was there and saw the "security" they had. Trust me, it was all after the fact -- the guy walked in with a large-framed revolver, stuck it in Howard's face, and announced that his afternoon meetings were canceled to provide time for a little impromptu chat about the unhappy disposition of his tax case -- and only after Howard had talked the guy into giving up did the US Marshals, FBI HRT, Secret Service, and God-knows-who-else show up. Turns out the guy didn't really even know how to use the gun, and never intended to use it (as evidenced by the fact that he didn't know how to and neglected to load it). It took Howard a few hours to figure out how to come out without getting blown to bits.
I am an old-style Republican -- very pro-gun, fiscal conservative, protect-our-own-first, helping-hand/not a hand-out -- I refuse to be party to the subverted cauldron of intolerance and religious fervor and special-interest whores that the GOP has morphed into over the last several years. I don't like any more government than we really need, but I admire it in its lean, proper form because, when it is allowed to run as designed, it works and works well. And now that it has become obvious that there isn't the time or the resources to afford the luxury of being liberal, we should focus upon and get rid of these aforementioned internal cancerous influences as well. Just my opinion.
By the way, it was the same cynicism, intolerance, and distrust that I see hints of here in these forums -- when people discuss the government and judges and law enforcement -- that motivated the bombing that killed and injured some of my former co-workers in the Murrah Building several years later. That kind of expression is what results when fear leads to malevolence and builds up within people of low self-esteem. The best way to avoid that progression is to articulate the fear into words, and then put the words to work to achieve action. It has worked for hundreds of years in our representative government, but I suppose there will always be those whose fears win out and cause them to do such things, and then try to justify it by spinning it as a response to tyranny, being a "Patriot" (whatever the hell that means -- that and "Freedom" have been disingenuously overused and watered down to the point where they are no more than mindless battle cries for the sub-intelligent these days), and other stupid "titles". There are a lot of people among us who don't know what they stand for, only what they want. And it's clouding their judgement to everyone's detriment.
Okay, soapbox off. Comments?
Folks, sometimes I don't believe what I hear on these forums. This is one of those times.
Let's forget the human angle to this story for a second, that this woman lost her mother, and her husband, and that her daughter found the bodies. That she hasn't slept a full night since, and probably won't for a long while. Let's put aside the fact that the press turned it into a circus with white supremacists, anti-government and anti-judge bogeymen supposedly running organizations and pulling strings from behind bars to extract revenge. Forget that stuff for a minute.
Judge Lefkow has a job, and that job is to use her experience, training, and good sense to pass judgement upon the legal arguments presented by opposing sides in court cases. It is inevitable that in every case, at least one side will be unhappy with the verdict, but it is also a given in our society that both sides must abide by the judge's decision. That is the essence of why we have a judicial branch of the government in the first place. Those that are so unhappy that they illegally retaliate against the judge are absolutely doing so as a direct result of her doing her job as proscribed by her employer.
Police officers and other law enforcement officials are not in this same position; in fact, whether you believe or acknowledge it or not, it is very seldom that any random police officer's actions result in some form of illegal retaliation toward that officer. Unlike judges, not every action a police officer takes results in someone being unhappy, not by a long shot. However, it is clear that in some cases this very thing will happen, so police are provided with the tools to protect themselves (not their families or homes, mind you) *and* the community in general, which is their primary mission, in the form of weapons including guns, and body armor in some cases as well. While efforts are made to keep their addresses private, they are not (so far as I know) provided with home protection of any kind.
Now in the case of a LEO, they are fully cognizant of the need for protection for themselves and their families. At our PD, there is a plan for emergency situations where all immediate family are to be assembled and protected, since all available personnel will be out on the streets, protecting the community. The concept of self-protection is quite apparent in those situations.
For judges (and for that matter, other government employees subjected to the ire of individuals as a direct result of their job actions), this same danger is more real, more immediate, and completely ignored. Judge Lefkow's friend that offered a conversation with her if she felt threatened -- do you know what that would have become? He would likely have tried to help her build a case for protection, and that's a very far cry from actually being protected. It takes time, and those requests almost never get granted. This woman didn't see it coming, had no idea (like LE at the time) who the perpetrator might have been (their big guess was waaaay off base), and had no defense other than the supposed anonymity of her address information, which turned out to be posted on the internet like many others by people that hate the government.
As for the argument that she should buy her own alarm, put up a wall, etc., with her own money just because she makes more money than you -- that's your problem, not hers. If your company refused to buy you the necessary safety equipment to perform your job because you make a salary and they aren't profitable yet, would you accept that? Get over yourselves and your "wallet envy".
Judges aren't "ordinary citizens" like us, but it's not because they're somehow better than us -- it's because we have asked them, and they have agreed, to perform a difficult job that by its very nature will inevitably cause conflict between people by forcing a a resolution to their legal conundrum. They are supposedly protected while they work by the US Marshals, but that threat doesn't subside when they clock out. For doing the work they do, we owe them protection measures that are commensurate with the risk they take. An alarm system for their homes is not inconsistent with that risk.
By that same logic, I think every citizen (you and I, cops, judges, etc) that is not a convicted felon or alien, illegal or "legal", should have the right to carry a concealed firearm for personal protection nationwide. In my mind, the only special dispensations from this would be open carry while hunting and for uniformed LEO's, different standards of shoot/no-shoot based on role (private citizen, LEO, etc), and other similar practical considerations. I think some level of training and proficiency should be required, just like it is for driving, and that for some positions these standards should be higher. But for those who agree to do jobs for our society that put them and their loved ones in harm's way, they deserve to have home protection in the form of alarms, etc., as a benefit of their employment. Whether you agree with their politics, logic, and world-view or not.
When an unhappy taxpayer took Howard Longley, the IRS District Director for the Oklahoma City District, hostage in our building back in the mid '80's, I was there and saw the "security" they had. Trust me, it was all after the fact -- the guy walked in with a large-framed revolver, stuck it in Howard's face, and announced that his afternoon meetings were canceled to provide time for a little impromptu chat about the unhappy disposition of his tax case -- and only after Howard had talked the guy into giving up did the US Marshals, FBI HRT, Secret Service, and God-knows-who-else show up. Turns out the guy didn't really even know how to use the gun, and never intended to use it (as evidenced by the fact that he didn't know how to and neglected to load it). It took Howard a few hours to figure out how to come out without getting blown to bits.
I am an old-style Republican -- very pro-gun, fiscal conservative, protect-our-own-first, helping-hand/not a hand-out -- I refuse to be party to the subverted cauldron of intolerance and religious fervor and special-interest whores that the GOP has morphed into over the last several years. I don't like any more government than we really need, but I admire it in its lean, proper form because, when it is allowed to run as designed, it works and works well. And now that it has become obvious that there isn't the time or the resources to afford the luxury of being liberal, we should focus upon and get rid of these aforementioned internal cancerous influences as well. Just my opinion.
By the way, it was the same cynicism, intolerance, and distrust that I see hints of here in these forums -- when people discuss the government and judges and law enforcement -- that motivated the bombing that killed and injured some of my former co-workers in the Murrah Building several years later. That kind of expression is what results when fear leads to malevolence and builds up within people of low self-esteem. The best way to avoid that progression is to articulate the fear into words, and then put the words to work to achieve action. It has worked for hundreds of years in our representative government, but I suppose there will always be those whose fears win out and cause them to do such things, and then try to justify it by spinning it as a response to tyranny, being a "Patriot" (whatever the hell that means -- that and "Freedom" have been disingenuously overused and watered down to the point where they are no more than mindless battle cries for the sub-intelligent these days), and other stupid "titles". There are a lot of people among us who don't know what they stand for, only what they want. And it's clouding their judgement to everyone's detriment.
Okay, soapbox off. Comments?
another okie
Member
Specialized: The easiest way to refute your long rant is to ask you to go stand at the memorial for police officers who died in the line of duty and then to ask yourself where the memorial is for all the judges who died in the line of duty. Wait, that's right - there isn't one, because it is extremely rare for judges to be attacked.
My life has been threatened twice while working for the state. No one has offered me any protection. The judge makes four times as much as I do.
My life has been threatened twice while working for the state. No one has offered me any protection. The judge makes four times as much as I do.
JadeFalcon
Member
I think its pretty irrelevant how much she makes compared to me or anyone else...my point is that she can afford her own damn alarm system. And a Federal Judge should know better than to infringe citizens rights and then beg for protection when said protection could have been had legally and effectively in the form of a firearm. I'll point out once again that the ban on weapons didn't stop the shooter from getting a gun. A Judge, of all people, should know when a law hinders rather than helps.
The whole point of my (and most, I think) commentary is not to make small of her loss, but rather to point out the flaws in her logic and arguments. Sometimes the safest way out of a situation is to go 'backwards'. And if making weapons ownership (let alone CCW) legal, then I think thats the way these judges and ledgistlators need to be looking. Damn...I forgot that an armed and educated populace is harder to control and less dependent on government service...
JadeFalcon
The whole point of my (and most, I think) commentary is not to make small of her loss, but rather to point out the flaws in her logic and arguments. Sometimes the safest way out of a situation is to go 'backwards'. And if making weapons ownership (let alone CCW) legal, then I think thats the way these judges and ledgistlators need to be looking. Damn...I forgot that an armed and educated populace is harder to control and less dependent on government service...
JadeFalcon
Specialized
Member
[sentence deleted]
For AnotherOkie: At the risk of ruining your snappy comeback, I beg to differ with your assessment that there exists no memorials for federal employees, including judges in each one. To the contrary, I know of at least three, one in New York (Queens, to be exact), one in Oklahoma City, and another in Denver. Also, while the number of attacks per judge are not as prevalent as those per police officer (the vast majority of whom, in their much greater numbers, are local, county, state, or other non-federal officers), the per-capita number of threats per judge is much higher.
You didn't exactly mentioned what you do for the state, what was it? As for your compensation, one trait you and the judge share is the ability to choose your employment. Neither of you are bound to your jobs. If you find the pay unsatisfactory, then do something else if you find you're qualified for it, hopefully with higher pay. But to say that she somehow doesn't deserve as much consideration as you because she makes more is ludicrous. [sentence deleted]
For JadeFalcon: I can't even figure out what your point is, but I appreciate your participation. Maybe she can afford an alarm system, and maybe you and I would see that has high on our priority lists, but to require the same thinking of her is not our place. As for a gun -- even if she was allowed to have one (she's not; she's a Chicago resident), it wouldn't have helped in this situation unless someone did an armed house-clearing by default, at least the time her husband and mother came home. What might have been an early warning? Oh, I know! AN ALARM SYSTEM! Maybe one that's hooked up to notify US Marshals, rather than a security company! They are, after all, charged with the security and safety of Federal judges. All the time. They don't spend the money or resources outside of work hours/locale unless they believe they have a specific threat to deal with. In this case, the threat was unknown until it was too late. Hence, for those situations, the judges are saying: "If you expect us to rely on the US Marshals for protection, then they have to either BE THERE or they have to have the tools to do it effectively. We believe alarm systems are one of those essential tools."
Is that so hard to understand?
Additionally, I think we're of the same mind on CCW law. Right?
For AnotherOkie: At the risk of ruining your snappy comeback, I beg to differ with your assessment that there exists no memorials for federal employees, including judges in each one. To the contrary, I know of at least three, one in New York (Queens, to be exact), one in Oklahoma City, and another in Denver. Also, while the number of attacks per judge are not as prevalent as those per police officer (the vast majority of whom, in their much greater numbers, are local, county, state, or other non-federal officers), the per-capita number of threats per judge is much higher.
You didn't exactly mentioned what you do for the state, what was it? As for your compensation, one trait you and the judge share is the ability to choose your employment. Neither of you are bound to your jobs. If you find the pay unsatisfactory, then do something else if you find you're qualified for it, hopefully with higher pay. But to say that she somehow doesn't deserve as much consideration as you because she makes more is ludicrous. [sentence deleted]
For JadeFalcon: I can't even figure out what your point is, but I appreciate your participation. Maybe she can afford an alarm system, and maybe you and I would see that has high on our priority lists, but to require the same thinking of her is not our place. As for a gun -- even if she was allowed to have one (she's not; she's a Chicago resident), it wouldn't have helped in this situation unless someone did an armed house-clearing by default, at least the time her husband and mother came home. What might have been an early warning? Oh, I know! AN ALARM SYSTEM! Maybe one that's hooked up to notify US Marshals, rather than a security company! They are, after all, charged with the security and safety of Federal judges. All the time. They don't spend the money or resources outside of work hours/locale unless they believe they have a specific threat to deal with. In this case, the threat was unknown until it was too late. Hence, for those situations, the judges are saying: "If you expect us to rely on the US Marshals for protection, then they have to either BE THERE or they have to have the tools to do it effectively. We believe alarm systems are one of those essential tools."
Is that so hard to understand?
Additionally, I think we're of the same mind on CCW law. Right?
Last edited by a moderator:
JadeFalcon
Member
valid point...I was unaware that one of the Marshalls mandates was the protection of judges...and yes we are in agreement about CCW.
For the record I'm an American, not a patriot
JadeFalcon
For the record I'm an American, not a patriot
JadeFalcon
Specialized does has some salient points, I'll admit. The one thing I cannot get past, is that the judge needs "special protection," but the "peasants" living in the projects on the Southside of Chicago Land be damned. Judge lefty has no qualms about disarming the subjects in Chicago's bullet-riddled South Side, while at the same time demanding that we pay for her security. For the life of me, I just can't understand the left winger's penchant for keeping the citizenry disarmed. I used to be a Democrat, mostly because of environmental concerns, but the Democratic Party's dogged obsession with Gun Control, among other socialist policies has me firmly in the Republican Camp. I realize that "Jesus Land" played a critical role in W's reelection. I've been a resident of the South my entire life, and I do not consider South's religious community particularly intolerant. Special interests are a big image problem for today's Republican party, but the Democrats can play that game too. I agree with Specialized in that smaller govt. works better, but neither party appears to be the party of small government any longer.
As far as the situation in Chi-town: apparently judges, as well as certain elected officials deserve "special protection" that the taxpayers have to pay for. As for the good citizens of Chicago: Go Learn Karate.
And we should trust the government because....
As far as the situation in Chi-town: apparently judges, as well as certain elected officials deserve "special protection" that the taxpayers have to pay for. As for the good citizens of Chicago: Go Learn Karate.
And we should trust the government because....
bcochran
Member
venting
We all have a lot to vent about in this world.
Some of the ignorance can be cleared up.
1. Judges rule only on matters narrowly presented to them that are supported by the facts and the law. If "all the laws" aren't presented, then there isn't a ruling on "all the laws".
2. As for letting a-s run free. Federal judges are not lenient. There are sentencing guidelines, recently and appropriately gutted as an infringement by Congress on the discretion of the courts in sentencing. Any federal law passed that makes a crime an offense has language that gives the sentence or the sentence range. The sentence or sentence range is established by Congress, that means you citizens
3. As for "privacy because of vulnerability", is not possible in the electronic age. If you vote, own real estate, establish credit, you can be found. My PI has a brother who bet him $1000 that the PI could not find him. The brother is a federal operative in deep cover. By consulting his available 110 data bases, my PI located his brother and called him on an unlisted number within ten minutes, providing details of his activities, residences and so forth for the past ten years.
So long as people rant, I have some questions. How many of you walk around your house armed? Realistically, if some one appeared in your living room with the intent to kill you, how many of you would have a gun in the same room (assuming it is legal in your state)? How many of you are ladies in your 90's who never had instruction in firearms, knife fighting, the martial arts? The point is that the ranting is just that.
We all have a lot to vent about in this world.
Some of the ignorance can be cleared up.
1. Judges rule only on matters narrowly presented to them that are supported by the facts and the law. If "all the laws" aren't presented, then there isn't a ruling on "all the laws".
2. As for letting a-s run free. Federal judges are not lenient. There are sentencing guidelines, recently and appropriately gutted as an infringement by Congress on the discretion of the courts in sentencing. Any federal law passed that makes a crime an offense has language that gives the sentence or the sentence range. The sentence or sentence range is established by Congress, that means you citizens
3. As for "privacy because of vulnerability", is not possible in the electronic age. If you vote, own real estate, establish credit, you can be found. My PI has a brother who bet him $1000 that the PI could not find him. The brother is a federal operative in deep cover. By consulting his available 110 data bases, my PI located his brother and called him on an unlisted number within ten minutes, providing details of his activities, residences and so forth for the past ten years.
So long as people rant, I have some questions. How many of you walk around your house armed? Realistically, if some one appeared in your living room with the intent to kill you, how many of you would have a gun in the same room (assuming it is legal in your state)? How many of you are ladies in your 90's who never had instruction in firearms, knife fighting, the martial arts? The point is that the ranting is just that.
JadeFalcon
Member
yep, my ignorance all went bye-bye!
I just find ANY concept, that undersatands a just reason for this ladies loss...to be down right un connected to the realities of life. All of this is not about YOU... it is about someone who goes to bat, in the name of society.... to make calls..to better all life. Security is not the question, what she does it not the question...the question here is.... about someone doing something for you...to BETTER all life... if you can not see this, of fail to appreciate it...then please tell me your contribution.... please tell me any contribution that YOU have made...to make things better. We have experts in theory, the should have, could have, and would have babblers...then we have the one with experience.... as always these two concepts...clash... one group knows it all...the other group know, how much more, there is to learn. Specialized has words of wisdom, if you see it as babble... then I would suggest you not waliking and chewing gum..... As for not understanding the needs of specialized protection...I will make it clear....lets say, you stick your thumb. in every scums eye... and send them to the big house daily...in the name of bettering the streets of your town(are you following me ?)...now when your 8 to 10 hour day is over....and your walking home...are you concerned ? are you looking over your shoulder ? keep in mind, how many people are in the ground...for just a bad look...to some gang banger crack head. Forums are hopefully ..a place you can come, and learn 60% and talk 40%..maybe even lean something... if the true question of this post, is missing you....then maybe the 60% to 40% thing...is off. If you fail to have the strength, to walk the point...then give suppot, to those that do...
Selfdfenz
Member
She ruled in a malpractice case for heck's sake. If you think the "Prime Directive" for judges is making life better for all of us unwashed out here in fly-over country you need to spend more time in court. It'll be an eye-opener for you.
The lady has had a tragedy. Till this happened she pulled 6 figures and all was well with the World. I'm sure in the back of her mind the fact some nutjob could cause trouble was considered but not enough for her to do a different job. To me that says she did not take the threat seriously.
Well the worst possible thing happened. I think the question is less on about what we as taxpayers need to do to protect her and more about the question of how DO we in socienty handle crazy people like the guy that did this terrible thing? What level of security would it take? BTW I have no idea.
What I see is carrying this logic far enough we find judges with hoods on in court.
Lawful taxpayer...every year... in full..... and that better be enough
Peace
S-
As I noted in my previous post, Specialized has some good points. I firmly believe that Federal judges aren't doing their jobs for money and fame, but rather to put a good legal mind to use serving the public, serving you and me, the taxpayer. I'm sure judge Lefkow is in her profession for no other reason than public service. God bless her. If I were in her shoes right now, I would not be holding up well, and I sincerely hope that Mrs. Lefkow has the support of close family and friends to get her through this tragedy. Let's be honest here board members, Mrs. Lefkow has a dangerous job. But we also need to recognize that there are also many other citizens in Chicago with equally dangerous jobs that will probably never get any kind of armed protection that, quite frankly, Mrs. Lefkow and her family should have had.
Convenience store clerks, cab drivers, street vendors, Debit collectors, and merchants are all in high-risk occupations. I should know, I was a debit collector fresh out of college. Foolishly, I was young and unarmed while carrying large amounts of cash in high crime neighborhoods in downtown Norfolk and Newport News, VA. During the year I was in sales and collections, an Agent was shot and killed in Gilpin Court in nearby Richmond, VA. The robber got away with just over $900 in cash. Three years earlier, another agent was stabbed in a robbery attempt at a convenience store in Virginia Beach. I don't believe VA issued carry permits at the time, so while I was employed in the city of Newport News I really had no choice but to remain unarmed.
The point of the above paragraph is this: If you think Mrs. Lefkow has the only dangerous occupation in the city of Chicago; think again. If thugs know you are carrying large sums of money; they will kill you in a heartbeat. Being a cab driver, debit collector, or a convenience store clerk in South Chicago is no less dangerous than Mrs. Lefkow's occupation.
Personally, I have no problem with Federal Judges asking for and getting armed protection 24/7. Their occupation is a dangerous one. But in a very liberal jurisdiction like Chicago, the hypocrisy is simply astounding: Armed protection for the judges, because they serve the public. Karate and grappling for the subjects and serfs, because they really don't "need" any protection, and they are really not all that important. Their families depend on them to earn a living, but they are just not important enough for the privelege of arming themselves. After all, it's much better to be defenseless than armed. Firearms will only make the situation worse, but the firearms that protect the judges will somehow make the situation better.
I agree that judge Lefkow needs protection, but I thank my lucky stars (and the Founding fathers) that the U.S. Constitution is about ME. The bill of Rights is not about the collective, not about society, but about ME, the individual. Good Luck Chicago. You'll need it.
Convenience store clerks, cab drivers, street vendors, Debit collectors, and merchants are all in high-risk occupations. I should know, I was a debit collector fresh out of college. Foolishly, I was young and unarmed while carrying large amounts of cash in high crime neighborhoods in downtown Norfolk and Newport News, VA. During the year I was in sales and collections, an Agent was shot and killed in Gilpin Court in nearby Richmond, VA. The robber got away with just over $900 in cash. Three years earlier, another agent was stabbed in a robbery attempt at a convenience store in Virginia Beach. I don't believe VA issued carry permits at the time, so while I was employed in the city of Newport News I really had no choice but to remain unarmed.
The point of the above paragraph is this: If you think Mrs. Lefkow has the only dangerous occupation in the city of Chicago; think again. If thugs know you are carrying large sums of money; they will kill you in a heartbeat. Being a cab driver, debit collector, or a convenience store clerk in South Chicago is no less dangerous than Mrs. Lefkow's occupation.
Personally, I have no problem with Federal Judges asking for and getting armed protection 24/7. Their occupation is a dangerous one. But in a very liberal jurisdiction like Chicago, the hypocrisy is simply astounding: Armed protection for the judges, because they serve the public. Karate and grappling for the subjects and serfs, because they really don't "need" any protection, and they are really not all that important. Their families depend on them to earn a living, but they are just not important enough for the privelege of arming themselves. After all, it's much better to be defenseless than armed. Firearms will only make the situation worse, but the firearms that protect the judges will somehow make the situation better.
I agree that judge Lefkow needs protection, but I thank my lucky stars (and the Founding fathers) that the U.S. Constitution is about ME. The bill of Rights is not about the collective, not about society, but about ME, the individual. Good Luck Chicago. You'll need it.
selfdfenz....yes the scum bag that killed her family, turned out to be over a malpractice case....and your point is what ? the type of case has zero to do, with the question.. In your eyes, just what do judges do? if not the work to make our daily life better dealing with the scum bags of the earth...Just because she did not take this case or threat seriousy means what exactly? she errored, so she deserved this? if your only contribution to society in your eyes, is your tax payments only.... then this entire concept and the focus of this question is above your reality. I know if I did this type of work, and for what ever reason, I could not defend myself, and my family...I surely would ask for help.... she went to bat for us...and this is your concept and understanding of her efforts....? sadly the concept of honor, and our responsibility to each other, and ourself... is dying daily.
Specialized
Member
JadeFalcon said:
Absolutely. Hear hear! THAT makes better sense.
I know we all have frustrations in our lives, and some of the goings-on in our government are surely a part of that frustration. I know I certainly have mine.
This is a bit off-topic, but I think it applies because it illustrates an area where my frustration with a particular group (anti-gunners) was clouding my ability to creatively meet their challenge. It occurred to me during a TV show I was watching that many of our pro-gun arguments address a different facet of the issue than that upon which the anti's focus. We stress our rights, the constitution, sport, and self-defense. They have managed to demonize THE GUN ITSELF! I don't believe I've ever seen a positive spin on guns as tools, how and where they are meaningfully used, and why they serve a valuable purpose in our society today. And that should have been my first response, living here in the Chicago area -- where the mayor has almost single-handedly turned guns into the devil -- to counteract the constant drumbeat of propaganda. I think that's what I'll direct my efforts upon for a while.
As an idle thought, the same goes for hunting. I'm going to design a commercial that debunks the "beef tree" ("no animals died in the processing of this quality beef") attitude/mentality, and maybe also showcase the "quality of death", for lack of a better term, posed by hunting as opposed to a game animal's other options (run down & slowly eaten alive; slow death by starvation or sickness; the 1/4-mile long red streak on the highway; or some combination therein). Show the difference between "Ohmigod, something's eating my flanks!" and "What was that loud noise?!? Why am I dropping off NOW?!?"
I mean, the so-called "animal rights activists" certainly seem to understand overbrowsing as a concept when it involves their flower gardens; maybe we can get them to recognize it in their local forest preserves, or in the REAL wild. Show them what happens when species overpopulation occurs, and what a tragedy it can become, especially when it involves predators or pretty-eyed, soft, cuddly (!) species like they believe deer to be. Heck, the good folks in California and New Jersey are figuring it out, one pilfered suburban poodle at a time. Maybe we can help the light bulb come on for some of the others.
There are all kinds of things we can empower ourselves to do. If we allow ourselves to think that big and identify what those things are, we can set to the task of doing them. If we find someone else is doing them already, help them row the boat. They will appreciate the help, and it's always good to find more friends with like goals.
Again, thoughts?
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I moved back to Austin, Texas in 1963; I lasted until 1983 before leaving. I'd venture that in some 3/4 of the geographic area, there was never a need for personal self-defense in the area around one's home. That is, no hostile individuals came to a home with violent intent. Other parts of town, yeah, as well as along streets with the "stop'n'robs".
What my point is that many Austinites grew up without really knowing of a real need for self-defense with a firearm. Folks like that are easily led into the demonization of firearms. They vote, and you generally can't sell them on the idea that an anti-gun candidate isn't a Good Guy; guns are a trivial issue in their minds.
Further, we've had some 40+ years of "Naderization", where the belief has been inculcated that if you pass enough laws and write enough regulations, "We'll All Be Safe!" Note that these laws and regulations generally focus on things, moreso than behavior. We wind up with the safer world engendered by labels on stepladders, for instance--or on the sunvisor of your truck or SUV.
So the newsies write, "The car ran off the road..." Duh? The driver bore no responsibility for control? The car "got tired" of being on the pavement?
And we've had that famous cartoon of the crook saying, "They turned me loose, but they hung the gun."
As long as people believe that Bad Things can only happen to other people, we'll have mindsets like those of that judge as to any sort of personal protection package for self and home.
Art
What my point is that many Austinites grew up without really knowing of a real need for self-defense with a firearm. Folks like that are easily led into the demonization of firearms. They vote, and you generally can't sell them on the idea that an anti-gun candidate isn't a Good Guy; guns are a trivial issue in their minds.
Further, we've had some 40+ years of "Naderization", where the belief has been inculcated that if you pass enough laws and write enough regulations, "We'll All Be Safe!" Note that these laws and regulations generally focus on things, moreso than behavior. We wind up with the safer world engendered by labels on stepladders, for instance--or on the sunvisor of your truck or SUV.
So the newsies write, "The car ran off the road..." Duh? The driver bore no responsibility for control? The car "got tired" of being on the pavement?
And we've had that famous cartoon of the crook saying, "They turned me loose, but they hung the gun."
As long as people believe that Bad Things can only happen to other people, we'll have mindsets like those of that judge as to any sort of personal protection package for self and home.
Art
Selfdfenz
Member
You made her sound like Joan of Arc. What specifically do you know about her trial history that indictes she did heroic things from the bench.
The last I heard judges decide matters of law and control the trial process. The number of judges hearing criminal cases is only part of the equation as was the case here. What in you mind does the matter of this malpractice case have to do with judges, as a group of tax paid employees, going to bat for you? If she tried drug cartel cases everyday sure. I'm sure this lady did exemplary work and I'm very sad for her but we have no indication one way or the other she was out there for you and me everyday battering down the doors of criminal activity.
Your words not mine. Then again I believe we are all responsible for ourselves. How can you do a job like that and not be cognizant of the threat.
The professional journals for legal eagles have been discussing it for YEARS.
She and her husband were part of the legal system. Tell me where you think their personal responsibility is in this deal and we can talk. You seem to give them a pass on personal responsibility and I don't. BTW no one deserved what happpen to to her family and you didn't hear me say that.
contribution to society ....hmmmm....I won't even go there but there is a remote chance you and yours are safer where ever you may be in country because of the job I do every day. I'll leave it at that.
Lawful taxpayer covers a lot in my estimation. I'll add citizen of the US. "Got 1st amendment" or do you just believe people that agree with you should have a voice?
and for what ever reason, I could not defend myself....
It's rare IMO that an individual can do nothing to defend themselves.
I guess that is the point were we do not see eye to eye. My question is given her job, what was she doing to secure herself and her family? Till this happened she was comfortable living in a place with high crime, gun bans and it appears she did not even have an alarm system? She seems to have all kinds of ideas regarding what society needs to do or supply her with to safeguard her and her way of life but she is silent on her responsibility or past effort in that arena.
No flame
S-
this case speaks for itself...as do all the many words of this entire post...hopefully we all learned something new. If you choose to walk threw life, without the responsibility, to make the world better...it's your own call...hopefully, there will always be somene who has the focus..to heed the call.
Cellar Dweller
Member
However...
"judges and public officials shouldn't have personal information posted on the internet for free or $20" or whatever; they have NO problems with Jane Citizen's information being available to stalker ex-boyfriends or Joe Citizen's address being published because he's a CCW holder...somehow, that is not a double standard.
Some judges and public officials want protection 24/7 because: 1. their job is "dangerous" and/or 2. they don't want the responsibility, yet deny the public the same choice (when citizens want to assume the responsibility for protecting themselves ).
Just for argument's sake: assume ALL judges and officials, elected or appointed, get a security detail 24/7. If I was a bad guy, I'd go after their families instead - obviously, a pattern would emerge 'cause I'm not the only one who'd think this way - so add guards to them as well? Of course, some would complain that ARMED men shouldn't be around children (just as some complain about uniformed police carrying guns around children and the hoplophobic , oh my)...
Would the marshals pick up the Judge's dry cleaning and run other errands, like Governor Blagojevich's ISP security detail allegedly does?
"judges and public officials shouldn't have personal information posted on the internet for free or $20" or whatever; they have NO problems with Jane Citizen's information being available to stalker ex-boyfriends or Joe Citizen's address being published because he's a CCW holder...somehow, that is not a double standard.
Some judges and public officials want protection 24/7 because: 1. their job is "dangerous" and/or 2. they don't want the responsibility, yet deny the public the same choice (when citizens want to assume the responsibility for protecting themselves ).
Just for argument's sake: assume ALL judges and officials, elected or appointed, get a security detail 24/7. If I was a bad guy, I'd go after their families instead - obviously, a pattern would emerge 'cause I'm not the only one who'd think this way - so add guards to them as well? Of course, some would complain that ARMED men shouldn't be around children (just as some complain about uniformed police carrying guns around children and the hoplophobic , oh my)...
Would the marshals pick up the Judge's dry cleaning and run other errands, like Governor Blagojevich's ISP security detail allegedly does?
- Status