Councilwoman: Most Dangerous With Guns Are Cops

A city councilwoman in North Carolina is walking back an explosive statement she wrote Monday on her personal Facebook page in which he said that the “most dangerous people with guns” aren’t criminals, but police officers and soldiers.

“I am all about keeping guns away from dangerous people, but I feel like more of us should be pointing out that the most dangerous people with guns are cops and soldiers, and that the no-fly list and FBI anti-terror efforts are seriously corrupted by entrapment, racial profiling and Islamophobia,” Durham City Councilwoman Jillian Johnson posted.

1396269_630x354-620x348The post, which was later deleted, ignited an online firestorm that resulted in Johnson issuing a “clarifying” statement Wednesday:

“I believe that state-sanctioned violence causes more harm, and is therefore more dangerous, than non state-sanctioned violence. I believe this is true both because the approval of those in authority and often the general public gives a veneer of acceptability to actions we would otherwise condemn, but also because states have the capacity to spend huge resources equipping and funding people to use force in defense of their interests.  We should not ignore these facts, or wrongly assume that those who believe that this situation is fundamentally unjust and should not continue are harboring a hatred for police and soldiers,” Johnson continued. “I certainly find a great many of the actions taken by militaries and police forces here in the US and around the world extremely troubling, and I also respect the humanity of those who do not share this disagreement.”

Facebook Comments

Previous

Next

17 Comments

  1. Brenda

    Too little too late Councilwoman. You already did your damage

  2. Ripcords

    They are elected by the same culture that celebrates and commits the most violence on the planet. What more could we expect.

  3. Rich Bawol

    She’s so full of shit, she stinks. Criminals aren’t the dangerous ones, Police Officers are. Well Missy, next time you need help, call a criminal and tell him to bring his gun. You dumb ass!

  4. v349355

    Its this the same corrupt greedy elected officials that falsified and withheld evidence on the Duke Lacrosse players. The Democratic Way. Lie, cheat steal and in Clintons case murder to get or keep what you want.

  5. Warren Stallings

    that weave was way too tight. hope you enjoyed the ride for the last 8 years, its ending in Jan

    • NOAH L. HOLCOMB. JR.

      Yes, #BlackLivesMatter, but not when the black victim is killed by another black. See, e.g., Baltimore, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, etc., homicide rates.

    • ZippytheWonderSlug

      And most blacks are thugs, drug dealers, gang members, thieves, and a total blight on society.

  6. phonograf

    This is called “walking back”? Where I’m from, which is not that far from the Peoples Republic of Durham, we call that “digging the hole deeper”.

  7. spike

    Yes, “their” interest is in protecting the likes of this woman!? Unless any American can walk around in any place, city, country, park and feel perfectly safe from being robbed, assaulted, raped and/or having their home invaded and belongings taken while they are out – those cops/soldiers are protecting those people from the worst of society. And let’s don’t kid ourselves, the worst are present in every society of human existence. I bet she would not want to live anywhere that law enforcement and armies are non-existent. Check the stats – the number of deaths by the people is huge compared to the number by law enforcement and almost all of the latter are to protect one’s own life or innocents in the area. It is disgusting how many people who have risen to positions of authority are so ready to jump on whatever is the latest bandwagon is being pushed by the news organizations. How have we come to put so many people in positions of leadership who have no backbone and/or reasoning ability or they are just too lazy to dig in and find out what the facts are. Most frustrating time in my lifetime.

    • Unity Nowe

      No, they are not obligated or expected to “protect” anyone. Their job is to enforce law, codes and statutes. The police rarely stop anyone from being robbed, assaulted , raped or from having their home invaded and belongings taken . They show up after the fact (if then) and often, when they do, they make the situation much worse.

      • spike

        Let’s see a policeman is “not obligated to protect anyone”? Of course, their main time is spent apprehending, following the leads, after the fact, and certainly that is a deterrent. However, surely you’re not suggesting that if a cop sees a crime being committed that they are not “obligated” to do anything until after the fact? That would surprise many perps I’m sure and scare the heck out of a lot of the rest of us. That doesn’t include the officers who are ordered to stand down when a mob goes on a rampage and just hold the line, which I’ve read creates a real moral dilemma for most of them. Your experience with police officers seems strange in the extreme – they don’t always respond and when they do they “often” just make things worse?

        • Kenyan Mocker

          Most likely Unity Nowe has no real concept of how hard it is to have to often walk into the middle of a situation without proper foreknowledge and try to get things back to a safe and closer to normal status.
          As has been often said the best way to lessen crime is by citizens working with LE.

        • Unity Nowe

          http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html?_r=0

          A few years back, a guy in a subway subdued a serial killer and was wounded badly in the process. Two police officers watched through the subway door window and waited until he had it under control to come through the door to “help”. They can choose to help but they are not obligated. That’s a fact. Like it or not. I’m not the only one who has had an “extremely strange” experience with police. In fact , I am only one in thousands. And the count is rising each day. Yes, they are the great escalaters. Making matters much worse than need be. I believe law officer just posted an article today on Facebook, on de escalating and how “disturbing” it is for police to be given awards for not escalating .

          • spike

            If there are “thousands” of such incidents it would be worthwhile instead of demonstrating in the streets, to spend the money documenting as many of these as possible and getting the information out to the folks. One anecdotal incident does not make a cast of thousands – but there are people who will listen to the truth if properly documented and be glad it is out there.

        • Chuck Hammerstein

          Legally a complex issue, and not a political one. Laws vary from State-to-State, agency-to-agency. I learned from the feds that strictly speaking (and it would be extremely unusual) law enforcement is not ‘required’ by any over riding law to respond to every call. OF COURSE it is their job to respond, and they do nearly 100% of the time, however, in a court of law there would normally not be a judgement that the police were required to respond. Sometimes, like in a rural area, there may be a temporary personnel shortage. A burglary may take place 10 miles away, and a murder may have occurred one mile away. Perhaps the burglary call is never responded to. That homeowner has no legal claim to service or damages. It is not strictly ‘required’ to respond to every call or every witnessed incident. ‘Required’ is not the same as it is ‘policy’ to respond to every call or every crime. Policy probably says ‘respond,’ but there are circumstances of logistics or other issues that may prevent a response. No citizen or entity can ‘demand’ response, no circumstance strictly ‘requires’ it.

          • spike

            But according to Unity Nowe telling her/his anecdote, two officers “watched” until the danger was past, and the hero/citizen wound up seriously injured and only then stepped in. I understand time constraints, etc., but I would be incredulous if an officer is not obligated to step in during a criminal act which he/she is watching as it happens!

Submit a Comment

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from Law Officer.

You have Successfully Subscribed!