Idaho Dispatch

Your Local Media Ally

Op-Ed: Whose responsibility is it to protect us?

By • May 29, 2022

The following Op-Ed was submitted by Christy Zito. Note: Op-Eds do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of those at the Idaho Dispatch. Additionally, Zito currently works for the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance, for which Greg Pruett, Idaho Dispatch’s Editor, is the President.

After the horrific event at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, there has been a lot of discussion about how law enforcement responded.

We must be sensitive and face these situations with a realistic view. Touting political theater and using these events as a bully pulpit to advance an unconstitutional and dangerous stance is an insult to every citizen of this country.

Looking beyond the reports that local law enforcement stood down when they arrived on the scene, the reality is that the average response time after 911 calls is longer than many think; response times in major US cities range from 5.4 minutes to 14.5 minutes. If you live in a rural area, the response time may be even longer, hours longer in some cases. There are an estimated 240 million 911 calls each year; officers physically and realistically can’t be everywhere.

It is essential to understand the proper role of law enforcement in protecting the citizen. Bottom line: law enforcement has no constitutional legal duty to protect you. Their job is to investigate a crime and deter by their presence.   Your first and often only defense is YOU.

I have heard many comments that officers who did not “protect” the children violated their oath of office. In Idaho, the Oath of Office says nothing about protecting or defending anyone, and the oath only cites upholding the State and Federal Constitution.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Idaho, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of (insert office) according to the best of my ability.”

Note, “So help me God” was taken out of Idaho Code in 1983.

In the case of Castle Rock V. Gonzales, (2005), the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that police agencies have no duty to keep you safe. There is no physical way that you can be protected by law enforcement continually; no matter an officer’s code of ethics, it cannot happen.

Once law enforcement arrives on the scene, the question now becomes a moral one. On that fateful Texas day, the decision was to stand down and listen to the gun, knowing that children were being killed, or take whatever action necessary to save lives. Each man had to live up to his code of ethics.

The situation in Texas has shown that a lock on the door, fences, or physical deterrents may stop some; however, those hell-bent on taking lives don’t care about laws or locks. Those under attack have the right to defend themselves and those in their care.

A TEACHER’S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS MUST NEVER BE INFRINGED!

When the call for bans on “assault-type guns,” stricter background checks, limiting magazine capacity, or any of the many violations of our freedom begins; we must stand firm; we can’t compromise. A car, baseball bat, knife, pen, or can of Drano in the hands of someone who has decided to end human life is a deadly weapon. The effort to do away with the Second Amendment will not help; gun control laws have never made a difference.

There are stories of heroism that came from the Texas tragedy; law enforcement officers stand in harm’s way every day, and I am grateful to them. Many officers I speak with when working on protecting our 2A agree that an armed citizenry is the best first line of defense.

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to speak freely, and we have a right to bear arms.


Tags: 2nd Amendment, Christy Zito, Gun Control, Protection, Teacher, United States Constitution

19 thoughts on “Op-Ed: Whose responsibility is it to protect us?

  1. Absolutely agree we are our 1st line of defense. These are God given rights secured by the Constitution.
    Governments job is to protect our inalienable rights to life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not to infringe on them!!
    It is a well known FACTthat gun free zones have more violence because criminals know people are defenseless.

  2. I was a deputy sheriff years ago in Ada county after getting out of the military and in my final years I was a training officer. I remember when my rifles and shotguns were in a rack on the wall with ammo in the drawer below them. Our political agenda seems to be I have personal security but the general public can’t. Politicians seem to think it’s ok to let criminals out of jail even if violent. It’s time to get back to enforcing the death penalty especially for those who use a firearm to commit murder. No life sentence, the public should not be forced to give them room and board and include medical for the rest of there life or let them out early so they can once again go and commit another violent crime . If the weapon was the fault maybe the car is the felon how come when the car used to run down people it’s not band. For the relegious folks or use religion to stop violence think about this. Cane killed Able with a rock and God did not blame the rock.

  3. Well stated on all points Christy. Even in the best of times we are endowed with the God-given right to self defense.

    In these tumultuous times, where a globalist agenda seeks to disarm and further enslave us, our right to self defense and pursuit of liberty is paramount.

  4. I’m a retired police officer/deputy sheriff of 32 years of service. Most of my career I worked in a rural county where my response time could have been as long as 2+ hours. I told the people I served that they were their first line of defense, that they could not depend on having an officer there to protect them. Based on what I’m seeing in departments across the country I’m not sure I really want many of these officers trying to protect me or my family. Many of the current members of law enforcement have enforced unconstitutional laws, regulations and mandates without thinking. These are the oath breakers.

  5. We appreciate the op-ed and agree. American citizens need to know the laws and regulations then use their best judgment to uphold and serve. We must place God as our Center and Leader in our lives, our homes, our schools, our businesses, and our government! This is God’s country, and He can bless us when we love Him and are faithful to Him. We must resist the evil practices and policies of the marxist communist agenda!!! God will help us if we invite Him in sincere respect.

  6. The constitutionanally protected, God given \ natural, right to self defense is stated in our constitution as the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
    To remove the constitutionanally protected right to keep and BEAR arms is (in fact) the necessary right to self defense.
    Every creature on this earth has the right to self defense.
    When man first used a rock or stick to kill other people it became necessary to keep equal or better tools of self defense.
    Guns are only another necessary tool in the exercise of self defense.

  7. Teachers should be able to arm themselves if they are willing and able.
    Why is this happening though? How disgusting do you have to be to want to do this to children?

  8. As part of the gun topic of the day, I ask people “Do Red Lights stop cars? It is the law!”

    Will more gun laws decrease the gun violence that is increasing these days?

    It is time to stop looking to politicians (government) to improve this situation.
    For people who can think I can say it this way: “ Don’t appoint the people who got you into a problem, to get you out of the problem.”
    For people who can not think, I have to be blunt: “Don’t expect the politicians to improve this escalation in gun violence.”
    No problem can be solved with the same kind of thinking that created the problem.

    More gun laws will only penalize the good people. It is the good people that are needed. Their skills and training need to be harnessed in order to decrease gun violence.

    Criminals read the “Gun Free Zone” to say they can do their dirty work here without hinderance.
    The following would be a better sign outside every school: “ATTENTION: Please be aware that the staff at this school are armed and may use whatever force is necessary to protect our students.” (This does not mean every school employee needs to be armed; only the people who are trained and willing to carry the responsibility.)

    Many people are speaking common sense that needs to take place, but the news media are too scared to mention it (90% of the new media live inside the same bubble) because it is not politically correct.

    I don’t have all the answers, but I do have some.
    If you are interested, please feel free to contact me.
    Respectfully,
    Don Grimes
    Boise Idaho

  9. If the police on the scene don’t attack the threat to their communities needs, the protection of it’s children then the parents or interested parties will.
    Is that what we really want… parents killing cops to get to their children?

    1. Your rhetorical question irritates me: Would you stand aside and let anyone prevent you from doing anything possible to save your child. Is it not obvious to you that the police were wrong in arresting parents instead of attacking the shooter. They were hearing children scream and gunfire. The final solution hours late was to storm the classroom and kill this sick son of a worthless mother. (She kicks him out of her house and gives him a stuffed toy for his 18th birthday..!!) The thought of going to jail or being killed would be no deterrent in my effort to save my child or grandchild.

  10. Its our job to protect ourselves that is a fact. But I wouldn’t trust anything that Christy Zito says especially when she is currently supporting and promoting a bill that will would make child abuse legal in Idaho including female genital mutilation, forced child gender reassignment, allow parents to starve their children because they think they are overweight, or deny a child life saving treatment simply because the parent doesn’t want to allowing a child to suffer and die. If the bill the way she wrote it is allowed to pass these will be allowed in Idaho. Christy has no care for children and has no desire to fix the bill to make sure this cannot happen to innocent children.

    1. Yeah, calling bullshit on your claims. Show us proof that Christy supports the bill, as well as a link to this bill or your claims will be ignored by everyone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.