By Steve Pomper
Along with defunding the police, and replacing cops with “violence interrupters,” social workers, leftist radicals have also called for disarming the police, even of their sidearms. For example, a social media “influencer” recently wrote about taking guns away from the police.
Making her argument, she said, “The police do not need guns. There is no reason for them to carry guns.” It’s strange, but I could not find what police academy she attended or agency she worked for to have arrived at such an irresponsible conclusion.
Often, people like this base their conclusions to the myth about cops wantonly using excessive force against “unarmed” people. Here’s an example of where the two issues, with a reluctant nod to leftist phraseology, intersect.
I’ve written often about why police must be armed. It’s so important, I’ve written about it in three books and numerous articles. As a cop, people would ask me, “Have you ever had to use your gun?” I’d answer, “Yes. I use it every day.”
Of course, they viewed “using a gun,” as shooting someone in the line of duty. Yes, I pointed my gun at many suspects, which, in those instances, is probably part of the reason I was fortunate not to have had to fire my gun. There are rare instances when the bad guy or gal does not heed an officer’s gun, forcing the officer to shoot. I used my sidearm every time I wore it—still do. My firearm, whether on duty, off duty, or retired, can be the difference between a bad day and my last day. It’s an insurance policy.
This brings me to an incident in the unincorporated village of Hartford within the town of White River Junction, VT. I lived in that area for a time many years ago. Its beauty is hard to do justice using just words on a page. Quaint, bucolic, picturesque, and friendly will have to do. It’s a place where it’s easy to get lulled into the view police officers don’t really need guns here. “Nothing ever happens.” Yeah, until it does.
Demonstrating why all cops need guns and even “unarmed” suspects can still be dangerous, Hartford Police Officer Eric Clifford recently learned this lesson. The website mychamplainvalley.com reported, at 1:30 in the afternoon, a resident called police to complain Joseph Howard, a 35-year-old man from Bradford, was outside the home causing a disturbance.
When Officer Clifford arrived, Howard, allegedly, immediately charged and attacked him. The officer initially attempted to use pepper spray to “de-escalate” the situation. But some people just won’t let cops de-escalate them.
Howard knocked Officer Clifford to the ground and began pummeling him. Reportedly, Howard “repeatedly punched the officer in the head and strangled him.”
Before anyone derides the officer of having shot an “unarmed” man, again, unarmed does not mean undangerous. Likely dazed from the suspect striking his head and then strangling him, Officer Clifford did what he had to do. Remember, this suspect charged and assaulted an armed police officer.
The report didn’t mention whether Howard was intoxicated, had mental issues, or some other circumstance leftists apparently believe mitigate a suspect’s ability to commit violence. If he would attack a cop, what wouldn’t he do? What do you think the suspect would have done with the officer’s gun if the cop became unconscious, and the suspect took it? Would you bet Howard wouldn’t shoot the officer? I wouldn’t take that bet.
Instead, Officer Clifford correctly decided he would be the one of them who would go home to his family that night. Injured, the officer managed to draw his weapon and fire at Howard, striking him. “Howard was pronounced dead at the scene.”
Officer Clifford was “treated and released for non-life-threatening injuries.” Per policy, the department placed Officer Clifford on administrative leave. The M.E. will conduct an autopsy of Howard’s body. Detectives from the Vermont State Police are investigating the officer-involved shooting, which will include interviewing witnesses and reviewing body-camera video.