San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1889-06-01
Police Defender No. 2.

Iil''i bai'S bi'"A
In your article of yesterday, reply
ing to my letter of the day previous,
you say my letter was "covert plea
for an irresponsible police and con-
stabulary." In view of the fact that
none but responsible mon should be
appointed to the police force, and
that they should use no more force
than might be necessary in making
arrests, what right had you to make
this assertion?
l said that erybody else seems to
have the right to defend himself eX-
cept policeman. You say he is
licensed to carry deadly weapons.
Well, suppose he is. What good will
they do him, if he is not permitted to
use them in his own defense, when
set upon by a mob of cowardly ruff
fans who think it smart to "do up' a
"cop?" But say, you, he has right
to call upon by-standers for help.
Did not Officer Kroeger call upon the
bystanders? How much attention
did they pay to him?
eff the account in the LIGHT was
correct (which take for granted) Of
ficer Chavez was assaulted in "a bru-
tai, if not dangerous manner. You
ask if he would have been justified in
killing the thugs who made the dead
ly assault. If law and public senti-
ment are in accord with your view of
the matter, certainly not. But let
me ask, if an ordinary citizen should
be the victim of a deadly assault by a
tough, and especially by number of
these, and should in self defense
shoot the assaulting party or parties,
would not public sen timent and the
courts hold him blameless? Ask any
lawyer in the city; and he will tell
you yes, then will you say that the
ordinary citizen has rights that the
policeman has not? Beside you do
not quote me fairly, L said in substance
that where the assault is of such a
nature as to endanger the life or limb
of officer or by-standers, the officer
should be justified in shooting the
the assaulting party. This L still
maintain should be law and public
sentiment. whether it IS or not.
You say in order protect the police
it is not necessary to give them whole
sale license to kill. Right you are,
and in my letter, if you will note it
carefully, you will observe that L
made no such assertion, as that
policemen should not be held respOn-
sible for their acts. But did assume
and still maintain that an officer of
the law like any other citizen is en-
titled to defend himself when as
lence, and in affairs of this kind it
hnifN II -,
assaulting an officer almost always
has the sympathy of the lawless, [
hold that where he has right on his
side, the officer should as invariably
have the sympathy of the law biding.
One can hardly pick up paper
without his eye lighting upon the ac-
count of some brave officer going to
his death because he was too gentle
with men who can not appreciate
gentle treatment, and often these
murders Of officers are by men whose
otfense would justify but night in
the lock up. And the slckly and false
sentimentality that sheds bitter blind
ing tears because a terror to women
and children, or two or three of them
get their heads broken by an officer,
whom they assault because he inter-
feres with their detestable amuse-
ment of terrorizing women and child
rem; 1 say, that this sympathy
for the violaters of the law, and
this lack of sympathy for the
guardians of the law, have not
a little to do with resistance to, and
assault upon officers. When the Of
ficers are backed by law and by
sentiment that says to the violator of
law, 60 with the officer quietly, when
he lays his hand upon you, or take
the consequences, such occurrences
as the assault and murder of officers
will be much more safe. CITIZEN.