dial 911 and die!!!

[one-eyed-fatman]

Hey! Should I burn down my house so I can sue the fire department for putting out the fire? And the cops will show up too. Ha! Another lawsuit!

[Wu Wei]

I'm ok with them not having to protect me, but them being able to arrest me for carrying to protect myself and family is unjust. I'm one of those crazy cats who ignores the law in cases like these. I follow morality and common sense, screw the law. Thanks for the case in point.

[Timmy44221]

I personaly dont disagree with them not having to protect you the individual (for the sake of lawsuits). BUt if we are supposed to protect ourselves, why do they wanna take our guns away?

Also can anyone actualy cite the (supream) court case that established this.

[chupacabrachus]

Originally Posted by Timmy44221

...BUt if we are supposed to protect ourselves, why do they wanna take our guns away?

Herein lays the paradox.

[hacker15]

Originally Posted by chupacabrachus

Herein lays the paradox.

Herein lies one of the root causes of the 2nd Amendment. Here in the upstate area of NY, the average time of response for a call to 911 is about 15 minutes (that's average - some responses are far greater, some less depending on where the call came from and the closest responding unit). From the moment you hear a window breaking or your front door being smashed in 'till the intruder comes into your bedroom is (I figure) about 15 seconds.

Now, how are you going to use your 15 seconds? Call 911? I hope they bring body bags, cause the neighbors will get pretty sick looking at your (and your family's) mangled remains being dragged out of the house.

I know how I'll use my 15 seconds - and I'll call 911 AFTER the intruder(s) are either incapable of further action or suitably quelled.

[OrangeSkies]

There are tons of links to the numerous Supreme Court rulings that "Police have no duty to protect individuals". Here's just a few:

http://www.mcrkba.org/w19.html

http://www.law.emory.edu/4circuit/june95/932125.p.html

OPINION

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:

We granted en banc review in this case to define the contours of
qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when a plaintiff alleges
an affirmative duty on the part of a police officer to protect citizens
from the actions of a third party. The plaintiff in this action, Carol
Pinder, seeks to impose civil liability against Officer Donald Johnson
of the Cambridge, Maryland, Police Department for his failure to
safeguard her children from the criminal depredations of plaintiff's
ex- boyfriend. Pinder alleges that defendant's express promises to her
created a "special relationship," which in turn gave rise to an affirma-
tive duty to protect her under the Due Process Clause of the Four-
teenth Amendment. We hold that no such due process right to
protection was clearly established, DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Dep't of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989), and that Officer Johnson is thus entitled to qualified immunity.
[emphasis mine]

http://rkba.org/research/kasler/protection

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Crim...Protection.htm
The courts have decided that you have no right to expect the police to protect you from crime! Incredible as it may seem, the courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help, even in life threatening situations! To be fair to the police, I think that many, and perhaps most, officers really do want to save lives and stop dangerous situations before people get hurt. But the key point to remember is that the courts have said they are under no legal obligation to do so.