SCOTUS says government is not obligated to protect an individual.

[jody]

Self-defense is a personal problem.

We’ve discussed the issue that SCOTUS says government is not obligated to protect a citizen and I thought the following articles are worth browsing.

”Castle Rock v. Gonzales” (Wikipedia)

“Must the Government Protect Its Citizens If It Learns They Are in Danger? The Supreme Court Considers How Far Responsibility Reaches” (Mar 29, 2005)

“ACLU Disappointed with Supreme Court Ruling on Domestic Violence Orders of Protection (June 27, 2005)”

”The Significance of Castle Rock v. Gonzales” (July 14, 2005)

[zbdent]

1. try convincing freepers of that

when they were sending 5 year olds over to Terri Schiavo with glasses of water ...

[old mark]

4. That was the sorriest piece of political crap I have ever seen.

The people persecuting that poor woman's husband made me so angry, and Congress reacted like pigs.

My wife has been in coma several times, and I know how that husband felt - I don't knowhow I would have controlled myself if I were in his situation.

mark

[krispos42]

5. Visual aid

[geckosfeet]

2. I'm getting a gun.

To protect myself from these dopes.

[Old Codger]

3. has been

decided many times that way, individuals are really on their own,dialing 911 is great if you have time but don't always have that available and need to react quickly....Almost any police officer will tell you that if you wait for them you might as well help the crooks carry the stuff out... where I live we are sometimes looking at hours before they could get here , I keep myself armed and ready at all times.... hope never needed but better safe than sorry

[iverglas]

6. and I just keep wondering ...

So the fuck what?

Has anyone ever said that police DO have a duty to protect individuals?

On the other hand, if it actually is true in the US that if police simply refuse to come to the assistance of an individual -- e.g., refuse to dispatch someone to the scene of a violent crime in progress, arbitrarily and for no good reason -- the individual has no recourse, is someone suggesting that this is a good thing?

I see a link to an article in Men's News Daily. Well there's an excellent source for news and views, fer sure. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be getting from said article.

"Kalifornia Legislators". Yes, that's a term often used by liberals and progressives and Democrats: Kalifornia. Mm hmm.

The author, http://nationwideconcealedcarry.com, says "Something is replacing you as Head of Household". Oh dear. Castration is at hand. Big Daddy is losing his authority.

It's such a deceitful web, it all is. Men's News Daily. A crusader against domestic violence legislation, and all the poor male victims of nasty women who falsely accuse them of assault. Gosh. I wonder why they're so gleeful about police not having any duty to assist women victims of violence ...

What women really need is a Head Of Household with a gun. That's what women really need. And if women don't agree, well they can sit down and shut up. Those restraining orders and whatnot, they're not worth the paper they're written on. Women should stand by their men, and their men will protect them. If their men assault them, that's their problem, I guess.


God forbid someone actually suggest that police should be held responsible for negligent or intentional failure to protect. Not for inability to protect everybody everywhere all the time; nobody else is held responsible for not doing the impossible, so I can't imagine why we are even talking about police being held responsible for not doing the impossible.

We do hold police responsible for negligent or intentional failure to protect, up here north of the border. I'm always put in mind of that Bobby Kennedy thing, about dreaming about how things might be ...

But anyhow. I'm still wondering what the point is. As far as I can see, it's all just another opportunity to exploit the misfortunes of women in the service of the gun-head agenda, which is in no way in the interests of women victims of violence.

[spin]

7. Why would anyone expect the police to protect them?

You call the police and they respond.

Time is involved. Depending on where you live and how many police officers are available this could take five minutes to several hours. Five minutes are an eternity when you are facing an individual who has no reservations about hurting you.

I watch the TV commercials that show an individual breaking down a door to enter a house. The alarms sounds and the bad guy flees. The individual inside the house gets a telephone call and everything ends beautifully. Now I believe alarms are a great idea and do indeed deter many criminals. However, some criminals may chose to continue their attack. If this happens and you're the victim, you're on your own.

So if you live in an area where this is a possibility, by all means burglar proof your home. Plenty of sites on the internet offer good advise on ways to do this.

But if you still want more security you might consider purchasing a firearm, if your city or state allows you the right to defend yourself. (If you live in an area that restricts firearm ownership only to criminals, consider moving).

Of course, firearms ownership is a huge responsibly. If you suffer from anger management problems, tend to abuse alcohol or drugs or are stuck in a bad relationship with a significant other, you should never consider owning a firearm. If you would never shoot another individual even if your life or the lives of those you love are in danger...a firearm is no protection. The bad guy will realize this and may chose to take your firearm and use it against you.

And if you have children, you need to take measures to secure your firearm.

But if you do decide to purchase a firearm for self defense, first do some research on the internet. A good site to start with is http://www.corneredcat.com/. While this site at first glance appears to be tailored for female gun owners, the advice is excellent for all gun owners.

Go to some classes that teach firearm handing and safety. Visit a gun range. Some rent weapons for use on the range. Hands on experience is the best way to learn.

If you do decide to purchase a firearm, dedicate yourself to learning to master it. In an emergency you want to be confident in your ability to use your weapon effectively. The bad guy you face will realize that he is facing a trained and competent individual. Bad guys fear armed citizens more than they fear the police.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. Recommend