Dear Gun Carriers

[friendly_iconoclast]

99. It's not vigilanteeism; police are NOT required to protect you

It's pragmatism- The police aren't required to help you, per several high level court decisions. Note this one from decidedly gun-unfriendly DC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Warren v. District of Columbia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

In this case, three rape victims sued the District of Columbia for negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. They phoned the police, reporting that their house was being burglarized, and waited on the roof. Their call was incorrectly dispatched as less important than it was three minutes after they made the call, and three police cars came to the scene, three minutes after the call was dispatched. One policeman drove by without stopping, and another officer walked up to the door and knocked. Upon receiving no answer, the officers left five minutes after they had arrived. Nine minutes later, the two women called the police again and were assured they would receive assistance. This call was never dispatched and the police never came. Believing that the police had arrived and were in the house, the two women called down to the third who was being attacked. This alerted the intruders to their presence, and they then took them captive at knife-point. They were then raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for the next fourteen hours. The court noted that because the police are only under a general duty to provide services to the public at large, a special relationship must exist between the police and the individual in question for the "duty" element of negligence to be satisfied. It held that no such special relationship existed so the case was properly dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.[3]...

And if any of these women had shot one or more of these sociopaths, would you describe them as 'vigilantes'?

Lest you think this legal principle is unique to DC, read these:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

...Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

...DeShaney v. Winnebago County was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 22, 1989. The Court held that a state government agency's failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's right to liberty for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution...

I must give you credit however- you haven't quite described gun ownership for self-defense purposes as "an insult to the state"...