Take away our guns...but the police do not have to protect us as has been proven in case after case in the courts

take our guns away...so who will protect us the US citizens?
LEO's...the police, is this what we are to believe?
well a little history and background check will blow this right out of the water!
did you know that our police DO NOT HAVE any legal bond to protect their citizens?
protect and serve is just meaningless words...the protect part is just not legally bonding!
here we will take a look at what must be a small, tiny...or tip of the iceberg view...how the police have protected it citizens over the years.

let us start with a case from my home town then look back over time.

[link to www.nypost.com]
i remember this when it happened. scade a lot of us NYC folks. but to then hear how this ended, how it really play out on the train...this is just not right.

[link to www.nypost.com]
City says cops had no duty to protect subway hero who subdued killer

He says he put his life on the line to stop a killer — and claims cops sat back and watched.

But city lawyers are arguing that the police had no legal duty to protect Joseph Lozito, the Long Island dad stabbed seven times trying to subdue madman Maksim Gelman — a courtroom maneuver the subway hero calls “disgraceful.”

please read these links the court detail and their outcomes should make any US citizen's blood boil! it has mine.

here are several more links to read.

[link to www2.newpaltz.edu]
On June 14, 1959 Linda became engaged to another man. At a party held to celebrate the event, she received a phone call warning her that it was her 'last chance'. Completely distraught, she called the police, begging for help, but was refused.

[link to www.lawlink.com] first amended complaint alleged in substance: On September 4, 1972, plaintiff's decedent, Ruth Bunnell, telephoned the main office of the San Jose Police Department and reported that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had called her, saying that he was coming to her residence to kill her. She requested immediate police aid; the department refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when Mack Bunnell had arrived.

Approximately 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived at her home and stabbed her to death. The police did not arrive until 3 a.m., in response to a call of a neighbor. By this time Mrs. Bunnell was dead.

[link to www.endtimesreport.com]
Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.); (No duty to protect) = Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss;Cf. Reciprocial obligations;

[link to scocal.stanford.edu]
According to the complaint, Yolanda Davidson was stabbed four times by Jack Blackmun while in a public laundromat. On three earlier occasions women had been stabbed at the same or nearby laundromats. The evening before Yolanda's stabbing, two police officers had the laundromat under surveillance when another stabbing occurred; the police chased the suspect but failed to catch him. The next evening the officers had the laundromat under surveillance for the purpose of preventing assaults and apprehending the felon. The officers were aware of Yolanda's presence in the laundromat throughout the surveillance. After about an hour of surveillance, they saw a man on the premises who closely resembled the attacker of the previous evening and, while watching him for 15 minutes, identified him as the likely perpetrator of that assault. As the officers watched, the suspect entered and left the laundromat "several times." The officers did not warn Yolanda. Eventually she was stabbed.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Gonzales filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Castle Rock, Colorado, its police department, and the three individual police officers with whom she had spoken under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming a Federally-protected property interest in enforcement of the restraining order and alleging "an official policy or custom of failing to respond properly to complaints of restraining order violations." A motion to dismiss the case was granted, and Gonzales appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected Gonzales's substantive due process claim but found a procedural due process claim; an en banc rehearing reached the same conclusion. The court also affirmed the finding that the three individual officers had qualified immunity and as such could not be sued.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]
By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.[3]


and this government wants to take away our right to own a gun..........
i personally do not own a gun, my choice.....
but i will stand beside anyone who would want to own a gun for themselves. i do come from a family of avid hunters. i did grow up with guns. i was taught the how to's and the WHY's of gun ownership.
this right can not be taken away.

Last Edited by psyoptics on 01/28/2013 09:38 AM