Are the Police Responsible for our protection?

[HiCarry]

Those of you that take this time to hate on cops, next time you need help you should call a crackhead.

I of course cannot speak for the others here that are pointing out the realities of the current laws, but I do not "hate" cops.

What I do hate is being placed in the position of not being able to defend myself because someone erroneously convinces the legislators that there is no need to arm myself for my protection because "that's why we have police."

I think the whole issue here is not that anyone hates cops, but that we "ordinary" citizens are frequently placed in the unenviable catch-22 position often promoted by the police of not being able to protect ourselves, yet the police having no legal obligation to protect us. As the disenting justice in a New York case wrote in Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968).:

"What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand, is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."

In that case the woman involved, Riss, had asked for permission to carry a gun after multiple threats from her ex-boyfriend and was denied. Then, after she was permanently disabled and disfigured by her ex-boyfriend, she tried to sue the city that neither afforded her the opportunity to protect herself, nor provided her the protection she so obviously needed.

 

[NDS]

Those of you that take this time to hate on cops, next time you need help you should call a crackhead.

Some day, when we have the time to do nothing but BS, I'll tell you a story. It has a cop in it who left me stranded and a good samaritan.

The good samaritan was a Hippie.


When I need help, I look for a Hippie...

 

[AZSATT]

I also, as a former LEO, don't "hate on" cops.

However, I also do not pretend to leave my welfare and best interests in the hands of those I know (legally, and from experience having been one for years) cannot maintain them. They have a job to do, and ensuring I'm safe and well-protected ain't it.

It's not nearly as much about cops, as it is about our individual rights.

 

[mrsandman224455]

I have nothing against honest police officers whom do their job well. However, I don't believe nor do I live my life thinking they are there to help me. To me, the purpose of a police officer is to find those responsible for a crime committed. If its murder, find the murder and bring them to justice. Robbery, same thing. I don't feel an office MUST protect me. Most crimes don't happen in front of an officer and usually in a home attack, police get there too late. Bottom line, my personal well being and safety is in my hands only. I would much rather reach for my .45 than a phone at night when someone is breaking in. Just my $.02

 

[GottaBeAh.40]

The Everyday LEO is there to enforce the laws governed by the state and county they serve. They're not there to protect the everyday citizen. That my friends is up to each and everyone one of us individuals. If they happen to be present during a crime, it's their duty to intervene and take control of the situation, but more often than not, they'll be there to late to make a difference should the SHTF. Just my two cents...MY sig kinda says it all for me..leasantry:

 

[Tequila]

Let the LEO's take care of law enforcement, I'll take care of self defense.

Regards,
Tequila