[Yo-Yo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

WASHINGTON, June 27 (2005) - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

[FreedomPoster]

No duty to protect is very different from a stated policy of not enforcing the law.

[Dr. Pritchett]

Yup, I love this. In 2005 the SCOTUS had ALREADY RULED in Castle Rock v Gonzalez that the POLICE have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to PROTECT PRIVATE CITIZENS! Even when notified! (Even after they disarm us!)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

...yet somehow the schools and other gun free zones have NO RESPONSIBILITY for the safety of those they disarm and require to be there. This needs to get tested in court.

[Calvin Cooledge]

Almost every state has something in their State Law that says public safety officials have no specific obligation to protect anyone. They have a general obligation, but you can't sue the police for failure to protect you in a specific incident.

That's what the 2A is for.

[Calvin Cooledge]

Almost every state has something in their State Law that says public safety officials have no specific obligation to protect anyone. They have a general obligation, but you can't sue the police for failure to protect you in a specific incident.

That's what the 2A is for.