2005 SCOTUS Ruling: Police Not Constitutionally Bound to Protect Citizens

[Doc91678]

by AWR Hawkins
11 Jan 2013

A 2005 Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling that received little attention when handed down, but which is extremely pertinent to today's gun debate, found that police officers are not constitutionally bound to protect citizens.

The case originated in Colorado, where Simon Gonzales violated a restraining from his estranged wife in order to kidnap and kill his three children. In between the time of the kidnapping and the murders, the mother of the children, Jessica Gonzales, repeatedly called the police to report the whereabouts of her children.

After her children were killed, she sued on grounds that the police did not react fast enough--and therefore did not protect her children from harm.

[excerpt]

Continue reading ---->

So SCOTUS tells us that basically we are on our own when we are attacked. Police don't have to come to our rescue. Then Maobama and his Social Marxists tell us they want to control and take away our personal protection, violating the Consitution and our natural rights of self protection.

 

[Duped]

Definately a good pro 2nd, amendment argument - not that we should need one.

 

[Doc91678]

There are places even within cities where the police either take their time in responding or are too busy in other places to respond.
Can you imagine living in Connecticut and being the victim of a home invasion? Normally perps will beat, torture and murder the vics. The Petit case is one that comes to mind. If Dr. Petithad had a weapon he could possibly saved his wife and two daughters.
Then there's the case of Hate Crime in Tennessee, where Newsom and Christain were brutally murdered. Where were the police then. Kidnapping, rape, torture, mutilation and finally murder of two honest college kids.
But hey, Maobama and the Progressive Marxists claim we need more draconian gun control laws so madmen, murderers and felons can continue to attack unarmed honest people.