The police have ZERO legal responsibility to protect you

CNN is so fricking retarded. That fricking kangaroo court they had puts Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch on top (although she said something ridiculous the next day). Dragging out a sheriff every bit as morally deficient and cowardly as Janos Slynt to lecture us? I’m supposed to trust Janos Slynt who is that corrupt with my life and to hand over my gun? Ummm, go frick yourselves. This makes me think now more than ever that I need a gun, because I obviously can’t trust these pussies with my life and certainly not my family.

Most police are only interested in protecting themselves. They don't really have the motivation to protect us.

Like I been saying.. in a life or death situation, we should succeed or fail based on our own actions and ability to defend ourselves.

We should never be put in a position where we're not allowed to properly defend ourselves.. where the "good guy" with the gun , may decide our lives aren't worth saving..

quote:

---

Everyone is saying it's a failure for 4 guys to stand down...most likely orders. 1 guy, I got no problem believing it's a coward...4, nope, 1 of them in uniform will be a hero, unless he's told something else.

---

Since he’s a fan of quoting Tywin Lannister, I’ve got one in return for him:

quote:

---

When soldiers lack discipline, the fault lies with their commander.

---

I really want the Janos Slynt image to catch on. The shoe fits perfectly.

quote:

---

We should never be put in a position where we're not allowed to properly defend ourselves.. where the "good guy" with the gun , may decide our lives aren't worth saving.

---

And yesterday an editor at CNN writes how a "good guy with a gun" failed to stop this attack. The comments and tweets tore him up. It was a guy with a gun. The good part was lacking

Derp

OP is right. Police have no legal obligation to face danger to protect citizens. This was hashed out in the Supreme Court in 2005.

quote:

---

WASHINGTON, June 27 - 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.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado.

---

That's from the NYT.

The one that entered was motivated, though, wasn't he? His daughter and wife were in there.?

quote:

---

This makes me think now more than ever that I need a gun, because I obviously can’t trust these pussies with my life and certainly not my family.

---

quote:

---

And they never had before, it was always presumed humans would protect themselves...
Cops were a legalized protection racket originally. Evolved into something slightly more noble.

---

I didn't read the SCOTUS decision (I am not a lawyer anyway), but what they ruled makes sense on the face of it. It's hard to punish someone for NOT doing something. It would just force every PD in America into endless lawsuits every time some crime victim thought the Cops "didn't do enough." It becomes a slippery slope fast. I have no idea if that was the reasoning of the SCOTUS, but it makes sense to me.

In any case, what they ruled just reinforces the 2nd amendment.