Supreme court ruling re: Police protection?

[Drjones]

Hi all. I had a wonderful discussion about gun control with a friend last night. (Whom I now love even more that I found out her views on it!!!)

Anyway, she's a student at Georgetown Law, and was VERY much interested in the Supreme Court and Congress rulings that Police are not obligated to protect individuals.

IIRC, there were about 7 or 8 SC rulings, and one ruling from Congress. I HAD a great link that listed all of this, but can't find it.

Can anyone point me to it?

Also need help debating the following points:

1) Background checks

2) Waiting periods. She thinks CA's 10 day is absurd, but would like about 24hrs or so.

3) Automatic weapons. I think I remember reading that the only LEGALLY purchased auto used in a crime was owned by a cop. True?

Any stats on the above would be appreciated.

Thanks!
Drjones

 

[Hkmp5sd]

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:

http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/stats.htm

NFA weapons

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142485&highlight=silencers+and+crime

 

[Drjones]

Thanks HK, but I was looking for hard stats. Anyone?

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Oh, sorry. Try these:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

http://www.code7cafe.com/stats.htm

http://www.crime.org/homepage.html

 

[Drjones]

Thank you! Perfect!!!

 

[Blue Duck357]

In some ways that ruling does make sense. For example without it if someone reported to the police they were threatned and were later actually attacked they could sue the Department for failure to provide protection from a known threat. Even in a small town dozens of death threats take place each month and Police obviusly cannot provide 24/7 body guard service to every person involved in a minor dispute.

On the other hand, a woman (can't recall her name) came up against this ruling when police failed to protect her from her abusive husband. She sued based on the fact the she was denied protection based on her not being protected due to being a minority (female). From what I heard of the case police were arresting her husband for stabbing her and when he broke loose and began kicking her in the head the officer responded by standing there and yelling at him "Hey' stop that! C'mon stop kicking her!" or something equally effective. She won the lawsuit.

If you put both rulings together then you end up with an arguement that police have a duty to protect everyone EXCEPT WASP males. Ain't law fun