Need your help!

TomMarker

New member
One of the biggest arguements presented by the self-defense crowd is that the police do not have a responsibility to protect you from a crime. I know that there is a court decision that supports this idea, and I've seen it here before, but I cannot find it.

Can some please enlighten me before I send my letter to the editor? :)
 
search Gen'l and/or Legal....use the search word Brophy

It's also on my website

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
TomMarker, I do not have that court decision but have read it or of it. But, common sense will suffice by simply answering the question, how many cops would it take to protect every citizen? Obviously it would require a cop for every citizen would it not? Is that possible?

The Constitution is the truth in government/politics in this Republic. I suggest studying the Constitution, Federalist Papers and other documents at: constitution.org

I have a copy of the Constitution with imbedded interpretations prepared by Joanne Campbell which I will email to anyone who wants it, ahampton@tcainternet.com

IMO Joanne did a very good job and I find nothing of her interpretations to disagree with. However, the Federalist Papers are the horses mouth on the meaning of the Constitution. Incidently, the Constitution still today means the same as when it was written. And it can only be changed legally by ratification, not with/by legislation.
 
I believe I have the same link on my page that DC has. Check it out.

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
Back
Top