Personal defense is a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!
If you ask the top cop in YOUR town if you should have a firearm,
MOST police chiefs — many of them control freaks and POLITICAL APPOINTEES — don’t WANT us to be in a position to defend ourselves. Sort of a perverse form of job security. Especially if their boss is a leftist idiot.
But ask MOST beat cops if you should own a firearm and - under their breath - they’ll say “yes.”
There are about 340 million of us. Based on 8 hour shifts, at any given hour, there are approximately 255,000 cops on duty. That’s one cop for every 1,400 of us. If you’re lucky, YOUR cop will show up in time to draw your outline on the pavement and load the body for the trip to the morgue.
Write this down somewhere and read it every day:
WHEN IT COMES TO YOUR IMMEDIATE PERSONAL SAFETY, YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY ON YOUR OWN!!
Don’t think so?
The courts do and here’s the proof:
(If you’re not big on reading legal opinions, skip to “DECISION” for the meat of the decision which is IDENTICAL to virtually every other case on the matter throughout the U.S.)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App. 1981)
Here’s the link to the full decision:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
I’ll save you some time. Here’s what the courts declared:
In a 4-3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts’ dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine ruling that “[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists”. The Court thus adopted the trial court’s determination that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants, and therefore no specific legal duty existed between the police and the appellants.
From the decision :
“...In a 4-3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts’ dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine ruling that “[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists”. ...”
Then why don’t the courts affirm in favor of the 2nd Amendment individual right to self defense, given that the public duty doctrine doesn’t allow the cop to defend the individual person?