You're wrong.
Really? I'm wrong? The cops do have a duty to protect? Hmm, ok. Take your pick:
7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.
(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981). "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public." Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
You WISH it was a violation...therefore you think it is.
Put the projector down, TRG. It is you that "thinks" it's not a violation.
I guess you missed the court case I cited tht were this to go to court would be cited as Justification. Since you missed it the first time I'll post and link to it again.
U.S. v. SMITH
797 F.2d 836 (1986)
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
July 16, 1986.
Care to explain how that has anything to do with what happened? Smith was suspected of trafficking narcotics. What were these people suspected of doing?
The Warrantless Search and Seizure
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=3&xmldoc=19861633797F2d836_11490.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7
Again, what were these people suspected of doing? Being terrorists? Anything to back it up? Is there a paper trail? Are there voice recordings?
Wow I seem to have struck a nerve. And there's not one thing in my years of posting here or at ToS that would indicate what I bolded.
No I didn't say that. Your words not mine. I merely pointed out where you're letting hysterics trum common sense and reality.
No, I gathered that from you comparing us to Alex Jones because we don't believe cops should be able to go door to door, guns drawn, forcing people out of their homes with their hands over their heads with no justification whatsoever. "There might be a terrorist in Watertown" is not justification to violate the Constitution because "there might be a terrorist" in any number of towns. Slippery slope you seem to be going down, TRG.