Police don't have to protect citizens - need proof!

[zxcvbob]

It just doesn't make sense that the anti's want to disarm us and we are not supposed to have weapons with which to defend ourselves (the ultimate goal of the gun control crowd). Obviously, the police do not have that obligation...

It makes perfect sense when you realize they only want to disarm us, and not themselves. Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer (etc) have CCW permits from states where they are almost impossible to get, and they carry.

[GM2]

Post by David13

So if your friends pick up the phone and call 911 and say "Hey, there's a guy over here with a gun and he's about to shoot me!" they need not be surprised if the cops wait a while, to be sure the danger has passed before they arrive. But after that, they will gladly take a report. Or at least call the coroner (medical examiner here).

MY, MY, MY David, Do you really mean that? Those laws were passed so if the police could not respond fast enough to stop the incident one could not sue the agency. (which by the way would be tax payers money) But, to say the Police may respond in the way you described is an asinine statement.

[Ghost1958]

Right now just point to LA and ask who is supposed to protect the citizens from the LAPD who seem to firing at and ramming and firing at about anything that moves in a way that spooks them.
In related news sales of small blue pickups has dropped drastically.

[foxytwo]

Here are some case histories about police not having to protect the people.

http://www.policecrimes.com/policeprotection.html