US Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the police DOES NOT have to protect you

[ColonelSteve]

What a shame, this is what our world is coming to...just goes to show how important the gun control debate really is

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1&

[KeithKSR]

The police become involved once a law is broken, they cannot stop crimes before they happen. That is why the right to protect one's self and one's family is paramount.

[ColonelSteve]

The police become involved once a law is broken, they cannot stop crimes before they happen. That is why the right to protect one's self and one's family is paramount.

Even if there is a crime being committed, they dont have to protect you, that is what the report is saying

[CitizenBBN]

It's the correct decision.

They aren't saying the police don't have an obligation to serve and protect, they're saying it is not guaranteed by the Constitution and thus is a matter for the states. that is correct. There is almost no addressing of law enforcement in the Constitution. it's not even clear the FBI is a constitutional entity on that level.

Their only constitutional appeal was on the basis of the 14th Amendment, claiming her due process to the taking of property was violated. That's strained at best and the Court ruled correctly it was an attempt to shoehorn a state law enforcement issue into a federal case.

it's no surprise the two dissenting opinions were two of the most revisionist/activist Justices on the Court. Ginsberg has said if we were forming a new nation she wouldn't look to the Constitution as the guideline. She sees it as outdated and apparently in the way.

The dissent focused on domestic abuse, which is irrelevant to a matter of Constitutional law. The crime itself, unless covered in the Constitution, is irrelevant as to subject. This is classic legislating from the bench. It's not Ginsberg's place to worry about domestic violence in Colorado. that's the job of the Colorado legislature. She has no standing to tell them what to do. Most certainly the application of the 14th Amendment's taking of property to kidnapping of children is strained at best, and a reinstatement of slavery at worst. They aren't property. We decided that already.

The order was issued by the state of Colorado, the law passed by their legislature. The victim may have a case, but it's a state case, not a Constitutional matter. Score one for the, for lack of a better word, strict constructionists.

The city was negligent IMO, and their attitude led to the death of children. It's just not a SCOTUS matter.

[KeithKSR]

The protection of the people lies within the framework of the Constitution's second amendment.