Biden abides by the essence of the gun control industry, namely the notion that your personal self-defense needs are known and provided for by the government. --- Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."
"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection." Sources: 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) On Feb 25, 12:37 pm, Guy Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Who knew that Joe Biden was divinely omniscient on tactical weaponry? > > This is indeed a Gawd send. For millions of years bad actors have been > stalking good folks, and good folks have devised numerous tools with which > to defend themselves. In just the field of firearms dozens of categories > exist, offering a bewildering choice to people needing to forestall > beatings, rapes, riots and hot home invasions in settings rural, urban, > suburban and hellish (e.g. Chicago). And yet Old Joe has triangulated all > scenarios and concluded that everyone can defend themselves with a single > firearm and tactic. > > “Get a double barreled shotgun,” and “Just walk out on the balcony here, > walk out, put [up] that double barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside > the house.” > > Gees, that was simple. Thanks Joe. > > Biden abides by the essence of the gun control industry, namely the notion > that your personal self-defense needs are known and provided for by the > government. Any sane person (which automatically excludes Old Joe) > understands that every person’s situation is different, and that an > individual’s circumstances change over time. Jim may live in ... > > Cotined athttp://www.guysmith.org/blog/2013/02/25/jolted-joe/ -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
