[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The police generally do not protect people from bodily harm; they respond after the fact. So if Peter were entirely unhindered in protecting himself from bodily harm, I don't much doubt that he would be able to do a better job of that than the police.
[/ QUOTE ]
The notion of the police (also) acts as a deterrent. If me and a dozen buddies gang up on Peter and beat him up or kill him, the police will go after us. Without any police, this would not be a consideration. My gang's only consideration would be if Peter has a gang of his own!
It is silly, even if only arithmetically, to argue that one's strength is equal to the strength of many. It is equally silly to argue that the
threat of one's force is stronger than the threat of the force of many.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hate to break it to you, Cyrus...
In
Castle Rock v. Gonzales the Supreme Court held that victims do not have the right of the police to respond even in the presence of a restraining order.
The Police are not required to help you at all. There is no individual right to the police only a collective right to public safety.
Other cases that ruled that the Police have NO OBLIGATION to protect you:
South v. Maryland
Bowers v. DeVito
So if that makes you feel comfortable, I feel real sorry for you. Not only do they come after the fact, but they are not required to show up at all.
I choose to defend myself and my family.
-Gryph