I wish blogs/articles generated like this would do a little fact finding before

blindly leading on a rant about the police being here to protect and serve, NOTH
ING could be legally further from the truth which in my opinion skews your credi
bility to have such an argument posted on the internet to begin with.
People who argue "the police will protect you" are a menace to your safety. They
are also flat wrong. I am not referring to the overwhelming inability of police
to combat crime. Why state the obvious? I am referring to the fact that the pol
ice have no duty whatsoever to protect you against criminals. That's not in the
job description of 'police officer.' The courts have recognized this fact for ov
er a century.
In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement o
fficers had no duty to protect any individual. Their duty is to enforce the law
in general. More recently, in 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Sev
enth Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the s
tate against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state
fails to protect its residents... but it does not violate... the Constitution."
Later court decisions concurred: the police have no duty to protect you.
Police vehicles routinely sport decals proclaiming sentiments such as 'Proud to
Serve!' If they aren't there to protect you, the question becomes, "Who are they
serving?" The answer is clear: the police department exists to enforce the law.
Policemen serve the government, not the people. And uphold the law with total d
isregard for whether their actions create or prevent violence. For example, if g
overnment decides that certain forms of adult consensual crimes must not be tole
rated, then the police will draw their guns and barge into otherwise peaceful be
drooms. To uphold an unjust law, they will create violence and victims.
The modern American policeman dates back centuries to the role of the English Sh
eriff, who was paid by and accountable to the government, not the community. As
the JPFO states, the main purpose of the Sheriff was the "enforcement of governm
ent decisions," such as seizing property. "Maintenance of public order" was of s
econdary concern. Indeed, if the two concerns collided - as in the enforcement o
f victimless crime laws - the government invariably won.
Americans revere the romantic Western notion of Marshall Dillon defending the sc
hoolmarm against the Bang-'em-Up gang who swoop down like wolves on the prairie
town. But, often, these particular sheriffs were hired by the communities and we
re responsible to the people there, not to the government. Moreover, the townsfo
lk themselves routinely owned guns. What Americans are actually revering is an e
xample of a quasi-private police force functioning within an armed society. Unfo
rtunately, this image still benefits the modern state policeman who is routinely
glorified by television programs like Cops! Yet these state-employees are the a
ntithesis of the Western sheriff. They are modeled after the British Sheriff - t
hey are responsible only to enforce government policy and they often are the wol
ves.
If policy makers want to prevent violence, they should disarm the police and enc
ourage gun ownership within the citizenry. There is historical precedent. In his
book Frontier Justice, Wayne Gard describes the rampant corruption of politics
and police in 1850's San Francisco. Violence soared until the SF vigilante commi
ttee revived (1856). Within three months, Gard explains, "San Francisco had only
two murders, compared with more than a hundred in the six months before the com
mittee was formed."
Do your own due diligence, read and fact find, turn off that stupid idiot box, f
lat-screen, government funded, corporation programmer known as a TV..