1st precedent: Warren v. DC (1981) This ruling secured that "... police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way..."
2nd precedent: Castle Rock C. Gonzales (2005) This ruling further stated that Police don't have a duty to provide police services, even if you filed the appropriate restraining orders.
What these rulings ultimately mean is that no one has a duty to protect you, not even people you pay to do that very job. Even if they stamp the phrase "To protect and serve" on their car. I'm going to level with you... You've been lied to, and police protection is anything but protection.
So back to the article:
""We walk, so I won't be walking early morning for a while," said resident Chris Dix.
Police plan to add extra patrols. But despite that one woman says until the attacker is caught, she won't feel safe.
"Unless they start doing something to make things safer for women, I won't come back," she said.""
I have to level with you Chris Dix and random woman resident, you are the only person responsible for your safety. The police use guns to protect themselves, at this point in time the police will still charge you with a felony if you attempt to exercise your right to defend yourself with a firearm, in this light, the police are not there to protect you, but to hinder your efforts to protect yourself. It is immoral, unethical, and just plain unconstitutional. I would say at this time your very enemy are the police you are turning to in order to ask for protection that they know they have no duty to provide. Even with that said, until you, and millions of people like you accept your responsibility, and take actions to protect yourself, you will always be a potential victim, and you will always be afraid.
