Not at all a realistic scenario.

Rating: 1/10 (20 July 2014)

The writer understands that to much government will inevitably drive people to violate any-law they can, which most do already today except we are mostly peaceful and normally are non-aggressive doing so, or they are just an indoctrinated fool, who thinks that you need government to control people and suggest that when government takes a night off, that everyone will go nuts, in fact that is far from reality, most chaos is caused by government intervention, when you regulate everything the people can and choose to do out of free will by threat of force, that is nothing more than dictatorship and oppression (which 90% of all laws on the books are for Malum Prohibitum Acts or otherwise known as Victim-less crimes). For instance, when you initiate conflict where otherwise no conflict would occur against people who have committed no crime in order to generate revenue while operating under the color of law. How is this keeping the peace or otherwise following the oath you take to protect the rights of others? In fact Law Enforcement 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 Law Enforcement 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 Law Enforcement 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 Law Enforcement have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the Law Enforcement 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) New York Times, Washington DC Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005 The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.