It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DeusEx
I believe the law states you may shoot and kill if you or another is threatened with "Death or grievous bodily harm."
Basically, you can only shoot him if he has a gun or other weapon.
Originally posted by Mirthful Me
The second issue is the grave misconception that the police have some obligation to protect you. Oh contraire, the police are only obligated to act after a crime has been committed (you know, put you in a body bag, string some yellow tape around the scene, etc) this has been ruled upon by the Supreme Court (I will not comment on the interventional responsibilities of foreign constabulary, but I would expect the same).
Originally posted by Aelita
I didn't read the ruling but essentially this argument is a gross exaggeration. The cops aren't obligated to lie their lives down for you (although sometimes they do), however they are definitely obliged to intervene.
previously mentioned source
The courts have decided that you have no right to expect the police to protect you from crime! Incredible as it may seem, the courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help, even in life threatening situations! To be fair to the police, I think that many, and perhaps most, officers really do want to save lives and stop dangerous situations before people get hurt. But the key point to remember is that the courts have said they are under no legal obligation to do so.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
[There is a]"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen" (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).