Law Enforcement does not Correlate to Safety or Protection

The truth is Law Enforcement has nothing to do with protecting you as an individual. At most LE is nothing more than revenue generators for the Government, they do not even solve a tenth of real crimes that happen. All Law Enforcement Officers' violates someone’s rights on a daily basis, even a minor traffic stop is a violation of your rights. When a LEO initiates force were there was none, to enforce an arbitrary rule for a Malum prohibitum act, he/she is creating a victim were there was none. This doesn't mean he/she has malice in their act, but possibly to ignorant to realize it, yet that still is no excuse. Just because something is a Statute, doesn't mean it is a good Statute, in fact over 95% of all Statutes should be ignored or abolished, unless there is a true victim and then justice should be served. So I think a broad stroke should be painted, unless that LEO follows the Natural law, which means he/she would arrest a real criminal, were in fact there is a true victim, or at least that LEO should do nothing at all and leave people alone, only then you would have a good LEO. I see no reason to support the oppressor of the state, they are not you propagandized neighborhood good guy cop like they have been promoting since the 1920’s with Movies and TV shows and good media promotional union team. 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 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."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." There is no true oath to protect and serve individuals, unless it is that for the places that Government has claimed for its own, such as buildings and government employees, the origin of the Protect in Serve motto began in February 1955, the Los Angeles Police Department, through the pages of the internally produced BEAT magazine, which conducted a contest for a motto for the police academy. The winning entry was the motto, "To Protect and to Serve" submitted by Officer Joseph S. Dorobek. "To Protect and to Serve" became the official motto of the Police Academy. With the passing of time, the motto received wider exposure and acceptance throughout the department. On November 4, 1963, the Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance and the credo was placed alongside the City Seal on the Department’s patrol cars, then eventually expanded to other departments around the country after that.

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.
(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.