Should the Police have a legal duty to protect?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The following case was brought to my attention recently, and it was rather shocking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Basically, a group of women who were legally prevented from having any methods of self defence at all, lethal or otherwise, were raped and beaten by a group of men for a substantial amount of time, and even though they called the police, the police either didn't investigate propperly, or didn't come at all. And yet, the courts ruled the police had no legal obligation to protect these people.

My question is, why? Why doesn't the police have a legal obligation to protect people?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Who's to say any of these woman would carry them if they were legally allowed to?

 

We don't know, but because of the possibility of incidents such as this, the state should not have criminalised non-lethal self defence in the first place.

[Latch33570]

Why do you say that they are denied mace and non lethal forms of defense? Pepper spray is sold at convenience stores. There  is Radio Shack stores that sell stun guns all over here. I think , on that, you may have been misinformed. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Yes, now it is. But at the time the law may have been different.

[Tom Steinbrecher]

Actually i know where i live you need a licences to carry pepper spray or a stun gun. Similar to a gun licences. 

Which is actually a great thing. You need to prove that you know what these weapons are capable of and that you can be responsible with them and you should have to. 

[Latch33570]

But you can still carry them so it is not banned.

Vertigo You said that the law MAY have been different. Was it? How do you know? Is there a link? I would like to check it out.

[Latch33570]

If a celebrity coms to town the police can't follow them around. They have to provide their own security. That is I think, what they are saying. To me though, this isn't the same thing.