Disarming victims and the predictably bad consequences

The monopoly on the provision of law and order that the state assumes would be immoral and ineffective even if they were serious about doing it. Legally, they're not, though they are serious about stopping you from trying to do it yourself:

Can a woman facing danger of "separation assault" by a former partner depend on police protection? In one landmark California case, a woman separated from her husband and he retaliated with threats and violence. Over a period of one year, Ruth Bunnell had called the San Jose police at least twenty times to report that her estranged husband Mack had violently assaulted her and her two daughters. Mack had even been arrested once for an assault.

One day Mack called Ruth to say that he was coming to her house to kill her. Ruth called the police for immediate help. The police department "refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when Mack Bunnell had arrived." Forty-five minutes later Mack arrived and stabbed Ruth to death. Responding to a neighbor's call, the police eventually came to Ruth's house...after she was dead.

Ruth's estate suid the city police for negligently failing to protect her. The California appeals court held that the City of San Jose was shielded from the negligence suit because of a state statute and because there was no "special relationship" between the police and Ruth—the police had not started to help her, and she had not relied on any promise that the police would help. Case dismissed.


The Supreme Court has held that neither the U.S. Constitution nor the federal civil rights laws rquire states to protect citizens from crime. As one federal appeals court observed, ordinary citizens have:

no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution ... does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.

When a woman relies solely upon a telephone and the expectation of immediate police help, she is placing her trust in a system that legally owes her nothing. That understood, it only makes sense for women and other potential victims to protect and defend themselves and their families from violent criminals.

from Richard W. Stevens, Hugo Teufel III, and Matthew Y. Biscan, "Disarming Women: Comparing 'Gun Control' to Self-Defense" in Liberty for Women

Share this

I have to agree, the state

I have to agree, the state has no obligation to protect anyone. The fact that it doesn't is only an aggravating circumstance for preventing private protection.