Dodge City prohibited the ownership of weapons inside city limits.
You had to check you guns at the city limits. Many cities of the west
had similar laws. All the territories had criminal codes, courts, and
penal actions from jails to the hangman's noose.

Cite that Dodge City was all of the West, eh?

All the territories had criminal codes, courts, and penal actions from

jails to the hangman's noose.

However, many a "bad guy" came to an ubtimely end at the hand of his
intended victim who simply shot the ***** out of him.

On 29 Jan 2005 12:55:05 -0800,

It was mostly peaceful because there was relatively little that was
illegal and the people defended themselves. People pretty much lived
and let live without government sticking it's nose where it shouldn't.
It wasn't until our government started growing like a cancer and
incarcerated people in mass amounts that violent crime escalated.

Don't read much history, do you?

Dodge City prohibited the ownership of weapons inside city limits.
You had to check you guns at the city limits. Many cities of the west
had similar laws. All the territories had criminal codes, courts, and
penal actions from jails to the hangman's noose.

On 29 Jan 2005 12:55:05 -0800,

It was mostly peaceful because there was relatively little that was
illegal and the people defended themselves. People pretty much

and let live without government sticking it's nose where it

It wasn't until our government started growing like a cancer and
incarcerated people in mass amounts that violent crime escalated.

Don't read much history, do you?

Dodge City prohibited the ownership of weapons inside city limits.
You had to check you guns at the city limits. Many cities of the

had similar laws. All the territories had criminal codes, courts,

penal actions from jails to the hangman's noose.

Dodge City prohibited the ownership of weapons inside city limits.
You had to check you guns at the city limits. Many cities of the west
had similar laws. All the territories had criminal codes, courts, and
penal actions from jails to the hangman's noose.

Don't read much history, do you?

Dodge City prohibited the ownership of weapons inside city limits.

Don't read much history, do you?

Dodge City prohibited the ownership of weapons inside city limits.
You had to check you guns at the city limits.

And yeah, the job attracts rowdies; sometimes bullies. We could maybe
weed more of them out than we do if we had more money, and attract cops
with more education.

Why is it that a cop who kills an unarmed man is not charged with
murder like the rest of us would be? Why are cops allowed to abduct
people off the street and it's a crime to use your right to
self-defense? Why are most cops domestic batterers? Why do cops

so much of our money through asset forfeiture? For people who sell
themselves as "serving" and "protecting" us, they sure don't act like
it:

http://brownwatch.squarespace.com/police-brutality-archives/

http://www.fear.org/

Could it be that the cops have nothing to do with protecting average
citizens? Probably so.
------------------------------------------
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/peters3.html
To Serve and Protect - Itself
by John M. Peters

On November 18, 2001, a woman was shot to death in her suburban

home by her distraught husband. He then turned the gun on himself and
died instantly.

Unfortunately, this scenario is played out all too often across the
nation. If these were the only facts, you might shrug with empathy

ask yourself why this merits your consideration. This case was
different.

In this case, the police were present - not following the
murder/suicide - but before and during it.

Following threats by her husband to her life and the lives of her
children, the woman went directly to the local police. She informed
them that she was in fear for her life and the lives of her children

she tried to move out of the marital home. She informed the police

her husband had a gun, had threatened her and her children that day,
and that she wanted to move out of the home. The police computer
confirmed a personal protection order had been issued by the court
against the husband.

The police agreed to accompany the woman to her home and remain there
while she removed her personal belongings and her children. Two
officers accompanied her to her home and remained inside to the end -
the end of her life and her husband's.

Despite encountering the husband, and having been apprised of all the
facts which led them to accompany the woman to her home, the police
never questioned the husband, segregated him from his wife or even
bothered to search him for a gun. They hung around and watched as the
husband followed his wife back and forth from the home to her car

her personal belongings.

As the police spoke with others in the house, the husband followed

wife into her bedroom, closed the door and shot her. He then shot
himself. This was exactly what the wife had asked the police to

her from, and what they had agreed to do.

If these police officers had been private security officers instead,
they and their employer would be held accountable in a court of law
under breach of contract or negligence theories. Alas, they are
government employees. The result is that they are not accountable for
their malfeasance or her death. This is what separates the private
sector from government.


Another government branch - the courts - has decided that police
are not legally responsible for such gross failures. In Michigan, the
state's highest court has decided that individual police officers may
not be sued unless they are the only cause of the injury or death.

special treatment is not available to those in the private sector. In
every case involving private individuals or companies, negligence is
assessed on the basis of each party's percentage of fault. Yet
another branch of government - the Michigan legislature - passed a
statute which grants absolute immunity to any municipality, thereby
barring any claim against the officers' employer. No such privilege
is available to private sector employers.

Faced with these obstructions, the deceased woman's estate pursued a
claim against the officers' employer in federal court alleging that
she was deprived of her life without due process of law. On June 9,
2004 a federal judge dismissed the estate's case. The basis for the
dismissal was that, "a State's failure to protect an individual
against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of

Due Process Clause." Coming from the U.S. Supreme Court, this is the
law in every state. This outrage is compounded by the government's
simultaneous efforts to prevent citizens from taking any steps to
protect themselves, and punishing them when they do.

How do you explain this state of affairs to the family of the

It was not easy. I was the attorney left with the task.

Writers such as Steven Greenhut and Paul Craig Roberts have sounded

alarm on this growing trend of law enforcement's lack of
accountability, but the truth is that most citizens actually believe
that the police are under some legal duty to come to your aid.

In oral arguments before the federal court, I closed by noting that

this is the state of the law in this country the courts should

that all police vehicles be posted with a warning label which reads:
Caution: We are not required to protect you. Then, I explained, we

at least know the truth, and be able to take steps to protect
ourselves.

The next time you read the phrase To Serve and Protect on a police
vehicle, remember that this is government's motto about itself, not
you.

June 24, 2004

John M. Peters [send him mail] is a practicing attorney in Michigan.
Copyright =A9 2004 LewRockwell.com

Why is it that a cop who kills an unarmed man is not charged with
murder like the rest of us would be? Why are cops allowed to abduct
people off the street and it's a crime to use your right to
self-defense? Why are most cops domestic batterers? Why do cops

so much of our money through asset forfeiture? For people who sell
themselves as "serving" and "protecting" us, they sure don't act like
it:

http://brownwatch.squarespace.com/police-brutality-archives/

http://www.fear.org/

Could it be that the cops have nothing to do with protecting average
citizens? Probably so.
------------------------------------------
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/peters3.html
To Serve and Protect - Itself
by John M. Peters

On November 18, 2001, a woman was shot to death in her suburban

home by her distraught husband. He then turned the gun on himself and
died instantly.

Unfortunately, this scenario is played out all too often across the
nation. If these were the only facts, you might shrug with empathy

ask yourself why this merits your consideration. This case was
different.

In this case, the police were present - not following the
murder/suicide - but before and during it.

Following threats by her husband to her life and the lives of her
children, the woman went directly to the local police. She informed
them that she was in fear for her life and the lives of her children

she tried to move out of the marital home. She informed the police

her husband had a gun, had threatened her and her children that day,
and that she wanted to move out of the home. The police computer
confirmed a personal protection order had been issued by the court
against the husband.

The police agreed to accompany the woman to her home and remain there
while she removed her personal belongings and her children. Two
officers accompanied her to her home and remained inside to the end -
the end of her life and her husband's.

Despite encountering the husband, and having been apprised of all the
facts which led them to accompany the woman to her home, the police
never questioned the husband, segregated him from his wife or even
bothered to search him for a gun. They hung around and watched as the
husband followed his wife back and forth from the home to her car

her personal belongings.

As the police spoke with others in the house, the husband followed

wife into her bedroom, closed the door and shot her. He then shot
himself. This was exactly what the wife had asked the police to

her from, and what they had agreed to do.

If these police officers had been private security officers instead,
they and their employer would be held accountable in a court of law
under breach of contract or negligence theories. Alas, they are
government employees. The result is that they are not accountable for
their malfeasance or her death. This is what separates the private
sector from government.


Another government branch - the courts - has decided that police
are not legally responsible for such gross failures. In Michigan, the
state's highest court has decided that individual police officers may
not be sued unless they are the only cause of the injury or death.

special treatment is not available to those in the private sector. In
every case involving private individuals or companies, negligence is
assessed on the basis of each party's percentage of fault. Yet
another branch of government - the Michigan legislature - passed a
statute which grants absolute immunity to any municipality, thereby
barring any claim against the officers' employer. No such privilege
is available to private sector employers.

Faced with these obstructions, the deceased woman's estate pursued a
claim against the officers' employer in federal court alleging that
she was deprived of her life without due process of law. On June 9,
2004 a federal judge dismissed the estate's case. The basis for the
dismissal was that, "a State's failure to protect an individual
against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of

Due Process Clause." Coming from the U.S. Supreme Court, this is the
law in every state. This outrage is compounded by the government's
simultaneous efforts to prevent citizens from taking any steps to
protect themselves, and punishing them when they do.

How do you explain this state of affairs to the family of the

It was not easy. I was the attorney left with the task.

Writers such as Steven Greenhut and Paul Craig Roberts have sounded

alarm on this growing trend of law enforcement's lack of
accountability, but the truth is that most citizens actually believe
that the police are under some legal duty to come to your aid.

In oral arguments before the federal court, I closed by noting that

this is the state of the law in this country the courts should

that all police vehicles be posted with a warning label which reads:
Caution: We are not required to protect you. Then, I explained, we

at least know the truth, and be able to take steps to protect
ourselves.

The next time you read the phrase To Serve and Protect on a police
vehicle, remember that this is government's motto about itself, not
you.

June 24, 2004

John M. Peters [send him mail] is a practicing attorney in Michigan.
Copyright =A9 2004 LewRockwell.com
From my understanding, police act to uphold the LAW, not necessarilly