the anti self defense dilemma

someone explain to the class how it is that most libs and quite a few cons feel they can mandate a defenseless state for the population at large, providing an exemption for certain segments of the population like cops, retired cops, and elected officials, by prohibiting the people from exercising a constitutional right in the name of 'public safety'. The argument about 'that's what the police are for, to protect us' has just been debunked yet again by the courts.

Courts tell man that police had no duty to protect him

He’s a bona-fide hero who stopped the so-called “Butcher of Brighton Beach” at the end of a 28-hour city killing spree — but a Manhattan judge yesterday said a father of two is entitled to zero from the city for his injuries in the harrowing 2011 subway encounter.

Joseph Lozito sued the NYPD in January 2012, claiming police officers did nothing to help him as he confronted violent madman Maksim Gelman on a packed No. 3 train.

But Judge Margaret Chan tossed the case yesterday, saying that while she lauded Lozito’s bravery, cops did not have a specific charge of saving him from Gelman.

Because “no direct promises of protection were made to Mr. Lozito,” the police had “no special duty” to protect him.

Chan added, “The dismissal of this lawsuit does not lessen Mr. Lozito’s bravery or the pain of his injuries. It merely provides a resolution to this litigation.”

yet nearly all 50 states have a law that mandates YOU risk your life to protect and assist those very police officers, should they order you to. the hypocrisy of such a position demands an explanation.