In Warren V. District of Columbia (1981) The Supreme Court stated, “that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”
The crime summarized: Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep. were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men. Warren telephoned the police, informing them the house was being burglarized, her roommate, Douglas was already being sexually assaulted. Police dispatch requested that Warren remain calm and ensured her police were on the way. Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. Three officers arrived, knocked on the front door, and departed the scene when they received no answer. Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas’ continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. However, This second call was received and recorded merely as “investigate the trouble” it was never dispatched to any police officers. Believing the police might be in the house, the two womencalled to their roommate, Douglas, thereby alerting the two home invaders to their presence. The home invaders, Kent and Morse then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to accompany them to Kent’s apartment. For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.
The precedent this Supreme Court decision set was that the police have no duty to protect citizens, they cannot be held responsible for death, kidnapping, rape, or torture. The Supreme Court sent a clear message effectively stating citizens are responsible for protecting themselves. The government, and agents of the government will not be held responsible for protecting the citizens.
It is therefore incumbent upon us, the citizens to provide our own protection. This case emphasizes the importance of the 2nd Amendment, importantly is also points to private security solutions to pick up the slack. The good news is there are few things (if any) the government does better than the private sector. In this day and age private sector security and protection services have never been more in demand. While companies should be establishing higher standards, and better protection, the reverse is most often the case, as clients and companies seek to reduce costs and effectiveness.