"the court said there is no individual right to police protection"
Not sure how one would interpret that...
But the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit found otherwise last week, relying on the Supreme Court's handling of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. In that controversial 1989 case, which involved a 4-year-old boy, Joshua DeShaney, beaten to the point of severe mental retardation by his father, the court said there is no individual right to police protection.
"Seeking to avail themselves of the DeShaney special relationship exception, the Cantrells argue that, like individuals who are in foster care or who are otherwise in the custody of the state, Matthew had a special relationship with the officers," Stewart wrote. "According to the Cantrells, this special relationship, along with a corresponding duty of care and protection, was created when the officers took 'custody' of Matthew by physically separating him from his mother. The officers breached this duty, the Cantrells contend, when the officers failed to administer aid and delayed treatment from paramedics"
But the three-judge panel took a different view. "This line of cases is materially indistinguishable, and therefore could not have provided reasonable officials in the officers' position with notice that they had an affirmative constitutional duty to provide medical care and protection to Matthew," Judge Carl Stewart wrote for the court.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/13/43035.htm
= new reply since forum marked as read
...you need a 30 round mag is...
Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice, twice more if it returns fire. 
...your Constitutional arguments seriously as anything other than nonsense.
..."granting forgiveness is only possible if you're still alive." - d_i_s
