Can't rely just on police to keep safe

I'm not a right-wing, paramilitary type, nor am I a member of the NRA. I don't own a gun. Neither am I a liberal-type who wants to confiscate the guns of law-abiding citizens.

I believe in our constitutional right to bear arms and that an individual has a right to defend him or herself, and protect his family and home. I still don't own a gun.

The Daily Herald recently reported the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously ruled police had no special obligation to protect Mary Lacey from Steven Zirko, even though she had a protection order against him. She and her mother were found dead in Lacey's home, and Zirko was accused of the murders.

The court found the police had no generalized, open-ended duty to protect Lacey or any other victim of domestic violence. Readers should know the Lacey case is only one of many similar decisions across the country that reinforce the general rule of law in the United States that the government only owes a legal duty to protect the public in general, and not any particular person from criminal attack.

It is well established in American law that "to serve and protect" only applies to the community at large and not to any one individual.

The Lacey case tragically proves we cannot depend on the police for individual protection, with or without a restraining order. After calling 911, when every "second" counts, with the police "minutes" away, we are left to rely solely upon ourselves.

Unfortunately, this case makes it painfully clear we cannot abdicate personal responsibility for our own safety, or that of our family, to anyone else, including the police.

I don't know that I have any reasonable alternative than to take my safety, and that of my loved ones, into my own hands, by purchasing a gun. As an individual, without the promise of police protection under the law, I need to be licensed, trained, insured and ready to protect whomever and whatever needs protecting.

Mark J. Schumaker

Grayslake