In some of the responses to Daniel Grove's letter ("Readers respond to column on assault," Nov. 13) there have been questions about whether the police are responsible for protecting people, to the point of some folks accusing Grove of idiocy.

Well, Grove is actually right. Perhaps those accusing him of idiocy should read such cases as Bowers v. DeVito, where the 7th Circuit Court stated, "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution." Of course, there are other cases. The police are not required to come rushing to your aid in a dark alley, although I'm sure they would. Fact is, you are basically responsible for your own safety. It would be nice to be able to depend on the responses and actions of others, but that's a fine way to end up a corpse.

And to answer Leslie Ross' question ("Readers debate appropriate response to sexual assaults," Nov. 14) about defending oneself against multiple large attackers, I know of many women that can, and have. They just, oddly enough, all happen to have concealed carry permits.