The police have no duty to protect you. Really, they don't.

[Zalatix]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.

Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.

[liberal N proud]

1. They all need to remove Serve and Protect from their badges

I am sure the court deems it appropriate for them to protect the corporate property.

[jp11]

20. They serve and protect the law, their superiors/brothers not necessarily us.

Of course the laws are often written by the richest corporations/people.

[Bake]

21. Protect and serve?

Yeah, right. Sandblast that shit off of there.

Bake

[FarCenter]

26. "protect and serve" -- isn't that basically a PR motto of the LAPD?

Or has it become widely used?

[Serve The Servants]

120. Agree 1000%

[Zalatix]

121. Or perhaps truth in advertising? "To Serve and Protect the 1%"

[me b zola]

136. Four justices need to be removed from the court n/t

[lunatica]

2. Old article but typical Scalia

and a foretelling of today's police actions against the OWS. We live in a police state. It may still look somewhat benign if you're a stay at home and shut up law abiding citizen, but it isn't. Any police department that has this vehicle in it's arsenal isn't thinking it's to serve you.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. It up held an even older precedent

Its been that way for many years.

As the saying goes, when you need a cop in seconds, he will be there in minutes. Until then, you are on your own.

[xchrom]

3. The Felonious 5 have to, don't they?

Other wise the NRA & other 2a fundies won't take them to brunch & pay for their vacations.

[-..__...]

29. Make that 7...

Majority: Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Concurrence: Souter, joined by Breyer
Dissent: Stevens, joined by Ginsburg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

[Pathwalker]

43. never mind.

[Edweird]

4. Yep. That's why the 'duty to retreat' boggles my mind and why I'm pro - 'Stand Your Ground'.

Yes, I realize that some people will try to use SYG as cover for murder - but here's a clue: people will murder each other no matter WHAT you do.

[randome]

6. True.

[bongbong]

9. Unpunished

The problem with SYG is that it lets cold-blooded murderers get away with it if they have a good enough story.

Using the logic of "people murder others anyway", we should eliminate speed limits since "people will speed anyway".

[Edweird]

10. People ALREADY 'get away with it if they have a good enough story'.

I personally find it astounding that people want restrictions on self defense. It just does not compute.

[bongbong]

16. ok

Do you agree that Speed Limits are a terrible thing, an infringement of liberty, that we need to get rid of?

[Edweird]

19. I've never been assaulted by a speed limit sign.

[bongbong]

37. You haven't?

Millions of wingnuts consider speed limits to be an infringement on Liberty, just like gun-religionists consider any limits on their beloved to be the same infringement.

[ZombieHorde]

39. I live in Montana, and we didn't have speed limits outside of town for a while.

I had a cute, red Mustang at the time, and it was pretty fun.

The Federal Government got pretty pissy about it though, and the speed limits were eventually reinstated under coercion.

[Art_from_Ark]

140. Maybe that's why I saw all those crosses lining the roads

when I traveled through Montana

[ZombieHorde]

141. That is a more recent trend.

Maybe about eight to ten years ago.

[Art_from_Ark]

142. My trip to Montana was in 1991

So the trend goes back at least 20+ years

[ZombieHorde]

143. I don't remember the crosses that far back, but the no speed limit thing was after that date.

http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox

1994-1999. Looks like deaths actually increased by 111% after speed limits were put back in place. Safety wise, we were better off without them.

[Edweird]

41. Nope, no speed limit sign has ever been the least bit aggressive towards me.

[bongbong]

79. Try to get out more

Lots of people feel speed limits are hindrances to their freedom.

[Edweird]

81. Whatever. Did you have a point?

[jp11]

22. I want accountability to a jury not to one person who's job it is to win cases

and pursue cases they think they can win in the face of a law that says they have no case, ie SYG. Nothing stops anyone from defending themselves what I and many others want is for people to not have a 'get out of jail card' that goes right into the hands of police. When you legalize the killing of people sans trial you remove the accountability.

I find it astounding that there seem to be people that equate a trial by jury or even civil suits to try and extract some form of justice for the murder of another person when it may not have needed to happen. All cases aren't the same some self defense cases are just that but they should ALL have to stand up in a court of law where a jury decides if the person defending themselves did the right thing or went too far. SYG type laws remove that and offer essentially a blanket of protection to kill people without much of any scrutiny provided you 'did it right'.

SYG laws have much more room to exploit the killing of another person than not having it.

Without those laws how is anyone stopped from defending themselves? Do their guns suddenly not fire? Do they suddenly lose the ability to fight back? Or is it that they might have to consider the consequences of their actions, that they might not have 'blanket immunity' to kill the person they see as a threat? I have no studies to reference but I think once you remove that 'taboo' or 'limitation' on killing people at will (in that defense scenario) people will no longer 'worry about it' cause they know they are legally allowed to do so.

[Edweird]

28. You are describing a trial. Which happens after a crime (or charges have been brought).

Which means it is illegal. Which means you aren't allowed to do it. Which, to me, is mind boggling.

[EOTE]

38. So you think that there should be no trial when someone kills someone else.

That's more than just mind-boggling, that's insane and ridiculously stupid.

[Edweird]

40. If it's self defense, no I don't think there should.

Some people would rather see innocents die than defend themselves. If you personally feel strongly about it, feel free to take your chances but don't force me to acquiesce to the violence of others. Your stance puts an arrest record, enormously expensive defense lawyers, the risk of imprisonment (and the accompanying loss of employment and family) as well as civil judgements on the shoulders of someone who chose not to be a victim. THAT is insane.

[EOTE]

42. You're a hoot. So who decides what's self defense or not? The shooter?

Uhhh, yeah officer, he jumped right at me!

I'd imagine if such laws were enacted, the murder rate would drop to near zero within a year. No one would be murdered, it would all be self-defense. Do you even know how batshit-insane your argument is?

[Edweird]

44. I feel the same way about your position as you do about mine.

I also believe that we have zero chance of convincing the other that their position is mistaken. So, I think we're better off agreeing to disagree and leaving it at that.

[EOTE]

45. What you're calling for is Anarchy.

There would never be any accountability for murder under the way you wish to operate things. You haven't addressed anything I've said, so while you can agree to disagree, you haven't explained in the slightest how your ideal world wouldn't be an utterly safe haven for murderers.

[Edweird]

46. I haven't heard anything about Florida descending into anarchy since SYG passed.

Self defense is not murder. So, now that I've addressed your hyperbole and dishonest characterization, anything else?

[EOTE]

47. What you are asking for is not SYG.

And that's quite apparent by the fact that in spite of having SYG in Florida and in spite of the police declaring that Zimmerman acted in self defense, he's still having a trial. If you had your way, as soon as the cops backed up Zimmerman's story, he'd have been free and clear. So, that argument is completely ridiculous.

[Edweird]

48. Uh, SYG is *EXACTLY* and *SPECIFICALLY* what I'm talking about.

Zimmerman acted outside the boundaries of SYG. His parents are connected and that town is apparently corrupt. Is there anything in your argument that is remotely based in reality and honesty?

[EOTE]

49. You say that you don't think there should be a trial when "self defense" is claimed.

Yet the only way to determine if self-defense was truly used is for there to be a trial. If you're simply going to take the cop's word for it, as you are suggesting, then there will be thousands upon thousands of Zimmermans out there, all running free because they know that the cops will care more about expediency than any sense of justice. That's sick.

[Edweird]

50. I have news for you - the police have had that kind of discretion the whole time.

The one thing that wasn't covered was the protection from civil suits. It appears as though broad brushes, hyperbole, and outright fabrication are all you have.

[EOTE]

51. So you believe that civil suits should be allowed?

I thought trials are only for when people break the law? You're now saying that people should be able to go to trial when they don't break the law? You're not being very consistent at all, are you?

[Edweird]

52. I've stated my position clearly and consistently REPEATEDLY.

If you don't understand it at this point, something is wrong on your end.

[EOTE]

53. So either you're being inconsistent and you think that trials SHOULD be allowed.

Or you believe that cops should be judge and jury and be the sole arbiters of who goes to trial for murder. As much as I've read your comments, I can't decide which it is. Either way, your position is either incredibly inconsistent, or you want a country in which thousands upon thousands of Zimmermans get away with murder every year. Your pick.

[Edweird]

55. I support SYG. SYG's purpose was to prevent civil suits.

Police have ALWAYS had the ability to determine 'self defense' and there aren't "thousands upon thousands of Zimmermans getting away with murder". All of this is repeated OVER AND OVER AND OVER consistently and clearly. The problem here is that the facts don't align with your hyperbole and broad brush so perhaps the problem on your end is cognitive dissonance.

[EOTE]

56. Ahhh, so you DO want Zimmermans going free in every state.

Because the only reason that Zimmerman is in jail now is because of massive public outcry. Of course, if these laws were seen in every state, cases like Zimmerman's will become so ubiquitous that they'd no longer generate that same amount of public outcry. So once again, Florida writ large with no oversight to prevent Zimmerman from going free. You want cops to be judges and juries. Your position is perfectly clear now, you believe in "He was coming right at me!" justice.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

57. You don't undertand what edweird is saying...

SYG is not required for the prosocution to decide wether or not to charge someone in a murder (that they belive was self defense). SYG is irrelevent to charging someone with the murder whether they claim self defense or not.

For example, Ohio does not have SYG law. If I defend myself walking down the street in Ohio and the attacker dies... I may not have to go to trial if the prosocution feels it was self defense. This is no different than in Florida which does have SYG laws. If the floridia prosocution feels that you killed someone and it wasn't self defense they can certainly put you on trial - SYG can't stop that. Simply "claiming" self defense is not enough... the prosocution and police have to agree. The Zimmerman case is PROOF of this... Zimmerman killed someone and claimed self defense yet he is still going to trial for murder.

SYG is really only addresses two issues... burden of proof and civil liability. SYG establishes that the state must prove you are guilty of the crime before convicing you and it provides civil immunity (from wrongful death lawsuits) for people excercising self defense. SYG cannot prevent charges from being filed... that power to determine whether a case is self-defense has always rested with the prosocution (whether or not state even has SYG).

[EOTE]

60. The immunity from civil liability is what's so sick about that.

It's the only recourse that families have to protect against worthless PDs like that of Sanford (barring, of course, national outcry which doesn't happen very often).

The only reason that Zimmerman is going to trial is because there was national outrage over the event. Had their not been that public cry, Zimmerman would be scott free right now.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

61. SYG had NOTHING to do with the delay in charging zimmerman.

That was completely the fault of poor police work driven by a racist PD. Daddy had some nice connections in theright places so junior gets off the hook and a 14yr old is labelled a black hoodied thug. National outrage outed the racist fuckwads and good-old-boy network in that police department and forced the PD to treat the case fairly. SYG had nothing to do with that.

As far as civil immunity, defending yourself in a wrongful death lawsuit is extremely expensive. I would veture to say that it would at least bankrupt the average middle class citizen. In effect, the victim of a crime is now being victimized AGAIN by the family. IMO, if someone is aquitted or not convicted of actions made in self-defense (they are found not lawfuly culpable)... then it should follow they are not civilly culpable as well.

RE: "It's the only recourse that families have..."

I don't think it's the responsibility of a victim who acted in self-defense to pay restitution for the racisist/institutionalist actions of a corrupt police department. The defendant should be the police/state in such a lawsuit... not the person who acted in self defense.

[EOTE]

63. No, it just makes it so that when the police fuck up, there's no recourse.

If SYG hadn't been in effect, the family would have had other options than simply waiting for the national outrage to reach such a level that something had to be done about it.

[Edweird]

64. Like what?

[EOTE]

66. How about a civil suit?

Or is it fine and dandy that numerous other Sanfords across the country get to enforce their own version of justice with no recourse from the families of the slain?

[Edweird]

68. A civil suit against?

[EOTE]

69. If you're incapable of figuring that out, there's really no point in continuing.

You just seem utterly fixed on proving your signature to be true.

[Edweird]

70. Let's hear your grand plan. I want to see what you propose and then show where SYG prevented it.

Substantiate your claims. Quote chapter and verse of SYG to show how evil it is.

[EOTE]

71. You haven't even attempted to respond to numerous points, so that would be an excersize in futility.

I've expressed numerous times why it's so incredibly fucked up, but you either respond with non-sequitors or you ask some inane question which proves you're not interested in a debate, but rather obfuscation. Learn to debate honestly and maybe you'll get somewhere.

[Edweird]

72. No plan? No cites of SYG? Still no honesty? Please substantantiate your claims of MY dishonesty.

Only you can't - LOL

[EOTE]

74. And once again, you've failed to address numerous issues I've brought up and continue to.

"A civil suit against?". Either you're feigning ignorance, which I won't put up with any further, or you're actually that ignorant, in which case it's totally useless trying to have an actual conversation with you.

[Edweird]

75. Then we are finally done here since you are unwilling (unable) to back your uninformed claims.

[Edweird]

62. All you're doing is embarrasing yourself. You need to educate yourself.

[EOTE]

65. If your anarchistic view of justice is what's considered "education", no thanks.

I'll take my education from an institution of higher learning, thanks.

[Edweird]

67. I'm a Florida resident and I know what the SYG laws does and does not do. You clearly do not.

I never said anything about you learning from me - which is typical of the type of dishonesty you have been displaying throughout this entire subthread - I suggested that you educate yourself. Or not. I don't care. If you don't at least you're good for a laugh and use as an example.

[Zalatix]

15. Yup, Stand Your Ground is not the problem here.

[Serve The Servants]

123. I agree with you, but to an extent.

Last edited Mon May 14, 2012, 05:04 AM - Edit history (2)

I think you should lose the protection of SYG if you knowingly and willfully put yourself in danger, escalate a dangerous situation to the point of it becoming life threatening, or if you are engaging in a mutual combative situation.

Now, this is not to say you are automatically guilty in any of these scenarios, but that they should be thoroughly investigated and heavily scrutinized, case-by-case, far beyond what Stand Your Ground would require.

EDIT: Upon further reading, it looks like some of my previously mentioned criteria already disqualify Stand Your Ground from being applied.

Bottom line, it is not OK for you to grab your gun and go play policeman down the street or shoot someone for punching you in the face. Now, if a burglar is in you home and you truly feel threatened, or you are in a street fight and the other guy pulls a weapon - Well, then aim steady.

That being said, I do like the civil protections that SYG put in place if you are not deemed criminally accountable. In my opinion, This civil protection should apply to all felony and misdemeanor situations. It just seems like logic 101.

[varelse]

7. Property is important, human lives are not

At least, that is what I'm getting out of Scalia's opinion. I'm not a lawyer though, so maybe I'm missing the point of his argument.

[hack89]

33. No. It is impossible for the police to protect everyone all the time.

otherwise we wouldn't have violent crime. So if they can't protect you all the time from crime they should not be held responsible if something bad happens to you.

[guitar man]

8. They don't have the duty

Because they don't have the ability. In order for them to have that duty there would have to be a cop stationed in front of each of our houses. I really don't think we want that many cops.

So I'll continue to do what I've always done, protect myself and my family, that's my duty.

[randome]

12. That's a rational assessment of the issue.

The ruling needs to be parsed on many levels. If police were REQUIRED to protect people, then every murder, every injury would result in a lawsuit.

[jpak]

11. Holy Vigilante Gospel Gunuttery Fail

yup

[Zalatix]

14. Gun nuttery, where?

[ellisonz]

73. The gunners use this argument...

...to support the idea they need guns everywhere all the time.

[Zalatix]

78. Oh I'm sorry, is the OP factually wrong?

Am I wrong in saying the police have no Constitutional duty to protect you?

[baldguy]

87. It's impossible for the police to protect everyone all the time.

This simple fact is twisted by the RW gun nuts to mean they shouldn't protect anyone, ever. Ignoring little things like RW budget cuts, RW union busting and the RW forcing police to do only what they can - so they protect property instead.

The police have a difficult job as it is. The RW takes away the resources they need to perform the task we put to them, then the RW gun nuts fight to put weapons into the hands of the most dangerous individuals under the guise "2nd Amendment Rights", without regard to the individual responsibility that must come with those weapons. No wonder America has a holocaust of gun deaths every year.

Shit like this only makes the task of the police exponentially more difficult.

[Zalatix]

88. So when you have an armed intruder in your house do you wait for the cops to come

or do you defend yourself?

Your karate versus his handgun, who do you think will win?

[baldguy]

90. So guns are the one and only solution to any, every & all problems.

Another gun nut myth.

[Zalatix]

91. Tasers should be another widely available option.

[baldguy]

92. Oh, right! That's a GREAT idea! Let's have MORE weapons & MORE violence!

Electroshock weapons are used more for torture than anything else anyway. And how many people have been killed by these "non-lethal" weapons?

Any weapon that the RW advertises as being only for "protection" can and will be used to commit crimes. On your side, the RWrs, gun nuts & other fascists are working to create a more unjust & belligerent society. More weapons in the hands of more people, rulings by the RW USSC like in the OP, and atrocious laws like SYG are central to that effort, with the hoi polloi and the unwashed masses being forced to cull themselves (and more importantly be distracted from real issues) with those weapons.

OTOH, on Our side, liberals & Democrats seek to create a more just & peaceful society. We don't see the majority as "unwashed masses" meant only to be killed. We see them as us - citizens who must be allowed to govern themselves without the threat of violence or coercion. Guns are not necessary for this objective. In fact, guns are detrimental to it.

[Zalatix]

93. On your side are nothing but dead victims who died because they couldn't defend themselves.

A rather self-correcting problem, don't you think?

I mean, since you are accusing me of being on the side of RW gun nuts, two can play that game.

[baldguy]

94. Seems to me you're finally admitting the obvious.

And all you claims to the contrary are just window dressing.

[Zalatix]

95. I'm admitting that you despise a family's right to self-defense. You want the criminals to rule.

[ellisonz]

112. Absurd.

The gun industry are the one's arming criminals, they sell the guns and advance the political agenda that keeps are gun control laws ineffective. But naw, it's just too logical, the gun industry would never profit off of people's fears!

[Zalatix]

115. Okay so an armed intruder is in your house. You have kids, too. How do you defend your family?

Ok thanks bye!

[ellisonz]

116. Depends.

But I probably don't need an AK-varient to do do it - do you need an assault rifle to defend your family?

[Zalatix]

117. No one was talking about an assault rifle. I suggested using a taser directly upthread.

But the anti self-defense extremists even raised hell about that. THAT is the exact discussion you just jumped in the middle of.

[ellisonz]

124. Who is anti-self defense?

What I am is anti-stupid gun nuttiness that allows the criminal to be armed in the first place. Make no mistake, it's easier in this country to get a gun than a good job. This debate would be better if we all would stop feeding into the nuttiness by pretending that someone wants to hand over the innocent to the criminal. Let's face the facts instead of flinging hyperbolic bullshit.

Do you need an assault rifle to defend yourself from criminals? Simple question.

[Zalatix]

127. I was talking about tasers, not assault rifles, what's your obsession with assault rifles?

[sarisataka]

99. Ok, I'm listening

on Our side, liberals & Democrats seek to create a more just & peaceful society. We don't see the majority as "unwashed masses" meant only to be killed. We see them as us - citizens who must be allowed to govern themselves without the threat of violence or coercion. Guns are not necessary for this objective. In fact, guns are detrimental to it.

When faced with a violent criminal and the police are (maybe) on the way. What action should I take or what can I use to defend myself?

[badtoworse]

102. I've never seen an intelligent answer to your question from a gun control advocate - nt

[sarisataka]

104. I am an optimist

I keep hoping someone will be brave enough to answer.

[Zalatix]

119. The answer from them is to flee. Run away, call the cops, and hope insurance covers your losses.

And hope that you can outrun THE CRIMINAL'S bullet.

[sarisataka]

130. Stage 4 arthritis in doth knees

I can't out run the spitball

[Zalatix]

131. Tough luck. No guns allowed, no survival for you!

<--- do I REALLY need to add this???

[ellisonz]

113. Reasonable, humane action. n/t

[sarisataka]

135. That is a start

but won't be too effective facing a sexual and/or homicidal predator.

Thank you, though I may disagree with your opinion I respect that you are willing to step up and post it.

[Zalatix]

118. I asked that question, too. The anti-self defense extremists have no answer.

[badtoworse]

24. Maybe we really do need to be able to protect ourselves. - nt

[Zalatix]

77. Moar gun nuttery fail! We need to pray the cops reach us before the intruder kills or rapes us.

:sarcsam:

[apocalypsehow]

30. Paul Kersey-wannabe's with Phallic Replacment issues. Add to which, the article is SEVEN YEARS OLD.

Fail all the way around.

[Zalatix]

82. So are you saying that since the article is 7 years old, it is factually incorrect?

If you can't say that, then the only fail here was your argument.

[apocalypsehow]

85. Uhhh, I made no "argument." Start there, perhaps.

Then graduate to even more of an adult concept: putting words in other people's mouths ("So are you saying that since the article is 7 years old, it is factually incorrect?&quot and following such endeavors up with smilies, is not all that impressive as replies go, really.

Please try again.

[Zalatix]

86. FACT!!! You said the article is 7 years old. "Fail all around".

You did say that. That means you are saying that it fails because it's 7 years old.

Don't try to come back and say that's not what you said. I'm challenging you to back that "reasoning" up.

[apocalypsehow]

96. FACT!!! I don't care what silly semantics games you like to play on the internet.

I challenge you to re-read my post(s) above, and try it once again. Thanks.

[Zalatix]

97. FACT!!! You said the article is 7 years old. "Fail all around". That is not a SEMANTIC GAME.

Paul Kersey-wannabe's with Phallic Replacment issues. Add to which, the article is SEVEN YEARS OLD.

Fail all the way around.

I read your post and my analysis is flawless. You clearly implied that the article was wrong because it's 7 years old.

It's right there in clear black and white. You simply cannot admit what you wrote.

[apocalypsehow]

98. Yes, it is a semantics game, coupled with several falsehoods you continue to spew.

Last edited Sun May 13, 2012, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)

1. I am not in the slightest disputing what I wrote. You are simply making stuff up.

2. Regardless, I made no "argument" in what I wrote, but offered an OBSERVATION. The article was seven years old; it is irrelevant in the context it was posted; it is an example of fail all the way around.

So, there's that.

Now, do you have anything else to offer? This line of "I saw what you wrote and you are denying it!!!!!" is has been dispensed with, as has whatever kind of nonsensical point you thought you were making, so we're finished with that diversionary swerve of yours into mindlessness. Next?

Edit: proper emphases added.

[Zalatix]

101. What falsehoods? The article is 7 years old but it is quite correct. You claimed it was "fail".

Backtrack much? The only dispensing you're doing here is with your own credibility.

Your "observation" was an argument. The argument was that it is irrelevant.

Your claim that you weren't arguing is wrong; you were trying to discredit the article, which you have totally failed to do.

We are now finished with both your claims. The article is relevant. The article is correct. Your "points" are not valid. Next?

[apocalypsehow]

105. There is not a "backtrack" in sight, and now you're just making non sensical claims that anyone can

verify themselves by simply scrolling up.

I know when the little smilie icon gets trotted out, the debate is over.

We are "finished" with something alright, and just about everyone but you has figured it out. Next.

[PavePusher]

106. You are sparring with Jello(tm).

This is merely a waste of your time, as you've already proven their words worthless.

This same poster accused me of linking to a racist article on a racist website, and thus supporting racism... but has so far failed to point out any specifics to support their allegation, saying repeatedly "It's obvious".

It's troll-Jello.

[apocalypsehow]

108. If you're going to follow me around DU trying to re-argue an argument you clearly lost, you should

at least be willing to provide a link to said debate you came out on the losing side of. Here, I'll help you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117236387


Now, one & all are welcome to decide for themselves what the denouement of that little dust-up was - which is precisely the reason you refused to provide a link in the first place. Typical.


Edit: typo x 2.

[Zalatix]

111. Oh but just about "everyone" supports him/her. It's obvious!!!

[L0oniX]

13. Ms. Gonzales should have complained about an OWS group in front of her house...

if she really wanted some police action.

[raouldukelives]

23. Sad but true. nt

[backscatter712]

17. The only duty of the pigs is to protect the rich.

We just need to accept that police have become the enemy of a free society.

[Baitball Blogger]

18. Why are we paying taxes to these people?

[ileus]

25. Who didn't know this? Your protection is your responsibility.

Don't pawn it off on others...

[badtoworse]

27. 100% correct, but that is a reality that the gun control crowd does not like to face.

[Zalatix]

34. Ayup, nailed it on the head.

[daaron]

59. It would be so much more civilized if we just shot each other?

Guns are for cowards.

[Go Vols]

100. so

coward /ˈkouərd/
Noun:
A person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.

By definition,I guess I lack the courage to be shot and robbed(unpleasant), because I have a pistol on my nightstand that could prevent this from happening.

[daaron]

103. Or your pistol could be taken away from you and used against you.

Or if you have children or a wife -- perhaps someone who will hesitate before taking another person's life with a twitch of the trigger-finger -- then perhaps the pistol will be taken from them?

These eventualities are as plausible as the one you have described. In fact, statistics suggest my scenarios are more plausible.

Guns are poor self-defense, if they are properly locked up.

[PavePusher]

107. Your scenarios are far too limited, by your own bias-filter.

But you knew that....

[ellisonz]

114. Want to share with us why you need to tote at Presidential campaign rallies?

Wasn't it because you don't believe the Secret Service is there to protect you in the event of an assassination attempt?

[Zalatix]

110. Really? I'd like to see those statistics you speak of.

[PavePusher]

129. If a gun is intended for self-defense, it should be readily accessable in a holster on your belt....

or secured in a quick-access case of some kind.

Why would a defensive arm be "properly locked up"?

[sarisataka]

134. A gun not in use is properly locked up

A gun used for self defense is properly secured. Not the same thing.

[Octafish]

31. But, they can strip search anyone they want.

Benefits of employment by the police state.

[ck4829]

32. So the govt can make sure you aren't having gay sex, but stopping people who want to kill you? Naah.

Scalia is a joke.

[TheKentuckian]

35. Maybe they could do more protecting and serving if

They weren't out setting speed traps, fighting the failed drug war, and driving in circles around rich folks homes while ignoring shit neighborhoods other than looking for dope.


DEFUND!

[Zalatix]

36. We need to look at alternative methods of law enforcement.

One that doesn't include "7th largest army in the world" police forces like the NYPD.

[cigsandcoffee]

54. The police are there to clean up the blood, and possibly arrest the perpetrator.

If you want to defend yourself or your family from random crime, then you're on your own.

[Zalatix]

76. Away with this gun nuttery talk! When criminals attack, we're just supposed to call the police

and hope they get here before someone gets raped or killed.

[daaron]

58. I guess that means.

We have to duty to obey the law or their orders?

Which makes them less than irrelevant - but an impediment to justice, itself.

In which case, we will have to start taking the law into our own hands.

In which case, why bother at all? So much for civilization.

I'm sorry, but cops almost universally deserve our scorn and disdain. It has become the career choice of petty bullies. It may be time to raise the requirements for employment from "was a H.S. bully who got a GED".

[Zalatix]

83. We need to talk about a serious overhaul of the law enforcement system.

[nolabels]

80. Better take out that line in the oath and motto "to serve and protect"

Oh, that's right, to serve and protect paper and ideas (people be damned). Deceptive advertisement by armed thugs, so what's so new?

Really, people who believe in the power and weapons to hold back people have not done too much interpretation of how history has unfolded through the ages. Don't be angry with those who want to do harm just feel admiration to those historians who have been keeping track. Those who spend much time building houses of cards sometimes know little about floating boats

[LynnTheDem]

84. serve and protect...they don't say "the people"

It's to "serve and protect" the law. Same in Canada...and most Canadians probably don't realize that, either. It never was meant as "serve and protect" the people.

[Mc Mike]

89. They protect private property, and preSERVE order. NT.

[RB TexLa]

109. Why would anyone think they do?

[Great Caesars Ghost]

122. More than enough reason to have a legit militia started.

[Zalatix]

128. The Black Panthers tried that. COINTELPRO was the end result.

[Great Caesars Ghost]

137. Well we need to figure a way to keep it secret.

[Zalatix]

138. The invention of drones made that impossible.

[Great Caesars Ghost]

139. Drones have limitations.

It's always a chess game. Just gotta outwit them.

[Serve The Servants]

125. A good reason to train in self defense.

Hand to hand and weapons. People should research and choose what they think works best for them, but everyone should learn something.

Better than nothing, and better safe than sorry.

[AverageJoe90]

126. Scalia is a fucking piece of shit.

He might as well as been a criminal mastermind because he's not fit for the Supreme Court. Never was.

[heyhoheyho]

132. that is some BS

[PavePusher]

133. How so?

The police are neither manned nor equipped to protect everyone at all times. Nor would you want them to be, the words "police state" being anathema in the U.S., at least in principal.