Reply #88

In the discussion thread: The police have no duty to protect you. Really, they don't. [View all]

Response to baldguy (Reply #87)

Sat May 12, 2012, 08:36 AM

Zalatix (8,994 posts)

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?

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

143 replies	Author	Time	Post
The police have no duty to protect you. Really, they don't. [View all]	Zalatix	May 2012	OP
They all need to remove Serve and Protect from their badges	liberal N proud	May 2012	#1
They serve and protect the law, their superiors/brothers not necessarily us.	jp11	May 2012	#20
Protect and serve?	Bake	May 2012	#21
"protect and serve" -- isn't that basically a PR motto of the LAPD?	FarCenter	May 2012	#26
Agree 1000%	Serve The Servants	May 2012	#120
Or perhaps truth in advertising? "To Serve and Protect the 1%"	Zalatix	May 2012	#121
Four justices need to be removed from the court n/t	me b zola	May 2012	#136
Old article but typical Scalia	lunatica	May 2012	#2
It up held an even older precedent	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#5
The Felonious 5 have to, don't they?	xchrom	May 2012	#3
Make that 7...	-..__...	May 2012	#29
never mind.	Pathwalker	May 2012	#43
Yep. That's why the 'duty to retreat' boggles my mind and why I'm pro - 'Stand Your Ground'.	Edweird	May 2012	#4
True.	randome	May 2012	#6
Unpunished	bongbong	May 2012	#9
People ALREADY 'get away with it if they have a good enough story'.	Edweird	May 2012	#10
ok	bongbong	May 2012	#16
I've never been assaulted by a speed limit sign.	Edweird	May 2012	#19
You haven't?	bongbong	May 2012	#37
I live in Montana, and we didn't have speed limits outside of town for a while.	ZombieHorde	May 2012	#39
Maybe that's why I saw all those crosses lining the roads	Art_from_Ark	May 2012	#140
That is a more recent trend.	ZombieHorde	May 2012	#141
My trip to Montana was in 1991	Art_from_Ark	May 2012	#142
I don't remember the crosses that far back, but the no speed limit thing was after that date.	ZombieHorde	May 2012	#143
Nope, no speed limit sign has ever been the least bit aggressive towards me.	Edweird	May 2012	#41
Try to get out more	bongbong	May 2012	#79
Whatever. Did you have a point?	Edweird	May 2012	#81
I want accountability to a jury not to one person who's job it is to win cases	jp11	May 2012	#22
You are describing a trial. Which happens after a crime (or charges have been brought).	Edweird	May 2012	#28
So you think that there should be no trial when someone kills someone else.	EOTE	May 2012	#38
If it's self defense, no I don't think there should.	Edweird	May 2012	#40
You're a hoot. So who decides what's self defense or not? The shooter?	EOTE	May 2012	#42
I feel the same way about your position as you do about mine.	Edweird	May 2012	#44
What you're calling for is Anarchy.	EOTE	May 2012	#45
I haven't heard anything about Florida descending into anarchy since SYG passed.	Edweird	May 2012	#46
What you are asking for is not SYG.	EOTE	May 2012	#47
Uh, SYG is EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY what I'm talking about.	Edweird	May 2012	#48
You say that you don't think there should be a trial when "self defense" is claimed.	EOTE	May 2012	#49
I have news for you - the police have had that kind of discretion the whole time.	Edweird	May 2012	#50
So you believe that civil suits should be allowed?	EOTE	May 2012	#51
I've stated my position clearly and consistently REPEATEDLY.	Edweird	May 2012	#52
So either you're being inconsistent and you think that trials SHOULD be allowed.	EOTE	May 2012	#53
I support SYG. SYG's purpose was to prevent civil suits.	Edweird	May 2012	#55
Ahhh, so you DO want Zimmermans going free in every state.	EOTE	May 2012	#56
You don't undertand what edweird is saying...	OneTenthofOnePercent	May 2012	#57
The immunity from civil liability is what's so sick about that.	EOTE	May 2012	#60
SYG had NOTHING to do with the delay in charging zimmerman.	OneTenthofOnePercent	May 2012	#61
No, it just makes it so that when the police fuck up, there's no recourse.	EOTE	May 2012	#63
Like what?	Edweird	May 2012	#64
How about a civil suit?	EOTE	May 2012	#66
A civil suit against?	Edweird	May 2012	#68
If you're incapable of figuring that out, there's really no point in continuing.	EOTE	May 2012	#69
Let's hear your grand plan. I want to see what you propose and then show where SYG prevented it.	Edweird	May 2012	#70
You haven't even attempted to respond to numerous points, so that would be an excersize in futility.	EOTE	May 2012	#71
No plan? No cites of SYG? Still no honesty? Please substantantiate your claims of MY dishonesty.	Edweird	May 2012	#72
And once again, you've failed to address numerous issues I've brought up and continue to.	EOTE	May 2012	#74
Then we are finally done here since you are unwilling (unable) to back your uninformed claims.	Edweird	May 2012	#75
All you're doing is embarrasing yourself. You need to educate yourself.	Edweird	May 2012	#62
If your anarchistic view of justice is what's considered "education", no thanks.	EOTE	May 2012	#65
I'm a Florida resident and I know what the SYG laws does and does not do. You clearly do not.	Edweird	May 2012	#67
Yup, Stand Your Ground is not the problem here.	Zalatix	May 2012	#15
I agree with you, but to an extent.	Serve The Servants	May 2012	#123
Property is important, human lives are not	varelse	May 2012	#7
No. It is impossible for the police to protect everyone all the time.	hack89	May 2012	#33
They don't have the duty	guitar man	May 2012	#8
That's a rational assessment of the issue.	randome	May 2012	#12
Holy Vigilante Gospel Gunuttery Fail	jpak	May 2012	#11
Gun nuttery, where?	Zalatix	May 2012	#14
The gunners use this argument...	ellisonz	May 2012	#73
Oh I'm sorry, is the OP factually wrong?	Zalatix	May 2012	#78
It's impossible for the police to protect everyone all the time.	baldguy	May 2012	#87
So when you have an armed intruder in your house do you wait for the cops to come	Zalatix	May 2012	#88
So guns are the one and only solution to any, every & all problems.	baldguy	May 2012	#90
Tasers should be another widely available option.	Zalatix	May 2012	#91
Oh, right! That's a GREAT idea! Let's have MORE weapons & MORE violence!	baldguy	May 2012	#92
On your side are nothing but dead victims who died because they couldn't defend themselves.	Zalatix	May 2012	#93
Seems to me you're finally admitting the obvious.	baldguy	May 2012	#94
I'm admitting that you despise a family's right to self-defense. You want the criminals to rule.	Zalatix	May 2012	#95
Absurd.	ellisonz	May 2012	#112
Okay so an armed intruder is in your house. You have kids, too. How do you defend your family?	Zalatix	May 2012	#115
Depends.	ellisonz	May 2012	#116
No one was talking about an assault rifle. I suggested using a taser directly upthread.	Zalatix	May 2012	#117
Who is anti-self defense?	ellisonz	May 2012	#124
I was talking about tasers, not assault rifles, what's your obsession with assault rifles?	Zalatix	May 2012	#127
Ok, I'm listening	sarisataka	May 2012	#99
I've never seen an intelligent answer to your question from a gun control advocate - nt	badtoworse	May 2012	#102
I am an optimist	sarisataka	May 2012	#104
The answer from them is to flee. Run away, call the cops, and hope insurance covers your losses.	Zalatix	May 2012	#119
Stage 4 arthritis in doth knees	sarisataka	May 2012	#130
Tough luck. No guns allowed, no survival for you!	Zalatix	May 2012	#131
Reasonable, humane action. n/t	ellisonz	May 2012	#113
That is a start	sarisataka	May 2012	#135
I asked that question, too. The anti-self defense extremists have no answer.	Zalatix	May 2012	#118
Maybe we really do need to be able to protect ourselves. - nt	badtoworse	May 2012	#24
Moar gun nuttery fail! We need to pray the cops reach us before the intruder kills or rapes us.	Zalatix	May 2012	#77
Paul Kersey-wannabe's with Phallic Replacment issues. Add to which, the article is SEVEN YEARS OLD.	apocalypsehow	May 2012	#30
So are you saying that since the article is 7 years old, it is factually incorrect?	Zalatix	May 2012	#82
Uhhh, I made no "argument." Start there, perhaps.	apocalypsehow	May 2012	#85
FACT!!! You said the article is 7 years old. "Fail all around".	Zalatix	May 2012	#86
FACT!!! I don't care what silly semantics games you like to play on the internet.	apocalypsehow	May 2012	#96
FACT!!! You said the article is 7 years old. "Fail all around". That is not a SEMANTIC GAME.	Zalatix	May 2012	#97
Yes, it is a semantics game, coupled with several falsehoods you continue to spew.	apocalypsehow	May 2012	#98
What falsehoods? The article is 7 years old but it is quite correct. You claimed it was "fail".	Zalatix	May 2012	#101
There is not a "backtrack" in sight, and now you're just making non sensical claims that anyone can	apocalypsehow	May 2012	#105
You are sparring with Jello(tm).	PavePusher	May 2012	#106
If you're going to follow me around DU trying to re-argue an argument you clearly lost, you should	apocalypsehow	May 2012	#108
Oh but just about "everyone" supports him/her. It's obvious!!!	Zalatix	May 2012	#111
Ms. Gonzales should have complained about an OWS group in front of her house...	L0oniX	May 2012	#13
Sad but true. nt	raouldukelives	May 2012	#23
The only duty of the pigs is to protect the rich.	backscatter712	May 2012	#17
Why are we paying taxes to these people?	Baitball Blogger	May 2012	#18
Who didn't know this? Your protection is your responsibility.	ileus	May 2012	#25
100% correct, but that is a reality that the gun control crowd does not like to face.	badtoworse	May 2012	#27
Ayup, nailed it on the head.	Zalatix	May 2012	#34
It would be so much more civilized if we just shot each other?	daaron	May 2012	#59
so	Go Vols	May 2012	#100
Or your pistol could be taken away from you and used against you.	daaron	May 2012	#103
Your scenarios are far too limited, by your own bias-filter.	PavePusher	May 2012	#107
Want to share with us why you need to tote at Presidential campaign rallies?	ellisonz	May 2012	#114
Really? I'd like to see those statistics you speak of.	Zalatix	May 2012	#110
If a gun is intended for self-defense, it should be readily accessable in a holster on your belt....	PavePusher	May 2012	#129
A gun not in use is properly locked up	sarisataka	May 2012	#134
But, they can strip search anyone they want.	Octafish	May 2012	#31
So the govt can make sure you aren't having gay sex, but stopping people who want to kill you? Naah.	ck4829	May 2012	#32
Maybe they could do more protecting and serving if	TheKentuckian	May 2012	#35
We need to look at alternative methods of law enforcement.	Zalatix	May 2012	#36
The police are there to clean up the blood, and possibly arrest the perpetrator.	cigsandcoffee	May 2012	#54
Away with this gun nuttery talk! When criminals attack, we're just supposed to call the police	Zalatix	May 2012	#76
I guess that means.	daaron	May 2012	#58
We need to talk about a serious overhaul of the law enforcement system.	Zalatix	May 2012	#83
Better take out that line in the oath and motto "to serve and protect"	nolabels	May 2012	#80
serve and protect...they don't say "the people"	LynnTheDem	May 2012	#84
They protect private property, and preSERVE order. NT.	Mc Mike	May 2012	#89
Why would anyone think they do?	RB TexLa	May 2012	#109
More than enough reason to have a legit militia started.	Great Caesars Ghost	May 2012	#122
The Black Panthers tried that. COINTELPRO was the end result.	Zalatix	May 2012	#128
Well we need to figure a way to keep it secret.	Great Caesars Ghost	May 2012	#137
The invention of drones made that impossible.	Zalatix	May 2012	#138
Drones have limitations.	Great Caesars Ghost	May 2012	#139
A good reason to train in self defense.	Serve The Servants	May 2012	#125
Scalia is a fucking piece of shit.	AverageJoe90	May 2012	#126
that is some BS	heyhoheyho	May 2012	#132
How so?	PavePusher	May 2012	#133

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.