Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The police have no duty t...»Reply #102