I felt responsible.. I found this picture on facebook and felt responsible enough to share this with you fggts. Dont hate if this has been uploaded before, i am Awesome cool Megaman
Upload
Login or register

I felt responsible.

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
 
I felt responsible.. I found this picture on facebook and felt responsible enough to share this with you fggts. Dont hate if this has been uploaded before, i am

I found this picture on facebook and felt responsible enough to share this with you fggts.

Dont hate if this has been uploaded before, i am trying to do a good new years deed here.

lee tattle their therein a serial killer be the
name at Malts% names in the use subway.
he was Ming stabbed I times, there were
limb miners merely teat away
behind the aent: austar' s [IBM watering It all batman.
the HYPE their far the
tta HIE man Ell“ HIE tilty ltr Milli that HIE MIN
MES net have MII MEN } I Its ,
...
+969
Views: 39021 Submitted: 12/31/2013
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (310)
[ 310 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#7 - vladstronsy
Reply +221 123456789123345869
(12/31/2013) [-]
It is the duty of all human beings to protect those who can not protect themselves.
Nice job Joe. You've fulfilled an obligation you entire government has not.
User avatar #124 to #7 - tealcanaan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
They have to enforce the law which means they protect you. This ruling was just to protect them from frivolous lawsuits... Say the cop doesn't arrive soon enough or he accidentally injures you when moving you out of harms way. This is so that you can't sue him for doing his job even if it inconvenienced you.
#139 to #7 - anon id: 6b753ddf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
clearly he could protect himself, since he "took down" the serial killer, so your argument isn't valid.
#198 to #7 - bann
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
This is probably fake as cubic zirconium, made to anger people so that others can get shares and like and whatever attention whoring **** they want.
#200 to #7 - bann
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
#92 to #7 - adrenalinbbq
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Way to incorporate the Federal government in a state matter.
User avatar #218 to #92 - jukuku
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Perhaps he was referring to the state governing body.
#97 to #92 - anon id: 2994fd4d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
yeah how about you shut the **** up because we don't all life in amurica
#98 to #97 - adrenalinbbq
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Joe does, and so did the cereal killer. I think it's relevant.
#149 to #98 - dicedfruit
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
User avatar #2 - razgrizninja
Reply +173 123456789123345869
(12/31/2013) [-]
...they have no legal duty to protect you, but you are supposed to call them if you are in trouble. flawless logic
#12 to #2 - anon id: 81b52fe0
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/31/2013) [-]
Their job is not to protect, but to clean up and write reports. They're little more than glorified maids.
#44 to #12 - anon id: bd740ace
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Police have guns to protect themselves first, as they go about their job of ensuring the rule of government by enforcing laws whether those are ethical and just or not.

They protect others only when they can minimize the threat to themselves. When you need help, they will usually be waiting for backup.
#3 to #2 - quiescat
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/31/2013) [-]
welcome to Merica
User avatar #4 to #2 - thelizardlord
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/31/2013) [-]
Court decided their duty is merely to inforce laws, not protect people.
#5 to #4 - anon id: 1e5687a0
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/31/2013) [-]
So let them enforce the law that says murder is a no-no on the guy thats stabbing me?
User avatar #10 to #5 - roninneko
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/31/2013) [-]
Because until the knife is in your chest, it isn't murder. Police logic.
#29 to #10 - anon id: e059a179
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
isn't threatening someone with a weapon already a crime?
User avatar #295 to #29 - jacksipian
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
threatening someone is Assault, which is illegal. attacking someone is Assault and Battery, even more illegal.
User avatar #119 to #29 - tealcanaan
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Ya there idiots, the ruling was to protect them from frivolous lawsuits.
User avatar #75 to #2 - ddoggdiggity
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
glad i know how to hunt and use a gun like a pro
User avatar #15 to #2 - SteyrAUG
Reply +37 123456789123345869
(12/31/2013) [-]
And yet we don't need guns because we have a police force to protect us. More flawless logic.
User avatar #64 to #15 - trollchildxy
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Which is why I have firearms, and took self defense courses.

Granted if you don't look for trouble you most assuredly wont find any. **** still happens.
User avatar #262 to #64 - hydraetis
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Better to be prepared and end up never being found by trouble rather than being unprepared when it does.
#19 - mankey
Reply +133 123456789123345869
(12/31/2013) [-]
How I imagine the police reacted.
How I imagine the police reacted.
#26 - VikingSharkPANCH
Reply +74 123456789123345869
(12/31/2013) [-]
Which is why the second amendment exists. When seconds count, help is only minutes away!
#67 to #26 - anon id: e72555cd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Guns are overrated for self-defense. Sometimes they would be useful, but they also frequently make the situation worse. Maybe it's better if everyone's armed, but personally I support (limited) gun control.
#86 to #67 - anon id: 71aa6a7d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
You can't be on that side of the argument here. FJ is gun country and gun country only hears one side of the argument thanks to the voting system. You'll be down voted simply because your a minority.
User avatar #235 to #86 - dapianoman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
It's pretty much impossible to argue the anti-gun point because FJ is so circlejerky and hive-minded.
#83 to #26 - anon id: 6d99ebaf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
You do know that the 2nd amendment exists to protect you from your goverment and not for the US citzents to gun each other down?
#89 to #26 - worried
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
yeah, except if you live in NYC it costs like $2000 and thats only for a permit.... and you're lucky if you dont get laughed out of the precinct if you ask for a carry permit
User avatar #112 to #26 - madmario
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
that's not why it exists at all. and guns more often then not hurt the owner and people the owner is trying to defend more often than hurting the assailant. not saying that's the fault of the gun or nothing but you're kind of wrong two ways here.

in fact the guy was out on the street. why the hell would he just have a gun on him? he didn't expect to save anyone's life or anything. am I missing something here?
User avatar #116 to #112 - playerdous
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Accidents happen
I know that its over simplifying the argument but its the truth.

And viking is right in the sense of the second amendment being available so that the people can respond quickly rather than the long process of appeals and courts.

As for having a gun out on the street, some people have permits to carry a concealed weapon. People carry them for their own reasons.
User avatar #123 to #116 - madmario
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
so people walk around the streets with guns for seemingly no reason? well ****. nobody thinks thats a bad idea? like lets give the ability to take a life to anyone who wants a permit and then let them have this ability on the street. whyyyyy?

and the second amendment was originally something to do with defending against the government I'm pretty sure . not that that has any relevance now seeing as the government would laugh at your silly gun while they tear you apart with tanks and helicopters and the like. so that argument sort of goes out the window. Personally (SEE I SAID "PERSONALLY" SO DON'T GIVE ME **** FOR THIS) i don't really understand the need for guns. like hunting maybe but like, why do people want them so badly? clearly if everyone in this situation had a gun, it would have all been much worse.
User avatar #127 to #123 - playerdous
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Oh I know this is all just opinion and I'm fine with that.

I don't know too much about the permits, just that theres an old lady that takes her walks with a revolver. Also there are several test (in class, on the field) that need to be taken. Usually supervised by cops. These test should be given to everyone who wants a gun in general.

And yes your right that the 2nd amendment deals with the government (appeals and courts take forever and some laws are so unjust we have to fight them). As for the US armed forces attacking their own people, I doubt it since those are their family and friends. Even if it did happen if everyone had one gun it would just be M.A.D. for them to attack.
User avatar #129 to #127 - madmario
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
exactly right? like the whole situation of the second amendment being necessary now is so unlikely. like the government is never going to go killing citizens. that's kind of silly, especially when the people give the government power (democracy and all that). and I'm almost certain that it says somewhere in the second amendment that it is for the formation of militia and to defend against tyrannical government. So clearly it isn't being applied in its original context. not that I'm willing to reread it. WAYYYYY too much effort.
but like, if i wanted a permit and a gun, essentially the ability to kill someone on a whim, all I would have to do is be good for most of my life (like someone with, for example, antisocial personality disorder would be) and pass some shooting tests? I'm actually getting a little freaked out. why aren't people concerned about this?
User avatar #133 to #129 - playerdous
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Because people don't do that. For the most part.
If somebody wants to kill another person they'll find a way, be it gun, knife, hammer...

"In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. There were 356 murders in which a shotgun was the deadly weapon of choice."

User avatar #138 to #133 - madmario
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
#140 to #138 - playerdous
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
I like this one. But yeah I figured it'd be higher with handguns included. But thats the thing gang members and murderers prefer handguns. Self defense advocates go for shotguns and rifles, Most of which are extremely difficult to kill yourself with by accident.

Still drivers kill more people than guns in every age group.
As for regulations, Canada has fewer and less homicides. UK has more and less homicides.
America is just kill happy.
User avatar #143 to #140 - madmario
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
ah. ok. well cool. thanks for the explaination
User avatar #144 to #143 - playerdous
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
See ya around
User avatar #137 to #133 - madmario
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
but the CDC is saying this. doesn't this mean that guns result in more than half of homocide in 2010? I mean, your statistic is treating shotguns and rifles differently (which is fine for laws) but like, as a total, guns seem to be ridiculously easy to obtain and use.

...Does this mean I have the unpopular opinion that guns should be more strictly regulated? The internet is gonna hate me for this
User avatar #130 to #127 - madmario
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
also why is no one linking this to all the gun deaths America has. The more you're explaining this to me, the stupider this all sounds
User avatar #135 to #130 - playerdous
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
User avatar #156 to #26 - dinoking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Thats a nice AK47
User avatar #232 to #26 - dapianoman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
So you're saying it would be better if he had been shot 7 times, instead of stabbed 7 times?
#39 to #26 - becefalus
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
To bad these are illegal to use in self defense.
User avatar #40 to #39 - duudegladiator
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
I thought you were talking about guns, but then i actually realized you were talking about the baton thing.

I really wonder why that isnt allowed..
#53 to #40 - weardowar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
i am pretty sure that is allowed... highly would even think a blunt telescopic object is illegal knowing that a Taser, with cartridge, is totally fine.
User avatar #73 to #53 - beltrami
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
They are very illegal to carry on you. I own 2, they are shockingly powerful. They exist for one reason, break bones. Break em good break em fast! I'd rather be penalized for carrying a concealed weapon than need a weapon and not have it.
#113 to #39 - playerdous
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
These aren't though. specifically ball-peen
User avatar #145 to #113 - becefalus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Yeah, I don;t understand the logic here.
It's not like batons do significantly more damage than a hammer or any other blunt object
User avatar #146 to #145 - playerdous
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Idk why either, construction laws maybe?
I just know about a biker gang that implements them since their legal.
User avatar #301 to #146 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
You would be surprised what a baton can do in the right hands, they can actually do a considerable amount of more damage, in the hands of a well trained individual. It's actually skillfully easier to kill someone, with a baton, than it is, with a hammer. A hammer will bash, that's it, unless you hit someone in the head, multiple times, you're not going to kill them, but a really good baton is like having a bat, that hurts a hell of a lot more, because of the smaller surface area. And since Incapacitating is easier, if you want to kill someone, all it really takes is one swift blow to the back of the neck, and bam, they're dead.
User avatar #310 to #301 - playerdous
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/02/2014) [-]
Same argument could be made for the hammer.
The point is that one of these is legal to carry and one isn't.
#28 to #26 - iheartjackiechan
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(12/31/2013) [-]
Didn't you hear?
The second amendment doesn't exist in NY
User avatar #31 to #28 - VikingSharkPANCH
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Oh yea, forgot about the whole "Give us your assault rifles because we can't use logic" thing.
#32 to #31 - iheartjackiechan
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
What are magazine sizes limited to up there?
Is it 5 or 7 now?
#47 to #32 - anon id: bd740ace
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Was 7, but federal appeals court just shot that part of the SAFE act down, no pun intended. So I think they're back at 10.
User avatar #49 to #47 - captainstinkypinky
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
it's funny, because they rushed that into law so quickly, they forgot to exempt police and military. So basically, any cop who had a fully loaded magazine during the 7 round limit was technically breaking the law.
#126 to #28 - mytrakytra
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
All these laws being passed is ridiculous and more and more keep flooding in. With the SAFE act ******** it will put tears to your eyes of how stupid the laws are. I own a firearm store with my brother and father and so we have to read up on all the laws and it's so ass backwards you could have a stick and the state would label it as an assault rifle.
#157 to #126 - iheartjackiechan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
You own a gun store in NY?
Damn, I feel bad for you.
I'd tell you to move, but it's a store...
We could always use more gun stores in AZ, there's plenty of room here
#158 to #157 - mytrakytra
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
We mostly do paintball so it's not too bad but in our area there is alot of hunters and it kills them too.
#161 to #158 - iheartjackiechan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
It was a stupid law, I don't know what they were thinking.
#164 to #161 - mytrakytra
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Oh well, I just hope NY turns itself around before it completely ***** itself up and I'm not talking about gun control but everything in general.
#165 to #164 - iheartjackiechan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
When is the new Mayor taking over?
#168 to #165 - mytrakytra
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
I'm not sure but Happy New Years!
#169 to #168 - iheartjackiechan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
You too, I've still got another 1.5 hours
User avatar #42 to #26 - dellexe
Reply +132 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Call 911, response time 10 minutes.
Call m1911, response time 5 seconds.
User avatar #136 to #42 - imnotkickthecat
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
It takes you 5 seconds to get your 1911 ready? Casual. I have over 9000 of them in strategic locations around my house just in case. And by strategic location, I mean they are ducktaped to the wall every square foot of the house.
User avatar #215 to #42 - invaderchase
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
How do you call a gun?
User avatar #59 to #42 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
*****, get it right, the response time on a 1911 is 950 fps.
#240 to #59 - PadreRasta
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
If you said 950 frames, we could have bought it.
If you said 950ms(miliseconds), we could have bought it.
But you throw us the amount of times a monitor(or whatever) updates in a second.
If that was a joke, you gotta admit it was horrible.
User avatar #296 to #240 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
The speed of a .45 acp bullet, out of a hand gun, averages out to about 950 feet per a second
User avatar #306 to #296 - PadreRasta
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
FPS is the general abbreviation for Frames per Second.
If you're talking about feet per second, you should use ft/s instead.
User avatar #307 to #306 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Feel pretty stupid now, but it was a minor mistake.
User avatar #308 to #307 - PadreRasta
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Minor mistake that made you look like one of those kids that are addicted to CoD/BF.
User avatar #309 to #308 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
oh dear god no, I actually do quite a bit of shooting. Just had a brain fart when I wrote that. I actually have the flu right now, and am taking tamaflu, or some ****, hate the hell out of it, for the most part, I feel and look like I am seriously drunk, it's painful as hell too, sore as a ************. But I actually own an Zastava AK47, a Remington 1940 Mosin Nagant, and am getting one of those milsurp Belgian Hi Power clones. Hell, I am the most gun literate, and most knowledgeable, in my gun hunting, fuddish, extended family, and I am usually the guy in my family, who slaps the **** out of my CoD addict, younger cousins, with accurate gun facts. So like I said, it's this medication that's making me stupid.
User avatar #297 to #296 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Do you get it now?
#114 - Deeticky
Reply +96 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Ok guys, I'm going to clarify a couple things for you.

1: Joe Lozito is telling his side of the story, and the NYPD is telling theirs. As of right now, there isn't any evidence giving good credit to either side of the story. This is why the case is being reviewed by the courts. This does not mean Joe lied or that he isn't a hero, it just means that we can't know for certain exactly what happened yet.

2: I've been hearing a lot of complaining about this "no duty to protect" thing. People are not understanding what that really means though. This doesn't mean that an officer can just sit there and munch on popcorn while somebody is being attacked. What it does mean is that an officer of the law cannot be held liable in court for the injuries sustained by the victim of a crime-It is the perpetrator who is held liable. The police are legally required to enforce the laws of the United States and therefore must intervene when something like this happens.

Come on, guys, un-sourced images like this are just meant to stir up anger and go viral. You can't just believe everything you read on the internet. That being said, the NYPD, just like many other big-city police departments, could use a lot more regulation and review. If you'd like to take part in solving the issue, vote for politicians who have police review as part of their agenda. If you want to know what I believe, it's that Joe was a hero who took the guy down, and the police aren't giving him enough credit. The problem is, pictures like this don't really help-they just make people mad and ignorant of the law.

User avatar #208 to #114 - ipartywithpedobear
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
1. the guy got ******* stabbed 7 times, and clearly has stab marks. that's not evidence in his side of the story?

2. there's nothing i can really argue with here, so please answer #1
User avatar #286 to #208 - Deeticky
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
No one is disputing him getting stabbed. The question is about whether:

A: Did the police just stand there and do nothing while he was being stabbed?

B: Are the police responsible for his injuries do to negligence on the part of the officers?
#227 to #208 - anon id: a7af1055
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
george zimmerman got his head smashed in, and it was pretty blatant but apparently it took like 6 months to figure out that it did indeed happen the way that he said it did
User avatar #230 to #227 - ipartywithpedobear
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
that's because the media takes the ******** side every time simply out of fear of looking racist.


this one literally makes no sense
User avatar #132 to #114 - shadowbreech
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
I see a contradiction there so I may need clarification... Or I may be calling out ********...
"The police are legally required to enforce the laws of the United States and therefore must intervene when something like this happens," doesn't that mean their duty is to protect citizens? More importantly, if cops aren't supposed to protect people, then wtf are they supposed to be doing?!
User avatar #142 to #132 - Deeticky
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
I'd be happy to explain what I meant. As you know, assaulting someone with a deadly weapon is illegal. The police were therefore required to intervene is this situation, which they did. However, there is no specific law on the the books saying that an officer must prevent any and all injuries during an attack like this (That would be impossible, obviously.) Mr. Lozito was defending himself from the perpetrator, and then the police arrived and apprehended the suspect. Mr. Lozito is suing the police department, which he a right to do, and the "no duty to protect" argument is their defense. It will be up to the courts to decide who is right.

In summary, there is no specific duty for officers to protect citizens. The supreme court has already ruled on that. However, most laws on the books protect citizens, and the officers have a duty to enforce those laws. Therefore, protecting citizens and enforcing laws more often than not are the same thing.
#312 to #142 - shadowbreech
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/03/2014) [-]
I see... I disagree with that ruling but there's nothing I can really do about it...
Ok, thank you for the explanation.
<- An unrelated Gif gift
#313 to #312 - shadowbreech
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/03/2014) [-]
Mfw thats not a Gif...
#174 to #114 - anon id: c4c54216
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
This.
User avatar #241 to #114 - tornadomad
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Sorry to do this, but "police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
User avatar #284 to #241 - Deeticky
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Yep. Don't know why you're sorry though? That's the case I'm referring to, and It's exactly what I'm talking about. There is no duty to any individual, but rather the duty is to the laws of the United Sates. Thanks for reminding me of the case's name.
#287 to #284 - tornadomad
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
>police trying to say they don't have to police
User avatar #289 to #287 - Deeticky
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Depends on your definition of "policing", I guess... Some jurisdictions are much more efficient about it than others, that's for sure.
User avatar #274 to #241 - cadencee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
If this is true then it should not be illegal to carry knives with you in public as a method of protection. If no one is obligated to protect you then you should have the right to the means of protecting yourself from an armed threat. People think these laws prevent people from getting hurt but really, if someone intends to use the knives to attack people do you really think they will give a **** about what the laws say?
User avatar #285 to #274 - Deeticky
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
The police aren't obliged to protect you, but the laws are, and the police are obliged to uphold the laws.
#263 to #114 - anon id: 30310769
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
If this took place in any other place, I would not be quick to believe it. This is the NYPD we are talking about though.
User avatar #283 to #263 - Deeticky
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
I never said I didn't believe his story, I just don't like images like this that are intentionally misleading about the law. Also, yes, the NYPD, like many other big-city police departments have a lot of problems. Please vote for politicians who will do something about it.
User avatar #273 to #114 - cadencee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Remember that when it comes between word of mouth the law always win and they have abused this many many times over history. Police officers have gotten away with monstrous behavior and unlawful practices due to this.

Who has more to gain by lying? The man who was brutally assaulted by a serial killer or the police officers?

Let us say that they did help him and he said they didnt, what does he gain? Well, for one he is an ungrateful cunt and a disgusting human being but does he actually gain anything? Not unless he sues them but he would have a really poor case for it.

Let us say that he was telling the truth, suddenly the police are called into question, are they really obligated to protect us? Are they doing their jobs? Are we safe? They HAVE to lie or they lose all credibility (not to mention their jobs) so i am more inclined to believe the man who fought off a serial killer simply with my plagiarism of pascals wager.
User avatar #282 to #273 - Deeticky
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
He is suing the department. Also, I never said I didn't believe him. I just don't like un-sourced pictures like this that are just meant to go viral on Facebook instead of actually educating people about anything.
User avatar #117 to #114 - playerdous
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
I agree
But I'd like to add that sometimes you need to make people upset enough to do something, not random violence, but enough to get someone to contribute to the betterment of society.
User avatar #125 to #117 - Deeticky
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
You're right about people doing more when they're upset. I just wish people would do more research before they get mad.
#148 to #114 - bitchpleaseshutup
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#118 to #114 - eminemisthebest
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
yoyomoffo should sticky this
#187 to #114 - afroadam
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
User avatar #8 - Grom
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(12/31/2013) [-]
a 70's supreme court ruling found that it is NOT the duty of police officers to protect citizens, but to uphold the law no matter what that entails.
User avatar #76 to #8 - rokkarokkaali
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
I'm pretty sure stabbing a guy 7 times is against some law.
User avatar #16 to #8 - commontroll
Reply +63 123456789123345869
(12/31/2013) [-]
And that is why I am pro concealed carry. So many people are under the belief that police are here to protect us. Sadly, they don't have the numbers or equipment to do so.
User avatar #69 to #16 - wfddfw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
I am too.
that's why I can't wait to get out of Connecticut. New gun law just passed in effect tomorrow that requires ALL firearms to be registered. If they aren't, you're a Class D felon.
#175 to #69 - brendantheferret
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Just register it then
Just register it then
User avatar #299 to #175 - wfddfw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
mine is. It's the principal of it though. We have the 2nd Amendment for a reason. To bear arms. Connecticut is doing this so they can come and take away our guns later.
User avatar #304 to #299 - brendantheferret
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Yeah. I think we need some gun control, but most of what we're doing is ass-backwards and won't help anything
#30 to #16 - anon id: 71aa6a7d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
problem with concealed carry is that the desperate person simply shoots first when you'tr not ready and takes what they want after you collapse. That way they avoid any potential repsonse. If they know you're unarmed (like in most civilized countries) they point the gun/knife and demand your stuff. You hand it over but you get to live.
If I were desperate and wanted your stuff but you had a gun. I'd wait until you were just getting into you car at the gas station/super market/whatever and concentrating on your daily affairs, id then walk past like nothing out of the ordinary - turn - shoot and take. But if I know you didnt have a gun I'd not step up to murder, I'd just say give me the keys now or Ill shoot you.
User avatar #33 to #30 - commontroll
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Most people who carry a gun for self defense recognize when it's worth it or not. I'd rather have a gun and be shot once and them run away and live afterward than be stabbed by a random person seven times and not have anything to protect myself other than my hand-to-hand combat skills (which are pretty damn good).

Here's the thing, guns are not a guaranteed kill. In fact, hand guns really don't kill very often or very quickly. Most criminals don't want to kill somebody. If you act calmly and tell them you're taking out your wallet and do it slowly, they probably won't panic. Pick your battles, but also know that being shot is not a guaranteed death. People who aren't used to guns tend to not remember that.
#37 to #33 - anon id: 71aa6a7d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
If there was a chance you carried a gun and I really wanted your stuff Id just kill you by surpise. Your gun on hand to hand wont help you when I shot you four times in the back. Then id take your lovely gun and truck. Ditch truck, sell gun, smoke crack, **** whores, good afternoon by all acocunts.
#43 to #37 - anon id: 71aa6a7d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Actually... Come to think of it. Now that i've decided you may have a gun and I'm going to get you by surprise I could probably even do the job easily with a knife. Wham in the side of the neck/head when you're not looking.
Though, not being too reckless, just wanting drugs, I'd prefer to know you didnt have a gun. Then Id simply say 'look I have a knife, pass me your wallet then lie down and count to ten - no funny buisness"
#46 to #43 - anon id: bd740ace
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
The problem with your "logic" is that these are opportunists looking for money, not murder. Murder draws too much attention and very harsh punishment. Criminals usually don't want anywhere near that much attention, they want a bit of drug money, they go looking for an easier target.
There are exceptions of course, like MS 13 and other hardcore gangs, but they kill because of social pressure and the expectations of their gangs and the need to prove themselves. Whether the target is armed or not does not matter. Me, I'd rather have a shot at self defense.

You are presenting a much better argument that you're a sociopath than that self defense is dangerous.
#51 to #46 - anon id: 71aa6a7d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
My argument is simple. You're not going to stop a person in a desperate situation finding a means. All CC is doing is limiting the choices the desperate person has, not as you hope, changing their desperate situation.
Making it more dangerous for the would be mugger only means many they will make it more dangerous for you.


#84 to #51 - anon id: 353b4d78
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Except that isn't what happens in most cases. Muggers more often than no don't want to kill anyone; and when confronted they run. Just look at any of the numerous videos from gas stations where someone pulls a gun. Even when they themselves are armed the get the **** out of dodge.
#87 to #84 - anon id: 71aa6a7d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
thats because a gun is still an anomoly. Would be muggers are not going in prepared for **** to get hot. If CC were legal for everyone the muggers would be mentally prep'd. And things get more dangrous for evryone.
And ofcourse they dont usually want to kill anyone but by being a threat yourself your making it harder for them not to.
User avatar #311 to #87 - commontroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/02/2014) [-]
I'm from Texas, getting a CHL is available for everybody over 21. Muggers rarely kill people for their money. When it's just a robbery, it's a lot less likely to be caught. Murder however, that's a hell of a lot more likely for you to be caught, and when you are, it's a way worse punishment.

Your argument is invalid Anon. Just give it up.
#315 to #311 - anon id: 71aa6a7d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/05/2014) [-]
CHL is still pretty rare in Texas (1.X%), a CHL is still an anamoly. Your counter argument is invalid. I dont live in texas, you can do what you want, I just dont want your second hand stolen guns in my country. I still maintain that if 25%+ of the population carried guns your murder rate would soar.
#314 to #311 - anon id: 71aa6a7d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/05/2014) [-]
I dont think the argument is invalid at all. You surely have said nothing to sway me from that fact. In fact th older I've become the more the idea has settled as the smarter path.
Texas is a shining star to the rest of the civilised world. No wait, I meant a reminder for us not to travel back to a 1950's mentality. Good luck, you'll obviously need it more than me.
User avatar #316 to #314 - commontroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/05/2014) [-]
I have a feeling that your idea of what Texas is according to just media and stereotypes. I can assure you that it is not similar to what you believe it to be at all. And most gun murders are from stolen "hot" guns in ghetto neighborhoods, guns that are unregistered and off the books. Just like any other place, some neighborhoods are far worse than others when it comes to violence. Just a different preferred weapon than places like Britain.
User avatar #81 to #30 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
What makes you think a simple mugger will not think twice about escalating things up to murder? You'll find that criminals aren't so brave when the odds are not stacked in their favor.

But the worse part is that you're advocating what is tantamount to living on your knees, cowering and being victimized like some sort of subhuman. It's a sick world where you let the thugs impose their will with no possible recourse. Firearms are the great equalizer: The weakest of us can become just as deadly as the strongest aggressors.
A civilized country does not deny its people the means they need to defend themselves. It's my right to arm myself, regardless of whatever flawed logic you wish to employ.
#90 to #81 - anon id: 71aa6a7d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Its not living on your knees at all. Its a mere fleating moment in my otherwise very free and enjoyable life. For that one moment I'll do whats best to survive so I can continue to bread win for my family. If he's a repeat offender the crook will be caught in time, go to jail, no one dies.

The thug has no real power. In the real world they usually just get a wallet before being arrested at home a few days later.

In a civilized country people dont carry weapons.
#35 to #30 - anon id: df2611e4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
see, the problem is that it's called concealed carry for a reason, because the person would have no idea if the guy they are robbing is carying something or not. if they were willing enough to shoot the person they were mugging, it wouldn't matter if the victim had a gun or not.

the problem with the anti-gun/anti-CC arguments is that most of them SAY the old "if i were going to X, i would Y" as if it were as easy as 1-2-3 to do. in the actual situation, those same people would probably pussy out or react how every other mugger would react when someone pulls a gun back at them, they either shoot and get jailed for murder or they run and probably get shot.

also the whole gas station/super market idea is borderline retarded since there are so many witnesses and security cameras as well as outside activity you'd get maybe a block away at most before something happened
#38 to #35 - anon id: 71aa6a7d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Its easy, in a CC country you just assume all persons are carrying and shoot all marks before robbing them. In a civilized place you assume no one has a gun and you can simply fireghten them into giving you the money for your next drug fueled binge.
#45 to #38 - anon id: bd740ace
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
That's messy as **** and brings down far too much attention. They're muggers and not serial killers for a reason.
#48 to #45 - anon id: 71aa6a7d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Exactly, CC forces the desperate ones to step up.
#36 to #35 - anon id: 71aa6a7d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
I disagree with your first statement, Just because a mugger is prepared to kill does not mean he/she will if not forced to. They would 'probably' (i know i know) prefer you just gave them your stuff.
Also, as I said, If I think you have a gun and im deprerate I'd kill you by surprise to get what I want.
South Africa is CC and they have shot first muggings quite often.
#74 - betars
Reply +50 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
>Police have no duty to protect citizens. They want citizens protect themselves.
>Wanting to ban guns


what.
#96 to #74 - anon id: 71aa6a7d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Best way to protect citizens; protect them from themsleves, remove guns.
#110 to #96 - anon id: 23c71805
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
I forgot about all those lovely law abiding criminals that would never, ever dare to attempt to illegally obtain a gun if it was outlawed...

I mean, it's just like how they never obtain any drugs...

Oh wait...
#56 - ianmcgunny
Reply +30 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
>tfw "To Protect and Serve."
User avatar #58 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Uh, the police don't have a civic duty to protect human lives, their only duty is to enforce the laws that be.
User avatar #72 to #58 - IamSofaKingdom
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Their slogan says protect right in it. Police are duty bound to stop an assault, especially if they are feet away watching a man get stabbed repeatedly.
#77 to #72 - anon id: 861bf018
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Actually you're ******* wrong.
Since people can now sue an officer for "not getting there sooner" or blame any injuries during the assault on the officer's "incompetence".
Try reading the news once in a while.
User avatar #63 to #58 - approval
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Stabbing and killing people is against the law. This guy was most likely on a wanted list. Truth is the police yet again failed to do their job.
User avatar #68 to #63 - bothemastaofall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
he's right. time after time again courts have ruled that the police don't have to help you if they don't want to.
User avatar #79 to #68 - approval
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
I don't doubt it and I can actually see that happening. The thing I have a problem with is if this is the case and someone is breaking the law in front of an officer and the officer isn't willing to do anything then it only means they only enforce the law when they want to.
#41 - ninjabadger
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
No legal duty to protect citizens...

You have firearms and other tools to stop criminals, so you better make it your goddamn business to protect people merely because it's human decency. If you can't even do that, then you're just a pathetic excuse of a person (assuming you have the means to protect someone).

And I mean really, the ************ was committing a crime by trying to kill someone, so at least do the job that you are "legally obligated" to do. That's just an absolute disgrace to public service.

I have family members in the police force and medical fields, so I do understand there are a ton of good public servicemen (and servicewomen). That's what makes this even sadder of an issue. But all of this is on the basis of what's been provided, there could have been some other piece of this that might've prevented them from helping (it better have been a damn good one too).
User avatar #55 to #41 - rolston
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Welcome to America were most politicians want to take away all the guns so that when crime gets to bad or no one has them they can use the military and make it communistic and control it with out a rebellion.
User avatar #120 to #41 - jabzilla
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
dude what is the source of that amazing assassin picture?
#128 to #120 - ninjabadger
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
I have so many, I couldn't tell you. Terribly sorry about that.

However I am confident that I found it on Deviantart, like many of my assassin pics.
User avatar #131 to #128 - jabzilla
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
lnice. I understand. thank you for the awesome pictures though
#134 to #131 - ninjabadger
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
Sure thing, always glad to meet assassin fans like myself.
User avatar #298 to #134 - jabzilla
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/01/2014) [-]
lol you have a lot of cool pictures ive never seen before. yeah its always nice to find new assassins creed fans.