Comments(1077):
Back to the content 'SJW Gets Arrested, Screams Rape' Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFsAnonymous comments allowed.
43 comments displayed.
#703
-
anoxz (07/31/2015) [-] 
Correct me if I'm wrong... But the only fault this police officer did, was not reading her, her rights, when he hand-cuffed her. "Right to remail silent" and all that.
But he handed the situation quite wll, and this SJW or what you may call it, is why we are not getting any Social Justice, but on a slow decent into Social Decay.
But he handed the situation quite wll, and this SJW or what you may call it, is why we are not getting any Social Justice, but on a slow decent into Social Decay.
#730 to #703
-
civicdoodies (07/31/2015) [-] He doesn't have to read her her rights immediately upon arrest, but anything she says from the point of arrest up to the reading could theoretically be excluded in court, but officers do get some leeway in the heat of an arrest.
#698
-
Rellikthebrit (07/31/2015) [-] That officer deserves a medal. He was so patient and polite and nice to her throughout the ordeal.
#719 to #717
-
Rellikthebrit (07/31/2015) [-] Even so i he did extremely well and i think cops get a bad press 90% are lovely people who want to help. it's the 10% that give them a bad name i mean i've experienced some bad rozzers but they are mostly really friendly.
#775 to #717
-
multichicken (07/31/2015) [-] well not always, most officers who do not like being put on camera would likely yank the thing away, he just let her keep filming. if your a good cop and honest youll let them film so you can use it as evidence.
#697
-
Underground (07/31/2015) [-] "We have all the rights of a US citizen without following any of their laws!"
"...Well that would just be anarchy."
I feel for the officer just trying to get on with his day and this self righteous bitch is quoting **** that doesn't even make sense..
"...Well that would just be anarchy."
I feel for the officer just trying to get on with his day and this self righteous bitch is quoting **** that doesn't even make sense..
#674
-
anon (07/31/2015) [-] > Tries to use Articles of Confederation, which was replaced by the Constitution, again the cop
> Tries to say that she doesn't have to follow US Laws because she's a self-proclaimed "free inhabitant"
> Screams rape when the cop touches, at the most, her arms
... this cunt made me want to go on an SJW murder spree
> Tries to say that she doesn't have to follow US Laws because she's a self-proclaimed "free inhabitant"
> Screams rape when the cop touches, at the most, her arms
... this cunt made me want to go on an SJW murder spree
#660
-
noscoper (07/31/2015) [-] No offense, but now I understand why some cops are killing black people.
#253
-
jcolessgt (07/31/2015) [-] this is ******* stupid. "free in habitants" only apply to former slaves during the American civil era.
#187
-
kevintothemax ONLINE (07/31/2015) [-] That's exactly how an officer should act in that situation, calm throughout the entire thing.
#116
-
heilhotwheels (07/31/2015) [-] It's so satisfying to see someone who was clearly a spoiled Daddy's girl not get her way, and proceed to try every tactic in the book to no avail
#143
-
nanako (07/31/2015) [-] From reddit
_
According to this University of Chicago website Article IV in verbatim is: "The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state, of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them.".
To better understand this Article I decided to look up what a "free inhabitant" was, and according to this Official USA Census website a "free inhabitant" was simply a free person, AKA a person that was not a slave. Therefore, Article IV basically says that free inhabitants, who were not homeless (vagabonds), extremely poor so as to be on state welfare (paupers), or criminals, could travel freely between the several states and be protected in each as if they were a citizen of that state. The catch is that this protection came with a duty to follow the laws of that state (eg needing a driving licence in order to drive in California). In conclusion, Article IV's goal was to allow the free people of the several states to move freely between the states, so as to "perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse" (giggity).
TL;DR the girl in this video is stupid and doesn't know what she's saying._
press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s5.html
_
According to this University of Chicago website Article IV in verbatim is: "The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state, of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them.".
To better understand this Article I decided to look up what a "free inhabitant" was, and according to this Official USA Census website a "free inhabitant" was simply a free person, AKA a person that was not a slave. Therefore, Article IV basically says that free inhabitants, who were not homeless (vagabonds), extremely poor so as to be on state welfare (paupers), or criminals, could travel freely between the several states and be protected in each as if they were a citizen of that state. The catch is that this protection came with a duty to follow the laws of that state (eg needing a driving licence in order to drive in California). In conclusion, Article IV's goal was to allow the free people of the several states to move freely between the states, so as to "perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse" (giggity).
TL;DR the girl in this video is stupid and doesn't know what she's saying._
press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s5.html
#166 to #143
-
justtocomment (07/31/2015) [-]
Really it was an old law when there were still states being ratified into the Union. Essentially, people from the provinces were to be treated like US citizens.
#189 to #166
-
fatminion ONLINE (07/31/2015) [-] yeah, and the 2nd amendment is an even older law from a time where a well-regulated militia was a necessary part of life to protect from the tyrannical oppression of the British. But yeah - that one we will uphold even when the US has like 10x more firearm-related deaths per capita than any other developed nation on Earth.
#197 to #189
-
justtocomment (07/31/2015) [-]
What does that have to do with anything at all here? I mean it is literally an irrelevant law now. We don't have territories pending statehood anymore. We still have guns and a government though.
#209 to #197
-
fatminion ONLINE (07/31/2015) [-] no no, man - well-regulated militia was from a time when there was really no "US Army" to speak of - they didn't want England coming back and invading and **** , and they also wanted the first government (mostly Whigs and Torries anyway - no democracy yet) not to get the idea that they could also occupy the fledgling country and then misuse it.
Look at every other developed country in the West and see that they react to school shootings and mass-shootings and rises in violent crime with according firearm reform. A firearm-crazed culture is a dangerous one. Just look at the numbers:
www.miketheburns.com/wiki-stats/us-vs-europe/
the US has 10x more weapons in circulation per 100,000 people (and that's only reported weapons - in the EU you are required to report firearm ownership and it is estimated that only 5-10% of firearms are illegal or not reported). And look at the violent crime and firearm-related death/homicide - 10x higher! DIRECT ******* CORRELATION!
I know correlation is not necessarily the same as causation, but the pattern holds true for every single developed nation. It should sure as hell be something to consider. Are the second-amendment rights of the wayward farmer more important than the lives taken by mentally disturbed inner-city teens?
Look at every other developed country in the West and see that they react to school shootings and mass-shootings and rises in violent crime with according firearm reform. A firearm-crazed culture is a dangerous one. Just look at the numbers:
www.miketheburns.com/wiki-stats/us-vs-europe/
the US has 10x more weapons in circulation per 100,000 people (and that's only reported weapons - in the EU you are required to report firearm ownership and it is estimated that only 5-10% of firearms are illegal or not reported). And look at the violent crime and firearm-related death/homicide - 10x higher! DIRECT ******* CORRELATION!
I know correlation is not necessarily the same as causation, but the pattern holds true for every single developed nation. It should sure as hell be something to consider. Are the second-amendment rights of the wayward farmer more important than the lives taken by mentally disturbed inner-city teens?
#217 to #209
-
justtocomment (07/31/2015) [-]
The existence of a militia is still protected preemptively in the event that one is needed. And the wording of the 2nd amendment is the defining factor of its debate to this day. Some argue it defends the organization of a militia along with the right to bear arms (much how the 1st amendment covers several rights that are not mutually inclusive or exclusive to each other) or if it defends the right to bear arms only for the intended arming of a militia.
The argument either way is whether the organization of a militia was to combat just the aggregators from outside, or threats both foreign and domestic. The problem with both is obviously who gets to define such a threat but that is a discussion for another day.
The largest thing to consider in American gun crime is how little of it is perpetrated by legally-armed citizens. In Texas (I use it as an example for its media fame as gun-friendly) less than 30% of gun crime in 2011 was actually committed by legal and licensed gun owners. And that number is anticipated to decrease over the next few years.
The argument either way is whether the organization of a militia was to combat just the aggregators from outside, or threats both foreign and domestic. The problem with both is obviously who gets to define such a threat but that is a discussion for another day.
The largest thing to consider in American gun crime is how little of it is perpetrated by legally-armed citizens. In Texas (I use it as an example for its media fame as gun-friendly) less than 30% of gun crime in 2011 was actually committed by legal and licensed gun owners. And that number is anticipated to decrease over the next few years.
#227 to #217
-
fatminion ONLINE (07/31/2015) [-] agreed, but by severely limiting the manufacture and sale of high-powered firearms and munition, controlling import/export, instituting mandatory national registry, higher penalties for improper storage and ownership, higher age for firearm ownership, more rigorous license tests (including psychological tests and proof of "need") and many other things European nations have in place pretty much ensures that guns don't even have half a chance of getting into the hands of bad guys. Imagine, if you will, a world where you can't buy bullets unless you present a valid firearm license that you have to renew every five years. No ****** or gangster or mentally-ill teenager would be able to get bullets. And anyone who legally buys bullets can only buy for a gun he owns, and he can't stockpile munition or guns without investigation - this basically brings the sale of black-market munition/arms to a grinding halt. Then make the penalty for illegal sale 5 years and 1 million $, and nobody will want to risk it. Then also mandate 24-hour camera in all firearm stores so you can't just claim to not have sold stock. I'm telling you - these measures WORK. It takes a decade or two to get it going, but it really works.
#400 to #227
-
justtocomment (07/31/2015) [-]
If I were at home, I would screen cap a conversation I had two days ago and you'd see how much we agree.
I believe in restricting munitions sales because I think that a militia is not a realistic need any more. I believe that a few boxes of ammo is reasonable - with a caveat that shooting ranges be given greater access so people can continue to enjoy their recreational shooting.
I believe more training and certification is required for anyone who wishes to own a firearm - beyond the simple "can you shoot it, are you crazy?" We need to ensure these people are properly trained and equipped to safely store and protect their firearms.
I do not believe, however, that access to firearms is what drives the crime in this country. Obviously of you decrease gun access, you decrease gun crime - but crime overall won't drop to the same extent. I believe there are a myriad of social diseases eating at this country and certain locations therein that need to be addressed, and guns are merely a vessel for the symptoms. A flu makes you sneeze - a nose is just where the snot comes from. The disease won't be cured or made better by removing the nose.
I believe in restricting munitions sales because I think that a militia is not a realistic need any more. I believe that a few boxes of ammo is reasonable - with a caveat that shooting ranges be given greater access so people can continue to enjoy their recreational shooting.
I believe more training and certification is required for anyone who wishes to own a firearm - beyond the simple "can you shoot it, are you crazy?" We need to ensure these people are properly trained and equipped to safely store and protect their firearms.
I do not believe, however, that access to firearms is what drives the crime in this country. Obviously of you decrease gun access, you decrease gun crime - but crime overall won't drop to the same extent. I believe there are a myriad of social diseases eating at this country and certain locations therein that need to be addressed, and guns are merely a vessel for the symptoms. A flu makes you sneeze - a nose is just where the snot comes from. The disease won't be cured or made better by removing the nose.
#194 to #189
-
justtocomment (07/31/2015) [-]
mobile.twitter.com/cracked/status/621011041611223040/photo/1
update your fear mongering stats, dude.
update your fear mongering stats, dude.
#202 to #194
-
fatminion ONLINE (07/31/2015) [-] git on my level, fagit:
www.miketheburns.com/wiki-stats/us-vs-europe/
Firearm-related deaths per capita - not muder rate. And I'm comparing first-world nations in the EU and in Europe and in Western Europe to the US - not Venezuela. And we see that the firearm-related death rate per 100,000 in Western Europe (so no Russia or Bulgaria and **** ) is 0.8... whereas the US is at 10.6... So... what I said holds true. I even have stats to back it up. Even if we consider only firearm-related homicides per 100,000 per year, and we do all of Europe (including Russia and Bulgaria and **** ), then we have 0.34111 in Europe and 3.55 in the US - so still 10x.
Bam.
www.miketheburns.com/wiki-stats/us-vs-europe/
Firearm-related deaths per capita - not muder rate. And I'm comparing first-world nations in the EU and in Europe and in Western Europe to the US - not Venezuela. And we see that the firearm-related death rate per 100,000 in Western Europe (so no Russia or Bulgaria and **** ) is 0.8... whereas the US is at 10.6... So... what I said holds true. I even have stats to back it up. Even if we consider only firearm-related homicides per 100,000 per year, and we do all of Europe (including Russia and Bulgaria and **** ), then we have 0.34111 in Europe and 3.55 in the US - so still 10x.
Bam.
#208 to #202
-
justtocomment (07/31/2015) [-]
So you're comparing US to Western Europe - that is not "any other developed nation on Earth". You're fear-mongering by comparing the US to a location that has little-to-no firearm ownership at all. You don't even include all of Europe in your stat, and consider it an accurate representation of "all developed nations"?
Nah, step off with that. You're stacking statistics falsely to support claims they don't.
Not to mention the entire point you're making is irrelevant to my statement at all. 2nd ammendment laws are an ongoing process that is relevant in this day and age. Laws regarding people living in territories out west are not.
Nah, step off with that. You're stacking statistics falsely to support claims they don't.
Not to mention the entire point you're making is irrelevant to my statement at all. 2nd ammendment laws are an ongoing process that is relevant in this day and age. Laws regarding people living in territories out west are not.
#216 to #208
-
fatminion ONLINE (07/31/2015) [-] How am I "fear mongering"? I'm not promoting fear - I'm promoting love. Fear motivates us to lock our doors, buy guns, distrust our government and close ourselves off from society. Love prompts us to like our neighbors, help out strangers in need, trust our leaders.
While I will admit it'snot "ever developed nation on Earth", I will encourage you to read the site text and look at the data one more time. I compare the average per capita values for all my statics in the EU nations, all of Europe and all of Western Europe. I just feel like Western Europe is the best comparison to the US because Bulgaria and Romania and Russia are pretty ****** up countries - not even comparable to Mississippi or even Florida. And Russia is too big and brings the population too big and could skew the data.
But anyway, that's why I compare all 3 against the US in GDP, population, firearm-related deaths and violent crime. The data is real and not massaged - you can check out the sources for yourself if you don't believe me.
While I will admit it'snot "ever developed nation on Earth", I will encourage you to read the site text and look at the data one more time. I compare the average per capita values for all my statics in the EU nations, all of Europe and all of Western Europe. I just feel like Western Europe is the best comparison to the US because Bulgaria and Romania and Russia are pretty ****** up countries - not even comparable to Mississippi or even Florida. And Russia is too big and brings the population too big and could skew the data.
But anyway, that's why I compare all 3 against the US in GDP, population, firearm-related deaths and violent crime. The data is real and not massaged - you can check out the sources for yourself if you don't believe me.
#221 to #216
-
justtocomment (07/31/2015) [-]
I don't doubt the validity of your sources or the raw data - but when you handpick nations like that, it's stacking the data. We can argue that the USA is too large to enter as population data, if we want to consider the reason for leaving Russia off the polls.
#230 to #221
-
fatminion ONLINE (07/31/2015) [-] **fatminion used "*roll picture*"**
**fatminion rolled image**did you ******* look at the graphs? Did you read the text? I chose the three data sets BECAUSE they stack up nicely in comparison to US's GDP, population, land mass and ethnic diversity. I just said my personal favourite comparison is Western Europe because the ethnic diversity, GDP and population is the closest to the US, but I've included the EU and Europe as well. Stop trying to nit-pick and read the goddamn text, look at the stats and see the very clear correlation between gun culture (# guns REPORTED in circulation) and firearm-related crime/violent crime.
If you have some more data to counter what I say, or you find fault in my research, please let me know. Otherwise we're just wasting our breath yelling at each other - on a website made for funny internet **** nonetheless.
Here, have a random image and let's quit talking politics and talk funny junk again.
**fatminion rolled image**did you ******* look at the graphs? Did you read the text? I chose the three data sets BECAUSE they stack up nicely in comparison to US's GDP, population, land mass and ethnic diversity. I just said my personal favourite comparison is Western Europe because the ethnic diversity, GDP and population is the closest to the US, but I've included the EU and Europe as well. Stop trying to nit-pick and read the goddamn text, look at the stats and see the very clear correlation between gun culture (# guns REPORTED in circulation) and firearm-related crime/violent crime.
If you have some more data to counter what I say, or you find fault in my research, please let me know. Otherwise we're just wasting our breath yelling at each other - on a website made for funny internet **** nonetheless.
Here, have a random image and let's quit talking politics and talk funny junk again.
#907
-
jimmydeeftp (07/31/2015) [-] I despise all this anti woman **** that's been going around fj lately, but this cop's professionalism is amazingly refreshing to watch.
#860
-
ThatFatMummy (07/31/2015) [-] SJW face when "All of the rights without having to follow any of the laws"
#845
-
mangocurrent (07/31/2015) [-] This is why cops need body cameras.
I want to see more hilarious **** like this.
I want to see more hilarious **** like this.
