Justice. .. That's because, in theory, the laws do the protecting. Justice That's because in theory the laws do protecting
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (446)
[ 446 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
52 comments displayed.
#14 - aldheim
Reply +252
(02/19/2013) [-]
That's because, in theory, the laws do the protecting.
#233 to #14 - anon
Reply 0
(02/20/2013) [-]
it means i the police watch you getting stabbed they have no obligation to do anything. A man in a subway in new york was stabbed while police watched from three feet away behind a glass door and did nothing. Man sued police, no convictions
#282 to #233 - vishnapalm
Reply +4
(02/20/2013) [-]
I'm gonna call bs.... There are plenty of violations against the law there... Assault, Attempted Murder, etc and if he was being mugged, well there's a whole new set of chargers there.
#241 to #233 - cabbagemayhem
Reply -2
(02/20/2013) [-]
and who's idea was it that only police should have guns?
#309 to #14 - lolzordz
Reply +2
(02/20/2013) [-]
but that means its not their duty to save a drowning child or something cos its not in the law
#310 to #309 - aldheim
Reply +7
(02/20/2013) [-]
It's not your duty either.
But I damn well hope you'd do it.
#314 to #310 - lolzordz
Reply +1
(02/20/2013) [-]
course I would, its just i heard that british police are actually told NOT to save drowning children.. search on google
#318 to #314 - aldheim
Reply +1
(02/20/2013) [-]
I don't need to look it up to know that your source is, at best, out of context.
#322 to #318 - lolzordz
Reply 0
(02/20/2013) [-]
well the law isnt very protecting in a situation like that, i dont think im speaking out of context here
#312 to #309 - fractalius
Reply -1
(02/20/2013) [-]
Well it's not.

I mean, if you saw a child struggling, you may or may not save them depending on what kinda person you are (I think I would too) But it isn't your duty.

The reason they said that, was because so many stupid ******* get really good lawyers for free who find loopholes in every god damn law, so they have to abolish laws like that to prevent people from getting out of time in prison due to a loop hole.

It's like when that faggot in your class talks back to your teacher, and then gets his mom to waver any punishment, even though he deserves it for being such a prick to someone he should respect.
#381 to #14 - cocorosie
Reply +2
(02/20/2013) [-]
Laws only protect people when the enforcers are on their side.
#28 - tinybroadcaster
Reply +138
(02/19/2013) [-]
She has no boobs.
#351 to #28 - kailybailybo
Reply -1
(02/20/2013) [-]
I'd still do.


And i'm not even a guy.
#31 to #28 - Maroon ONLINE
Reply +24
(02/19/2013) [-]
but her face is so pretty
#338 to #31 - buttinspecter
Reply 0
(02/20/2013) [-]
It's a tough decision. I have a hand on my dick. Do I yank or not?
#79 - followtheworms
Reply +71
(02/19/2013) [-]
If a citizen needs protecting, than most likely somebody was breaking the law in the first place.

Cops face when
#192 to #79 - bulbakip
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
What about victimless crimes?
#57 - bloodofthedragon
Reply +65
(02/19/2013) [-]
#58 - felixjarl
Reply +62
(02/19/2013) [-]
This image has expired
#67 to #58 - anon
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
pretty sure you can do whatever you want in a country whose laws are governed and enforced by wild sheep
#253 to #58 - anon
Reply 0
(02/20/2013) [-]
So if I move there do I have the right to build my very own rape dungeon?
#200 to #58 - stlbecker
Reply +1
(02/20/2013) [-]
america has atleast 6 more freedoms than new zealand. last time i checked new zealand only had 44 freedoms??
#72 to #58 - thereasonableperso
Reply +17
(02/19/2013) [-]
*cough* orc infestation *cough*
#22 - rathje
Reply +51
(02/19/2013) [-]
At first this had me pretty upset.
Then i realised I'm not American; I will never live there, ever.
The ***** i give are none existent.
It actually sort of amuses me.
#83 to #22 - anon
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
******* communist danefag
kill yourself, you are a digrace to the land of freedom ************
#96 to #83 - rathje
Reply -1
(02/19/2013) [-]
And that is why i agree with the second amendment.
#91 to #22 - anon
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
Oh NO! A person with coming from the country with the most mentally ill people and a ****** economy doesn't like us! Man the *********** tanks!

Nah.
#99 to #91 - rathje
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
I think a U.S. citizen is the last person who should be giving lectures on bad economy.
#160 to #99 - toosexyforyou
Reply +5
(02/19/2013) [-]
You're kidding, right?
#173 to #160 - firesky
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
There is worse (Best Korea for example), but modern "slavery" with the help of the IMF and a ******** of debts isn't the best example for good economy.
#408 to #173 - rathje
Reply 0
(02/20/2013) [-]
and the fact that if the government stopped funding their several decade long murdering spree (Talking about their military), then they'd basically be ******.
#330 to #99 - alexdevlin
Reply +1
(02/20/2013) [-]
That anon has the right intention, but his wording is somewhat sloppy and gives a negative manner. Just keep in mind how others might respond to your opinion why 'you' dislike America and how your opinion will just bring anger to others
#186 to #22 - thenickel
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
It amuses me that you are upset by this.

Anything can be justified by a police officer if they claim to be protecting citizens, while enforcing the law is more concrete. "Protecting citizens" is too subjective of a term to define anything.
#202 to #186 - rathje
Reply 0
(02/20/2013) [-]
"The term police comes from Old French policie, essentially meaning 'civil organization'; it comes from Late Latin poilita; in turn from Latin, meaning 'the State'; coming from Greek politeia, coming from poiltes, meaning 'citizen', from polis, meaning 'city'."

Because it comes with the word "police"
#278 to #202 - thenickel
Reply 0
(02/20/2013) [-]
The root of the word is irrelevant.
#89 to #22 - facedodge
Reply +1
(02/19/2013) [-]
Thanks for sharing.
#100 - jblackmetal
Reply +43
(02/19/2013) [-]
**jblackmetal rolls 33**
**jblackmetal rolls 33**
#184 - thenickel
Reply +29
(02/19/2013) [-]
You have to pick one or the other, as often they can contradict each other. "Protecting citizens" is subjective and causes loopholes, enforcing laws is more concrete. Stop looking for justification that the US is an evil military state.
#250 to #184 - anon
Reply 0
(02/20/2013) [-]
The case was a man being stabbed in a subway while police were watching from three feet away behind a door and did nothing other than watch. Feel safe?
#272 to #250 - thenickel
Reply +1
(02/20/2013) [-]
You can always point out specific exceptions. Those are flaws with human beings and human nature. I doubt telling the police officers in question beforehand to protect citizens instead of upholding laws would have made a difference.
#313 - Soilwork
Reply +18
(02/20/2013) [-]
how the law is in texas
#339 to #313 - josieabby
Reply +24
(02/20/2013) [-]
#354 to #339 - pokemonstheshiz ONLINE
Reply +2
(02/20/2013) [-]
That's actually what I named my router
#81 - bronywhat
Reply +23
(02/19/2013) [-]
...So what? And what does "protecting the citizens" even mean exactly? The laws protect the citizens.
#90 to #81 - Zarke
Reply -3
(02/19/2013) [-]
Not exactly. Laws like speed limits are guidelines that protect the citizens. Laws prohibiting murder and rape simply allow those crimes to be punished fairly in a court of law.
#166 to #90 - anon
Reply 0
(02/19/2013) [-]
Actually if a cop sees someone being raped or murdered they're legally obligated to stop said rape/murder.

So yeah, they do protect citizens... so long as an enforcer is actually around during the crime. Of course, there are stupid laws/issues not covered, but this is speaking from a general sense.
#240 to #81 - anon
Reply 0
(02/20/2013) [-]
If you are being stabbed to death and policeman is standing literally three feet away he can watch you getting stabbed and do nothing and not be charged with a crime. This was the actual case in trial.