Another "just give them what they want" situation...

[mvccd1000]

... that didn't end well, as they so often don't. Why are some here so anxious to take away any means of self-defense?


http://www.wyff4.com/news/30081815/detail.html

"KERSHAW COUNTY, S.C. -- Kershaw County deputies say a man followed a 30-year-old woman who was shopping, kidnapped her, sexually assaulted her, killed her and left her body in a field on Monday.

According to investigators, Beverly Hope Melton called her grandmother on Monday afternoon and said that a man was following her near a Jefferson store and she was afraid.

Kershaw County Sheriff Jim Matthews said that Chesterfield County deputies responded to the reported abduction and found Melton’s car in a ditch on Angelus Road near Jefferson. The car was in reverse, still running, and Melton’s pocketbook was still inside, deputies said.

Deputies went to the convenience store where Melton had been earlier in the day. Investigators said surveillance video from the store showed 23-year-old Nickolas Miller harassing Melton. They said the video also showed Miller’s vehicle.

A be-on-the-alert was issued for the vehicle, and a Chesterfield County deputy pulled Miller over a short time later, according to a police release. Miller was escorted to Jefferson Town Hall where he was questioned. Chesterfield County Sheriff Sam Parker said Miller admitted to kidnapping Melton, sexually assaulting her and then beating her to death."



----------
Surely she stopped the car to just let him take the money; after all, it couldn't have been worth pulling a gun to defend PROPERTY, could it? How was she to know he was after more than just her purse? (Answer: you DON'T know what they're after, which is why it is foolish in the extreme to allow someone to "just take what they want" without making an effort to protect yourself or your family.)

[ellisonz]

1. I don't see how this story in anyway illustrates your commentary.

"According to investigators, Beverly Hope Melton called her grandmother on Monday afternoon and said that a man was following her near a Jefferson store and she was afraid."

She should have called the police.

[Kennah]

2. It's true, she should have called the police ...

... in order to facilitate easy retrieval of the body.

Calling 9-1-1 to say "There's a scary man, but he hasn't done anything to me, and no I don't see a weapon" doesn't rise to the top of the heap.

[ellisonz]

3. What you do is get a police officer to follow you home...

...and make sure the guy doesn't follow. They can also detain him and check for warrants.

They are there to protect and serve. Seriously.

[Kennah]

4. Yeah, sure, good luck with that

There is no individual right of police protection.

They protect and serve the general peace.

[ellisonz]

5. "They protect and serve the general peace."

And as part of the "general" she is entitled to such services...

Don't let negative impressions get in the way of the realization that there are thousands of instances every day where police help every day people.

[S_B_Jackson]

6. Not unless she was under arrest, and therefore had a "special relationship" with the police...

if not then she's got as much entitlement to police protection as do you - which is to say, none.
See Warren v. District of Columbia.

"To Protect and Serve" may sound nifty, but the fact is that the police have no duty to protect you or anyone else, that responsibility lies to each and every individual citizen. The police exist to investigate crimes after they have been committed, to write reports, and to - hopefully - arrest those who have committed the crimes....none of which would have been very helpful for the now-deceased Beverly Melton.

[ellisonz]

16. Cynical view of the police...

[X_Digger]

26. Cynical, Satirical, Farcical, Hypocritical.. what the fuck does that have to do with reality?

Or are you conceding the point, but you just don't like the attitude?

[ellisonz]

27. Keep Digging.

Just admit it - you guys don't like the police, don't think they can do their jobs ably, and have no problem making their jobs harder by encouraging the mass distribution of arms

Have you ever asked a beat cop what their job is like?

[X_Digger]

29. Nice dodge. Do you concede that the police have no obligation to come and protect you when you call?

My family includes two cops (counting in-laws) and one ex-Justice of the Peace who was then a Sheriff's Deputy.

They will flat out tell you that they're under no obligation to help you. They will try, but they're under no legal duty to do so.

[ellisonz]

32. *facepalm*

They will also tell you that in this sort of situation they can and will come to your assistance. By this sort of logic the police would do very little, obviously, that's not true, they do quite a lot. Give them some credit and stop attacking people for saying the police could have helped in this situation, you just come off as insensitive and overly intellectual.

Please, do some reading: http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/aristophanes/clouds.htm

And rethink how you're approaching the world and your fellow reasonable DUers in discussion. If you've never read this work, you can thank me when you're done for sharing such a poignant text.

Aloha.

[X_Digger]

34. What they may try to do is different than what they are legally obligated to do..

If you can't see the difference in your own statements, I can't help you.

Or have you forgotten the core of your own argument?

[div class='excerpt']"They protect and serve the general peace."

And as part of the "general" she is entitled to such services...

Your statement is directly contradicted by multiple case documents:

"The municipality does not have a duty to provide police protection to an individual. It has a duty to the public as a whole, but no one in particular."

"official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection."

"a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."

"absent a 'special relationship' between police and victim, liability for failure to protect an individual citizen against injury caused by another citizen does not rely against police officers."

[SteveW]

68. palmface

You really need to quite creating issues and sounding like your are so-o-o-o above the fray. And behind your charge of "overly intellectual" is the admonition that "we" should "do some reading." Transparent, you are.

Hard fact: The police are under no obligation to protect you. If you disagree, Please post. We'll wait.

But I rather suspect you will dodge and post another rolly-polly!

[Kennah]

49. How did you make the leap ...

... from asserting the police will come and follow someone home providing personal security over a vague threat, to gun owners don't like the cops.

I have friends who are cops, I've shot on the range with cops, and I've picked their brains over various situations.

Cops don't have a problem with people owning and carrying guns for protection. It makes their job easier.

[ellisonz]

53. I would suspect that reflects an urban rural divide...

I don't think cops like irresponsible gun owners. I don't think they particularly like responsible gun owners who enable the irresponsible ones.

The fact remains, that the police would have likely at a minimum escorted her home. Ask them what they'd do in this situation get and get back to me...

[Kennah]

56. You'll have to explain a police investigation into enabling

The fact remains, you're asserting as fact something that just doesn't happen very often.

More than once, someone has placed a 9-1-1 call, then gets killed, and the police department has to go on the defensive about how they have to prioritize calls. They have been asked tough questions, and repeatedly the courts hold there is no duty to protect any individual.

[rl6214]

57. Friend who is a police sgt is sitting right next to me and he says

he would not have allocated the resources needed to follow her home. He would have checked her story and sent her on her way.

[ellisonz]

62. Better than nothing...

And if her story checked out?

He would have responded to the call of course though is what you're saying.

[S_B_Jackson]

44. Not cynical, simply a realistic acceptance of their duty and their role.

I have no particular issues with the police, they have a vital function in our society that I support.
I respect them, and find that most officers are conscientious and much more professional and courteous than most public sector employees that I encounter. Yes, there are the occasional bad apples but they can be found in most every sector of employment and I do not generalize the behavior of those negative exemplars as indicative of the whole of the profession.

You should read the linked decision...it's a real eye-opener.

[ellisonz]

54. So logically it holds then...

...that the police would have helped this lady.

"I respect them, and find that most officers are conscientious and much more professional and courteous than most public sector employees that I encounter. Yes, there are the occasional bad apples but they can be found in most every sector of employment and I do not generalize the behavior of those negative exemplars as indicative of the whole of the profession."

[S_B_Jackson]

65. No, it means that they *might*

have been able to escort her home, but they did not and do not have DUTY to do so. And had she called them, as no criminal actions had as yet taken place her call would have had a low priority.

As for her assailant, except for a possible Terry stop, they could have done nothing about him until he actually engaged in criminal conduct.

[SteveW]

67. The police are not charged with thwarting crime or protecting you...

They are charged with investigating crimes, apprehending suspects, and presenting the evidence to a D.A. for possible prosecution. That they on occasion thwart crime is commendable, but that is not their primary or REQUIRED duty.

The defense of yourself is the responsibility of yourself. Call the cops if you have time and opportunity, but you must take responsibility for yourself as the police are very unlikely to prevent a crime against you.

Nothing cynical about that.

[DissedByBush]

9. This could be a reason for your position

You actually think the police have a responsibility to protect individual people.

They don't. She was not entitled to such services.

If you want that, you have to hire a private security firm.

The only police service she is guaranteed to get is to have them draw her chalk outline and fill out a report.

Your personal safety is your own responsibility.

[ellisonz]

17. Cynical view of the police...

[DissedByBush]

23. Constitutional view of the police

It is the legally correct one, they are not responsible for your personal protection, they were not responsible for hers.

Sorry, but that's the absolute fact.

[MicaelS]

47. You mean the same police

That are frequently accused by DU members of being racist, sexist, homophobic and fascist? The same police who are video'd pepper spraying non-violent protesters? The same police who take people's cell phone and destroy them to prevent being recorded? The same police who use Tasers as tools of compliance, and as a result some people end up being Tasered to death.

Those police?

[ellisonz]

48. I take issue with those depictions as being totally accurate...

I'm on the record in numerous places doing so - I'm not in the habit of generalizing; I look at facts and try to make informed judgments. I don't have to agree with every action every cop takes to think that law enforcement generally provides a valuable service to the community. How do you propose to reform policing in this country?

I reject the fear-mongering.

[X_Digger]

10. No, she isn't..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=3252

Police have no obligation to protect *you*, the individual..

[ellisonz]

18. Cynical view of the police...

[X_Digger]

21. It's reality. You might wish it different, or think it should be changed..

but that is not an obligation that is due you, the individual, by the government.

[ellisonz]

22. Then I expect you to never call the police...

Such sophistry from a Digger...

[X_Digger]

24. Oh, I'll call them to come clean up. I don't expect them to save me.

That's not their job, they can't be held accountable. You feel free to call them and be sure to file a case if they don't get there in time.

This isn't rocket science, it's not new doctrine. Fuck, this goes back to at least 1920 (the earliest cases on trying to hold cops accountable for failure to protect that I could find.)

The fact that *you* didn't know about it until now doesn't affect those of us who did.

[ellisonz]

25. "they can't be held accountable."

That's blatantly incorrect. They are both legally liable for their actions or failure to act and liable to the taxpayers. If this was not true they would not be paying out settlements like they do...

Seriously, the world doesn't operate in abstractions.

SHE SHOULD HAVE CALLED THE POLICE - IF SHE HAD DONE SO SHE WOULD STILL BE ALIVE. Spare the gunner fantasies...it's obscene.

[X_Digger]

28. Here, let me quote *actual text* from the court cases..

I'll even bold the important parts for you..

And give you links to the documents..

Riss v. City of New York - 1967

http://lawschool.courtroomview.com/acf_cases/10107-riss-v-new-york

[div class='excerpt']Brief Fact Summary

Plaintiff was harassed by a rejected suitor, who claimed he would kill or seriously injure her if she dated someone else. Plaintiff repeatedly asked for police protection and was ignored. After the news of her engagement, the plaintiff was again threatened and called the police to no avail. The next day, a thug, sent by the rejected suitor, partially blinded the plaintiff and disfigured her face.

Rule of Law and Holding

The municipality does not have a duty to provide police protection to an individual. It has a duty to the public as a whole, but no one in particular.

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9553225494988334374&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

[div class='excerpt']The first amended complaint alleged in substance: On September 4, 1972, plaintiff's decedent, Ruth Bunnell, telephoned the main office of the San Jose Police Department and reported that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had called her, saying that he was coming to her residence to kill her. She requested immediate police aid; the department refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when Mack Bunnell had arrived.

Approximately 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived at her home and stabbed her to death. The police did not arrive until 3 a.m., in response to a call of a neighbor. By this time Mrs. Bunnell was dead.
...
(1) Appellant contends that his complaint stated a cause of action for wrongful death under Code of Civil Procedure section 377, and that the cause survived under Probate Code section 573. The claim is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), particularly section 845, which states: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

[div class='excerpt']The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County (1986)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11803011301299892103&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

[div class='excerpt']In 1986, the Maryland Court of Appeals was again presented in Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County with an action in civil liability involving the failure of law enforcement to enforce the law. In this case, a police officer, Freeberger, found an intoxicated man in a running pickup truck sitting in front of convenience store. Although he could have arrested the driver, the police officer told the driver to pull the truck over to the side of the lot and to discontinue driving that evening. Instead, shortly after the law enforcement officer left, the intoxicated driver pulled out of the lot and collided with a pedestrian, Ashburn, who as a direct result of the accident sustained severe injuries and lost a leg. After Ashburn brought suit against the driver, Officer Freeberger, the police department, and Anne Arundel County, the trial court dismissed charges against the later three, holding Freeberger owed no special duty to the plaintiff, the county was immune from liability, and that the police department was not a separate legal entity.
...
The Court of Appeals further noted the general tort law rule that, "absent a 'special relationship' between police and victim, liability for failure to protect an individual citizen against injury caused by another citizen does not rely against police officers." Using terminology from the public duty doctrine, the court noted that any duty the police in protecting the public owed was to the general public and not to any particular citizen..

Now, call it cynical, or not fair, or whatever emotional twaddle you want to throw at it- but one thing you can't say is that it's not reality.

eta: forgot one link

[ellisonz]

30. *facepalm*

Seriously, off the high horse with you, do you not think I don't know what you're saying?

Listen to me: if she had called the police, they would have escorted her home at the very least. To not actually put yourself in the situation and to use the abstract is to engage in a petty intellectual exercise that ignores the everyday reality of policing.

I'm betting you haven't dealt with the police much...

[X_Digger]

31. Talk to Ruth Bunnell -- oh wait, she's dead.

[div class='excerpt']The first amended complaint alleged in substance: On September 4, 1972, plaintiff's decedent, Ruth Bunnell, telephoned the main office of the San Jose Police Department and reported that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had called her, saying that he was coming to her residence to kill her. She requested immediate police aid; the department refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when Mack Bunnell had arrived.

Approximately 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived at her home and stabbed her to death. The police did not arrive until 3 a.m., in response to a call of a neighbor. By this time Mrs. Bunnell was dead.
...
(1) Appellant contends that his complaint stated a cause of action for wrongful death under Code of Civil Procedure section 377, and that the cause survived under Probate Code section 573. The claim is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), particularly section 845, which states: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."

[ellisonz]

33. I'm neither denying her right to self-defense nor the beneficies of police departments.

In fact, I'm trying to find ways to better fund them...

Sounds like she needed a restraining order, a good lawyer, and a new town.

"In one landmark California case, a woman separated from her husband, and he retaliated with threats and violence. Over a period of a year, Ruth Bunnell had called the San Jose police at least twenty times to report that her estranged husband, Mack, had violently assaulted her and her two daughters. Mack had even been arrested for one assault."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IUK/is_2002_Summer/ai_90305261/

[X_Digger]

37. And if the police failed to enforce the restraining order? Too bad..

See Castle Rock v Gonzales.

Again, police held not liable for failing to enforce a restraining order which led to a woman's children's death.

[ellisonz]

38. You can stop projecting now...

I never said she didn't have a right to a firearm and self-defense. You're projecting...

I'm simply saying in this case that she should have called the police.

Oy Vey.

[X_Digger]

39. That's a hell of a different statement than you made in post #5.

But hey, the police *might* have escorted her home. They're under no obligation to do so, but maybe they would have.

[ellisonz]

40. I think they would have...

Again: http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/aristophanes/clouds.htm

That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. Which was "And as part of the "general" she is entitled to such services..."

You've cited most relevant cases, save perhaps:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

...Joshua DeShaney's mother filed a lawsuit on his behalf against Winnebago County, the Winnebago County DSS, and DSS employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The lawsuit claimed that by failing to intervene and protect him from violence about which they knew or should have known, the agency violated Joshua's right to liberty without the due process guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin issued a summary judgment against Joshua and his mother, who appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In an opinion authored by Judge Richard Posner, the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment,[4] and the Supreme Court granted certiorari on March 21, 1988.
[edit] Ruling

The court ruled 6-3 to uphold the appeals court's grant of summary judgment. The DSS's actions were found not to constitute a violation of Joshua DeShaney's due process rights.
[edit] Court Opinion

The court opinion, by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, held that the Due Process Clause protects against state action only, and as it was Randy DeShaney who abused Joshua; a state actor (the Winnebago County Department of Social Services) was not responsible.

Furthermore, they ruled that the DSS could not be found liable, as a matter of constitutional law, for failure to protect Joshua DeShaney from a private actor. Although there exist conditions in which the state (or a subsidiary agency, like a county department of social services) is obligated to provide protection against private actors, and failure to do so is a violation of 14th Amendment rights, the court reasoned, "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf... it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf - through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty - which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means.".[5] Since Joshua DeShaney was not in the custody of the DSS, the DSS was not required to protect him from harm. In reaching this conclusion, the court opinion relied heavily on its precedents in Estelle v. Gamble and Youngberg v. Romeo....

And look- John Paul Stevens agreed with Antonin Scalia for the majority!

"I'll stick with John Paul Stevens"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=3874


Speaking for myself, if my faith kept foundering on the rocks of verifiable reality, I'd start looking for a new church...

[X_Digger]

43. When presented with facts, criticism of attitude follows.

I suppose that's a concession, nonetheless. Not that I'd expect that to be admitted.

[SteveW]

69. Standard operating procedure for someone...

more interested in dodge ball and rolly-polly icons.

Truth? Facts? Logic? Data? It's bo-r-r-i-n-n-g on the I-Net, don't y'know?

[ellisonz]

45. So she should not have called the police?

If she had a gone, she should have just shot him as soon as she felt in she was in imminent danger?

"I'll stick with John Paul Stevens"

So you agree with Scalia all the time?

"Speaking for myself, if my faith kept foundering on the rocks of verifiable reality, I'd start looking for a new church..."



Your church...

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. I must be a heretic then, as I don't own a gun and haven't for 30+ years.

You might be surprised to learn that one might support the rights of others to do something without joining in yourself....

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. Naah, Tony S. has been wrong on more than one occasion...

...But I've got to go with him and Stevens on DeShaney.

[SteveW]

70. Hmmm. More anti-gun cartoons than Brady Center employees? nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. Undoubtedly.

[rl6214]

58. Maybe you will answer because no one ever will

WTF is a "gunner"?

[ellisonz]

61. Sure.

Someone who believes guns will solve the problems of the world. Like a Bible thumper...at least that's how I'm using it and how others seem to be using it.

As in: I'm sure the gunner crowd thinks if only those school children had an AK-47 and body armor they could have stopped the attacker

[PavePusher]

66. I've known a lot of gun owners, none at all like the subset you describe.

I wonder where they all are?

[SteveW]

71. NOW you're sounding like some gun-controllers here...

of the most mediocre and repetitious sort.

One note about your latest agitprop cartoon. The folks presented seem to be a multi-cultural lot, no? Says a lot about the 80+ millions of your fellow Americans who own guns.

Maybe that's why your "issue" is grounded: It doesn't represent America. It represents the elite.

Like the 1%?

[rl6214]

74. Made up term to make someone sound bad and scary

Just more BS by the anti-gun zealots to try to put a lable on something they are afraid of.

[Remmah2]

15. But police have guns, they must be evil.

After all anyone who is a gun toter in public is a mass murderer.

[ellisonz]

35. I've said no such thing. n/t

[Fair Witness]

41. Why do you continue to post this clear and obvious lie? You have been told many times

how, why and when your claim was shown to be wrong and yet you persist. That might be seen by some as a symptom of insanity.

[rl6214]

55. Police have NO duty to protect and serve so say the Justices

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

[Starboard Tack]

46. So, what would you have had her do?

Carry a gun and shoot everyone who harasses her? Apparently, she was in her own car and he was in his car. We have no idea from the report how the situation evolved from there.

[Kennah]

50. So, what would you have had her do?

Lie down and die? If so, then your wish has been granted.

Now, was there anything you really wanted to discuss?

[Starboard Tack]

63. No, I wouldn't. It's not easy to advise the deceased victim of such a horrendous crime.

This was a tragic crime committed by a seriously disturbed and obviously determined individual. When it comes to situations like this, when you're dealing with an apparently amoral individual, you must realize there are no easy answers, if there are any answers at all. I would advise a woman, or anyone, who feels threatened in any way, to seek safety in numbers and not isolating herself in such a way as to make herself more available as a potential victim. Apparently, she was driving. So she could have opted for a crowded area of town rather than heading out of town. Point is, even if she had been armed, we don't know if it would have helped. Obviously, in this case it would not have harmed, but I doubt that's true in general.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. How out of touch with reality are you?

This out of touch:

Gonzales vs. City of Bozeman
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20MTCO%2020090825179.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
Gonzales vs. City of Castle Rock
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1122549.html

In Bozeman, a victim on the phone with police was assumed to be an accomplice and left in the clutches of a scumbag, who raped her while the police stood outside, waiting.

In Castle Rock, a woman had a restraining order against her husband, husband swiped the kids, kept calling, saying he was going to come kill her, she called the cops, cops told her to call if he showed up, she pleaded multiple times with them to send someone, they didn't, husband showed up, she died before police could respond.

[ellisonz]

36. I've never denied the right to self-defense.

I'm also not denying the reality of the situation. But the key thing in this case is that she did not call the police.

[Remmah2]

14. Then who would protect the donut shops?

Protect and serve donuts maybe.

[ellisonz]

19. Cynical view of the police...

[rl6214]

59. Broken record

[SteveW]

72. ...and how many gun-congroller/prohibitionists end up that way? nt

[Remmah2]

13. It shows her level of confidence in law enforcement

1911 is faster than 911 any day.

[ellisonz]

20. Not when you fumble and it gets used against you...

[rl6214]

60. Of course you can cite all the times this has happened

right?

[Deejai]

7. In a perfect world, the police respond in a timely manner

But, mistakes happen and sometimes they show up late or they go to the wrong address. They aren't responsible for being everywhere you need them to be.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Which is why many of us choose to carry the tools required to protect ourselves.

[ileus]

8. self-defense is mean....why deny someone the little things in life.

guns are never the answer, see how much more honorable her death was by not polluting society with a nasty habit.

[LAGC]

64. It's rude is what it is.

Denying a kidnapper and rapist his prey... I mean, how rude it is to tote in self-defense!