Jump to content

US: Feds Say PTSD Vet Has to Turn in His Guns


Recommended Posts

I certainly wouldn't want you protecting me. I'd prefer that to be done by legislation, the rule of law, a strong legal system and the relevant authorities.

 

They don't protect you in any way shape or form. Only people can protect one another. I should have said someone like me, better?.

 

If you're ever in physical danger don't call a cop, fireman, or first responder - grab a law book and see what happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • thebob

    6

  • lamoe

    5

  • Bill H

    5

  • Paul

    5

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

the government would have to totally disarm themselves

And these things are going to protect you, how?  The bad guy beats down your door and is coming at you with a bolo, you think calling the Pulis will save you?  They will show up in time to mop up the

Careful of your interpretation of PTSD - I have been diagnosed with it  - it has become the catch all to allow label us as incompetent -for 46 years my wife has managed our finances and I unplugged th

I certainly wouldn't want you protecting me. I'd prefer that to be done by legislation, the rule of law, a strong legal system and the relevant authorities.

Duty to protect?  Maybe in the PI's it's different?

 

http://www.gunnews.com/in-ny-no-duty-to-protect/                         Whiner

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I should have phrased the statement differently.

 

Not me in actuality, but someone who is / has been willing to put themselves in harm's way for others.

 

We sure know it an't the libs as a rule. Although there are probably some that will, damn few, but some.

Link to post
Share on other sites
thebob

They don't protect you in any way shape or form. Only people can protect one another. I should have said someone like me, better?.

 

If you're ever in physical danger don't call a cop, fireman, or first responder - grab a law book and see what happens.

 

It is legislation, the rule of law, a strong legal system and the relevant authorities that keeps us from anarchy. You seem to be saying that all of these safeguards have already broken down, so you need to protect yourself.

 

I can understand that you do not agree with "socialised" law enforcement, where monies are collected from everyone and the police are used equally for those in need.

 

I think you would prefer a "market driven" system, where you can phone round several different providers for an ambulance or a fire ruck, to get the best price in times of need.

 

You seem fine with the idea that your country can get together to protect you from outside forces, but protecting you from other citizens is beyond their remit?

Edited by thebob
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is legislation, the rule of law, a strong legal system and the relevant authorities that keeps us from anarchy. You seem to be saying that all of these safeguards have already broken down, so you need to protect yourself.

 

I can understand that you do not agree with "socialised" law enforcement, where monies are collected from everyone and the police are used equally for those in need.

 

I think you would prefer a "market driven" system, where you can phone round several different providers for an ambulance or a fire ruck, to get the best price in times of need.

 

You seem fine with the idea that your country can get together to protect you from outside forces, but protecting you from other citizens is beyond their remit?

 

Exactly Bob you are finally starting to get it.  The Pulis does not exist to offer you 24/7 protection from the bad guys, that is up to you to provide.  Maybe after the fact they will find them and arrest them, but that is after you are dead, so do you care?  Most honest law enforcement folks will tell you their job is not to protect you, but to bust the bad guys after they commit the crime.  The alternative is to live in a police state and I don't think most people really want to live like that because who will protect them from the State?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is legislation, the rule of law, a strong legal system and the relevant authorities that keeps us from anarchy. You seem to be saying that all of these safeguards have already broken down, so you need to protect yourself.

 

I can understand that you do not agree with "socialised" law enforcement, where monies are collected from everyone and the police are used equally for those in need.

 

I think you would prefer a "market driven" system, where you can phone round several different providers for an ambulance or a fire ruck, to get the best price in times of need.

 

You seem fine with the idea that your country can get together to protect you from outside forces, but protecting you from other citizens is beyond their remit?

You're getting off topic in an attempt to do what?

Here are my credentials for supporting "Socialized Law enforcement"

 

USMC - 67 /71 -  Chu Lai - 68/69 RSVN, 81 - 90 neighborhood watch

Daughter I- Deputy Sheriff

 

And your's are?

 

It is legislation, the rule of law, a strong legal system and the relevant authorities that keeps us from anarchy.

 

My contention is that the relevant authorities are comprised primarily (see attached article - remember NYC is extremely liberal) of people like me and not not libs who are as I've said many times are not concerned about doing good only that they look like they are

 

JJJ, Al, Obama, and the never ending list of social progressives who've become millionaires with out ever having to resort to a real (as in not on gov payroll) job

 

 

NYPD SAYS IT DOES NOT HAVE TO PROTECT YOU

 

(this is also the sate that in essence said FU to conservatives)

 

 
He says he put his life on the line to stop a killer — and claims cops sat back and watched.
But city lawyers are arguing that the police had no legal duty to protect Joseph Lozito, the Long Island dad stabbed seven times trying to subdue madman Maksim Gelman — a courtroom maneuver the subway hero calls “disgraceful.”
A judge is currently deciding whether Lozito, who sued the city last year for failing to prevent the attack, will get his day in court.
The drug-fueled Gelman had fatally stabbed three people in Brooklyn and killed another with a car during a 28-hour rampage when he entered an uptown No. 3 train on Feb. 12, 2011.

The 42-year-old mixed-martial-arts fan says he watched Gelman approach the cab window, barking: “Let me in!” Gelman even claimed to be a cop, but a dismissive Howell turned away, he says.In the official NYPD account and Howell’s own affidavit, Howell heroically tackled and subdued the killer. But Lozito tells a different story.

Gelman walked off. A straphanger recognizing Gelman tried to alert the cops, but was also rebuffed. A minute later, Gelman returned and set his sights on the 6-foot-2, 270-pound Lozito.
“You’re going to die,” Gelman announced — then stabbed him in the face.
Lozito leapt from his seat and lunged at the 23-year-old Gelman as the psycho sliced at him.
“Most of my wounds are in the back of my head,” Lozito said. “He got to the back of my head because my left shoulder [was] in his waist.”
In his account, Lozito pinned Gelman to the floor, disarming him. Howell then emerged from the booth, tapping Lozito’s shoulder: “You can get up now,” he said.
“By the time he got there, the dirty work was already done,” Lozito said.
Gelman was convicted in the spree — which left his girlfriend, her mother, his stepfather and a pedestrian dead, and five others injured.
Lozito says a grand-jury member later told him Howell admitted on the stand that he hid during the attack because he thought Gelman had a gun.
An angry Lozito decided to sue the city for negligence, arguing the cops should have recognized Gelman and prevented, or reacted more quickly to, the assault.
The city routinely settles such litigation but is playing hardball with Lozito, insisting his demand for unspecified money damages be tossed because the police had no “special duty” to protect him or any individual on the train that day.
Experts say it’s a long-standing legal precedent requiring police to put the public safety of all ahead of any one individual’s rights.
Lozito says his case is different.
“If the cop is on the train, and I get robbed by a stranger, of course, the cop can’t be clairvoyant,” Lozito told The Post. “But when they’re looking for Maksim Gelman, and Maksim Gelman bangs on the door and says, ‘Let me in, I’m a cop’ and all you say is: ‘No, you’re not?’ ”
1. Joseph Lozito enters the uptown No. 3 train, sitting behind the train operator. Officers Terrance Howell and Tamara Taylor enter the operator’s booth; a few minutes later, the train slowly pulls out of Penn Station.
2. Maksim Gelman walks up to the booth and says: “Let me in!” Howell allegedly dismisses him and Gelman walks away.
3. Minutes later, Gelman walks back up to the booth, looks at Lozito, says “You’re going to die,” and stabs him.
4. Lozito fights back, getting seven stab wounds during the 60-second struggle with Gelman, eventually pinning him and knocking the knife away.
5. Howell allegedly emerges from the booth, taps Lozito on the shoulder and says: “You can get up now.”
Edited by lamoe
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is only one of many court decisions claiming that law enforcement has no duty to protect!   Do a Google search. I am curious if the same is true in the PI's?    Whiner

Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be more to the story.   I am waiting for the REAL reason this guy is being denied the right to posses guns.    If only someone would have screened the PTSD gentleman that went off in the theater at guy who was Texting  and popcorning...a  wife wouldn't be widowed and lil kid wouldn't be without his father.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

grab a law book and see what happens.

 

He could throw the book at 'em. :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites
thebob

Bill H and Lamoe, you appear to have no trust whatsoever in your own country. You make the place sound awful, I'm sure it isn't as bad as all that.

 

Are there any subjects at all that you don't try and focus through a political slant?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Bill H and Lamoe, you appear to have no trust whatsoever in your own country.

 

Now you are really catchin' on, mate.

 

We don't. We don't trust the government, which is as it should be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill H and Lamoe, you appear to have no trust whatsoever in your own country. You make the place sound awful, I'm sure it isn't as bad as all that.

 

Are there any subjects at all that you don't try and focus through a political slant?

 

I don't trust ANY government!  Not mine, not yours, not the one here.

 

This has nothing to do with politics.  I don't trust Government ever, doesn't matter who is in charge, Governments have proven time and again they cannot and should not be trusted, if one intends to remain free.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct - somewhat - I do not trust those in power now - Repub or Dem - 

 

Yep - funnies / general advice / scientific - most everything else is impacted or influenced by our politicians. Read how mayor of NYC decided not to plow streets of rich because of who they are. 

 

The original concept was that our politicians would be part timers - serve a few years in politics and then go back to their real job.

 

We now have assholes whose career goal is politics. This generates an elite class totally removed from reality.

 

I trust that eventually - after we get over this racial / guilt trip the libs keep pushing on us - we may get back to a sane and sound leadership. I'd vote for a black man / woman if I felt they were qualified.  Condoleezza Rice comes to mind.

 

As I've posted in another thread - have had almost 17 years of Libs bashing Cons and getting away with it - I do admit it feels good to be able to do same.

Edited by lamoe
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Mike

Bill H and Lamoe, you appear to have no trust whatsoever in your own country. You make the place sound awful, I'm sure it isn't as bad as all that.

 

Are there any subjects at all that you don't try and focus through a political slant?

Everything is influenced by politics...

...........

 

"But what I argue in the introductory essay is the one thing that dominates everything. The one thing you can't get wrong in a civilization. You can't get your politics wrong, even though it's not exactly the most elevated, elegant and noble of occupations. It's rather scrungy, or sketchy, as my son's generation would say. But in the end, you get the politics wrong, and everything else is wiped out. And it's important to do the politics because it's the foundation of everything elegant and beautiful that a society can build; it has to be built on a foundation of a free and open society.

So that's why politics has that lt place in the trilogy. It's not the thing that deeply engages me for its own sake, but it deeply engages me and I spent my life in it, obviously, because of its importance."

 

...Charles Krauthammer...talking about his new book.

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2013/10/23/a-conversation-with-charles-krauthammer-n1729025

Edited by Mr. Mike
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..

Capture.JPG

I Understand...