What the hell? Robber crab?!? Looked a lot more like a killer crab to me.

Your video, Cops and Robbers, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Robber with a knife plays dead when owner pulls a gun, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The public would think "Man that chick is desperate." But yeah, assaults on males from females are still very socially acceptable.

Anyhow, LMFAHS.

I'm always so surprised by people who are so disconnected from the person they'd consider their spouse that they really don't know it could go so badly.

Note to kiddies: If a girl starts telling you NO before you even ask the question, you should either A) stop or B) pretend to faint or C) say "Haha! Just kidding! I almost got you!"

Who said people don't have a right to privacy? In an ideal world people would respect that right. But we don't live in an ideal world do we? So it makes sense to assess the risks and take precautions.

Look at it from another perspective. If I constantly leave my house unlocked with all the ground floor windows open when I go out, do I deserve to be robbed? No. But through my actions have I made it exponentially more likely that I'm going to be robbed? Yes. Does that mean the robber should get a lighter sentence if caught? No. Could I have easily prevented the crime from happening by taking basic precautions? Yes. Does that mean the crime is my fault? No. But was I naive to think that no one would ever rob my house? Absolutely, unless I happen to live alone on a deserted island!

It sucks what happened to her. It's not her fault. She deserves justice and I hope they catch the person who did it. The point of my previous post was that anybody taking naked pics of themselves these days--particularly digital ones--is exponentially increasing their risk of a humiliating exposure. That's the reality, whether you think it is "stupid" or not. If a person is not comfortable with that level of risk, they shouldn't engage in the behavior. This in no way implies that a person who has taken naked pics of themselves doesn't deserve justice if they are victimized. But it does imply that they are a bit naive (or haven't been paying attention to current events) if they thought there was little risk in taking naked pics of themselves and posting them online (as this person apparently did on her Facebook page) given the current security situation on the Internet.

@MaxWilder Agreed. Philanthropy is bullshit, like driving a rolls royce, it's just to impress other rich fucks. Society cannot survive off hand outs from ruthless robber barons.

You see no difference between the federal and state (or county level) just the same as some cops don't see the difference between strong-arm robbers who try to take weapons and cigarette sellers who give up and are still fucked up...welcome to the world of stereotypes...

Think on this. CIA blatantly torture without rebuke, yet regular cops rarely (Although some do but many are prosecuted). Massive difference if you look.

When playing Cops and Robbers you're not allowed to switch sides midway through the game.

Your video, Civil forfeiture turns cops into robbers, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 225 Badge!

Except that's not the truth at all. Massachusetts passed strict gun control laws in 1998 and its crime rates (including gun-related crimes) have increased significantly since then. D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the country but also has (by far) the highest rate of gun-related crime. Conversely, Vermont has the lowest rate (about 59 times lower than D.C.) while also having extremely lax gun control laws.

So no, the issue isn't quite as clear cut as you seem to suggest. There is no consistent correlation between gun control and gun crime rates. Banning something doesn't make it magically disappear and considering the fact that the majority of guns used in crimes are already obtained illegally, gun control really only affects people who obey the law (i.e. not criminals). Guns already exist. Criminals already have guns. Criminals already sell and distribute guns illegally. Gun control laws are completely irrelevant to these people.

The irony in all this is that the people calling for gun control are often the same ones calling for the legalization of drugs. We all know how effective the ban on drugs has been. Why would you think that a ban on guns would be any different?

What we do know is that guns are a deterrent and an equalizer. It's the reason why 9 out of 10 mass shootings take place in schools or other places where people are least likely to be armed. It's the reason why a robber is less likely to rob someone he believes to be armed than someone he believes to be unarmed. Strict gun laws only bolster a criminal's confidence that he can get away unscathed because he's the only one with a gun.

Finally, are people seriously including suicide-by-firearm as a relevant statistic? If somebody wants to commit suicide, there a multiple ways they can go about it. Hanging, slit wrists, drug overdose, jumping out the window, etc. If a gun is unavailable, they'll just use another method.

For every 'hero' with a gun, there are 100 dipshits who would accidentally kill innocent bystanders, have their weapon used by a child or robber, or go psycho and try to kill people.

It's a FACT that reducing firearm ownership reduces death by firearms.

>> So if it was a friend who was down on his luck and desperate to get some quick cash, you wouldn't give a shit that he got run over because he acted impulsively and did something stupid?

That's correct. Things not specific to that but along those lines have happened in my life, and that was my reaction.


>> Or how about if you saw this happen on the street. You wouldn't call an ambulance because the guy got was coming to him?

There you go again mixing up not feeling sorry for someone with thinking he deserves it. Of course I would call an ambulance. I would very likely even rush over to try and help. I wouldn't *want* the guy to get maimed or killed. But if he did that to himself I'd just feel it's his own fault.


>> I call that basic human compassion.

That's where we differ. I don't.

A few days ago a team of heavily armed gunmen robbed a bank. Afterward they were involved in a chase and gunfight with police. One of the three robbers was shot dead and the others were injured.

Do you feel sympathy for the robbers? I'm sure you must. Do I? No, I don't, not even a little bit.

Not every negative event (that results in pain/suffering) in every single person's life is precious, nor does it warrant or deserve compassion when they intentionally caused it themselves and it could have been completely avoided.


Let's just call it a difference in philosophy.

Good thing the biker didn't have a gun; someone could have been killed, or at the very least, the robbers would have another weapon.

There's no indication that the guy blocking the door works there. The YouTube video state's "people blocking the door".

Probably a passerby seeing the scene, closed the door to trap and distract the robber while not endangering themselves. The employee was already in a bad situation which couldn't really be helped without direct and dangerous intervention.

You're missing the forest for your own trees concerning these government agencies and how they are used by special interests, people-Lands declared federally-owned then 'managed' in this country have been historically for public use. According to the Sierra Club: "Public lands are used in the production of oil, gas, coal, hardrock minerals, timber, and livestock in addition to being used for roads, power and gas lines, and communication facilities just to mention a few. Likewise, the Public lands are an environmental treasure house for recreation and wildlife and scenic wonder from desert to seacoast, mountain top to prairie, grassland to forest -- a shared heritage for now and the future."

Most generational ranchers don't fuck-up the land, they don't abuse it , it's their goddamn livelihood. They know it's vibe way better than the feds and their little friends....

Bundy was paying to, and had a preexisting deal with Clark County and his damn family had been cattlemen on these lands for a few generations, living in harmony with the goddamn turtles, and not trashing the place like newtbox (god you think you know what the fuckit is you know nothing about except what the TV tells you) here and others use in defense of the encroaching and over-reaching bureaucracy whose ONLY goal is to save their own interests in the rights of this land for their nefarious personal good-ol' boy club purposes.

Urbanization and ominous government with peeps with votes never getting involved in righteous decisions during the process of being ASS-RAPED from behind tomes legislation with special interest laws piggy-backed within legislation has ALWAYS been the method of politicians, licking the asses of the money-men.

If people would get an ACTUAL clue abut how the government works to benefit these cunts, they'd start to sound like people who did their homework instead of self-righteous cunts trying to sound smart.

I am happy to accommodate the cries of 'ignorance' and 'fail', heard all this shit before, so go fuck yourselves unless you have anything else to spew but scripted 'what you think you know' horse-shit. I understand that certain types of dum-basses are quite satisfied with themselves to talk a lot and say nothing but whats fed them.

The United States government fucked the Native Americans, now they're fucvkng cowboys and ranchers......No digression with land and money drunk robber-barons, especially when they have dutiful putties to interpret history to suit their delusions.

Wanna fix the situation America? Stop eating their meat. Try turtle soup, the shits awesome.