It occurs to me

SmarterthanYou said:
  • Warren v. District of Columbia (1981): D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that police owe a general public duty, not a specific duty to individual citizens.
  • DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989): U.S. Supreme Court ruled the government has no constitutional duty to protect a child from an abusive father.
  • Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005): Supreme Court ruled police have no constitutional duty to enforce a restraining order to protect a person from harm.
Click to expand...
generalities do not exist without specifics.

this is just to stop them from getting sued for individual failures oversights.

there are sworn to serve and protect.

how do they protect property rights?
 
Leftists and stupid righties remind me of the grasshoppers.


TheAntAndTheGrasshopper_10x8_wm4.jpg



In a field one summer’s day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart’s content.


An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest.


“Why not come and chat with me,” said the Grasshopper, “instead of toiling and moiling in that way?”


“I am helping to lay up food for the winter,” said the Ant, “and recommend you to do the same.”


“Why bother about winter?” said the Grasshopper; “we have got plenty of food at present.” But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil.


When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer.

Then the Grasshopper knew: It is best to prepare for the days of necessity.

The Fables of Aesop
 
The promise of freedom of speech, open debate, and representative government was that tyranny would be checked and truth would arise from free inquiry. From this, the best ideas would eventually filter their way into our politics, leading to a positive feedback loop where open debate produces better and better ideas that increasingly get reflected in our laws.

But it’s obvious this process has long since broken down. When was the last time a legislator had their mind changed from a floor speech the other side gave? When was the last time “open debate” led to consensus rather than further division? When was the last time representative government checked tyranny rather than masked tyrannical actions from being called as such?Few people today want to sacrifice these things, which is perfectly understandable. I certainly don’t want to give up my First Amendment rights or my ability to freely debate with those I see fit, and I doubt hardly anyone else does either.

But fewer and fewer people believe these tools are actually capable of changing anything in our political system. Open debate is dead, Freedom of Speech increasingly just means calling the enemy an idiot online, and no one believes representative government actually leads to political leaders changing their minds based on facts or evidence.

These things are relics that we can’t let go for obvious reasons, but they’re also increasingly incapable of producing solutions to the multitude of crises that are piling up around us.
 
The United States is one economic depression away from a societal powder keg cooking off.

Too many of the post-1965 arrivals hate white people; even a large percentage of white people appear to hate white people, paradoxically.

When social order breaks down and the envious are freed from any significant restraint, what do you surmise will happen?
 
When they disarm the police and eliminate prisons, they'll be slaughtered by their chosen people, and when the urban pirates run out of looted bullets and food, they'll be targets.


iu
 
Diogenes said:
Sooner or later, we're going to have a societal collapse, IMO.

Why do I say this?

Because of the things that leftists promote and the policies they enact when they have the chance.

By that, I mean policies that weaken deterrence, selective non-enforcement, and erosion of equal application of rules have predictably increased disorder.

This follows from basic logic: when the perceived consequences of crime are reduced or eliminated, more of it occurs.

The observation is the core of deterrence theory (specifically general deterrence) in criminology.

It is also known as the economic theory of crime or rational choice model of crime, most commonly associated with Gary Becker’s landmark 1968 paper:


His central point is straightforward: potential criminals weigh the expected benefits of committing a crime against its risks. When the calculation favors gain over risk , the volume of crime rises, all other factors being equal.

I've observed results in multiple U.S. cities that appear to illustrate the pattern more clearly than rhetoric.

Consider the (often Soros-backed) observable results in many Democrat-dominated urban areas"

  • Cashless or low-cash bail and rapid release policies: These treat many offenses as pretrial detention risks rather than flight or reoffense risks. Repeat offenders are released quickly and reoffend at higher rates while cases pend. Cities that expanded these approaches after 2019–2020 saw measurable rises in theft, robbery, and rearrests among the released population.
  • Declining to prosecute categories of “low-level” crime (shoplifting under a dollar threshold, drug possession, fare evasion, trespass, quality-of-life offenses): Progressive prosecutors in several jurisdictions formalized this. Retail theft and open disorder rose where enforcement thresholds effectively legalized the conduct; businesses and residents responded by exiting high-crime zones, accelerating the spiral.
  • Reduced proactive policing and “defund”/reallocation efforts: Cutting specialized units, traffic stops, or stop-and-frisk equivalents lowers clearance rates and removes deterrence. Homicide and gun violence spikes in multiple cities after 2020 correlated with reduced officer activity and morale, not solely pandemic effects. Restoring proactive work later reversed parts of the increase.
  • Early release, shortened sentences, and parole expansions without tight risk filters: These raise the volume of high-risk individuals returned to communities. Recidivism data consistently show that a small cohort accounts for a large share of serious crime; releasing them early without strong supervision raises victimization.
Couple these undeniable incentives to criminality with leftist immigration policies:
  • Sanctuary policies that restrict local-federal cooperation on criminal aliens: When Democrat-dominated jurisdictions refuse to honor detainers for people already charged with or convicted of serious crimes, those individuals remain free to reoffend locally. Federal data on criminal non-citizens and ICE detainers show repeated arrests for assault, sexual offenses, and homicide after release in non-cooperating jurisdictions. Open or lightly enforced borders compound the volume problem for both criminal and non-criminal illegal entrants.
Lest any JPP Democrat pretend their ideology isn't institutionally biased toward criminals, consider these examples:
  • Treating public drug use, camping, and disorder primarily as untreated "illness" while deprioritizing enforcement: Blue cities that largely stopped citing or clearing encampments and open drug markets experienced sustained visible disorder, property crime, and public health costs. The absence of consistent consequence removes the pressure that historically pushed many toward treatment or relocation; the result is concentrated zones of lawlessness that spill into surrounding areas.
  • Selective non-enforcement during political protests or identity-framed disorder: When arson, assault, or property destruction is met with delayed or diluted charges because of the "cause" being perceived by Democrats as righteous, it sends a signal that rules are contingent upon leftist preferences. This both emboldens participants and demoralizes ordinary residents who face full enforcement for similar infractions.
Equal application of law is the core of order and was (until recently) the bedrock of American jurisprudence.

Policies that explicitly prioritize group equity outcomes over individual conduct (in charging, sentencing, or police discipline) introduce double standards.

Once people perceive that rules will be bent based upon an offender's identity or politics, voluntary compliance falls.

Historical patterns, from 1960s–1970s crime waves after similar reforms to post-2020 city data, track the same mechanism: weaker punishment produces more crime.

The directional effect of lowering the cost of predation and disorder is robust in "progressive" places that have tested these policies.

If this is true, it appears to me that our nation's governmental apparatus is not enough to hold a society together.
Click to expand...
When you take away the rights of poor and underprivileged people, you make having your rights abridged by authorities normal. Take away their rights, you take away yours. When you ease policing standards, it spreads. And cops always step over the lines, collectively.
You are wrong on bail too. https://bailproject.org/data/unlocking-the-truth-closer-look-at-cash-bail-statistics/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top