MH

[Dale Eastman]

Image: Heads Down Incoming Liberal Bullshit

We all know that extortion is when somebody is told "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you." We all know that extortion is what a bad person, a criminal, does to a victim.

Organized crime syndicates use a method of extortion called a protection racket. "If you don't pay us to protect you, we won't protect you (from us)." "From us" may be brazenly stated or only implied.

To govern is to control. To extort is to control. To govern is to extort.

Elected politicians write rules. These politician's rules are written demands to be obeyed under threat of being hurt if you don't obey. This part of the politician's rules are called "penalties" or "fines". Thus rules of politicians,  dictators, and monarchs are all extortion. Do what they tell you to do or be hurt.

Ergo, Government is an organized criminal syndicate that can not be defended by logic or by morality.

Obi-Wan: These are not the words the statists are looking for.

take that liberal bulshit somewhere else so then we get rid of the police what did we do with the child molesters the murders the crack dealers the heroin dealers the prostitutes the thieves you got a sweet little picture for that one

So you actually believe the police have a duty to protect you?

they have a duty to arrest those people I am still waiting for your sweet little picture that gives me a solution to all the murders drug dealers rapist thieves so on so on they are there to maintain peace and orderI don't want to raise my daughter in a lawless land now if you want to argue about the laws that's the crooked politicians those police officers have a job to do just like you have a job to do I know the majority of the police officers in the town I live in and they are good honest Christian people to answer your question yes they would help me are they there to help me probably not and yes there are bad police there's no argument there but the good outweigh the bad now I'm done with this conversation and your liberal rhetoric cut off MSNBC throw away the CNN t-shirt get on board that Trump train

Thank you for admitting you don't have a clue.

Here's the reality about that "duty to protect":

Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
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.

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989):
A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.

CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES 545 U.S.748 (2005)
We decide in this case whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally protected property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable cause to believe it has been violated.
[...]
We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.

Statutory Law
California, Illinois, and New Jersey tell the same truth in no uncertain terms.

Stated in California Code 845:
Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.

Stated in 745 Illinois Compiled Statute 10/4-102:
Neither a local 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 adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals.

Stated in New Jersey Revised Statute 59:5-4:
Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.

while you say I still don't have a clue what are we supposed to do with the murderers the rapist the drug dealers the thieves the gangbangers come on give me an honest solution you have no freaking idea I bet if you quit with your liberal rhetoric and walk out your front door and talk to your neighbor you might find out we live in a damn fine country maybe it's not perfect but it's perfect for me I bet somebody like you never served in the military forces either

people like you just stay in the problem look for problems that don't even exist and don't have one damn idea about a solution or how to address a problem I'm done with you and your liberal bullshit rhetoric

➽ while you say I still don't have a clue what are we supposed to do with the murderers the rapist the drug dealers the thieves the gangbangers come on give me an honest solution

Call the cops that have no duty to protect you.

I'll give you same proof (and clue) again:

Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
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.

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989):
A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.

CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES 545 U.S.748 (2005)
We decide in this case whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally protected property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable cause to believe it has been violated.
[...]
We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.

Statutory Law
California, Illinois, and New Jersey tell the same truth in no uncertain terms.

Stated in California Code 845:
Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.

Stated in 745 Illinois Compiled Statute 10/4-102:
Neither a local 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 adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals.

Stated in New Jersey Revised Statute 59:5-4:
Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.

When you comprehend what I just presented, then we can discuss those things you are afraid of.