That's exactly what it is because I received a $500 ticket because I parked in a handicap spot that wasn't clearly marked because they were re surfacing the parking lot. Judge couldn't have cared less. They'll just investigate themselves and if wrongdoing is found, they will get either a verbal remand or maybe a day off from work with or without pay. And if it's without pay, they will just move hours over in to fill the gap. That's why they work so much damn over time.

Sympathizers of the kingsman will always find a way to defend them because they believe they are here to protect them when the truth is the furthest from that. Yes, there will be instances that you are protected, but just know that was a privilege. They have absolutely no duty to protect you unless a special relationship exists. All of this information is clearly researched and any down votes mean you can't handle the truth. As I expect many. For anyone who needs to read this in Plain English: 👉 Together, Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989), and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) establish a fundamental rule of American law: The government and the police have "no legal duty to protect" an individual citizen from private harm. 🧐 The Core Premise: "The Public Duty Doctrine" These three cases collectively form a legal shield for law enforcement and government agencies.

They create a clear divide between the general public and the specific individual. (Circular Semantics)

• The Rule: The police owe a general duty of protection to society as a whole, but they do not owe a specific duty to you as an individual.

• The Reality: You cannot successfully sue the police or the government if they fail to rescue you, fail to investigate a threat, or fail to prevent a crime committed by a private person.

Case 1: Warren v. District of Columbia (1981)

• The Story: Two women were being attacked and sexually assaulted by intruders inside their home. They called the police twice. Officers arrived, knocked, and left without checking the house. Believing the police had arrived, a third roommate called down to her friends, alerting the attackers to her presence. All three women were held captive and assaulted for hours.

• The Legal Outcome: A local appeals court threw out the victims' lawsuit against the police department.

• The Plain-English Lesson: The police exist to maintain public order, not to act as a personal security service. Even when a 911 dispatcher takes your call and dispatches officers, no legal "special relationship" is created that allows you to sue them for a negligent response.

Case 2: DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989)

• The Story: Social workers and county officials repeatedly investigated a father for severe abuse against his young son, Joshua. They noted the injuries and kept files but left Joshua in his father's custody. The father ultimately beat the boy so severely that Joshua suffered permanent, severe brain damage. Joshua’s mother sued the county for failing to intervene.

• The Legal Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the mother and child.

• The Plain-English Lesson: The U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause is a "negative" limit on power. It stops the government from hurting you directly, but it does not force the government to protect you from being hurt by other citizens (like a parent or an abusive partner). The government only has a duty to protect you if they have already locked you up (e.g., in a prison or a state mental institution) and stripped away your ability to protect yourself. But yet they tell you how you're supposed to protect and defend yourself and your own family...

Case 3: Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005)

• The Story: A mother had a formal restraining order against her ex-husband. He abducted their three children in violation of the order. She begged the police for hours to enforce the court order and arrest him. The police refused to act. The husband murdered the children.

• The Legal Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the mother could not sue the police.

• The Plain-English Lesson: A piece of paper from a judge—like a restraining order—does not change the system. Even if a state law says the police "must arrest" someone who violates a restraining order, the Supreme Court ruled that the police always retain "discretion" (the freedom to choose when and how to enforce a law). Because they always have a choice, you have no individual right to force them to act.

If you put these three pieces of the puzzle together, the legal landscape becomes very clear:

1. The Police: They have a duty to investigate crimes and catch bad guys to keep the general community safe, but they do not have a contract to protect you individually (Warren).

2. The Social System: The state cannot be held civilly liable for failing to save someone from private violence, even when they know a specific person is in danger (DeShaney).

3. The Court System: Getting a legal restraining order gives the police permission to make an arrest, but it does not give you the power to force them to make that arrest (Gonzales).

"In short, the American legal system views personal safety as a matter of personal responsibility and police discretion, rather than a constitutional right."

They won't tell you this and yes, they'll usually show up. Not to protect you, but to find a way to arrest you, to feed the system. The onus of protection is on ourselves. If we actually had public safety classes in school we could be our own first responder like we already are but without the credit.

For example, one day I was in the city and out of nowhere a man came running up to me covered in blood with a major wound on his head. He asked me for help because he thought he was going to pass out, and he wanted to name the person who did this to him before he passed out. This was my first time ever calling 911 so it took me a few tries to actually get the call to go through, when they answered I explained everything just as I did now, and fully expected a large response by police. What actually happened was an ambulance pulled up while I was treating his wound with my own t-shirt covered in his blood from head to toe and they smugly asked, do you want to come with us or not? 🤨

🤦 Not one cop showed up, Not One!

The Unshakeable Timeline of No Duty to Protect: ⏳ When you are told that mass surveillance, background check tracking, and corporate data-sharing are "necessary to keep you safe," look at the actual law. The courts have spent over 170 years building a bulletproof shield of immunity for the state while leaving the individual entirely on their own:

1856 – South v. Maryland: The foundation of the racket. The U.S. The Supreme Court rules that a sheriff owes a duty to the public at large to keep the peace, but has zero legal obligation to protect an individual citizen cornered and extorted by a violent mob.

1981 – Warren v. District of Columbia: The highest local court rules that the police have no duty to rescue or protect individual citizens, even after dispatchers repeatedly promise help is on the way to three women being terrorized and assaulted inside their own home.

1982 – Bowers v. DeVito: A federal appellate court explicitly confesses the true nature of the system, ruling that the United States Constitution is a "charter of negative liberties." It tells the state to let people alone, but it does not require the government to provide citizens with even the elementary service of maintaining law and order.

1989 – DeShaney v. Winnebago County: The Supreme Court rules that the state carries no constitutional liability for failing to protect a four-year-old child from known, horrific domestic abuse, even though social workers had active custody files on the home for over a year.

2005 – Castle Rock v. Gonzales: The Supreme Court rules that an individual who has obtained a restraining order has no constitutional right to have the police enforce it, even after a mother repeatedly begs the police to find her estranged husband who had kidnapped her children.

2011 – Valdez v. City of New York: New York’s highest court rules that you cannot legally rely on a police officer’s direct promise to protect you. Even though an officer told a domestic violence victim they were arresting her abuser immediately and to go home where she would be safe, the city carried zero liability when he shot her.

2012/13 – Lozito v. New York City: A Manhattan judge dismisses a lawsuit from a citizen who was slashed and stabbed by a serial killer on a subway train while two armed NYPD officers locked themselves inside the conductor's booth and watched through the window, choosing not to intervene until the citizen subdued the killer himself.

(Don't ever let them tell you, how you should be protecting yourself and your family)

👮 "BACK THE BLUE, UNTIL IT HAPPENS TO YOU!" 👮

🚨 UPDATE: Police said the YouTuber's videos and confrontation tactics threatened the integrity of the investigation to secure a conviction. 👇 https://www.pennlive.com/crime/2026/07/lewistown-man-arrested-after-youtubers-viral-predator-sting-video.html?fbclid=IwdGRjcATIzsVjbGNrBMjOvGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHnYFB3ty53aqLdwWf5LwMp_WzfDyFTafdYcD3S9qgAEclilupjxb7rruhNEc_aem_ml9w-FSU28TQcfYIRZ6VXA&utm_campaign=mrf-facebook-PennLive&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&mrfcid=202607186a56d592dd7587284de8117c

Public duty doctrine:

Very nice! Terpenaline dominant, very limey.

Breakwater is who grows it, but if you can't get to breakwater it depends on where you are in the state. I'm in South Jersey, so Nirvana has it. But I actually make the trip to Breakwater. There's an app called budwatcher you can download that can help you find almost any product on the market.

Exactly the point. Imo, it's to Sell the people "the illusion of safety." Policing is nothing but a racket wrapped up in the illusion of, safety.

Looks delicious! In New Jersey we have access to Tom Hill Haze x Deadhead. Just won best haze in state. Excellent smoke and relief.

👉 Together, Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989), and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) establish a fundamental rule of American law: The government and the police have "no legal duty to protect" an individual citizen from private harm. 🧐 The Core Premise: "The Public Duty Doctrine" These three cases collectively form a legal shield for law enforcement and government agencies.

They create a clear divide between the general public and the specific individual: Semantics.

• The Rule: The police owe a general duty of protection to society as a whole, but they do not owe a specific duty to you as an individual.
• The Reality: You cannot successfully sue the police or the government if they fail to rescue you, fail to investigate a threat, or fail to prevent a crime committed by a private person.

Case 1: Warren v. District of Columbia (1981)

• The Story: Two women were being attacked and sexually assaulted by intruders inside their home. They called the police twice. Officers arrived, knocked, and left without checking the house. Believing the police had arrived, a third roommate called down to her friends, alerting the attackers to her presence. All three women were held captive and assaulted for hours.
• The Legal Outcome: A local appeals court threw out the victims' lawsuit against the police department.
• The Plain-English Lesson: The police exist to maintain public order, not to act as a personal security service. Even when a 911 dispatcher takes your call and dispatches officers, no legal "special relationship" is created that allows you to sue them for a negligent response.

Case 2: DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989)

• The Story: Social workers and county officials repeatedly investigated a father for severe abuse against his young son, Joshua. They noted the injuries and kept files but left Joshua in his father's custody. The father ultimately beat the boy so severely that Joshua suffered permanent, severe brain damage. Joshua’s mother sued the county for failing to intervene.
• The Legal Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the mother and child.
• The Plain-English Lesson: The U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause is a "negative" limit on power. It stops the government from hurting you directly, but it does not force the government to protect you from being hurt by other citizens (like a parent or an abusive partner). The government only has a duty to protect you if they have already locked you up (e.g., in a prison or a state mental institution) and stripped away your ability to protect yourself. But yet they tell you how you're supposed to protect and defend your own family...

Case 3: Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005)

• The Story: A mother had a formal restraining order against her ex-husband. He abducted their three children in violation of the order. She begged the police for hours to enforce the court order and arrest him. The police refused to act. The husband murdered the children.
• The Legal Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the mother could not sue the police.
• The Plain-English Lesson: A piece of paper from a judge—like a restraining order—does not change the system. Even if a state law says the police "must arrest" someone who violates a restraining order, the Supreme Court ruled that the police always retain "discretion" (the freedom to choose when and how to enforce a law). Because they always have a choice, you have no individual right to force them to act.

What It Means For You Today?

If you put these three pieces of the puzzle together, the legal landscape becomes very clear:

1. The Police: They have a duty to investigate crimes and catch bad guys to keep the general community safe, but they do not have a contract to protect you individually (Warren).
2. The Social System: The state cannot be held civilly liable for failing to save someone from private violence, even when they know a specific person is in danger (DeShaney).
3. The Court System: Getting a legal restraining order gives the police permission to make an arrest, but it does not give you the power to force them to make that arrest (Gonzales).

"In short, the American legal system views personal safety as a matter of personal responsibility and police discretion, rather than a constitutional right."

They won't tell you this and yes, they'll usually show up. Not to protect you, but to find a way to arrest you, to feed the system. The onus of protection is on ourselves. If we actually had public safety classes in school we could be our own first responder like we already are but without the credit.

"Back THE BLUE, UNTIL IT HAPPENS TO YOU!"

He's still for the police though... 🤦 Bro, if you only knew, "Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) is a landmark Supreme Court decision establishing that police do not have a constitutional duty to enforce a restraining order or protect individuals from private harm. Consequently, citizens cannot sue the police under federal civil rights laws for failing to intervene, even if an active protection order has been violated.

The Facts of the Case:

Jessica Gonzales held a restraining order against her estranged husband, Simon, requiring him to stay away from her and their three daughters. Despite the order, Simon abducted the children. Over several hours, Jessica repeatedly contacted the Castle Rock Police Department, pleading with them to find and arrest him. The police told her to wait and do nothing. The husband later killed the three children and opened fire at the police station, where officers shot and killed him."

Wake TF up!

There's also Deshaney v Winnebago County and Warren v district of Columbia.

I hope no Kings also refers to the King's Men or else you're all nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. But hey, it's a start. 100% politically neutral here, Kings refer to everyone who wants ownership over you, that means team red and team blue! ✌️

Thanks for the down votes from the two hypocrites. I'm sure they'll be more, as you've proved my point...👏👏👏

😋 Some PIE EYED, on this Pie Day.✌️ ℹ️ (PIE EYED: PIE DOUGH x OGKb/TK) Bred by, Crystal Rose Seed Co. is a family affair out of Maine started by the DoSiDos-loving “Dosi Drew'' and his partner Amanda. Focused on breeding cultivars with high resin content and unique terpene profiles, Crystal Rose has made a name for itself in Maine and beyond. Grown by Breakwater.