From [HERE] In a glaring example of the woeful incompetence of the government’s monopoly on violence, a Black family-owned clothing boutique in North Sacramento was left to the mercy of brazen thieves last Wednesday. The damning evidence of the police department's failure was all captured in detail on the store's multiple surveillance cameras, showcasing the grim reality of a society in which those entrusted to protect are instead conspicuous by their absence.

Universal Clothing Boutique, the life's work of Contreina and Frederick Adams, found itself the target of two audacious thieves. The culprits nonchalantly shattered the front window with a cart before embarking on a casual spree of theft, making off with an estimated $30,000 worth of merchandise. The couple is now reeling from the sheer audacity of the act and is in shock over the extent of the damage as well as the failure of the security force they are compelled by law to fund.

Seemingly predicting the lack of police response, the suspects returned to the scene just two hours later, this time brandishing a gun and threatening Contreina. The crime took on a painfully personal dimension for the couple, according to KCRA, who have been pillars of their community, often offering free meals and clothing to local families in need.

"It's just unfair," Frederick said, his words echoing the frustration of countless others who have found themselves let down by a system that seems incapable of providing protection when it matters most.

Their surveillance footage, intended as a security measure, instead served as a testament to the disheartening indifference of the Sacramento Police Department. It clearly showed two separate police vehicles driving past the ongoing burglary, oblivious or uncaring to the criminal activity unfolding in front of them.

"I kind of felt defenseless," Contreina admitted. "You're hoping you can jump through the camera or alert them."

The couple's faith in the police department is understandably shaken. Police did eventually arrive at the store, but only a full ten minutes after the burglary. This incident is yet another glaring example of the systemic inadequacies of law enforcement, highlighting the disturbing reality: when seconds matter, police are just minutes away.

IF THERE IS NO LEGAL DUTY TO PROTECT US, WHY SHOULD WE BE OBLIGATED TO OBEY POLICE??

On a daily basis (through various forms of indoctrination in The Spectacle) we are made to believe that police are primarily engaged in actual police work and are aggressive crime fighters sacrificing themselves to act on behalf of people. Such conduct is perceived as the fulfillment of the government’s legal obligation to all citizens pursuant to the social contract, a hypothesized agreement whereby citizens voluntarily agree to obey government authority in exchange for police protection and other services from the government.

Yet, in reality, crime data demonstrates that police don’t protect Black and Latino people and are not really involved in ‘police work’ in our communities. Rather, authorities use the perception and reality of crime to stalk, surveil, manage, control and kill Black and Latino people. Any beneficial “public service” provided by cops is random, incidental or done only under the most egregious or convenient circumstances and even then, it is done primarily to maintain manufactured public relations and provided on a compulsory, involuntary basis. Professor Alex Vitale states, “It is largely a liberal fantasy that the police exist to protect us from the bad guys. He further states, ‘the police have never really been about public safety or crime control.’ As the veteran police scholar David Bayley argues,

“The police do not prevent crime. This is one of the best kept secrets of modern life. Experts know it, the police know it, but the public does not know it. Yet the police pretend that they are society’s best defense against crime and continually argue that if they are given more resources, especially personnel, they will be able to protect communities against crime. This is a myth.”

Police in Sacramento and elsewhere don’t primarily protect or serve Black or Latino people. In reality, police exist primarily to manage the behavior of Blacks & Latinos within a free-range prison controlled by the belief in Government authority. Their goal is to place Blacks and Latinos in greater confinement.  Any protection or help from police to Blacks or Latinos is random or incidental. As FUNKTIONARY states, "people who are awake see cops as mercenary guards that remind us daily through acts of force, that we are simultaneously both enemies and slaves of the Corporate State - colonized, surveilled and patrolled by the desensitized and lobotomized drones of the colonizers."

Despite said practical reality it is an undisputed legal truth that police have no legal duty to protect any victim from violence from other private parties, unless the victim was in governmental custody. [MORE] and [MORE]. The Supreme Court has explained that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen. Among other things, this means for instance that police departments and their officers have no legal duty to protect any particular person and police cannot be sued for any failure to protect citizens under the Constitution or any federal statute. Unless a state negligence law exists allowing such a lawsuit, victims cannot hold police liable for a failure to protect them from harm from crimes. Courts throughout the nation have upheld and expanded on what is known as the “public duty doctrine.” Said “well established” rule from the Supreme Court that has been expanded upon by courts nationwide is known as the “public duty doctrine.” The DC Court of Appeals explained,

“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.

This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of those resources. Riss v. City of New York, supra. The public, through its representative officials, recruits, trains, maintains and disciplines its police force and determines the manner in which personnel are deployed. At any given time, publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate. Private resources and needs have little direct effect upon the nature of police services provided to the public. Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.”

Most recently in the so-called Parkland “mass shooting” a lawsuit alleging a failure to protect children was dismissed without controversy. A federal court ruled that students were not in “custody” and dismissed all claims concerning a failure to protect by police while children were allegedly killed and injured.

Both the failure of police to provide protection services to Blacks and Latinos and the public duty doctrine are simply more proof the social contract between government and citizens is bullshit. Specifically, the theory is that there is a “social contract” between people and the government in which the government protects the people and enforces the laws, in exchange for citizens’ obedience and taxes. That is, people have agreed to obey the government and do so voluntarily in exchange for government services. Mutual obligations, a promise for a promise, are a necessary element of all contracts. Where persons mistakenly believe they have a contract and one party fails to fulfill an obligation, the other is necessarily excused from performing her obligation. A contract places both parties under an obligation to each other, and one party’s rejection of his contractual obligation releases the other party from her obligation.

With regard to the social contract undeceiver Michael Huemer states,

‘individuals are supposed to be obligated to obey the laws promulgated by the state. Sometimes citizens violate those laws, in which case the state’s agents will punish the citizen, usually with fines or imprisonment. Given the wide and indefinite range of laws that might be created by the state and the range of punishments to which one might be subjected for violating them, an individual’s concessions to the state under the social contract are quite large. The state, in turn, is supposed to assume an obligation to the citizen, to enforce the citizen’s rights, including protecting the citizen from criminals and hostile foreign governments.’

Citizens are contractually obliged to obey all laws and commands and when they fail to do so the government punishes the citizen, usually with fines or imprisonment. However, pursuant to the public duty doctrine, authorities are bound to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it and to whom they choose, but no one in particular. Dr. Blynd asks “Makes you feel like a fool, doesn’t it?”

Why does any of this matter? [MORE]