Via Mr Muldoon in the comments, a grimly educational tale from the Windy City:

Ah, a quality human being. Would make a mother proud.

But wait, there’s more.

Injuries including nine broken ribs and two fractured vertebrae. Still, at least an offer of help.

And then two more participants joined the drama.

Valuables, lest there be doubt. Things that could be taken.

Always an indicator of good intentions.

Mr Nelson and his charming lady friend were later apprehended, following some indignant yelling of profanity, and both were charged with unlawful vehicular invasion, burglary, and unlawful possession of credit cards.

However,

At which point, I’m going to share the words pit and hot concrete for no reason whatsoever.

As illustrated here many times, there are people, generally of a progressive leaning, who struggle to conceive of just how degenerate the degenerate can be. People who somehow remain clueless – one might say wilfully impervious – to the psychology and motives in play, as expressed, often vividly, by the criminals themselves.

And yet, there are creatures walking among us, in significant numbers, for whom the words human being would be a merely technical term and inaptly flattering.

Update, via the comments:

I’ve previously mentioned the evening, on an unlit country road, when the Other Half and I hit a drunk walking obliviously in the middle of the road.

After taking the chap to hospital, what lingered in the mind  – other than learning that he was known to hospital staff and had been in several similar accidents – was an exchange during our reporting of the accident to the police. We were told that we’d “done the right thing” and that “not everyone would.”

I remember being taken aback and trying to imagine hitting someone with a car and just leaving them, with a broken arm, sprawled at the side of the road. As if that were a thing one might do.

And before you ask, no, it didn’t occur to me to start rummaging through his pockets for stuff we could steal while he was dazed and in shock.

And in Bay Area news:

From the article in question:

According to Oakland Police Department, car break-ins are down by some 37% from the previous year and significantly lower than the preceding decade, in which reported break-ins, or “bipping,” reached an impressive 30,000 per year, or around 82 break-ins each and every day. With some single blocks reporting 10 such thrilling events occurring daily. And with shattered car glass being dubbed “San Francisco diamonds.”

Apparently, Bay Area businesses have also been hit by a lamentable reduction in catalytic converter thefts. Happily, however,

And as someone quips in reply,

Via Kane.

Consider this an open thread.

Some elaboration on an item from Friday’s Ephemera:

Liberals do this very weird thing where some deranged, violent criminal sticks a gun in your face and demands your wallet, but the wallet only has $20 in it, so from then on they’ll minimize the crime by describing it as, “stealing only $20.”

This is so fundamentally dishonest… https://t.co/fDj2uCk8m1

— wanye (@xwanyex) November 23, 2025

Readers will note the sly conceit that what matters, all that matters, is the sum being stolen this time, not the whole at knifepoint or gunpoint business – as if this lively means of cash extraction were some trivial detail, beneath acknowledgment. A thing with no informational content, no clues as to the character of the perpetrator, their fitness for a civilised world.

Those pointing to the smallness of the sum as if it were a significant mitigating factor don’t seem troubled by the implication that someone who will violate others, and threaten them with death, for a mere $20 is someone who will use very small incentives to behave in monstrous ways. Likewise, the implication that robbing people with only $20 to surrender is a matter of no import.

Indeed, one might note the underlying belief that the outrage and horror of being robbed at knifepoint or gunpoint – the degree of violation and moral injury, the amount of wrongness – depends only on the amount of cash you happened to have on you at the time.

Which, again, rather screws over people who don’t have a lot of money.

The chappie doing the pointing in this case is Brian Rosenwald, a scholar in residence at the University of Pennsylvania, a teacher of history and political science, a shaper of young minds. Mr Rosenwald objects to a three-strikes law whereby “you had people stealing $10 items and getting life sentences,” which he describes as a “disaster,” a series of “foolish, unjust outcomes.”

To which commenter John D replies,

There is, shall we say, some sleight-of-hand. And a now familiar flattening of values, a signature of progressive posturing. And so, as noted in the replies on X, histories of armed robbery, carjacking, assault and battery, serial sucker-punching and other vigorous activities, all horrific for the victims, are somehow reduced to “stealing $20.”

So hey, no biggie.

As noted here many, many times, progressives often have a wildly inaccurate conception of the criminal demographic and of the psychology and motives in play, as expressed by the criminals themselves. A conception so inaccurate, one might call it perverse.

Readers with a taste for corrective statistics regarding recidivism and motives will find much to widen the eyes here. Along with some striking illustrations of how a very large fraction of crime could be prevented by dealing decisively with a surprisingly small number of persistent offenders.

To concentrate, as Mr Rosenwald does, on the assumed triviality of the third strike, rather than the seriousness of the first two and the pattern of behaviour being vividly revealed, is quite the manoeuvre. As if the refusal to be law-abiding after repeated warnings of incarceration – and what might be deduced from that – couldn’t possibly be useful information.

It occurs to me that someone who, having been warned in the strongest terms that any further law-breaking will have severe consequences – and who nonetheless continues violating others, whether for trivial gains or for purposes of recreation – is someone unlikely ever to become a functional and trustworthy citizen, someone to be given, once again, benefit of the doubt.

On this and much else, progressives aren’t just wrong in some detail, some particular, some point misunderstood. The assumptions so often in play, the relentless contrivance, the defining mindset, are fundamentally, directionally wrong. There’s an air of perverse motivation.

Such that the law-abiding, including the many victims of habitual and violent predation, are expected to endorse an insane leniency, a grotesque forgiveness, on grounds that their own safety and expectations of justice should be rescinded in favour of giving an irredeemable sociopath another 56 chances to learn how to behave.

And so, we arrive at the implication that women, for instance, should resign themselves to a low-trust urban dystopia, and learn to accept the growing risk of being menaced and assaulted, or worse, on public transport, so that habitually criminal brutes can be given more chances to decide not to be habitually criminal brutes.

Because accommodating brutes, indulging them with more chances, is somehow better, fairer, more moral.

These are people whose every action screams “I am someone who cannot be trusted in a civilised society. I am dangerous and always will be. I will hurt people, for fun, because it amuses me, over and over again, until I am forcibly stopped.” And our analyst and scholar, our esteemed academic, says, ‘Oh, nonsense. Nothing to worry about. We can fix them.’

While having no idea how.

And when faced with an avalanche of pushback and factual correction, Mr Rosenwald, our statusful scholar and thinker of deep thoughts, simply waves his hands dismissively and says, “I could care less – I’m a historian. The research on three-strike laws is unambiguous. Who cares what people on here think?”

Before ascending to the heavens, like some higher being.

Pst314 adds,

And not just academia.

I’ve mentioned before an episode of the long-running comedy-quiz show QI, in which Stephen Fry and his celebrity panellists sneered at the three-strikes policy with much tutting and condescension.

Viewers were given the impression that otherwise harmless and adorable people were being incarcerated simply for stealing “nine videotapes” or a few boxes of cookies. The assorted luvvies seemed oddly incurious about the rather more serious crimes that must have occurred previously. Nor did they seem interested in having those who’d been incarcerated roaming free in their own neighbourhoods, carjacking their neighbours, or breaking into their homes.

None of the participants seemed keen to find themselves or their loved ones being robbed at knifepoint, or gunpoint, even for a modest sum.

But everyone congratulated themselves on being so lofty and enlightened. Not like those redneck Americans and their silly, punitive ideas. Expectations of punishment and public safety being so terribly déclassé.

A recurring theme of the QI series is to show how common assumptions are sometimes wrong or misleading. And so there was a certain unintended irony in seeing the left-of-centre politics of the host and panellists being affirmed by an omission of facts. An omission that could not plausibly have been an accident.

The same sleight-of-hand as practised by our indignant academic. In a show about the wrongness of things that are widely assumed.

More items regarding that Thing That Never Happens:

A tale of paedophilia, pretending, and legal priorities:

That’s violating his own ten-year-old son and then distributing evidence of his crimes to likeminded individuals for purposes of titillation. Should things be unclear.

The professor, our esteemed intellectual, recommended that Mr Buckingham, who now wishes to be referred to as “Nani Love Buckingham,” be indulged immediately with “facial feminisation surgery, laser hair removal, and voice/speech therapy as gender affirming care.” Entirely at the expense of law-abiding taxpayers.

Because his wellbeing and dignity matter so much.

And then there’s this fun-house mirror tale:

The police officer being the one whose actions were deemed incongruous.

Oh, calamity. Oh, cruel, unfeeling world.

Readers are welcome to judge for themselves whether the officer’s appraisal was wildly off the mark:

Putting quite a lot of faith in the wig, I see.

The redoubtable ladies at Reduxx have, of course, taken an interest in Mr Swinson:

I’ll spare you the vivid details, but suffice it to say that Mr Swinson is an enthusiast of children in wigs and gowns, and what is referred to as “suggestive” attire. The words “hot” and “delicious” are used. So, clearly, no reason to worry about Mr Swinson’s presence in places he shouldn’t be.

And because things aren’t quite as unhinged as they could be:

Dr Lacroix was careful to refer to Mr Sears with female pronouns and honorifics throughout. Lest he be thought rude, one assumes.

Again, readers may wish to note the effort required by this feat of mislabelling:

Ah, a shimmering vision of womanliness.

Oh, and since you ask, yes, the testicles were eaten.

Lifted from the comments, Mr Burkett ponders crime and its apologists:

A thread ensues.

Regarding the consequent conflictedness and anxiety, all that progressive wrongness, these three posts include some fairly vivid illustrations of the phenomenon.

Among which, a claim that more theatre for schoolchildren would somehow deter the kinds of creatures who repeatedly and gleefully sucker-punch elderly ladies for being the wrong race, and a chap who insists that women should allow themselves to be mugged at bus stops lest their mugger, out on probation, come to harm.

Oh, and the belief, expressed tearfully and at length by a Guardian columnist, that when you find your home being burgled in the middle of the night, the real victims, the people deserving of sympathy and indulgence, are the ones breaking into your home while brandishing carving knives and then driving off with your valuables in your car.

In the examples featured in the posts above, the perpetrator is typically black and the apologist white. This recurring racial hang-up is often made explicit – as when the activist and lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, mentioned here, dismissed objections to being burgled as, and I quote, “idiotic attitudes,” while telling Guardian readers that the wellbeing of burglars is more important than the wellbeing of their victims, especially if the burglar is a “young black person.”

Mr Stafford Smith went on to chide and insult the victims of burglary, and the law-abiding generally, while offering implausible excuses for those who break into strangers’ homes and steal their belongings, and who do this over and over again with ever greater boldness. And none of these claims were challenged, at all, in the Guardian‘s fawning interview. Apparently, among many progressives, such contrivance is not only congenial, but terribly high-status.

Perversity as piety.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.