1. There sure are a lot of positive comments on that one. And a lot of them know about “rooftop Koreans”. I even saw a reference to “no duty to protect”.

   5

2. I grok no duty to protect an individual, but you would think ‘widespread civic unrest’ wouldn’t be something they could walk away from.

   As one person put it, what the hell am I paying taxes for if the cops (at the behest of City Hall) are going to sit on their hands?

   5

   1. I grok no duty to protect an individual, but you would think ‘widespread civic unrest’ wouldn’t be something they could walk away from.

      See:
      Watts riots-1965,
      Rodney King Riots-1992,
      Ferguson Riots-2014
      Baltimore Riots-2015
      BLM/ANTIFA riots-2019 thru 2021
      Yeah you’d think.

      2

   2. Toastrider, the duty cops have is to investigate crimes and figure out the likely perpetrator, then arrest that person and bring suspect and evidence to court. Keeping the public safe is a sideline. Yes, plenty of cops will do that, and plenty of them think of it as an important part of their job. But legally speaking it isn’t.

3. The first publicly funded, organized police force with officers on duty full-time was created in Boston in 1838. So the police force is relatively modern idea. Going back to Constables and Night Watches may not be a bad idea. Civilians with guns would be much more feared, than cops with chest cameras.

   4

4. The police and the National Guard will definitely protect the Government Buildings. Your business? Not so much.

   That was what was so shocking about the Minneapolis 3rd Precinct being allowed to fall and be burnt out last Summer. That never happens. Except the boy mayor and MN Governor Walz allowed it to happen. The MN National Guard was nowhere to be found. No one even tried very hard to defend it.

   1

Comments are closed.