Posted by Bob Janova at 11:27am May 5 '10... I suspect the motivation behind that distinction is to stop people suing the police when they get robbed/mugged/attacked/whatever and try to claim that the police didn't uphold their obligation to protect them. In practical terms it is impossible for the police (or any other organisation) to protect every individual from crime unless they have (literally) a policeman outside every house.
Your piece follows a typical pattern: a couple of snippets from test cases, lots of opinion and a couple of cherry-picked anecdotes to show 'OMG ISN'T IT AWFUL', designed to lead the reader to the conclusion that they need to put up the barricades and shoot people themselves. Yes, you were very careful to keep from saying that explicitly, and it shows.
Two cases of police making an error in 25 years, and legal rulings designed to stop the police getting sued by every victim of crime in their jurisdiction, do not a crisis make.
Your piece follows a typical pattern: a couple of snippets from test cases, lots of opinion and a couple of cherry-picked anecdotes to show 'OMG ISN'T IT AWFUL', designed to lead the reader to the conclusion that they need to put up the barricades and shoot people themselves. Yes, you were very careful to keep from saying that explicitly, and it shows.
Two cases of police making an error in 25 years, and legal rulings designed to stop the police getting sued by every victim of crime in their jurisdiction, do not a crisis make.
While I'm sure this is factual ... - Bob Janova