You overestimate police possibilities just take into your mind that there is something around 100 000 police people to take care of 38 000 000 population of whole country.
So yes your best option for not getting robbed/mugged is not to walk in the dark alleys unless you really need to. There is not going to be a policeman in every dark alley.
Parent poster omitted important part, so before jumping to conclusions, read article first: "They carried out a series of raids this past spring, which netted dozens of high-powered weapons and led to the arrests of 35 people who face almost 500 charges, including the attempted murder of Carr."
What do you want them to do? Give her 24/7 security? They are telling her that if there are people against her she should be cautious. It's hard for police anywhere to prevent something that hasn't happened yet.
In what world are we living that protecting an innocent citizen is portrayed as a crazy idea? I don't mind if they give her 24/7 security, if they watch 24/7 people who they suspect want to harm her, whatever. IMHO police #1 role should be protecting the people.
I would also argue that in the long term this should pay off. Protect the lawyer, stop crime organizations, save much money later because less security needed. Don't protect the layer == more crime == more future expenses.
The problem is more where do you draw the line with that protection. What kind of risk warrants you getting special round the clock police presence? What if a criminal leader is having problems with another gang who keeps putting hits out on him? Maybe he had multiple attempts made on his life already. Should he also get protection? Or would he not count because of his criminal history?
If anything what should be happening here is the insurance company who is paying her should be helping protect her. Otherwise why wouldn't she just drop the client? If it is unsafe for her she may as well just cave in and drop that high risk client. I don't see how her career had to end because she couldn't drop a single client.
The insurance companies also could have put pressure on the prosecutors to go after these criminals. What I find interesting is that in the story we heard nothing from the insurance companies despite them being the main one going head-to-head against these guys.
In my city in Ontario our police department is already underfunded and has less officers per 100 000 people than most other departments in Ontario. And because of the BLM movement one of their proposed budgets would end up forcing them to cut 216 officers. Unfortunately people want to ask for things like these 24/7 protections but then they are unwilling to properly fund the police and instead look to defund them. A lot of police services in Ontario are understaffed and can barely keep up with 911 calls for service, how do you expect them to protect someone 24/7 for who knows how long when they can barely keep up with normal 911 calls?
"They carried out a series of raids this past spring, which netted dozens of high-powered weapons and led to the arrests of 35 people who face almost 500 charges, including the attempted murder of Carr."
They did what they could, you cannot keep someone safe for the rest of their life.
It means people want to kill her, and the police can't provide 24/7 protection to guarantee safety. It doesn't mean they won't answer 911 (or the equivalent) calls.
> It means people want to kill her, and the police can't provide 24/7 protection to guarantee safety.
But why shouldn't they protect her 24/7? It is sending organized crime a strong message that they can threaten anyone (perhaps with the exception of high politicians) to do anything. The chilling effect this must have on potential witnesses, whistle-blowers, and resistance must be worth something to the public. Now, no other attorney or insurance adjuster would dare raise a concern that might negatively influence the income stream for organized crime. The criminals will get richer and more powerful and more brazen.
EDIT: Imagine if we did that with politicians and judges too; not provide them with security when they need it [1]. What kind of world would we be living in? Organized crime could dictate every law and decide every case they want. I am sure that no cop would tell a supreme court judge, "Your honour, as long as you don't continue ruling against the mob, your life will not be in danger. But if you continue doing what you were previously doing, we cannot guarantee your safety." In the current climate, I guess we don't have to worry about this specific scenario. With no attorneys willing to take cases against the mob, it would never land on a judge's desk.
[1] I understand for Americans the when qualifier may sound weird. But here in Canada, we don't lock up high ranking officials 24/7 for the rest of their lives. A supreme court justice went missing for a short while last year and that triggered a police search.
I think organized gets the message, it is not like they left the case and told they cannot do anything:
"They carried out a series of raids this past spring, which netted dozens of high-powered weapons and led to the arrests of 35 people who face almost 500 charges, including the attempted murder of Carr."
This is a common misunderstanding in both Canada and the USA.
Police are not there to protect individuals whatsoever.
The best illustration is that in the US, dangerous police car chases are allowed even in downtown areas, and citizens get run over with impunity. Because the police are there to enforce laws, not "serve and protect."
The second-most frequent trope is that when you're in a foreign country, the US embassy will get you out of jail. That almost never happens, with them instead arranging phone calls and a local lawyer, if you can afford it.
(There's a small army of foreigners in Bali getting used to eating rice 3 times per day because of that misconception.)
I am happy with this decision. There should be alternative to these stores. Let people decide which store to choose. Looting devs for 30% income is bad decision.
Also recently Google banned few Indian apps. The way I see it, Indian govt wants to make sure, essential apps are in their control, not in private companies'.
This is not true in India. Every transactions bigger than 50,000 needs pan card. RBI monitors all big transactions. You can't deposit any big amount in bank without mentioning proper sources else Income tax dept enquires you. The Indian way of doing corruption is Hawala (gold mostly). As Modi govt did demonetization, all old currency became obsolete, wiping huge black money.Now nobody wants to launder money in cash. Govt also tried to bring adhar card system similar to US security number, so everything can be tracked but it was opposed by court.
It's going to be a looooonnnng time before Americans voluntarily turn over all their buying power to a government controlled payment system that takes away all consumer privacy. I still pay with cash myself when I can.
I don't think the poor in India are worried about Govt knowing about their 5-10 rupee purchases. Vast majority would be worried about where their next meal/income would come. Privacy would be for the rich to worry about their income getting reduced by Govt taxes.
if you want to learn new language/tool, try direct building something for which language is popular.
if you want to grasp existing code base fast, try copying it line by line. You don't have to finish all code. Once you cover to 30-40 % of code base, you become comfortable with it.
https://www.rawmilkinstitute.org/updates/letter-to-medical-p...