Recent events prove you can’t always rely on police protection (letter)
August 10, 2018
In April, the Vail Daily carried a column by me about citizens needing firearms for protection ("Semi-automatic rifles have legitimate uses," Terry Quinn, Wednesday, April 11). I pointed out that sometimes people can't count on the police to provide protection. Two recent items in the news demonstrate this point.
In July, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a trial court determination that a suit for damages could proceed against the San Jose, California, police. It was brought by persons who were attending a Trump rally in 2016; they were attacked by a mob when they tried to leave. The police are alleged to have directed the rally patrons in a direction that put them into the mob, instead of a safer way to exit. And then, it is alleged, the police failed to protect the Trump fans when the mob attacked them.
Ordinarily, public employees are immune to claims because of alleged failures to act; but in some extreme cases, that general rule does not apply. In this case, the courts found that the allegations were sufficient to let the case proceed. You can get details from Breitbart's July 27 edition.
The next case was reported by the Wall Street Journal on Friday, Aug. 3. In Portland, Oregon, a mob put the ICE office under siege and terrorized some others in the area. Police response was minimal because the mayor directed them to stay out of it.
As stated in the WSJ article: "Where were the police? Ordered away by Democratic Mayor Ted Wheeler, who doubles as police commissioner. 'I do not want the @PortlandPolice to be engaged or sucked into a conflict, particularly from a federal agency that I believe is on the wrong track,' he tweeted. 'If (ICE is) looking for a bailout from this mayor, they are looking in the wrong place.'"
The Washington Times also reported about this incident on Tuesday, July 31.
Recommended Stories For You