[dp0622]

Should be charged, then fired, then no pension.

If a NYC cop said “I will no longer get involved in a shooting and protect civilians”, he’d be in a heap of trouble.

[raybbr]

If a NYC cop said “I will no longer get involved in a shooting and protect civilians”, he’d be in a heap of trouble.

By who? They are not obliged by law to protect, the mayor wouldn't do anything, their union would protect them and a pitiful number of NY'ers wouldn't care.

[Sir Napsalot]

>>> Should be charged, then fired, then no pension.

I’m 100x with you on that, starting with the agent herself.

And send a blanket letter for all federal employees that resign or face the same treatment. [Yes, even with those in essential role. If the people can not count on their faithful execution of their jobs, might as well not have them at essential role.]

Then shrink government by not refill any vacancy.

[neonovanglus]

Not at all. The Supreme Court ruled that the police do NOT have a duty to protect.

We are on are own. Prepare accordingly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html?_r=0

[CGASMIA68]

If a NYC cop said “I will no longer get involved in a shooting and protect civilians”, he’d be in a heap of trouble.
Pretty much what DiBlasio is saying about illegals in his city

[bert]

——Should be charged, then fired, then no pension.-—

Apparently the person was allowed to resign

[sarge83]

Actually the SC has ruled that they do not have to get involved legally. Now public relations wise it would be a disaster. But legally they are not obligated too intervene.