That is a valid point. Thank you. Would you say then that the police can legally ignore a riot or other more widespread violation of the law?
Just curious...
Have you seen the videos of the LA "Rodney King" riots, where the police just turned and ran?
During the NYC Crown Heights riots, the cops mostly let it happen. Mayor Dinkens praised them for "showing restraint" and not bothering the rioters who voted for him. NYC learned to not elect another black mayor since then.
Besides the examples already posted, how about the police doing literally nothing about all the Occupy murders, rapes, thefts and vandalism. How about the few cops that were fired or demoted for actually trying to control the Occupy rioters?
The police do what ever their commander tells them to do..My dad, and X mounted man told me one day that if the police are doing crap, blame their superior...he's the one that lets them get away with it...
Being a man that had police working under him knew what he was talking about. He also had a superior he worked under, and up the chain it goes.....Crappy, sloppy SWAT crap, are doing what their commander tells them to do...blame goes up the ladder of command.....police are a para-military branch of government...
Just curious...
That would largely depend on how you define "legally". Using a strict definition of 'de jure' (of the law) it would be a resounding NO. But if something is done 'de facto' (in fact), and no legal consequences followed thereafter, despite a legal prohibition on the books (the law itself being ignored by those who would otherwise be sworn to enforce it), can you truly say that it is,in fact, illegal?
The history of this country is replete with examples of the aforementioned, from the very founding of the nation, to just yesterday, in one form or another. The 'legal' status of any one of these, far too often, is determined largely in the eye of the beholder...
the infowarrior