[refurb]

Now back in Canada, Carr says police have told her she is likely no longer in danger, but with one caveat.

“The police said we believe the risk is low. As long as you don't go back to work, as long as you don't restart the firm,” she says.

[londons_explore]

> As long as you don't go back to work, as long as you don't restart the firm

One of the suspects probably told the police "As long as OP doesn't come after us legally again, we'll stay away from them".

This is blackmail using the police as a messenger.

[frequentnapper]

Yep, sounds like the incompetent canadian police I've encountered.

[ozim]

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."

[Fogest]

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.

[yoavm]

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.

[Fogest]

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?

[Google234]

I can’t think of a better use of tax money.