[smnrchrds]

> 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.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/clement-gascon-mental-healt...

[vkou]

> But why shouldn't they protect her 24/7?

They should, but if you're just a regular person, the SOP for police is to not.

[ozim]

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."

[redis_mlc]

> But why shouldn't they protect her 24/7?

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.)

[Supermancho]

> in the US, dangerous police car chases are allowed even in downtown areas

That hasn't been true for awhile now. It's commonplace enough to have the moniker "slow speed chase".

[redis_mlc]

The police usually need to request permission today for chases in built-up areas, but that doesn't mean it doesn't or can't still happen.