Victor Davis Hansen notes:
…Will some law enforcement officials now surmise that it is wiser to ignore some crimes in the inner city on the practicable logic that the denouement for the officer will likely be negative — either by stopping the assailant through force or not stopping the assault and thus being assaulted?…
Why should a police officer even try? After all, if you’re policing a heavily minority area then any action you take may be construed as racist, and career-ending. Act or don’t act, and it can work out equally badly for you…so maybe just work your patrol route so that you just don’t go into certain areas where you suspect there will be a number of minority men who are up to no good. In other words, surrender part of the streets to them, because fighting them for control of the streets will still leave them in control and might get you fired and possibly sent to jail for civil rights violations.
As readers here know, I am in favor of very deep reforms to policing – but what we’re getting here now is the creation of “no go” areas of our cities. That, I think, is what the criminal element (ie, those who actually looted) want, and it is what the political element doesn’t care about (and, remember, most of the race-baiters live in carefully policed areas…safe and sound in their swell homes, free from any fear of criminal activity, it is easy for them to rabble rouse, knowing that the ill-effects won’t come back to haunt them).
We’re getting in to a very bizarre world here: a world in which lies triumph (only for the moment, of course) and those who are rational are hated. It could be a very bad few years coming up here.