This is not hyperbole, or exaggeration, or an unfounded guess, or an uncharitable interpretation, none of that.
The practice of excluding candidates for scoring too highly had to be defended before the US courts of appeals at one point, and successfully was. Like 30 years ago now.
So yeah, police fought, using the court system, for the protection to do exactly what you’re describing.
Combine that with the ruling that they have no legal duty to even try to protect anyone, and events like Uvalde seem a lot more predictable. How anyone thinks they’re here for our benefit is wild.
This is not hyperbole, or exaggeration, or an unfounded guess, or an uncharitable interpretation, none of that.
The practice of excluding candidates for scoring too highly had to be defended before the US courts of appeals at one point, and successfully was. Like 30 years ago now.
So yeah, police fought, using the court system, for the protection to do exactly what you’re describing.
Combine that with the ruling that they have no legal duty to even try to protect anyone, and events like Uvalde seem a lot more predictable. How anyone thinks they’re here for our benefit is wild.