He is wrong for the same reason he stated: it's cheaper. When does the gov care about cheap? In fact it's better when it costs more, because each agent/person involved can take a little from the top. The "program" already has funds allocated, they need to spend. If there were no "witnesses" to protect, there would be no money to allocate and therefore the program would be shut down. 1 guy part time can keep an eye on it? No. Let's put 4 guys 24/7 with vehicle and let's rent a big house near the witness. Of course they each need a lot of money for good food and confort.
Why should "witness protection" be any less phaik and ghey than any other us.gov program?
The "program" already has funds allocated, they need to spend. If there were no "witnesses" to protect, there would be no money to allocate and therefore the program would be shut down. 1 guy part time can keep an eye on it? No. Let's put 4 guys 24/7 with vehicle and let's rent a big house near the witness.
When does the gov care about cheap?
And I would ask, "When does the us.gov care about whether a government program is successful?"
Examples: the TSA, the BATF, the FBI, the NEA, the DOE, NASA, etc...
IOW, just kill the guy and spend all of those "allocated funds" on all of that stuff anyway. Or anything else you want for that matter. Hell, if I were in charge, my "protectee" would need a year round, round-the-clock close protection detail in a secret location in Monte Carlo. Near a casino.
[ - ] prototype 1 point 1.6 yearsNov 21, 2023 06:37:02 ago (+1/-0)
If I recall there were was some rumor after the sandyhook shooting, that when the government manufactures false shootings, they use identities created from the witness protection program.
Easy to kill people for the sake of gun control, when those people may have never existed to begin with.
[ + ] Murdock
[ - ] Murdock 6 points 1.6 yearsNov 21, 2023 01:17:50 ago (+6/-0)
When does the gov care about cheap?
In fact it's better when it costs more, because each agent/person involved can take a little from the top.
The "program" already has funds allocated, they need to spend. If there were no "witnesses" to protect, there would be no money to allocate and therefore the program would be shut down.
1 guy part time can keep an eye on it? No. Let's put 4 guys 24/7 with vehicle and let's rent a big house near the witness. Of course they each need a lot of money for good food and confort.
[ + ] BulletStopper
[ - ] BulletStopper 0 points 1.6 yearsNov 21, 2023 01:50:55 ago (+0/-0)*
1 guy part time can keep an eye on it? No. Let's put 4 guys 24/7 with vehicle and let's rent a big house near the witness.
And I would ask, "When does the us.gov care about whether a government program is successful?"
Examples: the TSA, the BATF, the FBI, the NEA, the DOE, NASA, etc...
IOW, just kill the guy and spend all of those "allocated funds" on all of that stuff anyway. Or anything else you want for that matter.
Hell, if I were in charge, my "protectee" would need a year round, round-the-clock close protection detail in a secret location in Monte Carlo.
Near a casino.
Win, win.
https://files.catbox.moe/e0auns.png
[ + ] prototype
[ - ] prototype 1 point 1.6 yearsNov 21, 2023 06:37:02 ago (+1/-0)
Easy to kill people for the sake of gun control, when those people may have never existed to begin with.