And yet, the source article states: “Police say someone threw a piece of concrete through the window of a registered sex offender’s home.” WTF?

The cited source article https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2019/02/20/police-concrete-thrown-at-rhode-island-sex-offenders-home says nothing about why the police detail was there or who the protesters were. I assumed they were there to prevent Mr. Gardner from being harmed by the protesters. Do you have another source of information? If so, please share.

They weren’t there for his protection. The police chief was very clear when he posted that detail that they were there to observe him, not the protesters (which included the mayor and a city councilman).

Even without the registry, he was still subjected to and jailed on a a trumped up charge (incorrect address on a marriage licence) to show how dangerous he supposedly is.

Even without the registry, he was still subject to undue police harassment (24 hour detail at his house specifically to observe him, versus those that vocally and frequently threatened him).

Even without the registry, he is still scorned and abused by his neighbors, shown in this story, where the investigation into who threw the block through his window was closed before the label marking the file finished printing.

And yet, the registry is a “valuable and necessary public safety tool” and not punishment in any way, because the legislatures that wrote them and continue to create more crimes based on them never intended them to be punitive. Kind of like how the Rams won the Super Bowl this year because they never intended to lose.

Who can say that?
You have the right to install cameras. Cameras can be very helpful in proving you DIDN’T do something accused of.
Better safe than sorry.

Careful about installing cameras. Advised by a lawyer they could say it is being used to observe children.

I doubt there will be any further investigation of the incident, except that police protection will be determined to be too expensive to reinstate.