San Fran PD
 

San Francisco PD speaks out.

I guess the San Francisco Police Department has been pushed to the limit by the liberals. Please listen closely to the following media release issued on 8/8/2006 at
3:22 PM by the San Francisco Police Officers Association President.

http://mfile.akamai.com/12948/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2006/0728/9591734.300k.asx

Before I get burned by anyone on the left, let me note that the text in this post is a cut and paste from an e-mail I recieved... not my own words :)

I didn't know anything about the story until now, but it sounds like he has a point after searching for articles about the event.

Unbelieveable, but true these days. One of the reason's why I do not live in the land of "fruits and nuts"...

Re: San Fran PD
 

I'm in sympathy with the officer in this example, however you ought to know that the policy of the SF Police department is to support disarming the citizens of San Francisco every time the right to be armed is on the ballot or any other time.

Therefore, my sympathy is limited.

Here in Washington, the rulings and sentencing records of the judges we elect are not made available to the voting public. I gather it is the same in California and probably elswhere as well. These judges appear to feel that they must remain above the will of the people, that they must not allow popular opinion to drive their rulings from the bench. That they provide us with the purest interpretation of law, insulated as they are from public opinion. Maybe that needs to change.

The mere fact that we vote for them implies that we have the information necessary to make an informed decision. We do not, and they do not want us to have that information. Hopefully this officer is able to root out these judges and make their names public. Hopefully the people of San Fransisco give a *****. Sadly, though, I kind of doubt it.

So wouldn't "Released Felon Kills Officer" make for an attention-grabbing headline? Along with pictures of the judges that released him time after time? That should scratch the media's itch for sensationalism. It should satify the mouth-breathing public's yen for scandle and blood. Why would the media choose to ignore this? Through their choices of which "news" to report, we all know they very much influence public opinion. Why would they be so callous as to essentially go after the cop and leave the criminal alone? What is going on here?

Re: Re: San Fran PD
 

Pat,
I believe the policy of the PD is actually set by the Chief and the politicians/mayor who appoint them. If you were to ask the average Officer in the PD most would not support disarming the law abiding citizens. I have many friends who were on the SFPD for years.

I lived in SF for nearly 25 years and I can tell you that the Supervisors...and some Mayors...were as liberal and anti gun as they come. They set the policy and the cops have to live with it.

Re: Re: Re: San Fran PD
 

Do they?

Pat,
Relax...I'm not attacking you. To answer your question,though, Yes...they do have to abide by the set policy..like it or not and most don't.

I rarely take any response out here as a personal attack, not to worry.

I had a long discussion about this very subject with an officer in the North Bay, a lieutenant on his force now and just short of retirement, and he agreed with me philosophically. A good officer only enforces mala pro se laws, things that are against the law in and of themselves. Those are crimes of violence, theft, and the like. Most of us inherrantly understand what these laws are, and well over 95% of the population wants those that break those laws removed from society until they stop breaking them. In fact, we (the officer and I) agreed that when very little less than 90% of a population supports a law, it's difficult to enforce a law, and when a little less than 80-85% of the population support a law it's almost impossible to enforce the law. He and I agreed on the fact that the duty of the police is to have a generally orderly society, but not to provide any type of personal security (body guard) force.

The upshot of this is that the police do not have to enforce laws that should not be (mala prohibitum laws), and no gun control law is legitimate, unless they wish to do so. That is the inherrant danger of laws prohibiting a "thing", such as guns, automatic knives, drugs, and a whole lot of other "things"; they allow a judgement on enforcement among individual officers based on what they wish to do in any circumstance. That's a bad idea.

Pat,
Ok..I get your point. We don't disagree in principle.

whats the backstory on this?