“The Patrol Special Police predate the San Francisco city police, and have served admirably through the lawless gold rush...”
Interesting historically, but what does that have to do with 2014? At one time, marshals assembled posses of private citizens to go after criminals. We decided a standing police force is better, a police force paid for with taxes —with the city and all taxpayers as their boss, not some rich guy.
“The Patrol Specials actually protected the regular SF police from major corruption scandals by allowing those with wealth to pay the police directly instead of trying to deal with politicians.”
A private citizen paying the police for services that every taxpayer is entitled to is the very definition of corruption. It’s how you get police protection in Mexico.
“San Francisco police performance and honesty has deteriorated consistently as the number and authority of Patrol Special Officers has declined over the years, from a majority of Officers to a very few.”
Are you saying the City Police are not protecting SF citizens? They have an out-of-control crime problem? Chaos in the streets? If so, the answer is for the city to fire all the cops and hire new ones. Not shrug and tell citizens they can have police protection as long as they pay for it.
And are you also saying the declining numbers of these private-hire gunmen is CAUSING the quality of policework in SF to decline? What evidence is there for such an assertion? Couldn’t it just be coincidence, not causality?
“Things are generally not the way leftist newspapers present them.”
I understand that leftist newspapers distort facts.
But what I read in the article matter-of-factly stated that CRIMINAL DRUG DEALERS ARE PAYING COPS WITH GUNS AND “SAN FRANCISCO POLICE” PATCHES ON THEIR UNIFORMS TO PROTECT THEIR GROWING OPERATIONS FROM OTHER CRIMINALS.
That’s slanted neither to the right nor the left. And it’s jaw-droppingly outrageous.
That's what you decided, but not what you got.
A private citizen paying the police for services that every taxpayer is entitled to is the very definition of corruption.
No it's not, and if the politician is corrupt, so are the police. Not so with a voluntary contract.
Are you saying the City Police are not protecting SF citizens?
Yes.
If so, the answer is for the city to fire all the cops and hire new ones.
That assumes the politicians are honest.
Not shrug and tell citizens they can have police protection as long as they pay for it.
The city is attempting to get rid of the Patrol Specials and tell citizens they'll take what they get and like it, or else.
And are you also saying the declining numbers of these private-hire gunmen is CAUSING the quality of policework in SF to decline? What evidence is there for such an assertion? Couldn’t it just be coincidence, not causality?
Public corruption is the cause for both.
(Repost): CRIMINAL DRUG DEALERS ARE PAYING COPS WITH GUNS AND “SAN FRANCISCO POLICE” PATCHES ON THEIR UNIFORMS TO PROTECT THEIR GROWING OPERATIONS FROM OTHER CRIMINALS.
That’s my takeaway from the article. Everything else is sound and fury.
I don’t see how in all of time or eternity Daniel Webster himself could construct an argument where this is okay.
That is the case for not allowing the cops to be paid by private citizens.