I was hoping to be able to move on to other endeavors, but realize that LPSF's involvement with the Police Patrol is not yet clear, given Michael's e-mail below. So, I am hoping to clear up the confusion.
During our February meeting, the membership present passed an official vote to support the Patrol, which is reflected in our Minutes: "A motion was passed (4-yes, 1-no), 'The LPSF will do everything it can to support the growth of the patrol special police program. Michael Edelstein will contact Ann Grogan to get further information and see how we might best support them.'"
Therefore, LPSF has already passed its official vote on the matter. And the vote stands until rescinded during another LPSF monthly meeting.
At the same February LPSF meeting, the question arose as to *how* LPSF might help the Patrol. Thus, the presentation at the May meeting, designed to further acquaint the membership present with the Patrol and indicate ways to support the Patrol.
Whether LPSF wishes to get involved in pressuring the Patrol to change its policies so they will not bother perpetrators of "victimless crimes", that is prostitutes, drug users, homeless folks sitting on sidewalks, that is a completely different issue. For the record, my personal "vote" on this issue will be a vehement NO. Perhaps, in an effort not save meeting time, we could discuss this particular issue on the LPSF Activist List to determine the memberships' interest.
Dear Marcy And All Others;
What I need to know is how did the position of a couple members of the LPSF at an LPSF meeting or at a luncheon regarding victimless crimes and the patrol special police become the LPSF will not support the patrol special police if it does not refuse to ignore victimless crimes.
Secondly, did anyone convey to Ann Grogan the results of the LPSF meeting in February and the vote and the motion that was approved?
You write, "I think it's basically silly to ask them to not enforce
laws against victimless crimes, because they really don't have any
power to enforce such laws." How about asking them not to use their
citizen arrest powers on people merely engaged in consensual
activities which do not involve any violation of the rights of others,
since they have as you say been trained on how to use those powers,
and are out there on the streets doing a job where they may have
occasion to use them?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I was not aware that citizens arrests can only be made for certain
crimes. Do you have a reference for that info? I'm not specifically
aware of them making any arrests for victimless "crimes", but I do
seem to recall either Jane or Ann relating an anecdote when we met at
Capri Pizza of a Patrol Special officer pressuring some under-21 folks
into pouring out their beer. I believe it was also related that Patrol
Special officers have been known to forcibly escort minors back to
their parents. While these things are certainly not as bad as
arresting or fining the drinkers, it's still a far cry from
If you're correct that the Patrol Specials can't legally arrest
people for consensual activities now, then it seems to me this
presents an excellent opportunity to get them to make a virtue of
necessity by writing it into their mission statement, or whatever,
that they do not arrest people for such "crimes". If this wouldn't
mean any practical change in what they are doing, they might have
trouble coming up with an objection. From our perspective, it would
ensure that if they do acquire more police powers again at some point
in the future, that they will have positive rules in place. I think we
should stress that many folks on the left are unhappy with the SFPD,
and that a strong written statement about focusing on real crime and
not arresting people for offenses that many of us don't believe should
be against the law at all would be a good way for them to pick up
progressive support and win some more powerful allies to defend them
against the establishment police.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))