The following commentary from the Feinstein/Fisher/etc. group SF SOS (stands for "save our streets") represents an understanding of the D.A.'s race similar to most accounts I've seen in the media — that Terence Hallinan is the candidate who values civil liberties most and will be the strongest in standing up to the SFPD. (Of course SF SOS wants more prosecution of "quality of life" crimes like drug use, vagrancy, and prostitution, so they oppose Hallinan.) I believe we would be foolish not to endorse him, as he clearly appears to be the candidate most in line with libertarian values. I'm glad to see that even his opponents are projecting him to win at this point! From the SF SOS newsletter:
I think "no recommendation" (we can only "endorse" Libertarians) would be
better. I personally can't get past the argument that Hallinan's pursuing
indictments for which he admitted he had no evidence was a sign of either
malice or incompetence, neither one a quality deserving endorsement by the
LPSF. Again, I think the better course of action is for us to have a pair of
guest commentaries in the next newsletter, one in favor of Hallinan and the
other opposing, so that our readers can make their own decisions based on
their own experience with the SFPD and DA's office.
Hi Everyone,
It's 6:15 PM and I am leaving my house now to go to
the Political Chat. I hope to see as many people there
that can make it tonight. Please bring guests of all
political backgrounds!
The Political Chat is at the Sheesh Mahal, on Polk St.
between Post and Sutter. Meeting time is 7:00 PM -
10:00 PM, Tonight! and meets every Wednesday.
Dave Barker.
I'm headed for BART right now. Depending on MUNI's usual stellar service, I
should arrive anytime between 7:00 and 8:00. And twenty-five cents poorer
than usual. 
Rob,
Thanks, Rob — I meant recommend Hallinan, not endorse him. But
regarding the indictments, I'll mention here on the list what I told
you when we talked about this — that had I been on that grand jury, I
probably also would have voted to indict. Although the D.A. apparently
has the legal discretion to disregard the will of the grand jury, as a
grand juror I would have been quite upset had the D.A. ignored our vote
that he prosecute. To me that is like politicians refusing to act in
accordance with a resolution passed by the voters. Citizen juries, not
prosecutors and judges, ought to reign supreme in the legal system.
We'll probably never know exactly what led to the indictment being
served over Hallinan's objections, but I'll bet what happened is that
the jurors looked at the case and said, "This may not be provable, but
our intuition says those guys are guilty of a cover-up. We want the
D.A. to prosecute the case in order to give the evidence an opportunity
to come out." I think that was very sound reasoning. Even many
defenders of the police admit that there is a "culture" in the police
of protecting fellow officers from justice. They even have a couple
names for it, the "code of silence" and the "thin blue line."
The fact is that Hallinan was very honest and upfront in telling the
jury he didn't have the evidence and that they shouldn't indict. If
he'd simply been trying to pursue his own agenda and indict the police
brass regardless of evidence, why would he have said any of this?
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
I think "no recommendation" (we can only "endorse" Libertarians) would
be
better. I personally can't get past the argument that Hallinan's
pursuing
indictments for which he admitted he had no evidence was a sign of
either
malice or incompetence, neither one a quality deserving endorsement by
the
LPSF. Again, I think the better course of action is for us to have a
pair of
guest commentaries in the next newsletter, one in favor of Hallinan
and the
other opposing, so that our readers can make their own decisions based
on
their own experience with the SFPD and DA's office.--
Rob Power
http://www.robpower.comStarchild said:
The following commentary from the Feinstein/Fisher/etc. group SF SOS
(stands for "save our streets") represents an understanding of the
D.A.'s race similar to most accounts I've seen in the media — that
Terence Hallinan is the candidate who values civil liberties most and
will be the strongest in standing up to the SFPD. (Of course SF SOS
wants more prosecution of "quality of life" crimes like drug use,
vagrancy, and prostitution, so they oppose Hallinan.) I believe we
would be foolish not to endorse him, as he clearly appears to be the
candidate most in line with libertarian values. I'm glad to see that
even his opponents are projecting him to win at this point! From the
SF
SOS newsletter:===================================================="The relationship
between
the DA and the Police Department has ranged
from miserable to horrendous. Beat cops no longer bother arresting
miscreants for Quality of Life crimes because Hallinan has perfected
his "all-ideology, all the time" approach to non-prosecution of the
crimes that despoil our streets and parks and turn our emergency rooms
into expensive drunk tanks..."Our latest numbers have Hallinan's job disapproval rating at a
whopping 51%. This poll makes it easy to understand the tight race
projected for Hallinan against his potential opponents, Bill Fazio and
Kamala Harris."In a three-way "primary" race, we have:
33% Hallinan; 24% Fazio; 12% Harris
In the head to head "runoff" races, we have:
36% Hallinan; 34% Fazio
37% Hallinan; 29% Harris
"Come the November and December elections, City voters will get the
final say on whether they want an ideological DA or one who holds
neighborhood Quality of Life as a top priority, where it should be."
===================================================Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US &
Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/69cplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
~->To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/69cplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
Rob,
Thanks, Rob — I meant recommend Hallinan, not endorse him. But regarding the indictments, I'll mention here on the list what I told you when we talked about this — that had I been on that grand jury, I probably also would have voted to indict. Although the D.A. apparently has the legal discretion to disregard the will of the grand jury, as a grand juror I would have been quite upset had the D.A. ignored our vote that he prosecute. To me that is like politicians refusing to act in accordance with a resolution passed by the voters. Citizen juries, not prosecutors and judges, ought to reign supreme in the legal system.
We'll probably never know exactly what led to the indictment being served over Hallinan's objections, but I'll bet what happened is that the jurors looked at the case and said, "This may not be provable, but our intuition says those guys are guilty of a cover-up. We want the D.A. to prosecute the case in order to give the evidence an opportunity to come out." I think that was very sound reasoning. Even many defenders of the police admit that there is a "culture" in the police of protecting fellow officers from justice. They even have a couple names for it, the "code of silence" and the "thin blue line."
The fact is that Hallinan was very honest and upfront in telling the jury he didn't have the evidence and that they shouldn't indict. If he'd simply been trying to pursue his own agenda and indict the police brass regardless of evidence, why would he have said any of this?
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>