Dear Ann,
First my personal thank you for your taking time to acquaint our core activists with the work of the Patrol Special Police, in spite of the sadness you must be feeling at the loss of Office Jane.
Secondly I do need to address your being puzzled at our group not yet being ready to take an official position on the Special Police. Traditionally, the Libertarian Party of San Francisco takes into account each activist's feelings on each matter under consideration; therefore, we will need to discuss the concerns of Starchild and Michael at the next LPSF meeting.
Meanwhile, no reason why individual activists cannot support the Patrol with spreading the word among their clients and friends, writing letters to the editor, and other forms of support.
With appreciation for your efforts,
Marcy
P.S. I have scanned the Libearty Bear description and will post it to my Facebook. Libearty Bear is not a Dem nor a Rep, but one who stands for liberty....interesting. Thank you, Ann.
Dear Marcy;
I offered a motion at the Feb. 13 LPSF meeting to support the Patrol Special Police when we met at the Richmond Station and it should be in effect until rescinded.
At the Feb. 13 LPSF meeting from the 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.”
You may need to let Ann Grogan know of this...
Ron Getty
Dear Ron,
Yes, I know, please see my summary of the meeting posted at the same time as your post. The problem is no action was taken after your motion and after we voted, and only today we heard the presentation. I felt there was room for Starchild and Michael to claim we took a vote prior to hearing the full story. Although I would much prefer to proceed with forging alliances, I am willing to take another vote after today's presentation, cognizant that LPSF may end up leaving more "enemies" rather than allies on its trail.
Of course, if anyone would like to quote by-laws here, given the prior vote, be my guest!!!!
Marcy
Dear Marcy;
As we are on record of supporting Patrol Special Police the vote would have to be to rescind the previous motion of support or to modify the language to a different motion.
BTW: What the heck does victimless crimes ( sex workers and drug dealers ) have to do with Patrol Special Police when hired to protect a business or a neighborhood from thieves and robbers?
Ron Getty
Dear Ron,
Thank you. So, our support will go along with Ann's "sheaf of letters" unless our prior vote is rescinded.
In response to your question: The Patrol is hired by businesses (or individuals, or events) to carry out existing laws, in accordance with the emphasis provided by the businesses doing the hiring. So, if I and other merchants in my neighborhood are OK with prostitutes soliciting in front of our stores, the Patrol will not interfere unless there is a specific complaint. Conversely, if I and the merchants in my neighborhood do not wish such a scenario, the Patrol will encourage the prostitutes to move to other markets. Again, the Patrol acts within existing laws and within the preferences of the businesses that hire them. As all other private enterprise, they are not in business for their health, and I would wager they would not wish to lose clients by quoting "unjust" laws to them.
Marcy
Dear Marcy
So if as you say that's it what's the beating of the gums about victimless crimes?
Sheesh - moving on...
Ron Getty
Dear Ron,
Every time I come across the quaint "beating of the gums", I remember my Dad, who was forever "accusing" me of doing so. So, I will let Starchild and Michael explain their point of view that LPSF should pressure the Patrol into making it their policy to ignore victimless crimes in exchange for our support...Me too, moving on.
Marcy