Police Protection

Three news articles have come to my attention in the past week which cause me to question whether the officers of the San Diego Police Department are motivated more by personal fear and desire to protect themselves than by a sense of duty and an overriding desire to safeguard the public.

Concerning the murder of two Eastgate Mall company executives by a former company employee, (“Gunman Kills 2 San Diego Executives,” June 5), The Times reports that there was a 27-minute delay in response time from the switchboard operator’s 911 call to the police officer’s intervention at the scene of the crime.

The police officer who responded had parked his car 1 1/2 blocks away. He explained that “it was a dangerous situation and required a tactical response.” Does a “tactical response” mean waiting until the danger has passed? I thought police work was about taking risks. The company president had a right to ask, “What are they being paid for?”

On the same day, The Times reports that still another unarmed mentally ill person died at the hands of police officers, this time after barricading himself in a motel room (“Mentally Ill Man Died from Police Chokehold, Not Heart Failure,” June 5).

Also, on June 3, The Times reported that a veteran San Diego police detective was found guilty of violating departmental guidelines in the shooting death of an unarmed man last year at a Mission Valley restaurant (“Detective Was Wrong in Fatal Shooting, Board Says.”) The detective shot the man because he was “scared he might be carrying a gun.” To protect himself from this presumed danger, he shot him five times.

Our police officers appear overly eager to protect themselves. What about the public they are paid to protect? And, more importantly, must citizens seek protection from their police force?

ELINOR M. WEISSMAN, San Diego