Letters to the Editor: Police union’s statement about Kamala Harris’ security detail has a ‘partisan attitude’
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
To the editor: I have no problem with the Los Angeles Police Protective League asserting its core job functions and cost of protective services (“LAPD has ended its role in Kamala Harris’ security detail. What happens now?,” Sept. 7). It is a discussion worth having. But when it says the Los Angeles Police Department was protecting “a failed presidential candidate” rather than a former vice president, I smell a very partisan attitude. I won’t even get into the LAPPL’s jab at the financial status of the Harris family.
Marty Friedman, Manhattan Beach
..
To the editor: It would seem inappropriate to spend city and state resources, both time and money, to provide security protection to Kamala Harris now that the normal six-month Secret Service protection period for former vice presidents has expired. However, these are not normal times. President Trump actively campaigned and distorted the truth to make people hate Harris. When has any other vice president been attacked and vilified this way? This is a problem of Trump’s creation.
Jane Diamond, Sherman Oaks
..
To the editor: The criticism from the LAPD police union of the cost to the city to protect Harris is pretty rich, especially coming from them. The cost of protecting her is but a fraction of the amount that the city pays out in police misconduct settlements and verdicts that are a consequence of an out-of-control police force.
But I guess that’s none of my business.
George W. Serbia, Irvine
