Two resignations further reduce a more than 150-year security body from The City (San Francisco)

Two longtime members of The City's little-known Patrol Special Police resigned in recent weeks after administrative charges were filed against them with the Police Commission, but then apparently rescinded their resignations, opting instead for a leave of absence.

The resignations or leaves of absence of brothers Todd and Scott Hart brings the already dwindling number of Patrol Specials down even further. Once numbering in the hundreds, they now stand at fewer than 10.

"They were brought up on administrative charges, not criminal charges," said Alan Byard, president of the Patrol Special Police Offcers Association. "They have resigned so everything is dropped."

But Scott Hart said they have since rescinded their resignations, although no one at the Police Commission has yet received any notice of that.

This is one of the most outrageous things I’ve ever read on Free Republic.

Police protection for sale — if you can afford it.

We’re now officially Brazil.

THIS IS HOW POLICE DEPARTMENTS WORK IN THE THIRD WORLD.

IN THE USA, NO COP SHOULD EVER BE PAID BY A PRIVATE CITIZEN. EVER.

How has this flown under the radar so long?

How has this flown under the radar so long?

The Patrol Special Police predate the San Francisco city police, and have served admirably through the lawless gold rush, Sidney Gang organized crime period, Vigilance committee period, and the Socialist Union Gang labor wars.

The latter three of which, the City Police failed to protect the citizens of SF.

The Patrol Specials actually protected the regular SF police from major corruption scandals by allowing those with wealth to pay the police directly instead of trying to deal with politicians.

San Francisco police performance and honesty has deteriorated consistently as the number and authority of Patrol Special Officers has declined over the years, from a majority of Officers to a very few.

Things are generally not the way leftist newspapers present them.

“The Patrol Special Police predate the San Francisco city police, and have served admirably through the lawless gold rush...”

Interesting historically, but what does that have to do with 2014? At one time, marshals assembled posses of private citizens to go after criminals. We decided a standing police force is better, a police force paid for with taxes —with the city and all taxpayers as their boss, not some rich guy.

“The Patrol Specials actually protected the regular SF police from major corruption scandals by allowing those with wealth to pay the police directly instead of trying to deal with politicians.”

A private citizen paying the police for services that every taxpayer is entitled to is the very definition of corruption. It’s how you get police protection in Mexico.

“San Francisco police performance and honesty has deteriorated consistently as the number and authority of Patrol Special Officers has declined over the years, from a majority of Officers to a very few.”

Are you saying the City Police are not protecting SF citizens? They have an out-of-control crime problem? Chaos in the streets? If so, the answer is for the city to fire all the cops and hire new ones. Not shrug and tell citizens they can have police protection as long as they pay for it.

And are you also saying the declining numbers of these private-hire gunmen is CAUSING the quality of policework in SF to decline? What evidence is there for such an assertion? Couldn’t it just be coincidence, not causality?

“Things are generally not the way leftist newspapers present them.”

I understand that leftist newspapers distort facts.

But what I read in the article matter-of-factly stated that CRIMINAL DRUG DEALERS ARE PAYING COPS WITH GUNS AND “SAN FRANCISCO POLICE” PATCHES ON THEIR UNIFORMS TO PROTECT THEIR GROWING OPERATIONS FROM OTHER CRIMINALS.

That’s slanted neither to the right nor the left. And it’s jaw-droppingly outrageous.

We decided a standing police force is better, a police force paid for with taxes —with the city and all taxpayers as their boss, not some rich guy.

That's what you decided, but not what you got.

A private citizen paying the police for services that every taxpayer is entitled to is the very definition of corruption.

No it's not, and if the politician is corrupt, so are the police. Not so with a voluntary contract.

Are you saying the City Police are not protecting SF citizens?

Yes.

If so, the answer is for the city to fire all the cops and hire new ones.

That assumes the politicians are honest.

Not shrug and tell citizens they can have police protection as long as they pay for it.

The city is attempting to get rid of the Patrol Specials and tell citizens they'll take what they get and like it, or else.

Public corruption is the cause for both.

(Repost): CRIMINAL DRUG DEALERS ARE PAYING COPS WITH GUNS AND “SAN FRANCISCO POLICE” PATCHES ON THEIR UNIFORMS TO PROTECT THEIR GROWING OPERATIONS FROM OTHER CRIMINALS.

That’s my takeaway from the article. Everything else is sound and fury.

I don’t see how in all of time or eternity Daniel Webster himself could construct an argument where this is okay.

That is the case for not allowing the cops to be paid by private citizens.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.