Helicopter ID

[oink]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomK: You're not far off the mark but there's no way I can accept that a patrol car in front of a dealer's house is comparable...

---

Yeah, the analogy is a bit lopsided but it's the only one I could think of at the time.

If it's "B", I certainly don't agree with the attitude but it does explain the situation, if true. They would also have to be discounting those residents living in the affected area that don't fit the profile, regardless of how few they think there are, unless they think those residents approve of the program. I agree that it would be wrong, that's why I figure the P.D., DEA and the County would have to be complicit. The State government also would have to be complicit, at least by ignoring the issue. Of course it's doubtful the State would care if the Mayors office isn't bothered by it, which it obviously isn't. Who controls the Chief of the P.D.? Who controls or appoints the Police Commission?

If you're saying "B" is correct, then I tend to think it might be. The only "kind" explanation (not excuse) would then be that provided by Carey. I find that a stretch, unless the activity is primarily restricted to sparsely populated areas.

As for Greg's theory, I don't buy it, at least not at the local level of administration. Of course as it relates to the involved local P.D. officers, if they are like most cops, they will take any O.T. they can get. I don't think the Chief and his administration are personally profiting from the G.H. program.

Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.