LAPD Cover for Pro-Crimmigrant Politicians

One of my recurring concerns here on RRA is to make sure we are fair in our dealings with what goes on in Indonesia and what’s happening back home, in our respective western nations.
It’s no good giving persons or institutions here a hard time if we don’t get stuck into short-comings in our countries of origin. And I think I do so.

Here’s another example, highly relevant since my comments on the disinclination, to put it mildly, of the West Java Police to enforce the rule of law in regard to Bogor’s Christian minority. They have a ruling from the Supreme Court as well-known to police, press and public as any ruling ever has been, but the cops ignore it.

Shocking, yes, but let’s switch our attention to that famous law enforcement agency, LAPD.
Fans of Joseph Wambaugh’s novels and all those who’ve enjoyed movies in which the Los Angeles Police Department featured will possibly think it is still an effective tool on maintaining the rule of law in California’s largest city, but sad to say, you’d be wrong.

My assertion arises from reading an excellent article in PJMedia, this week, in which it becomes clear that the upper echelons of the constabulary there are working hand-in-glove with pro-crimmigrant politicians to prevent the parasitic law-breakers suffering the proper consequences of their crimes.

Bad enough, but these sins of omission are knowingly aided and abetted by the civilian bodies charged with ensuring the police do their duty.
I’ll give you the link to the story, plus a few excerpts to whet your appetite.

LAPD’s Continued Defense of Illegal Immigrants 

Why is it so hard for the chief of police to follow the law?      by Jack Dunphy

The gist of the story is the determination of L.A. Police Chief Charlie Beck to do all in his power to make life easy for undesirable aliens.
Dunphy recounts how Beck wants to ease the crimmigrants’ lot by changing the procedure his cops use to deal with ‘unlicensed drivers and the cars they are found to be driving.’ Instead of the current rational approach, whereby such miscreants are given citations and their cars impounded for 30 days, they will have the option of handing over the vehicles to another, qualified driver.
This may be good or bad, but the reason adduced by its proponents is purely bad – the champions of undesirable aliens say that it ‘imposes an unfair burden on those whose immigration status precludes them from obtaining a driver’s license in the first place!’
What arrant nonsense! If anything, such intruders should be hammered more harshly than Americans without a license, because not only are they driving illegally, but they’re in the country illegally. Any law enforcement officer with an ounce of self-respect would drag them off to a cell to await deportation.

But not in L.A.        Charlie Beck


Dunphy reminds us that both Beck and his big boss, the Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, are rabidly pro-crimmigrant, not the slightest interest in cleansing their city of the parasites. And there’s the rub.

If Villaraigosa had any guts, he’d proclaim this new ‘procedure’ as his own ‘reform.’ But he prefers to sneak it through the backdoor of ‘procedures’ rather than the spot-lit front door of a policy change, for fear there would be yet more uproar on the decent citizens’ part.

Illegals are a hot topic in California, where the ruling Democrats pander shamelessly with a view to swamping the real American population and in due course rendering them a minority in their own state –if they are not already.

In conjunction with Obama’s constant scheming to legitimise the crimmigrants, and therefore enfranchise them, ghastly specimens like Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and the awful Governor Brown have devoted much time and effort to wasting public money on the illegals (quite apart from the huge costs incurred by their disproportionate residence in California prisons!)


As Dunphy observes, this latest manoeuvre is ‘using subterfuge in an attempt to avoid engaging in that very debate. Under the Los Angeles city charter, it is the civilian police commission that sets policy for the police department, subject to review by the city council. By calling his proposed change a modification of “procedure” rather than of “policy,” Beck is claiming the authority to impose it on his own, without the endorsement of his titular superiors. This is a naked attempt on the chief’s part to provide political cover to the commission, the city council, and the mayor.’\

 L.A. Mayor on the Platform of the Enemy

But everybody knows the Mayor and his Democrat councillors are pro-crimmigrant, so why bother with being sneaky?

Dunphy explains.
‘Because neither the mayor, nor his political appointees, nor the members of the city council like to hear their phones ring with calls from angry constituents, that’s why. Los Angeles may have long ago been lost to the forces of liberalism and political correctness, but there are still remnants of resistance that can be mobilized when such foolishness as this tickles the public’s antennae. Clearly it was the hope of all involved that the change would shimmer into permanence while escaping public scrutiny and the hue and cry that might result had they been more forthright with their intentions.’

But fortunately, for real Americans, the talk-show hosts are on hand to spill the beans!
Two in particular are named, KFI’s John and Ken, ‘the mere mention of whose names sends a chill up the spine of most Southern California politicians.’

They urged their audience to turn up at this month’s meeting of the police commission, fortuitously held in the San Fernando Valley, which is apparently home to a greater proportion of sensible people than many other parts of town. Such was the interest of the citizenry that Beck and his henchmen took the bold step of shutting out quite a lot of them! In the interests of democracy, no doubt.
However, some got past the gestapo and had their say.

Among those who addressed the commission during the public-comment portion of the meeting was Don Rosenberg, whose 25-year-old son Drew was killed in a 2010 traffic collision involving an unlicensed driver.

You’d think common decency apart from some residual interest in public consultation would have seen to it that he got a chance to make his point, but the pinko klutz in charge,commission president Richard Drooyan cut him off after two minutes.

Speaker after speaker then stood to express support for Rosenberg and opposition to Beck’s proposal, providing a bit of theater for which the chief was unprepared.

Or was he? Beck told those in attendance that he was unable to address the specifics of the issue because it was not on the commission’s agenda for the evening. Given that this has been the dominant question facing the commission for the last month, one must wonder why it was not on the agenda if not to avoid airing a proposal so many Angelenos find preposterous…..

Perhaps most disturbing in all of this is witnessing the further transformation of the role of police chief from one of law enforcement to one of political partisanship. Witness Chief Beck’s recent acquiescence in allowing the Occupy L.A. rabble to linger on the City Hall lawn for two months while the mayor and the city council dithered on what to do about them. On the issue of impounding cars driven by unlicensed drivers, Beck gave the game away during an unguarded, open microphone conversation he had during a break in the Dec. 13 police commission meeting. Expressing his dismay at the resistance to his proposed change, he asked the person seated next to him on the dais, “Why is it so hard to do the right thing?” In other words, this debate is not one with reasonable arguments on both sides, but rather one in which he is trying to do the “right thing” while those who oppose the change, including the great majority of his own police officers, are of course wrong if not utterly evil.

One might argue that the right thing for the chief of police to do is to follow the law. Why is that so hard?