A Sweet Deal
An Open Letter to Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton

By David Codrea
codrea4@adelphia.net

March 20, 2004

From: David Codrea codrea4@adelphia.net 
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 10:02 PM
To: lapdonline@earthlink.net 
Subject: A Sweet Deal

Dear Chief Bratton,

Despite your recorded claim that charges against him had "substance," I read in the LA Times that accused child molester Deputy Chief David J. Kalish is being allowed "to retire with full benefits, including the right to carry a concealed weapon, police identification card and retirement badge," and that "[h]e will receive his full pension of nearly $10,000 a month." 

In addition, I see the city has agreed to pick up the legal tab for "lawsuits filed by his alleged victims." 

That's a pretty sweet deal for a public employee, Chief. 

I can't help but note that you are against mere citizens like me carrying concealed weapons. Apparently, the city believes we the people, the citizen militia of the Constitution, are less trustworthy with weapons than accused child molesters. 

If that's the only ethical stumbling block keeping you from recognizing my right to keep and bear arms, perhaps I have a solution. 

While I would not presume to hit the taxpayers of Los Angeles up for any money-- after all, we're being told that unless taxes are raised, police services will need to be cut back-- I would like to be able to carry a firearm for protection (as is my right) without worrying that one of your officers will blow me away or arrest me and ruin my life. 

What if I can get someone to accuse ME of being a pederast? Not that I am, of course, but apparently the accusation is enough to warrant a ticket on the LAPD super citizen gravy train for members of your staff. According to the logic exhibited by the city in this matter, the Second Amendment apparently guarantees that "The right of the ("alleged," but with "substance"!) perverts to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." 

How about it, Chief? What disgusting, unspeakable acts must I be accused of (but not charged with!) in order to merit LA's extra-special reserved-for-the-elite privileges and immunities? 

"Our increased technology and expertise are designed to take us into the 21st Century as law enforcement leaders," you say in "A Message From the Office of the Chief of Police" on the LAPD website, "but our motto remains the same:

"'To Protect and to Serve'."

We've seen the "expertise" that has led to this outrageous burden on Los Angeles taxpayers. And it's evident just who it is you're protecting and serving. 

So I guess I'll withdraw my request, as you and your political masters have made it more than clear you don't consider your subjects as qualified to be trusted with a gun as your rejects. 


Sincerely, 

David Codrea