To the editor: I’ve no downside with the Los Angeles Police Protecting League asserting its core job features and price of protecting providers (“LAPD has ended its function in Kamala Harris’ safety element. What occurs now?,” Sept. 7). It’s a dialogue price having. However when it says the Los Angeles Police Division was defending “a failed presidential candidate” somewhat than a former vp, I odor a really partisan perspective. I gained’t even get into the LAPPL’s jab on the monetary standing of the Harris household.
Marty Friedman, Manhattan Seashore
..
To the editor: It could appear inappropriate to spend metropolis and state assets, each money and time, to offer safety safety to Kamala Harris now that the traditional six-month Secret Service safety interval for former vice presidents has expired. Nevertheless, these are usually not regular instances. President Trump actively campaigned and distorted the reality to make individuals hate Harris. When has every other vp been attacked and vilified this fashion? It is a downside of Trump’s creation.
Jane Diamond, Sherman Oaks
..
To the editor: The criticism from the LAPD police union of the fee to the town to guard Harris is fairly wealthy, particularly coming from them. The price of defending her is however a fraction of the quantity that the town pays out in police misconduct settlements and verdicts which can be a consequence of an out-of-control police power.
However I suppose that’s none of my enterprise.
George W. Serbia, Irvine
