Kamala Harris had taxpayer-funded LAPD protection outside of Los Angeles

1
Per NBC News, she had a special arrangement with the previous chief.
Sen. Kamala Harris Given LAPD Protection, Even When She Wasn't in LA
https://web.archive.org/web/20180907145 ... 53411.html
Armed, plain-clothes LAPD officers were dispatched to California cities outside of Los Angeles at least a dozen times to provide security for U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris at public events, media appearances, and a party.

LA taxpayers paid for airline tickets, hotel stays, car rentals, and meals, according to detailed expense reports obtained by NBC News. The total cost of the trips, not including the officers' overtime, topped $28,000.
Mayor Eric Garcetti's office said the Mayor was, "unaware," of this unusual arrangement until July, when it was shut down by new LAPD Chief Michel Moore.

Re: Kamala Harris had taxpayer-funded LAPD protection outside of Los Angeles

2
I’m sure she gets death threats, just by being who she is. Wouldn’t state police (CHP) protection be more appropriate than LAPD?
It’s things like this that remind me why cops take so long to respond: they’re protecting more important people than you or me.
She had better buy herself a gun... after the waiting period she can carry it. Oh, wait...it’s CA, no she can’t. Oh well.
Image
Image

Re: Kamala Harris had taxpayer-funded LAPD protection outside of Los Angeles

3
It appears this particular taxpayer-funded security party ended for Harris.

Since she is a US Senator, she must also have a place in or near D.C. Regular members do not necessarily get Capitol Police details. She could get private security. At her level she could probably find a way to bilk either California or US taxpayers for the expense. There must be a system of widespread abuse already in place for the benefit of pols in D.C.

Re: Kamala Harris had taxpayer-funded LAPD protection outside of Los Angeles

4
Report in the newspapers that Mayor Garcetti was using LAPD officers for security when he went out of state on unofficial political functions, he's exploring running for president in 2020. He's since stopped it. We used to have the California State Police (CSP) that protected the governor, CSP merged into CHP. If Harris has a second home in VA she could have a non-resident VA CCW license. If she lives in the District, good luck.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Kamala Harris had taxpayer-funded LAPD protection outside of Los Angeles

7

highdesert wrote:If Harris has a second home in VA she could have a non-resident VA CCW license. If she lives in the District, good luck.
Which would allow her to carry in Virginia but not D.C. or, of course, Maryland. So it would be of limited value. Pols probably like to like to use cops because of LEOSA and the ability to stick taxpayers with the bill.

sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: Kamala Harris had taxpayer-funded LAPD protection outside of Los Angeles

9
I'm not convinced that the majority of politicians should be provided with tax payer-supplied security beyond that at the place of business. Their lives are not worth more than others, despite what they think of themselves. If they feel the need for security they can 1) pay for it themselves, 2) conduct themselves in a manner that reduces their risk, 4) get a restraining order like the rest of us (I'm sure they work, right?), 3) arm themselves and abide by the bullshit those with CCWs abide by or, 4) walk the streets unprotected like most of us do and develop a better understanding of what Constitutional rights are for.

But then, I also think politicians should get the lowest rung health care and retirement benefits that they provide the rest of us. I mean, if you're going to serve the public in the public's best interest, you should probably live by the same lowest common denominator rules the public lives by so you have a fucking clue...

Re: Kamala Harris had taxpayer-funded LAPD protection outside of Los Angeles

10

featureless wrote:I'm not convinced that the majority of politicians should be provided with tax payer-supplied security beyond that at the place of business. Their lives are not worth more than others, despite what they think of themselves. If they feel the need for security they can 1) pay for it themselves, 2) conduct themselves in a manner that reduces their risk, 4) get a restraining order like the rest of us (I'm sure they work, right?), 3) arm themselves and abide by the bullshit those with CCWs abide by or, 4) walk the streets unprotected like most of us do and develop a better understanding of what Constitutional rights are for.

But then, I also think politicians should get the lowest rung health care and retirement benefits that they provide the rest of us. I mean, if you're going to serve the public in the public's best interest, you should probably live by the same lowest common denominator rules the public lives by so you have a fucking clue...
Agreed. That's called eating your own dog food.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests