San Jose City Councilmember Sam Liccardo sent this letter in response to last week’s Metro cover story about SJPD Chief Rob Davis, which was excerpted on SJI.
Perhaps due to space constraints, last week’s story about San Jose Police Chief Rob Davis (“Can Davis Survive?”) incorporated only one aspect—the most negative—of the views that I expressed about the chief’s performance. The article accurately conveyed that the chief and I have had public disagreements over downtown policing and the Independent Police Auditor’s authority. Those policy-related disputes didn’t change my assertions then (nor do they change my beliefs now) that Chief Davis is a very honest, honorable, competent and intelligent individual.
When asked, I said that I do not, nor will I, call for the chief’s ouster. In many aspects of his management of the department, the chief has demonstrated considerable success. In the last two years, for example, he has ably marshaled scarce resources to substantially reduce gang violence citywide, and he has courageously defended the SJPD’s policy of staying out of federal immigration enforcement.
For those and other reasons, he should be commended. I expect we will work together to resolve our disagreements, as well as to resolve whatever mistrust that has arisen in our community.
Councilmember Sam Liccardo
Ms. Sherbert’s piece—a one-sided opinion piece attempting to pose as news—to accompany Raj’s cop bashing.
Good for Liccardo for not allowing that biased bit of non-journalism to go unchallenged.
The selective use of quotes to present an inaccurate impression of the city councilman, or anyone else, is just plain wrong.
Unfortunately the city’s two newspapers seem to be on a contest to see who can run the lamest hit piece about the police chief.
Today we see a big story in the Merc claiming there is a groundswell to oust the police chief. As evidence of this groundswell they cite mostly anonymous sources, and the Metro story! (Seriously, they do.)
If you follow the readers comments beneath both SJI and the Merc hit pieces you will see that by an overwhelming majority the public is not buying into the Merc/Metro’s latest campaign. In fact, our police seem to enjoy overwhelming community support.
Maybe Merc/Metro haven’t presented a credible case against our police?
One can only wonder what will be the next set of laws that our police chiefs will “courageously” refuse to enforce? Perhaps Mr Liccardo, a politician obviously eager to bend with the political wind, can offer us a clue? For decades, local law enforcement agencies routinely notified federal authorities when an offender’s immigration status was in doubt, just as they alerted military authorities, ATF, or DEA agents when appropriate. Local police officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution AND enforce federal, state, and local laws.
But Mr Liccardo sees courage in the refusal to enforce only one set of laws. Gee, when did voters, or their representatives in Congress, decide to invalidate immigration laws? Oh, wait, they didn’t. Worm-like politicians, pandering to either big-bucks employers or political strategists, made that decision, and then quickly issued their operating orders to the bootlickers who pass themselves off as police chiefs these days.
Since Mr Liccardo is in a writing mood, perhaps he can explain how a statute on the books can be a law and at the same time not be a law. Maybe he can help me figure out if, should I decide to stop paying federal taxes due to the undeniable corruption and incompetence of our government officials, I will be courageous or incarcerated?
We have simply stopped being a nation of laws. Today we are a nation of political whims and despicable leadership. Celebrate it, if it is your whims that are being served, but don’t count on having things your way forever. And best get over those notions about individual rights, for when the laws stop counting, so do the rights.
#4 Fernando,
I’m afraid you must. Especially when the orders are from the officials.
We are becomming the most inept community in the USA.
Blanca
SJPD Chief Davis stated in a public city council and was quoted in the paper as saying a majority of those arrested for public intoxication were from out of town and no issues exist at all—and this was despite dozens and dozens of residents testifying before the council to the contrary. Weeks later the numbers came out showing that he either a) made incorrect statements because he didn’t know what he was talking about, or b) was intentionally making incorrect statements to avoid criticism and to silence critics.
If I was him, I’d be worried for my job too. He clearly should be fired. But even worse is that Davis might become the fall guy so the council can ‘look tough’ while they continue to side-step taking real measures to address the behavior of the police.
Holding public officials accountable does not equal cop bashing.
finfan #3,
Now THAT should be added to the Constitution.
Very well said!
#7-John Galt,
You crack me up. Well said!