Dear Editor,
I do not usually react to comments made in connection with my letters, unless those comments are from an influential source. When I read about the numerous complaints the police still receive regularly for issues like illegal parking, disturbing loud music, businesses remaining open after the lawful closing hours, traffic backed up, just to name a few and as a consequence the police keep meetings with the wrong-doers, I reacted. I reacted because even though I dearly believe in dialogue (I usually to time to make sure that both parties understood what was going on) I believe more in order and consistency.
Then I read the Editorial Promoting Awareness and was confused. Which citizen has more rights, I asked myself. I expected the editor to comment on the fact that the police were not enforcing the law and that everybody has a right to a comfortable night rest and equal protection. Instead the editor took it upon himself to border on discrimination and decided that the authorities have better things to do than constantly run around dealing with these kinds of situations, etc.
Should it not have been so that the first time the police went to solve that problem, the consequences of non-compliance should have been made known to the wrong-doers? No meetings would be necessary if it was dealt with in the correct way the first time.
And even worse, to have follow-up meetings. If the business owners do not agree they have the Chamber of Commerce to complain by. They can take a lawyer and dispute the decision of the police, but it should never be so that the police have numerous complaints for the same situation from the same businesses and find themselves with their hands up in the air looking for a solution to abide by the behaviour of wrong-doers. A sign of weakness.
Besides that the Prosecutor's Office should have intervened in that already after reading those numerous complaints, because that is part of their duty also. The reason for the traffic been backed up to the traffic lights and Bush Road was also clear to everyone. A drunken driver loses his driver's license as soon as a report is made up against him for failing the drunken drivers’ test. There is no warning. Numerous complaints of different kinds and the wrong-doers are called to a meeting. Wrong approach.
I fully agree with the idea and goals of the Community police, but police do not make deals. Police enforce the law, sometimes by summons and more often by their presence, but they do not make deals. Especially not with constant wrong-doers to see how to get them to comply. The fact that follow-up meeting will be scheduled tells me that the police left the door open for the wrong-doers to continue.
Once more I applaud the work of the Community police but the actual police work must not get lost in the midst while neglecting the rights of others. Do not forget "zachte heelmeesters, maken stinkende wonden.” Promoting awareness is not keeping meetings with people who know better and do not do better. The police are not probation officers. Do you want to tell me that those wrong-doers hands are really tied?
Russell A. Simmons
