By The Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, March 7, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
The news story “Pittsburgh councilman releases police job records; groups seek input on new chief” (Feb. 28 and TribLIVE.com) has several glaring weaknesses.
Councilman Patrick Dowd estimates 200,000 hours were spent on off-duty jobs by Pittsburgh police officers in 2012. Isn't that 200,000 hours when the city enjoyed police protection without a dollar from city coffers to pay for it?
Furthermore, the city earned around $800,000 each year for the last several years on the backs of these officers. Granted, it appears the money has been misappropriated, but that obviously has nothing to do with the men and women who protected this city on their own time, in less than optimum conditions.
More to my chagrin were the ridiculous comments made by Councilman Ricky Burgess and Black Political Empowerment Project chairman Tim Stevens regarding the next chief, who Stevens said must hire more minorities and improve relations with residents, especially in black neighborhoods.
First, the city and former Chief Nate Harper did everything they could to hire more minorities, absent Burgess' mindless suggestion that the police lower their standards. The standards should remain, and applicants should rise to those standards.
Second, relations with the black community have always been a priority with any chief. The police department was established to enforce laws. If the black neighborhoods Stevens speaks of have a problem with the department, they need to be introspective in their assessments of their community and their historically high black-on-black crime rate, rather than blaming the former chief and the department.
Francesco Rosato Jr.
The writer is a Pittsburgh police officer who works out of the Zone 4 station.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Saved her life
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Drought answer?
- Conspicuous by absence
- Weakness shows
- Not reviled abroad
- Guzzardi for guv