Letter to the editor: Allegheny County police review board just politics | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Allegheny County police review board just politics

The proposed Allegheny County Police Review Board (“County council votes down Allegheny police review board, supporters vow to keep pushing,” Aug. 27, TribLIVE) is appropriate for the Allegheny County Police Department. County Executive Rich Fitzgerald supports this legislation, which is nothing more than a politically expedient gesture in the wake of the unfortunate death of Antwon Rose II.

The Uniformed Division of the Allegheny County Police Department is primarily responsible for patrol of the airports, county parks and county facilities and buildings. Complaints of the officers’ activities are non-existent.

That leaves the county’s other 106 municipalities with police departments to determine whether their departments shall be under the oversight of politics and Fitzgerald.

While East Pittsburgh may not have had updated policies in effect, the jury determined that Officer Michael Rosfeld was justified in using deadly force in the Rose case. Likewise, most of the 106 police departments have policies in effect and are under the purview of checks and balances such as local civil service commissions. We have federal civil rights laws, and state law is clear on the use of “deadly force.”

The Allegheny County legislation is a knee-jerk reaction to a situation that will not be solved by more political appointed bureaucratic layers of oversight. When people are intent upon murder and mayhem, sometimes bad things happen. This way of life will not be affected by more oversight on police officers trying to do a thankless job. Let’s not shift the blame onto the brave police officers who protect us. The blame and solution lies in the homes of our residents.

Henry Miller

Ross


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.