Do any of those idiots working out of the mayor's office still believe that they are "in control" of Baltimore? Do they have any idea as to what is actually happening there? Are they for real ("Can Batts get the job done?" May 21)?
Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony Batts is asking his officers to maintain "a visible and consistent presence" in the community. Has he already forgotten his complicity in an act of insanity in which he effectively sided with Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and turned Baltimore over, not to the police with directions to restore order but to the "thugs" in the street, to whom she gave "space to destroy?" Essentially, these two paragons of idiocy "gave" the city over to the lawless and now they apparently realize the ramifications of what they have done! Think about this too: What new entrepreneur in his or her right mind would want to locate a new business in Baltimore after the mayor's statement that "it's just property?" And what organization would want to schedule major events such as conventions in the "City that Bleeds?" The escalating homicides are horrible but the economic damage to the city's image may be irreparable!
How enthusiastic can those police officers now be about doing their jobs when those in command have ordered them not to do their jobs? Do those officers feel that anyone in the Rawlings-Blake administration has their backs? Would you? Is it possible that some of those officers are "reluctant" to "put it all on the line" and to police a city that shouted loudly that it did not want to be policed and had the police commissioner and mayor actually agree to that?
One city official speculates that if "they" (meaning the drug dealers) "just had jobs," that would solve a lot of problems. Not so! While I was working as a sergeant in the Baltimore City Police Department's Eastern District (the best in the city), we arrested a 16-year-old drug dealer who happened to have $10,000 in his pocket. When my officer tried to reason with him to get back into school and make something of himself, he laughed in the officer's face, asking "when is the last time that you had $10,000 in your pocket and how much do you make?" This "child" also owned a BMW and had a 21-year-old he paid to drive him around. How do you reason with that?
What happens to a society when those who prefer anarchy outnumber those who desire order? What happens to the law when "officials" decide not to enforce it? Of what value is a "sacred oath" if the oath taker may be cavalierly ordered to vacate it? What happens to a police force that finds its officers tend to be supported when they essentially stand down? Perhaps, we need to redefine the entire profession of law enforcement and fit it to the new reality — whatever the new reality finally becomes! Maybe we just don't need the police any longer; maybe the "thugs" are capable of governing themselves! Oh, I forgot, what about the remaining law-abiding citizens? Finally, what happens to a city when the police are justifiably hesitant to do their jobs?
Baltimore is in need of an administrative house cleaning and I'll give you a hint — the police officers are not part of the "dirt."
Robert L. DiStefano, Abingdon