PDA

View Full Version : Sheriff Hennessey is NOT an LEO! ! !


Paladin
10-27-2007, 8:22 PM
Pass this around to the people you know in SF, esp around election time in 2010.

From the Letters to the Editor section of the SFChron:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/10/27/ED4FSUVHH.DTL


Sheriff Hennessey

Editor - I write in regards to the re-election bid for Sheriff by Michael Hennessey. I am a deputy sheriff with nine years of service to the city of San Francisco.

Eight years after Sheriff Hennessey was elected, the state passed a law that the sheriff of each county must be a law enforcement officer. Sheriff Hennessey is allowed to run for his seat time and time again due to the grandfathering of his position. Sheriff Hennessey is a lawyer and a politician who has ridden the gravy train for 27 years. He is not a sworn California Peace Officer who is academy trained.

San Francisco voters should ask themselves: Would you want a dentist to perform your open-heart surgery? Then why would you want an attorney running your county law enforcement agency?

MAGANDA CONTOT

San Francisco

Piper
10-27-2007, 8:46 PM
San Francisco voters should ask themselves: Would you want a dentist to perform your open-heart surgery? Then why would you want an attorney running your county law enforcement agency?

Actually, I consider this a silly question considering the District Attorney is a Peace Officer, the Attorney General of California is considered the Chief Law enforcement officer of California, and the Attorney General of the United States is also the Chief Law Enforcement officer of the United States. Someone really needs to come up with a better arguement.

bwiese
10-27-2007, 9:01 PM
Frankly cop shops should have (more) attorneys in them. It might allow better busts and nip problematic conduct. I suspect if there'd been some lawyers nearby in the PD in the Corwin case, it might not have crescendoed into the farce it became.

Hennessy issues are rather moot anyway - if he's not there someone equally bad will be.

HK fan
10-28-2007, 8:26 AM
it really doesn't matter as the Sheriff is a political position anyway

Paladin
10-28-2007, 8:42 AM
I disagree. The sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer in a county. While the DA, AG, etc may be officers of the court, etc., they do not oversee the "troops" (deputies in the dept, etc.) and lead them by example the way a sheriff does. The jobs (sheriff vs DA/AG) and the skills needed for them are different. Not every problem on the street is a legal problem needing a legal solution -- a lot of the issues require more interpersonal/"people" skills and common sense than abstract legal analysis.

JMO

E Pluribus Unum
10-28-2007, 9:26 AM
I thought ANYONE could be elected Sherrif, and after such election he is a peace officer.... a LEO... am I wrong?

Paladin
10-28-2007, 1:40 PM
Actually, I consider this a silly question considering the District Attorney is a Peace Officer, the Attorney General of California is considered the Chief Law enforcement officer of California, and the Attorney General of the United States is also the Chief Law Enforcement officer of the United States. Someone really needs to come up with a better arguement.I think a better question is whether, as a citizen or soldier, you'd want to entrust your troops and the safety of the nation to a general who never went through boot camp/basic training and has never been in combat, or one who has been in a lot of combat as he worked his way up through the ranks. Sure, they both might have the title "general," but one is desk jockey (e.g., Eisenhower) whereas the other is an experienced warrior (e.g., Patton).

I know who I'd rather have as my sheriff and the one I'd rather serve under -- "Pistol Packin' Patton"!

1911_sfca
10-28-2007, 1:43 PM
Frankly cop shops should have (more) attorneys in them. It might allow better busts and nip problematic conduct. I suspect if there'd been some lawyers nearby in the PD in the Corwin case, it might not have crescendoed into the farce it became.

Hennessy issues are rather moot anyway - if he's not there someone equally bad will be.

I have to agree with Bill here. We have a lawyer involved with our department as a reserve, and are certainly the better for it.

Edit to add: But that sure doesn't mean I support Hennessy!!

grywlfbg
10-28-2007, 5:03 PM
Sorry to thread-jack for a minute, but does anyone know if someone's going to challenge that POS San Mateo Sheriff Munks in the next election? If the guy can't tell the difference between a massage parlor and an illegal brothel he sure as heck shouldn't be a cop. I mean come on, there are legal brothels in Nevada, shouldn't he be leading by example (ie not breaking the law)?

I would make a much better sheriff than that *****hat and I'm a freaking computer nerd.

CCWFacts
10-28-2007, 5:07 PM
Hennessy issues are rather moot anyway - if he's not there someone equally bad will be.

That is, unfortunately, true. SF is like the last hold-outs of segregation in the old south. There were places where segregation wasn't going to end until some court forced it to happen. SF is like one of those places. Even if the leg. passed a law saying, "'Personal protection' is now good cause with respect to PC ...", SF would still need to be sued repeatedly to get compliance, and would probably violate court orders and do everything possible to not issue, no matter what the expense or consequences. If SF had a choice between spending money on essential city services (or better salaries for cops or whatever) or on fighting a lawsuit to block CCW issuance, they would spend it on the lawsuit.

cool_breeze
10-28-2007, 7:30 PM
Could any of our Filipino members comment on the supposed name of the article author, MAGANDA CONTOT ? Isn't this vulgar terminology?

leelaw
10-28-2007, 7:50 PM
I think a better question is whether, as a citizen or soldier, you'd want to entrust your troops and the safety of the nation to a general who never went through boot camp/basic training and has never been in combat, or one who has been in a lot of combat as he worked his way up through the ranks. Sure, they both might have the title "general," but one is desk jockey (e.g., Eisenhower) whereas the other is an experienced warrior (e.g., Patton).

I know who I'd rather have as my sheriff and the one I'd rather serve under -- "Pistol Packin' Patton"!

So going through basic training is all the determines whether a person experienced in combat is a "warrior" vs a "desk jockey"?

You hear of this guy from the Civil War called Ulysses Grant? Yeah, nearly failed out of the academy, always the bottom of the barrel, and had a severe drinking problem, but somehow managed to turn the tides on the war.

It's a little over-simplistic to say "an attorney shouldn't be a sheriff" just because he's not gone through a little academy (27 years ago the academy program, if it existed, was a joke).