Sept. 9, 2025 7 AM PT
To the editor: I’ve no drawback with the Los Angeles Police Protecting League asserting its core job capabilities and value of protecting providers (“LAPD has ended its role in Kamala Harris’ security detail. What happens now?,” Sept. 7). It’s a dialogue price having. However when it says the Los Angeles Police Division was defending “a failed presidential candidate” slightly than a former vp, I odor a really partisan perspective. I gained’t even get into the LAPPL’s jab on the monetary standing of the Harris household.
Marty Friedman, Manhattan Seaside
..
To the editor: It will appear inappropriate to spend metropolis and state assets, each money and time, to supply safety safety to Kamala Harris now that the traditional six-month Secret Service safety interval for former vice presidents has expired. Nonetheless, these will not be regular occasions. President Trump actively campaigned and distorted the reality to make folks hate Harris. When has another vp been attacked and vilified this manner? This can be a drawback of Trump’s creation.
Jane Diamond, Sherman Oaks
..
To the editor: The criticism from the LAPD police union of the price to the town to guard Harris is fairly wealthy, particularly coming from them. The price of defending her is however a fraction of the amount that the city pays out in police misconduct settlements and verdicts which can be a consequence of an out-of-control police pressure.
However I assume that’s none of my enterprise.
George W. Serbia, Irvine
