Proactive police work isn’t spying

Re “The LAPD’s snooping habit,” editorial, July 28

While I might share some concern over the Los Angeles Police Department placing an informant to record Refuse Fascism chapter meetings inside an Echo Park church, there is one important point that the L.A. Times Editorial Board should consider when offering its opinion on police operations.

Local police departments are responsible for maintaining, as best they can, the peace and tranquility of their governmental entity. In performing this duty, being adequately prepared is the most important factor, so police must collect and analyze basic “intelligence” on any activity that could lead to the disruption of safety.

Rather than getting up in arms over a police informant being placed in a position to gather such information, why not support the LAPD’s effort to be prepared in the event the “targeted” group is planning any such disruption?

Again, while recording meetings may be beyond necessity, do you and your readers really think it is wrong for the LAPD to seek information that either suggests or refutes that a group may cause disruption? Jim Weyant Big Bear City, Calif.

On the very day that the L.A. Times reported the assassination of a 24-yearold, off-duty officer, days after the worst shootout in the San Fernando Valley in years, less than a month after the killing of sheriff ’s deputy, and at the height of concerns about public health and safety because of homelessness, “snooping” by the police gets criticized in an editorial.

We need more intelligence gathering and proactive policing, not less. Guy R. Gruppie Los Angeles