We've thought long and hard (at least for seven minutes) about the Guardian Angels in Troy. Initially, we took no position. Certainly, in a fashion sense we can see not wanting the Guardian Angels in Troy. Red berets? That is so 1980's.
However, the Guardian Angels are merely another set of eyes and ears on the street. The police cannot be everywhere and in most cases cannot stop crime. Their job is to investigate alleged crimes and make arrests. They simply cannot be everywhere.
Tutunjian's position, "crime is down in Troy" therefore we don't need the GA's, is unsurprisingly nonsensical. Why is the mayor being soft on crime? We don't care if crime is down 5%, 10%, 50%. One crime against one victim is too much, especially for the victim.
Do the GA's differ greatly from a neighborhood watch? Apparent from the berets, no. They would merely be another set of eyes and ears out in the naked city.
The argument that it makes the police look like they can't handle the job, that it's bad PR, is silly. First, outsiders already think Troy is crime ridden. So what's the big deal? As for the Troy Police Department not being able to handle crime, again, a silly theory. Any police department can do a great job and still have crime committed within their jurisdiction. It's not a knock against the Troy PD. It's an acknowledgment that the police cannot be everywhere all the time.
Troy has the Hell's Angels, why not Guardian Angels?
Democrats, listen up! Here's an issue. Simply spin this issue as the Republicans being soft on crime. Come on, you can do it. There you go. That wasn't so hard now, was it?