In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> sf > wrote:

> >For me, there's the larger issue of BART police carrying firearms in
> >the first place. WHY???
>
> I agree armed transit cops are unnecessary, but the argument
> is that they are responisble for policing BART parking lots,
> which are the site of vehicle breakins and assaults, and you
> need armed cops to deter and/or respond to such activity.

I haven't heard that. Where did you hear this? I looked at the BART
web site:

http://www.bart.gov/about/police/history.aspx

In 1969, three years before BART opened for revenue service, the transit
district's board of directors recommended that local police and
sheriff's departments patrol the stations, trains, rights-of-way, and
other BART-owned properties that were within their respective
jurisdictions. The police chiefs and sheriffs, forecasting that BART's
proposal would create jurisdictional disputes and inconsistent levels of
police service, rejected the board's proposal. As a result, legislation
was passed to form an autonomous law enforcement agency, the BART Police
Department.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA