Showing posts with label Eric Adams. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eric Adams. Show all posts

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Cops Go Forward; Geese Come Back

Budget Deadlock - Day 113



Police Will Scan Data Manually

To Comply With Stop and Frisk,

Geese Returning to Prospect Park



Our Tuesday column on stop and frisk legislation produced interesting reactions. The first emailed replies received were negative, some castigating me for going over to the dark side. The next day, Wednesday, predominantly supportive emails were received. Today (Thursday) people are no longer writing us on the subject. This shows that, although the opinion of our readers is divided, the opponents of the bill feel more intensely about it. Further comments are welcome. You may go to this link to post your thoughts.

The new law, which precludes an electronic database of those stopped by the police but not arrested, passed 85-55 in the Assembly, with 14 Democrats joining 41 Republicans in opposing it. The Democrats were Assemblymembers Marc Alessi, William Colton, Steven Englebright, Ginny Fields, Dennis Gabryszak, Sandra Galef, Aileen Gunther, Janele Hyer-Spencer, Michael Miller, Amy Paulin, Mike Spano, Robin Schimminger, Harvey Weisenberg, and Kenneth Zebrows. Three of the 14 are from New York City: Colton (Brooklyn), Miller (Queens) and Hyer-Spencer (Staten Island).

In the Senate, all 32 Democrats supported it. If any one of them had opposed it, abstained, or been absent, the bill would not have passed. All 29 Republicans opposed it.

Governor Paterson signed the bill on July 16th, ignoring appeals by Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Ray Kelly, the News and the Post. You can click here to read our article from Tuesday, which has many links to primary data on the subject, including the governor's written signing statement in support of the bill.

Governor Paterson's explanation, a spontaneous expansion of his signing statement, was quoted in a Daily News editorial this morning:

"'That is not a policy for a democracy. Maybe that might work in Bosnia. Maybe that might in Somalia. Maybe it would have worked in the Soviet Union or in ‘1984’. But we can't allow it to happen here.'"

The News' editorial continued with increasing vigor, denouncing Paterson's remarks as "slander". We quote:

"He also cited the Police Department's computerized files in the same breath with egregious infringements on civil rights, including the Alien and Sedition Acts [1798], and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

"This is gubernatorial slander of a department that has a deserved reputation for successful crimefighting well within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution. Somalia? Bosnia? The Soviet Union? Are those the precincts into which Paterson believes Commissioner Ray Kelly has led the NYPD?"

The new law was sponsored in the Senate by Eric Adams, and co-sponsored by Pedro Espada, Velmanette Montgomery, Kevin Parker and Jose Peralta, who defeated Hiram Monserrate, his predecessor. The Assembly sponsor was Hakeem Jeffries.

The Police Department's initial response to the state restriction was reported in a story by Rocco Parascandola, chief of the Daily News police bureau. It appears across the top of p2, which is prominent placement. The article is headlined: "WRITE ON, SAY COPS: Brass Says Stop-&-Frisk Records Aren't Dead, Just Use Paper, Not Computers."

The lede: "Cops can no longer keep a giant electronic library of everyone they stop on the street - but officers can still collect names the old-fashioned way, a new NYPD memo says.

"The internal memo was sent out Friday, just after Gov. Paterson signed a law banning the NYPD from entering personal information of innocent people into a citywide database…."

We have not heard the last of this issue. Although opinion on the merits of the bill appears to be divided, as the Assembly Democrats are, the unanimity of Senate Democrats and Attorney General candidates indicates that they are marching to the tune of a different drummer.



THE GEESE RETURN TO PROSPECT PARK; DON’T TRY TO FOOL WITH MOTHER NATURE

The geese are back in Prospect Park.

According to a count this morning from two of our readers, Ed Bahlman and Anne-Katrin Titze, 28 Canada Geese have resettled at Prospect Park Lake since their feathered friends were rounded up and gassed to death on July 8th.

We have every reason to believe that our readers’ count is accurate, as it was Ms. Titze who conducted the official New York State Ornithological Association and NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Waterfowl Count of the area in January 2010.

Although the return of the geese is fair news for fans of the local fowl, we were hesitant to report it for fear that we would be sentencing these new settlers to the same fate as their predecessors. Upon further reflection, however, we were convinced that these geese would certainly not go unnoticed by the authorities, and so the best chance of advocating for their safety was to make public the fact of their residence.

The return of the geese deepens our suspicion that the eradication of the Prospect Park 400 was not adequately thought through. Does the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is said to have ordered the mass killing, intend to hunt down these 28 geese too, along with those yet to join them? Are they to be gassed on a rolling basis or will the executioner come once a year after mating season, while they are molting and unable to fly?

Clearly, there are problems with the government's explanation of its actions. As we pointed out in our column on June 16th, the seven-mile kill zone extending from both LaGuardia and J.F.K. designated by the Agriculture Department for geese removal, does not accurately encompass Prospect Park, which is between 9 and 10 miles away from both airports. In a follow-up piece to our article, The New York Times confirmed our measurements.

We still maintain the public deserves more information about the government's policy of geese removal. We do not dismiss the possibility that the removal of some geese may be necessary for air safety, but there are unanswered questions about the Brooklyn geese, the cruelty of their execution and the disposition of their bodies. We believe that before more geese and goslings are butchered, a clear statement of procedures and alternatives is needed. The government requires an EIS for projects with less environmental effect than this mass ansercide.

We share this planet with millions of other species. We should not exterminate animals without clear evidence that it is necessary to do so to safeguard human life.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

To Catch A Thief

Budget Deadlock - Day 110



Albany Democrats, Paterson

Ignore Bloomberg and Kelly,

Limit Use of Stop and Frisk




In most places, state legislatures enact laws which assist local authorities to prevent crime or catch criminals.

New York State is an exception.

The New York State Senate and Assembly, with the signature of Governor Paterson, have enacted a law to prevent the Police Department from using information in its own database as leads in the investigation of violent crimes.

The bill was sponsored by Senator Eric Adams and Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, who represent Brooklyn districts where robbery, assault and rape are serious problems. Adams, a retired police officer, once headed One Hundred Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care. One would think that they would be particularly concerned with the apprehension of criminals who prey on their constituents. The predators, however, also include constituents.

Predictably, the New York Civil Liberties Union calls the database a "virtual police lineup of millions of completely innocent black and Latino New Yorkers". We are not surprised at the views of the NYCLU, who consistently oppose any measure considered helpful to the authorities. The group is not as concerned with the right of citizens not to be attacked, robbed or raped, in favor of the robbers and rapists’ interest in avoiding apprehension and punishment for their violent, sometimes fatal, assaults.

It depends on what kind of society one wants to live in. I value personal security, for myself, elderly parents, spouse and children. I would not mind being stopped and frisked if that would result in a safer community. Stop and frisk is usually employed for a reason, and that need not be criminal behavior at that instant. How do you know whether someone is carrying a gun unless you can check him and find out?

The Daily News and the Post have both editorialized on the subject. The News, on July 15, urged Governor Paterson to veto the bill in BE A CRIMESTOPPER, DAVE. Its lede: "The NYPD has an investigative tool that produced at least 170 arrests over the past 18 months, including for 17 murders, 36 robberies, 11 shootings and 7 rapes. It is a roaring public safety success -- and Gov. Paterson must guarantee its survival." Click here to read the well-reasoned and detailed editorial.

The Post, on July 16, in BEGGING FOR MORE CRIME, made this point: "[The bill's sponsors] pretend the database is racist -- or an intolerable infringement on privacy rights. In fact, the info it contains, and the steep drops in crime, have benefited minority communities in particular."

Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelly, appealed to the governor for a veto. The mayor's comments were reported in an article by Celeste Katz and Adam Lisberg, BLOOMBERG: I DON’T LOSE ON STOP-AND-FRISK - CRIME VICTIMS DO. Click here to read an op-ed by Commissioner Kelly on the subject.

The Governor signed the bill on July 16, and issued a signing statement, along with comments by the bill's sponsors. We quote his words:

"In a democracy there are times when safety and liberty find themselves in conflict. From the Alien and Sedition Acts to the Japanese internment camps during WWII to the Patriot Act, we have experienced moments when liberty took a back seat. And each time, hindsight made our errors clear. Today, we have an opportunity to set the scales of safety and liberty in balance before we lose something we can’t get back…"

We did not know until reading Governor Paterson's words that, in his mind, the Patriot Act was an historic error. The United States Senate approved the Act, 98-1, on October 25, 2001, six weeks after 9/11. Was everyone but Russell Feingold mistaken? Perhaps the Governor or his amanuensis will enlighten us as to how "hindsight made our errors clear" with regard to the Patriot Act.

It is noteworthy that every one of the 32 Democratic state senators voted to prevent the use of the electronic stop and frisk database, while all 29 Republicans opposed restricting it. (To see how your State Senator voted, click here. For your Assemblymember, click here.) Also, all five candidates for the Democratic nomination for Attorney General supported the bill. If you can find a Democrat who agreed with Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly, the News and the Post, please advise us.

Someday soon technology will alleviate the frisking part of the encounter. But that would not satisfy its opponents, who would inhibit any contact with potential assailants that did not result in an immediate arrest. In a way, the issue here depends on with which group the observer identifies: predator or prey. The great majority of New Yorkers are not predators, but many are afraid, to a greater or lesser extent, depending on where they live or how old they are, of becoming prey. These are the people whose views are not heard or listened to by most members of our dysfunctional Legislature.





StarQuest #690 07.20.2010 802 words