The Nutter Police State
As much as everyone in Philadelphia has said the 2007 Mayoral Election is actually about the issues, in the last few weeks we've seen it come down to one thing; Charisma.
The Nutter Bandwagon has gotten more members than ever and people are quickly going to him and declaring him the single greatest thing to hit Philadelphia since the Cheese Steak. Now, I myself am a Nutter fan. Of all the candidates I've met, he is the only one who actually recognized me as an actual candidate. Along with that, he has proposed more "common sense" initiatives than anyone else. But with the non-stop stream of endorsements from all the major local print media outlets, and the throngs of supports on the Internet, I'm wondering if this support is more for his charismatic attitude and less for his issues. The man has had a great ad campaign. He has used humor effectively, brought his daughter into the mix, and his no-nonsense approach is refreshing. All of this is adding fuel to the Nutter fire, and the charismatic nature is shinning as bright as ever. Nutter is promising to clean up City Hall, have Zoning Reform, and restore the Arts & Culture Department. But in all of this, criticism and real debate about where he stands on other issues is getting lost.
Let us not forget that Nutter is proposing we have a Crime Emergency declared in Philadelphia. This is, without a doubt, the boldest solution to the crime problem out there. And as much as I like the guy, this is the deal breaker. The Crime Emergency would limit or prohibit gatherings in public on sidewalks or elsewhere. It would halt or limit cars and trucks within targeted areas, establish a curfew, and take away the right to legally carry a weapon. It is, in essence, putting away the U.S. Constitution and deciding that the freedom of the citizens of Philadelphia is only secondary to safety. The fact that this has not been made into a major issue is something that makes me wonder just what the citizens of Philadelphia considers "progress".
Add into this his "Stop and Search" program, and it paints a rather bad picture. It would give officers the power and authority to stop anyone who "looks suspicious" and search them. One of the problems in Philadelphia is that the citizens in these high-crime areas do not like the police. It isn't simply the criminals; a lot of good citizens feel the police simply don't care about them, and many of them feel that quite a few officers are biased in these assessments. I don't believe that, and I don't agree with that viewpoint, but the sad fact of the matter is that this is a stigma that a lot of people have. Add into this that in most high crime areas the response time is rather slow, and you have a public with an overwhelming negative viewpoint of the people who are suppose to protect them. T
he program is in effect in other high-crime areas in other cities, and the criticism has always been that the officers doing these are doing it based on, sadly, racial lines. One thing Nutter has done to defend this is state a fact; Most of these crimes are being done by a specific group, in this case, young black men. It's a sad, terrible fact, and since I happen to fall into that category myself, I am worried about being targeted for no real reason. But he does make a point, but this could very well become a stumbling block in the very progress he wants. If this program makes law-abiding citizens feel as if they are being unfairly targeted, then they may leave this city.
The program, overall, severely limits the civil liberties and constitutional freedoms that this city fought long and hard to attain and defend in the first place. Nutter's plan would strip a large portion of our law-abiding citizens of these freedoms in order to capture and target the criminals that roam the streets. We, as citizens, need to decide now if this is the step we want. It may seem like a tired cliche these days, but the so-called "police state" that we fear would come with this to Philadelphia. More cameras, more officers, stop-and-search, a curfew for adults, a limit to your right to assemble! In fact, more than anything else, the very fact that this would limit the right of citizens to assemble should be looked at more intensely! This could possibly limit the right protest, the right to perform in public, and the right to simply enjoy our city. This is, in essence, just two steps away from martial law.
To add to this, this isn't entirely plausible. This would require a few thousand more officers; First more officers in the high-crime areas, and then more officers to take over the shifts of the officers that have been moved. Most likely, this will also require more overtime pay at first since it takes about 1 year to train a new officer, and of 1000 that may enter, only half will make it. I'm not 100% sure how Nutter is planing to do this, and who knows, I could be wrong on that. If I am, I don't mind being corrected. But from where I stand and from what I've seen, this isn't going to happen. If it does, we will need to see a reduction in other city services to help counter the cost.
This was reported in January in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Since then, there has been very little press about it and the only people mentioning it are the occasional blogger and message board poster. He has mentioned it before in some detail, but the current TV Ad's do not describe what this "Crime Emergency" would mean. But it seems that the virtual tidal wave of support for Nutter is overshadowing this, and any other criticism, that could be given to Nutter.
For everyone that has taken a shot at Tom Knox for the Payday Loans, I think it's safe to say that Nutter's Crime Emergency, which would limit our civil rights, is a much more urgent issue to take note of. Like I said, I like Nutter personally and think he's a good man, but this is going to limit our rights. I know I am going to come under fire for this, and I don't mind. A wise man once said, "The time to ask questions is when no one is asking questions," and with the rise of support and endorsements, no one is asking questions about Nutter when they should. No one, and I mean NO ONE, should be given a pass on criticism when it comes to running for office. Everyone else has been grilled, and now I am simply asking that we look into what Nutter wants now before it's too late and the primaries are over.
I'm sure Nutter's supporters are simply going to dismiss what I am saying as mere propaganda, or go on about how this is needed right now due to the rising murder rate. The issue then becomes is this all we have left to defend ourselves? Is the last act of defiance against criminals a limit to all of our rights and civil liberties? Isn't there some other, more reasonable way to solve this problem? These are the questions that we as citizens must ask ourselves before as we decide the faith of not just ourselves, but the very future and destiny of Philadelphia.
Inaccuracies
No, no it doesn't. Do you have any source that declaring a crime emergency "would limit or prohibit gatherings in public on sidewalks or elsewhere,... would halt or limit cars and trucks within targeted areas, establish a curfew, and take away the right to legally carry a weapon"? I know that Nutter has said repeatedly that stop and frisk would target only illegal weapons. Further, the stopping of people based on an articulable race-neutral reasonable suspicion complies with the U.S. Constitution; it doesn't require that it be suspended.
There are legitimate reasons for concerns. This can be seriously discussed. But if you inaccurately describe the proposal as martial law, what you are saying is mere propaganda.
I support Nutter. I have mixed feeling toward stop and frisk. I marginally support it, but know it needs to be properly implemented and monitored.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
Yes, I do have a refrence
The Inky Article
There has a been a large debate about the "Stop and Frisk", and I'm stating that due to the perception of the police in these high-crime areas from law abiding citizens, it's going to be a mess. I may be so bold as to even say it could lead to lawsuits for searches that turn up nothing as a result of the frisk.
Again, I didn't say it was martial law, but yes, I did say it was two-steps away from it. The proposal would limit our rights as citizens, and I highly recommend you think about this.
Code 10
You're right. Those powers are included in Code 10. My mistake. Nutter still has said that he would not target the legal carrying of weapons, and Constitutional protections would still apply. The city would be liable for any Constitutional violations.
Nutter's Safety Now plan says the following:
Does anyone have any information on this? Was it perceived as successful? Were the residents in favor of it before it was implemented? During? Were there any lawsuits?
The reason to implement a state of emergency is that crime is limiting the rights law-abiding residents in certain areas, and that a state of emergency may be the best way to protect those rights. They should have the right to peaceably assemble, or merely walk, on the sidewalks now, but they don't. I'm not sure if this theory is correct, but I don't live in one of those areas either. That doesn't mean that I don't care about other people's rights; it means that I am less knowledgeable than them on this issue.
What plan for protecting law-abiding residents is better?
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
The problem...
The problem, though, isn't like it was 10 years ago. It isn't a matter of gangs causing violence, it's a matter of random people getting angry and committing these acts. His heart is in the right place, but this isn't going to be that effective, as far as I can see. It's almost another version of Safe Streets.
Random anger?
You think 400 murders a year (and rising) is just "a matter of random people getting angry"? It just a huge coincidence that our pace this year is exceeding last year? So it's not a matter of drug-dealers killing rivals and criminals stopping snitching, just random anger? The murders may not be over gang colors, but I doubt it is random people getting angry.
His heart is in the right place, but this isn't going to be that effective, as far as I can see.
Hasn't similar methods been effective in other cities? Stop and frisk may have problems, but is effectiveness one of them?
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
It is, and it isn't.
Part of the problem, yes, is the drug-dealers. I didn't say it wasn't; I said a large majority are being done by random people. At least, this is coming from news reports and the police themselves.
Stop and frisk has been implemented in other cities, and crime has gone down. But it has come at the price of the the civil liberties of the citizens, and it has also resulted in countless complaints. Philadelphia has the added problem of the way the youth will look at this. Again, it is mostly young people committing these murders. At the same time, you have to also realize that crimes of passion, unpremeditated murders, are almost impossible to prevent from a police standpoint. This program could turn normally-peaceful young people into agitated human beings. Again, I'm being a bit drastic, but if you were being stopped and frisked for seemingly no real reason, I think it's safe to say you would get a bit agitated after a while.
Like I said, his heart is in the right place. But this is going to take away rights from law-abiding citizens.
Philadelphia has the added
Philadelphia has the added problem of the way the youth will look at this.
Do you think that Philadelphia is different in this regard from any other city with distressed areas?
At the same time, you have to also realize that crimes of passion, unpremeditated murders, are almost impossible to prevent from a police standpoint.
In many ways, you are right. However, eliminating illegal guns would reduce access to the guns that are frequently used in these murders. Also, effective prosecution would create a deterrent to these crimes. I would guess that many of these murderers feel that they can get away with it because their neighborhoods are viewed as lawless with witnesses afraid to come forward.
This program could turn normally-peaceful young people into agitated human beings.
The crime, poverty, and hopelessness in these neighborhoods are already turning "young people into agitated human beings." I've frequently heard that almost all teenagers in certain areas feel they have no future. Targeting these areas and reducing crime could give the law abiding residents hope and could reduce the agitation among the law-abiding residents. Being under house arrest because of fear may be more agitating than the police.
Stop and frisk does have danger of problems and must be monitored if it is to be implemented, but I ask again: What's better? Let the people in ghetto continue to get killed and do nothing?
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
Guns and Drugs
A good number of the murders committed this and last year are due to guns and their use in drug trade. So arguably, if you reduce the drug trade, gun murders would go down. Also, the corner boys and neighborhood drug rings that are fueling much of these altercations (including killings from stray bullets) are a lot more organized than people give them credit. Also, there is the question of whether other “random” people are carrying guns to protect themselves from the gun-toting drug dealers.
The gun problem and murder rate are complicated issues. Stop-and-frisk and emergency zones aren’t my favorite ideas either. But so long as they are implemented in a manner that complies with the constitution, I think they may be necessary to stop people from dying.
Civilian Review
The best answer for police abuses will be (and has always been) the institution of a civilian review board. This is what Nutter's proposed, tied to the declaration of a crime emergency. We will have to see if the FOP and police brass will accept it, or if this fight will kill the whole thing.
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
This is a pretty good debate
This is a pretty good debate of the issues.
1. FOP and police brass will kill Civilian Review Board. No doubt about that. It is the entire purpose of the police union to mitigate in favor of workers over management. Also, most top brass are members of the FOP. They too do not like an outside non-police for entity from making employment decisions. (The fact that management and workers are in the same union creates unique problems of change.)
2. Philly does not have the gang problem of the 70s. (Interesting that Fattah's folks or Fattah doesn't chime in on this, given his great credentials.) However, drugs fuel killings. Philly has some of the purest heroin in the U.S. (I don't know how you measure that, but the police say that it is an indication of how much heroin is in Philly.) That makes Philly a place to buy guns and drugs, in large quantities. Those folks tend to be pretty willing to kill people.
3. I agree you have to do something, but the danger of stopping and frisking folks is that Philly already has been down that path -- that's what people perceived Rizzo as doing. The police force has more African Americans now than then, and many served under Rizzo. So there is not a great movement, even among the police, to stop folks.
The issue is that poor neighborhoods have the highest violent crime -- street crime is still Center City/U City/Fairmount -- I believe, so stop and frisk would disproportionately affect those areas -- poor areas. And there is a reluctance to do it for past failings.
The problem with crime is that other big cities are seeing drops in murders and Philly is shooting to the top in per capita and pure numbers.
However, in order to implement a state of emergency you need buy in from the citizens you are trying to protect. Given the past history, that is an uphill task.
__________________________________________________________________________
I do not work for/support any candidate for any office in Philadelphia.
We HAVE civilian review of the police thanks to Nutter
We HAVE civilian review of the police. The Police Advisory Commission was instituted in the early 90’s despite fierce opposition from the police.
The driving force behind the Police Advisory Commission was Michael Nutter. It was one of the first of the very tough fights he fought and won.
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor
The distinction I drew was
The distinction I drew was the ability to fire police officers. That's the difference. The union has last say.
I am sure that someone more familiar than I will point out how difficult it is to get officers off of the force even if they have done egregious wrong. Its not the Police Advisory Commission, which does just that, advises.
__________________________________________________________________________
I do not work for/support any candidate for any office in Philadelphia.
I think what will determine the effectiveness of a Stop and
Frisk initiative will be whether there is buy-in in the communities in which is it implemented - before the fact.
That means that you can't implement it and then see how people feel about it. That could be a disaster, and long term just make the violence problem even worse because the lack of trust between communities and law enforcement will only be worsened.
I don't have any actual references, but in past discussions at YPP people alluded to studies that show that after a period of time, similar policies in NY have become quite unpopular despite the reduction in crime (which can be attributed to a variety of reasons and not simply the existence of Stop and Frisk programs).
These initiatives CANNOT be rammed down anyone's throat. First you need to educate communities about what they will involve. Then, you need to empower the people living in those communities to have a say in their ultimate design. Then, you need to determine if you have support. And only then should you go ahead.
Even if properly implimented, this kind of program has inherent risks, and there needs to be a careful analysis of the risk/reward aspects of this kind of program relative to other initiatives. But in the very least, if elected, I sure hope that Nutter won't rush this kind of program into place out of political expediency, without taking the time to lay the necessary foundation to at least enable the program to be effective long-term.
Good post DE.
Good post DE.
Someone posted on YPP that Damon Roberts was asking people in potentially affected areas what they thought of stop and frisk. I'd like to hear how law-abiding residents of these areas feel about it. I'm guessing most people on YPP that are objecting to stop-and-frisk do not live in potentially affected areas.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
Exactly, Aardhart
(of course, I'll agree with you on the rate occassion that you agree with me), but law-abiding citizens in the most affected neighborhoods are the ones who should be instrumental in what happens - not the least beause they're the ones whose "civil rights" would be the most affected by any such policy.
That's another problem
Another problem is how, exactly, does he plan on implementing this? The board is going to have a tough time getting passed, and considering the fact that Nutter is saying the city is already saying that the city is in a state of emergency, this most likely is going to be rushed. Citizen input is going to be key. At the same time, this will require more officers to keep up enforcement.
I doubt the "stop and frisk" is going to be implemented in Center City. If anything, it may target North Philadelphia, West Philadelphia, and South West Philadelphia.
WOW!
Do I sense a BIAS towards anything that criticizes Nutter? I see more anti-Fattha and Knox posts on the front page, and not this....
Who has to fear Stop & Frisk
Within a six block section in Olney there are three elementary schools. Within this area there are 4 drug corners frequented by as many ten kids at a time. The police can do nothing as the kids know when the cops are coming and make modest efforts to conceal their activities. Frequently fights break out and occassionally gunfire. Children do not play outside in the vicinity. These are the people who need fear stop & frisk.
My wife's classroom had bullet holes in it for two years. One of my students pulled his sister out of the way as a dead man fell on their doorstep. Another student testified this year against her father's murderer. Stop & Frisk will save lives now, improve living conditions in the neighborhood, and give us something we can build on.
I was taking a child home from school one time, a 3rd grader. He said, "Don't walk on this street." I replied, "why not?" he said "they have drive bys on this street." Startled I asked, "How do you know." He said, "Look at the street signs." I'm wondering to myslef they have street signs announcing drive bys. I'm totally confused. In response to my quesry he showed me the dents in the street signs and told me they were caused by bullets. This mother obviously taught her child what he needed to know to stay alive. It demonstrates the different values and lessons parents in the inner city need to teach their children. Maybe she didn't concentarte as much on academics as some of us would like, but she schooled her child well.
Stop & Frisk is a temporary solution to a deadly problem. It is legal, violates no ones rights, but protects the rights of our most vulnerable.
I do
The police already routinely stop & harrass transgender women even in safer areas of the City. Giving the department more discretion to harrass people when they haven't shown the ability to work within the current construct seems an invitation to increased abuse.
Several of these cases have been substantiated by the Police Advisory Commission - (there's one pending now where someone who is a member of the Commissoners lgbt advisory board was harrassed and threatned) - one of the older substantiated cases involved the police putting a transgender woman who was arrested improperly (they accussed her of stealing her own car) ws placed in a a holding cell with male inmates & the officer threw in condoms in an attempt to encourage her rape.
I just want to note...
In hindsight, and I didn't mean to, I focused on the Stop and Search thing.
The honest truth is, I'm more worried about the "limit of gatherings" aspect, and what this could mean to the right to protest.
The right to protest
The right to protest is a far different situation than kids hanging on a corner. I see no reason to worry. A protest is organized in advance and already has police protection. Unorganized protests rarely happen because they need media attention to be successful and that requires advance notice.
Cool
Cool, and good point. So what about the ability to perform music in public?
Just because they may happen less frequently
doesn't mean it's not a concern. I'd also expect to see more of these style of protests in the future>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_mob
Oh yeah
Seems lame, but yes, I completely forgotten about those, mainly because I never hear of them here in Philly.