This is part three taken from my own blog written on November 21st. Despite being a few months old, everything still rings true. You can read the original here: http://markskull.blogspot.com/2007/11/civil-rights-and-possible-crime_19.html

I was going to post this yesterday, but I've been sick for a bit and it came to a head yesterday.

We've discussed the basic civil rights questions, and asked how long this Crime Emergency could last.

We've discussed the new Police Commissioner, his background in the issue, and and his impact on Crime.

Today, we're going to tackle a few things.

• Guns
• The impact Ramsey had in Washington D.C. (Part 2)
• What all of this boils down to.

So to start things off, we can kill two birds with one stone and discuss Ramsey, D.C., and Guns at once. Why? Because in case you didn't know, handguns have been banned in Washington D.C. for 31 years. OK, let's think about this: Despite BANNING HANDGUNS in Washington D.C., they still had ONE OF THE HIGHEST MURDER RATES IN AMERICA. So all that talk about "banning guns solve everything" is true, right? Ramsey's impact to lower the murder rate 50% during his time there must deal with simple enforcement of existing laws.

This is part two taken from my own blog written on November 19th. Despite being a few months old, everything still rings true. You can read the original here: http://markskull.blogspot.com/2007/11/civil-rights-and-possible-crime_19.html

THE CHARLES RAMSEY EFFECT

Hello, and welcome to Part 2 of my discussion of the Crime Emergency and the Crime Emergency. Yesterday, I discussed the basic civil rights issues that I feel could be threatened by declaring a Code 10, and asked the question of how long this would last and if it was needed.

Today, we'll start the discussion on the new Police Commissioner, Charles H. Ramsey. But before we do, I want to mention a few things first that I forgot to mention yesterday.

A large amount of my problem with this is, of course, Civil Rights. In all of my writing yesterday, I neglected to mention something that has been bugging me about all of this. Back in May, when Nutter's "Stop-and-Frisk" program was being called to task for violating civil rights, supporters brought up a Court Case where it was declared constitutional.

It was Nutter himself who coined this phase: "It's a Civil Right not to be Shot."

This bumper-sticker phrase was done so well, it is next to impossible to argue against it. To do so seems to allow for the same type of argument used by Conservative Republicans when you disagree with them; "What, do you mean you WANT people to be shot? You don't think it's wrong to kill and murder people?! No wonder you didn't win the election, you cold hearted bastard!"

The fact of the matter is, you don't. You have a right to live, a right to the pursuit of happiness. You have a right to be free and happy, and to live in a safe environment.

You don't have a right to not have bad things happen to you.

This is part one taken from my own blog written on November 17th. Despite being a few months old, everything still rings true. You can read the original here: http://markskull.blogspot.com/2007/11/civil-rights-and-possible-crime.html

I want to state one fact here: Despite how much I disagree with him on the Crime Emergency issue, I highly respect the man and was ready to hire him myself once elected. I agree with a large portion of what he wants, but on this issue and mainly this issue alone more than anything else, I feel he is wrong. This article, along with Part 2, are serious looks and criticisms I have about this and I have, and will, state as many facts as possible to back me up on not only my view, but the counterpoint as well.

When it comes to any and all comments, I ask you keep them civil. Thank you.

-Larry

The keystone of why I ran for mayor after the May Primary can be summed up into these words:

To make sure Nutter NEVER declares a Crime Emergency.

In essence, a Crime Emergency is this:

• prohibit or limit gatherings of people on sidewalks, streets, or any outdoor place in the designated neighborhoods;
• halt or limit the movement of vehicles through or within the designated neighborhoods;
• establish a curfew limiting the hours people could be outside their houses; and
• prohibit the sale, carrying or possession on the public street or public sidewalks, or in any public park or square, of weapons of any kind.

Let's stop for a second and look at this. To quote Nutter himself:

Title 10 of the Philadelphia Code authorizes the Mayor to take specified measures if the Mayor determines that “the City or any part thereof is suffering or is in imminent danger of suffering civil disturbance , disorder, riot or other occurrence which will seriously and substantially endanger the health, safety and property of the citizens.” Parts of Philadelphia are clearly suffering a wave of violence that endangers the safety of residents.

In other words, it's exactly what it sounds like: A last resort in case it is incredibly dangerous to even leave your house. For example, say we're under a real threat of terrorism and we've been attacked, that would be grounds to declare a Crime Emergency. Or a massive gang war erupted, where you have two rival gangs killing each other and anyone in their way. That's a good reason to declare it as well.