Comments by reader1
Posted on July 2 at 6:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The facts reported in this commentary are disappointing and disturbing. Dismissing other agencies from the command center is puzzling, to say the least. Someone might want to inform the governor that multiple agency task forces have long been an effective way to coordinate resources and function more effectively.
RE: the use of the hunters. Citizens are intelligent and responsible enough to appreciate the need for confidentiality. Hunters and local residents were potentially in harm's way as long as the inmates remained on the loose. That alone seems more than enough incentive to impress upon them the need to maintain confidentiality. And, the civilians would not need to be privy to all information to provide assistance in the hunt.
Posted on June 30 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In addition to the legitimate issue raised in the editorial, one might also question whether the money could be put to better use, such as developing young artists in these depressed neighborhoods.
Posted on June 14 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Parker was under arrest for the offense of disorderly conduct. It is not simply walking in front of a car it is done so in a way that impedes people's right to move freely.
He walked away and refused to submit to the arrest. That, in and of itself, could justify the use of force. Based on the information available, the force was not used because he did not submit to the search.
Quality of life issues are often a tactic used to get at more serious problems. You neglected to point out that according to some of the residents and businesses, the police were conducting these operations due to repeated complaints about drug use/sale, gambling, foul language, and other illegal and disorderly behavior. These areas make it extremely unpleasant to live and work in these areas, generate fear, and harm businesses. Perhaps you might view these behaviors differently if they occurred, daily, in front of your house or place of employment on a daily business. There was a similar problem near a location I used to work at on Hamilton Hill. The situation made the residents lives a living hell. I still recall watching the aforementioned behaviors compel parents to keep their children from playing in front of their own houses.
And, what the Yale professors are suggesting is to practice discriminatory enforcement. There would be one regular law for citizens who comply with arrests, then another law to adapt to those who refuse to comply with the arrest. Those who comply are arrested, handcuffed an processed. Those who refuse to comply are given a warning and informed they will be arrested at a later date. And, why are we to believe they will comply with the later arrest?
Force makes people feel uncomfortable because it is unpleasant to watch. Something did go awry, Mr. Parker, also a Gazette employee, turned what should have been a routine arrest into a physical confrontation. And again this all occurred within the context of police trying to provide a normal quality of life for people who live and work in that neighborhood. You might want consider reserving some of your empathy towards them.
Posted on June 13 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Grow up and stop the name calling. I asked a legitimate question. I have no idea what the administration knows and neither do any of the other people reading this. I ask again - what is the alternate plan?
Posted on June 13 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And, your alternate plan for the buildings is?
Posted on June 11 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A few thoughts: First, for the sake of being fair and objective it might be a good idea to wait until all the facts are known and the investigation is completed before arriving at or "pointing in the direction" of conclusions.
Second, for the sake of full disclosure - the editorial board should point out, as the reporters who covered the story did, that Mr. Parker is a Gazette employee.
Third, contrary to the editorial writer's assertion that "the citizen apparently wasn't committing an actual crime" he was, according to the officers, committing a violation of the NYS Penal Law - Disorderly Conduct, impeding vehicular traffic. This is not simply walking in violation of laws governing pedestrian traffic - it constitutes preventing the right of other citizens to travel freely. The focus on these quality of life laws was apparently part of an overall strategy to target a hotspot of illegal and disorderly activity in that area. Unfortunately, people blocking vehicle traffic in the city is an all too common, illegal, and unsafe behavior. Additionally, anyone who has the nerve to tap on your horn to get the individuals to move knows the vulgar and threatening reaction some of these "jaywalkers" respond with. In short, he was charged with a violation of the law, informed he was under arrest - he responded by walking away and pushing the officer when the officer tried to detain him to place him into custody.
How should officers respond to such behavior? In order to prevent him from resisting, should the officers let him walk away. To do so, renders the law meaningless.
And, I am a little confused regarding how "cultural and racial sensibilities" enter into this discussion. I am certain that African American parents teach their children at a very young age the proper way to walk across the street. I know that mine did, in very clear and direct language. Moreover, if you are told you are under arrest - that is clear and unequivocal language that every African American can understand. Equal protection under the law does not mean application of the law in different ways, based on culture or race.
I agree that incidents of police misconduct can negatively impact a positive relationship between the police and the community. I would also point out that inaccurate depictions of encounters between the police and citizens can have an equally damaging effect.
Posted on May 29 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
pnotto - speak for yourself and don't put words in anyone else's mouth.
Opinions posted here were in reference to this case and this case alone.
Posted on May 28 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fair and well-deserved sentence. Horrendous, brutal, and inhuman actions. Defendant still in denial and not remorseful.
Posted on May 10 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Insufficient information to assess necessity of bail in these cases: Did defendants have prior issues re: failing to show up in court. Offenses like Trespass and Criminal Contempt are often linked to domestic violence. Criminal contempt indicates failure to obey a mandate of the court (e.g., no contact w?victim). If the individual cannot follow that mandate why would one assume they will follow the court order to reappear?
Also, Loitering, by itself, is not an offense. So, there is more to that story.
Posted on April 21 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nothing wrong with these sessions, but my one concern would be the that the meetings were precipitated by high-profile incidents in other parts of the country. Did the publicity from high-profile incidents elsewhere in the country lead to the assumption that there must be serious levels of tension here? Nevertheless, sitting down and talking - "truly seeing and hearing" each other (NYPD Commissioner Bratton's phrase) can always be productive.