Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Boutet on July 19, 2011 at 2:34am

Well put Margy.  There are more than enough problems in our community to go around and to keep everyone who wants to help busy.  Many skills and temperament are needed.  We don't always agree on what the right thing to do is, but we should keep in mind that most people are trying to do the right thing as they see it.  To maximize our progress at addressing problems we need to leverage off one-another's strong points, help one-another in areas we are weak, share information and try to understand one-another's viewpoints.   Voters are the winners when more than one good candidate is competing for a seat.  Voters are most fortunate if the campaining is kept on a positive enough note so everyone is able to still work for common goals when all the shouting is over and votes have been cast.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Karakashian on July 19, 2011 at 3:06pm

Since it was most likely my reply to Diane yesterday that generated this... :) my comment specifically in her case was that she was attacking Adam with a comment of how we have to "grovel and beg" for information from City government.  My point was that Adam's been participating on this forum for two years and actively engaged in the community conversation.  To suggest things are being hidden, at least by our council rep, is patently absurd.  

 

I agree wholeheartedly that choice in candidates is a good thing.  But, as I replied to hers; a choice between an incumbent who's done good for the city and someone who just decided to run isn't necessarily one that needs to be presented.  We need to get of the bad politicians, not all of them.

 

Additionally, the attitude of "I do this, so obviously I care more than you" is one that's antithetical to arriving at solutions.  There are a lot of problems, we have to focus on the ones we care most about.  Dosomething.org's message is powerful in its simplicity.  That being said, I wouldn't even denigrate anyone who is just trying to make it through their own lives.  It's tough right now, and the problems we face seem (and most likely are) insurmountable.  I can't fault anyone for giving up.  Most days I have to struggle to do more than just ensure my children are better equipped than I was to take up the fight later.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam McFadden on July 20, 2011 at 4:45pm

I love the fact we have a forum to communicate but at the same time it can be a little combative. My letter was correspondence to my colleagues and we all communicate by email or letters. Nothing is hidden because anything sent these two ways fall under the FOIL rules (meaning any citizen can request them). How could I be hiding something I personally address in public numerous times? When it comes to personnel matters communication between council, mayor, and city employees can fall under confidentiality rules. It's like any other place of business. 

I believe that this forum is for us to come together as a community on a number of things it's not just about my service or who should serve because that can get to personal. Let's agree to be kind. Whether or not I am elected I still live here like all of you. I was born in the community and live here all my life. Politics doesn't run my life. My family, friends, and spiritual beliefs are the most important things to me. I don't have to serve because I need to. I serve because I want to make our community better.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Sweetland on July 21, 2011 at 12:36am

Adam,

 

I agree wholeheartedly.  Great to have a forum, good to come together as a community.   Also understand your personal beliefs about service.   Thanks for doing what you can, your efforts are appreciated.

Mark

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Louise Wu on July 21, 2011 at 6:49am

I agree this is a kind of balky set-up as far as how replies line up and where older posts go.  Unless some get moderated out.  Like there was a post complaining about Emily Good that I can't find.  The one complaining about Adam McFadden might be still on here.  It's all okay, not worried about it myself and can deal with it.  Understand how difficult it is to get some of these online website platforms to work.  

Anyhow, I am kind of worried about a few people in the neighborhood (meetings, online forums), and even the columnist in City Paper recently (Fein?), who are writing/saying some pretty scathing things about Emily without knowing a whole lot about her.  I wouldn't want anyone in the neighborhood to experience something like that. I have a high regard for the people who live in the Ward, and it disappoints me to see some folks shoot from the hip about what happened to Emily.  It's particularly distressing because Emily and her family have been cautioned by local officials (who are in a position to know, I guess--politicians, her public defenders) that there may be more police retaliation against her on the way, and that she should not be alone or drive a car.  Emily is a graduate of one of the first peace studies programs offered at a university.  She works locally and contributes huge amounts of time to social causes in the area that aim to improve our lives and our world (peace, poverty, the environment).  She is one of a new generation of young people who have an excellent set of priorities and values in their lives.  My husband's son is like that too.  He completely lacks any kind of materialism, has bought all his clothes from AmVets since he was in middle school, and now after finishing his undergraduate degree, is going to "reward" himself by doing missionary work over the coming winter at an orphanage in southern India.  So many of our generation thought these kids who care and want to work for social change would not appear.  But they have.  They are like Emily.  In a recent interview, along with Mr. Lightfoot, Emily said she didn't go looking for this issue with the police, it found her.  Mr. Lightfoot agreed.  She has a very gentle and caring soul.  I really hoped that people, especially in the 19th Ward, would be more supportive.

 I do understand what sounds like a lack of concern for the police and the job they are doing.  But whether people were supposed to see Adam McFadden's letter to the council about the police or not, as the chair of the city council safety committee, Mr. McFadden is also in a position to see it if there needs to be some reform with the police.  The policeman at Emily's house violated her 1st, 4th, and 6th amendment rights.  The good news is that this was only one out of a group of three officers.  The question is whether all of them were violating the rights of the man in the traffic stop as well.  The officer also misused the charge of "Obstructing Governmental Administration" (OGA) with Emily.  In order for the officer to use OGA with Emily she would have had to be touching him while he was working, or have positioned herself between the officer and the subject of his initial investigation.  She was always on her front lawn and never less that 15 feet away from the officer, the police report said, until the officer came up onto her lawn and took her away. So he committed wrongful arrest.  Same thing that happened to Emily on her front lawn happened to a neighbor across the street from me when she came out of her house to ask why there were 20 police cars and a SWAT team on the street to take our other neighbor, a grandmother and fixture of the block, out of her house (she was illegally foreclosed on by a foreclosure mill in Buffalo).  They arrested the neighbor for asking questions.  This was confirmed by the officer himself who called into the Wease morning talk show later, insisted his voice be electronically disguised, so he sounded like Alvin the chipmonk while he was telling the listeners that she was arrested because he, "couldn't get a word in edgewise."  This is not a reason to arrest a retired nurse in her pajamas, in the wintertime, who has lived here for decades, because she wanted to know why the police were treating her neighbor and friend this way-- like it was a multiple homicide crime scene--when she can't get the police to respond to her call when she hears gunfire near her house?  

I think some people might be hesitant to critique the police because they're afraid they may not come when we need their help.  I find that no one is more critical of the police than most police are of themselves.  They think (in their online public chats) that what happened with Emily was off base. They say they wouldn't want anyone coming onto their property and telling them what to do either. They also think that any professional peace officer should have no problem being videoed, and should have no expectation of privacy in a public place.  As far as Emily following orders, there was no legal basis or cause for arresting Emily.  We, including most police, want to uphold the constitution.  We have the right to ask questions and not obey unlawful orders from police.   In fact, asking these kinds of questions will improve policing.  I think most police have big shoulders and can handle it.  Their online chats with each other seem to confirm this.  Just because some civilians have some questions about what some of the police are doing, doesn't mean we are condemning all the police?  That would be black and white thinking.  This fall will be the 10th anniversary of 911.  Who doesn't remember those selfless hero first responders, including the NYPD, who wouldn't stop for anything?  That's how I feel, in general, about NYS first responders, including the police.  I even think my mailman is a hero working during this heat emergency.  I believe police, firemen, and EMS-ers enter these professions because they want to help people.  

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Louise Wu on July 21, 2011 at 10:08am

 

I don't think I ever said that anyone was "ignorant, close-minded, or fearful."  if I did, I apologize.  Please show me where I wrote that.  The only riot I'm aware of recently was the one where the police rioted against non-violent peace marchers several years ago.  If there was another one since then, please let me know.  Nobody has to agree with me. All are entitled to their thoughts, feelings, and opinions.  Saying that Emily never saw a riot she didn't want to join, and is in constant search of an issue, really sounds like the kind of ad hominem character assassination going on that concerns me.  I wouldn't want that kind of thing happening to anyone around here.  I know for a fact that she has worked steadily and steadfastly for years on peace, poverty and environmental issues.  I'm at a loss to understand the anger coming at her for this.  She knows about racial profiling and poverty because she has given hours and hours for years volunteering at a local homeless shelter.  I don't understand why that is seen as a bad thing?  I think dialogue about this is important and I welcome your input.  I'm not upset about anything.  But I am concerned and even worried about some of the things I'm reading and hearing about Emily.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Louise Wu on July 21, 2011 at 4:49pm

Okay, stay cool.  You may not have read all the other traffic about this today.  Which is fine by me.  It's too hot to do anything.  But I'm not against the whole department, have said many complimentary things about them, and officers elsewhere.  Sorry if I left anyone with the impression that the I think the whole department is bad.  I don't.  I keep affirming that the majority of them are professional, upstanding here and elsewhere, and can take a few citizens asking some questions.  I believe the majority are big enough to be able to do that.  I appreciate your thoughts on this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Margy Meath on July 21, 2011 at 8:20am

Louise - the comment about emily was made in another thread (RPD out of control). I started THIS thread to have some discussion about 'meeting attendance' and whether it's a good measure of anything.

I don't want to get into a debate about emily and whether she was right/wrong, good/bad, etc BUT the one comment that really jumps out at me from your post above is this: "It's particularly distressing because Emily and her family have been cautioned by local officials (who are in a position to know, I guess--politicians, her public defenders) that there may be more police retaliation against her on the way, and that she should not be alone or drive a car." This comment seems to imply that local politician(s) are telling Emily that the police will retaliate against her... this is a very concerning statement on many levels. My biggest concern is that these types of statements appear to be throwing fuel on a fire - we don't need fuel for this fire, we need to find a way to work through the concerns.  You were at the meeting last month when this issue was discussed and you listened to/heard a thoughtful dialogue about Emily's arrest. If we have issues with the police that need to be addressed/resolved, let's find a way to do that in a peaceful, constructive manner. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Louise Wu on July 21, 2011 at 9:44am

I'm saying what Emily herself said in a "speak to city council" session at Tuesday's City Council meeting.  I don't mean to throw fuel on the fire.  And I don't think I am.  I think it's important that people know how grave the situation is.  This was an objective restatement of the facts.  People need the best quality of information available in order to make informed decisions about the situation.  That is the expectation in a democracy.  You know from that meeting that I have a respectful tone.  But I'm not going to put a gloss on the issues.  I'm sorry for any discomfort.  I am pretty uncomfortable with the whole thing and think that's why we all need to know what's actually going on here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Karakashian on July 21, 2011 at 2:30pm

"shoot hip about what happened to Emily"

 

Not at all.  I've watched the video, she got what she deserved.  Those police officers were in a potentially dangerous situation handling a perp.  The situation could have gone bad at any point, having her behind them distracting them only increases the chance of that happening.  If, while momentarily distracted by her, the perp slipped away, grabbed a gun and shot her we'd be hearing the whining about how they did nothing to protect her.   They asked her to go inside her house.  They didn't ask her to stop filming, in fact they told her she could...from inside the house.   They acted professionally and calmly and when she refused to follow directions, they took action.

 

And, no, you don't have a right to stand on your front lawn and make the police nervous while they're trying to do their job.  Their right to safety trumped her right to be an dimwit.  She went out of her way to try and make the police look bad.  The problem isn't the police, it's people like her.  Whatever else good she's done doesn't validate her actions that night nor validate any claims of wrongdoing by the police.  Reality trumps opinion.

 

My grandfather, father and brother were cops.  You can't even begin to imagine the stress of spending your shift worrying if it's going to be your last.  How one traffic stop can leave their kids without a parent.  Their lives are constantly on the line and they're aware of it.  They work in a state of heightened awareness of danger and anything that could be a potential danger, including someone who thinks they're doing nothing more than hovering over them as they try to manage a dangerous situation, needs to be dealt with for their protection.  WE need to be aware of that as well.  It's easy to Monday-morning quarterback an incident like this when we have no idea of that level of stress and weren't there to get the whole story.  Do some police do wrong things?  Absolutely.  That doesn't give anyone the right to treat them all as guilty of wrong doing by default.  That's what Emily Good did.  That's why she went outside with her camera.  

 

"It's particularly distressing because Emily and her family have been cautioned by local officials (who are in a position to know, I guess--politicians, her public defenders) that there may be more police retaliation against her on the way"

 

No, she hasn't.  That's a lie, pure and simple, unless you can prove it.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Louise Wu on July 21, 2011 at 3:20pm

You and your family are to be congratulated for their career choices in public service.  I guess I'm not sure why talking about what happened with Emily is taken as an indictment of all police?    She talked about the danger to her in front of the whole city council.  She mentioned her public defenders, whose names are on record.  They will correct the record if it is not true.  The Locust president, on the other hand, said repeatedly that police were receiving death threats because of this, but offered no substantiation for that claim.  I invite him to do so at any time.   It's good to hear your view of things too. I appreciate it.  The charges against Emily were dropped in court in less than half a minute as being unfounded and without merit.  We can agree to disagree that police who do not use OGA correctly need to be called on it.  I now have two neighbors who were arrested unlawfully with OGA.  This country and the constitution where founded with the idea that people would not be subject to unlawful arrest (the misuse of OGA), have freedom of expression (the filming), and have the right to not be unreasonably searched and be secure in their persons and property (going onto her property without cause).  I want to believe that most police, including those in your family, believe that and want to uphold it.  They want those rights for themselves, their families, and their community's members.  Police online forums seem to bear this out.  I saw the video too.  Emily was on her lawn, passive, and silent. Their own police report said that she was always 15 feet away until the officer came up to her.  People who saw it all next door were on their front lawns too.  Her friend was also there with her.   The officer who arrested her could have finished his stop and left.  But he came up to her and gave Emily orders only.  He didn't say anything to anyone else who was out there.  He didn't say that anyone else needed to go inside, including her friend standing next to her.  Emily had night clothes on, closely fitting jersey t-top and pajama pants with no pockets or any place to conceal anything.  She had her phone in her hand and nothing else.  She was the only person with a camera.  She was the only one who the officer had a problem with.  Like I said, you are absolutely entitled to your view of this.  And I appreciate hearing from you. Many thanks!    

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Karakashian on July 21, 2011 at 5:30pm

"why talking about what happened with Emily is taken as an indictment of all police"

 

It's not and I never said it was.  What Emily did was.  She didn't go out there to make sure the police had a record in case of an itinerant perp.  She went out because she assumed she'd catch them in the act of acting unprofessionally with one.  I would be hard pressed to believe that prior to grabbing her camera she knew exactly which officers were out there and instead just assumed they were going to be up to no good simply because they were cops.  She wasn't out there filming to make them look good.  She prejudged them by the color of their clothes.  When cops do something similar, it's called racial profiling.  When Emily Good does it, she's a "hero".

 

"She talked about the danger to her in front of the whole city council.  She mentioned her public defenders, whose names are on record."

Just because she lied on the record doesn't make it true.  My family members have all had similar things said about them when they've hauled people in.  My father tells me that in situations like this, the whole force will go out of their way to ensure someone like Emily doesn't even get a cold if they can help it, lest they be blamed.  The only cops stupid enough to "follow up" with someone like this usually don't live long enough to be an issue.  These kinds of statements are made by defense attorneys to get themselves on the news, nothing more.   Tell me how many high-profile cases you know of where someone was attacked later by an officer?

 

"The charges against Emily were dropped in court in less than half a minute as being unfounded and without merit."

In the interest of political expediency, they often are...regardless of whether they should be or not.  The kangaroo court of public opinion being what it is and all...the fact they were dropped so quickly shows there was no thought involved.

"We can agree to disagree that police who do not use OGA correctly need to be called on it."

Of course they do.  They just need to be called on it when deserved, not every time they use it on someone who the public doesn't feel deserves it (which is almost every time these days).  

"I now have two neighbors who were arrested unlawfully with OGA."

Your opinion.  Just because it may match the opinion of some other members of the public doesn't make it valid.  The argument from numbers logical fallacy is an easy one to fall prey to.

"have freedom of expression (the filming)"

And if the officers had told her to stop filming once, instead of explicity stating she could continue, I'd be able to agree with you.  

"secure in their persons and property (going onto her property without cause)"

It's a good thing they had cause, then: failing to obey the orders of a police officer.  

"Emily was on her lawn, passive, and silent"

Really?  You must've watched a different video.  In the one I saw, she was blathering the whole time.  BTW, just so you're aware: being ON your propery isn't enough to prevent arrest.  You generally have to be IN your property to be considered "secure" under the law.  If she was smoking crack on her front lawn, they could come onto it and arrest her.  If she was in her house, and they didn't have reasonable cause to go inside, they couldn't.  There's no difference if she's on her lawn or the sidewalk.  If she wasn't in a building, she was out in public.  Property lines only matter to morgage brokers and zoning boards...and people who think they don't have to obey the law simply because they're on their lawn.

"Their own police report said that she was always 15 feet away until the officer came up to her"

Yup, and they wanted her further back.  Or, ideally, in her house.  She failed to comply.  She was arrested.  She wasn't asked to murder a child.  She wasn't asked to cover up an illegal act.  She was asked to go inside her house.  

"People who saw it all next door were on their front lawns too"

And how far away were they?  Were they generally standing still and quiet and letting the officers do their job or were they moving about making a nuisance of themselves and distracting the officers?

"Emily had night clothes on, closely fitting jersey t-top and pajama pants with no pockets or any place to conceal anything"

Emily didn't have to be herself dangerous.  She was escalating a dangerous situation for the police simply by her presence.  If I stood behind you filming you as you did your job, knowing I'd show it to your employers if you did the slightest thing wrong, you would get nervous and make mistakes.  That might not be a big deal where you work, but could people die if you made one simple mistake?  Could YOU die?  Would you be all over the news the next day for a minor mistake?  Of course not, but you're still willing to judge them by your own experience rather than what theirs is.  

All that being said, the problem wasn't her video camera, it was her failure to get out of their face while they were trying to do their jobs (yes, 15 feet away when you've been asked to leave, is in your face).  She was told specifically she could continue to film, but to do it inside so the officers could feel more comfortable.  Had she simply said "Okay", the first time she was asked, and went inside this wouldn't have been an issue.  Instead, she decided the magical force field that was her property line protected her from having to obey the law and she paid the price for her ignorance.  Well, in reality, we ALL pay the price because fewer people are willing to become cops anymore.  Why put your life on the line for a public that's just going to hate you for it anyway?

The problem is this: the public holds the police to a higher standard of conduct while not acknowledging the stress that makes it difficult to do their job effectively, let alone to that higher standard.  You can say that's not true, but the fact people are clamoring to support Ms. Good shows that you're wrong.   There's too much of a "well that's not how *I* would do things" mentality that simply shows they how ignorant they are of what the job is and what it entails.  The public thinks that because they watch CSI they have the slightest inkling of what it means to be a cop.

There's a reason police only end up on the news for one of two reasons: someone thinks they stepped over the line or they were killed.  When that changes, then we can agree to disagree.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page