My impression was that changing the districts was too difficult or set in statute before and they'd like to change them to reflect the city of today rather than when they were set up in the past.
That would be great, but I'm not on Twitter. Most city residents are not. Besides, who's really interested in reading a bunch of 120-something character PR tweets from the chief's media flack? If the new chief thinks he's reaching the people on Twitter, he's mistaken. He's reaching some, but not most. Hopefully local control doesn't mean the new way to learn about police is via Twitter.
Many may not be on Twitter, but reporters are. It's a quick and easy way to disseminate information, not just to the people following, but to reporters and then to the people using more traditional methods.
As a side note, I'd highly recommend you join Twitter, even if you choose to not personally tweet. It is simply the best and fastest way to learn what's happening—everywhere. And if you do feel comfortable engaging in the discussion, all the better.
To each their own, of course, but Twitter is great, and I encourage everyone I can to get on it.
Thanks for the advice, but I don't have a smart phone. They are very expensive. Besides, the idea of following gobs of people on Twitter seems like a huge time sink. The blogs are bad enough.
Anyhow, back to the topic, does anyone know if there is a formal action plan in the city of St. Louis, sanctioned by the police department, to improve public safety?
I know there are local efforts, including the "neighborhood ownership model" (NOM), but what about a unified plan where citizens can see how the whole system is supposed to work as a unit?
For example, thinking of the neighborhood ownership model, is the "plan" to expand the NOM to more neighborhoods? If so, where, when, and under what conditions?
It would be nice to be able to point citizens to an action plan where they could read about things like what it would take to bring the NOM to their neighborhoods.
Without a formal plan, everything feels rather ad hoc, catch as catch can, and, well, frankly, very parochial.
Now having local control makes me feel that we as citizens are empowered to ask such questions, and that we should expect serious answers from our aldermen, our neighborhood associations, the mayor's office, and the police department.
The cops are worried about their pensions. I, as a citizen (paying the bills through my taxes) am worried about having a plan to improve public safety in the city.
^To the question about what's changing, I would note that redistricting involves removal of some commanders, since they're eliminating higher ranking officers. The officers in charge of the new districts also need to be briefed on the particulars of their new districts, and reassigned patrolmen have to be briefed in a similar fashion. Reassigning materials, weapons, patrol cars, etc. also is part of the deal. Just saying they're "redrawing the boundaries" makes it sound like little work is happening. In addition, the city is consolidating some elements of its other forces. The city marshals are coming under SLMPD control, and the city park police as well. Consolidation isn't a snap of the fingers thing if it's done right. Finally, the move to the new police HQ isn't small potatoes. The transition to local control will take place in the coming months, followed by a springtime move. Lots of stuff on SLMPD's plate; if crime numbers were stagnating, I'd be miffed, but in light of all the change, crime continues to decrease in the city of St. Louis.
Is there any way to know if the reduction in crime rates has anything to do with the police department?
If so, would we be saying that the police brought down the crime rate?
And if crime goes up, is the opposite also true? That is, could we say the police somehow were at least in part responsible for an increase in the crime rate?
My perception is the police like to take credit when crime goes down, but when crime goes up they don't want to take blame.
innov8ion wrote:^ There are so many variables involved that it's hard to make accurate claims. As they say, nothing exists in a vacuum...
Agreed. It's really hard to say. But I think you made a good point in another discussion: You can add more police officers, which makes people feel good, but there's no guarantee that a larger force would reduce crime.
FWIW, I think the recent improvements are encouraging, and I think more can be realized as the police makes tactical improvements. The raid earlier this year in coordination with the ATF took a lot of repeat offenders off of the streets. With local control, the police can react more quickly to crime trends and engage in hot spot policing with more relative ease.
Believe me, I don't mean to downplay the seriousness of St. Louis' crime problems by any means, and as someone that has been a recent crime victim and has watched my neighborhood get worse in recent times, it's not always easy to be optimistic no matter how much I love city living. But I do see the decrease in some crime categories as encouraging, and I believe the city may be able to do more than we think with the resources they already have. At least I hope so for the city's sake.
Fair enough. Perhaps the cops should neither take credit nor blame. In many ways they are criminal pathologists, dealing with analyzing the damage to find the culprits. The preventive medicine depends more on the patient.
Otherwise, and not trying to beat a dead horse here, but just to get clarification, does anyone know if there is indeed a unified plan of action for the SLMPD for public safety in STL, or not? We hear about lots of strategies, (Neighborhood Ownership Model, Hot Spot Policing, etc), but are these strategies all pulled together into one broader organized plan, or are they more reactive when something bad happens (like the big uptick in crime in College Hill for example)?
Maybe no one knows. And if no ones knows, then again, that speaks to a serious lack of transparency in the police department, and that's a big problem. Hopefully under local control, that is one of the first things to change.
Personally, I believe that if there is no formal organized plan by which the police department operates, it is nearly impossible to establish any sort of accountability for the department. When you are more reactive than proactive, it's easier to deflect criticism and avoid responsibility for action or inaction.
NN: I would reasoanbly assume that the StLPD has a series of strategies in place for the City as a whole, as well as for each District in the City. These strategies are being amended as the StLPD plans to transition the Districts from Nine to Six. As well, there are separate, distinct special units within the StLPD focused on specialized enforcement, including Bomb & Arson, Major Crimes, SWAT, and Schools. It's reasonable to assume that there are strategies written that describe the best implementation of these units. And, there are partnerships between the StLPD and other policing agencies, including Federal (FBI, ATF, DEA, etc.), State, and Regional, all of which, I would reasonably assume, have strategies meant to guide their continued implementation.
Separate from these assumed strategies would be tactics, more short-term approaches to certain policing situations. Hot-Spot Policing is a tactic, in that it's not as long-reaching as a strategy but operates on a guided mission to effect a certain result.
As for what strategies are available to the public, I cannot tell you. Maybe the Library has something. Maybe one could be found when attending a neighborhood meeting. Maybe an Alderman or other elected official can help you find one. But from my desk, I couldn't tell you. And even from what is available, I can assume there would be certain shortcomings in the documents, as the StLPD must keep some top-down planning to themselves.
Note that most policing strategies are based on academic theory, later implemented to fit the specific environs and needs of the City. Former Chief Isom has a Doctorate in Criminal Sciences; his tenure noted strong partnership between the StLPD and the Criminal Sciences school at UMSL to quantify the effects of certain policing stratgies. Perhaps this academic foundation could be a lead towards finding out more about what specifically is being implemented strategically in the City.
Meanwhile, in discussions as to why crime in the City may be down, a likely cause is the massive takedown of organized crime this last July by the joint task force between the ATF, the StLPD, and other related policing organizations. This takedown led to hundreds of arrests of criminals, including many considered "trigger men" for their operations, as well as the seizure of bricks of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, plus crystal meth, and a whole arsenal of guns. I'm not sure how readily one can quantify this takedown into ongoing crime statistics, as these events' effects are more qualitative than quantitative in interpretation, but it's only reasonable to assume there is some strong correlation.
The remapping of districts makes a lot of sense, and is data driven. Would this not have been possible when the state ran our police dept? Meaning, is this a change that is the result of local control?
Ok, this might be unpopular, but I support the SLMPD getting and using drones. The twitterverse had a freakout about it, but I haven't yet heard a concrete, real-world example of why I shouldn't like them. I have heard several concrete, real-life examples of why I should.
Are people worried they'll be looking in their windows?
My vision for their use would be tracking a criminal on the run, rather than paying for a helicopter or squad cars being foiled by closed streets. Or monitoring a fire, or a stand off situation, monitoring a big public event.
General question: When we talk of drones, are we mostly talking about quadcopters with cameras? Or are we talking of bigger things?
Reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadcopter
Personally speaking, I'd be open to such vehicles being used at major events, i.e. Fair STL, or for specific tactical uses, i.e. one being deployed for overhead recon on a foot pursuit or maybe even a vehicle chase. I'm not necessarily supporting this, but I'm not against this, either. These uses would be far different from the use of these vehicles on constant hover over a specific intersection as a constant state of deterrence. Just a little too much like some comic books' dystopian use of blimps with spotlights hovering over skylines.
I hope this plan requires approval by the Board of Aldermen, first through its Public Safety Committee. Local control means the SLMPD answers to the citizens of St. Louis City, through their elected representatives, the St. Louis Board of Aldermen.
The fact that a rep from St. Charles would have the nerve to submit legislation that tampers with circuit courts that don't even cover his constituents is outrageous. No one asked you!
