urbanSTL

They arrested 2 guys in the video taped assault. Both from South STL

urban_dilettante wrote:
i guess it's a matter of perspective; one could also view inaction by the white aldermen as divisive. having a citizen review board just makes sense, and the white aldermen are more than welcome to join the campaign. if they don't, then in my mind they are the ones being divisive.

Oh please, what is this, high school? I'm so tired of people playing stupid games and trying to figure out where to place blame.

Invite all interested parties to the table in good faith and work towards a solution. Those that don't show up don't get to b****, but at least they were asked.

Black, white whatever, The people in this town can be so freaking small minded, petty and too invested in their stupid games. It's no wonder nothing gets done.

It's time to grow up.

^ that was my whole point, olvidarte. i'm sure the black caucus would be thrilled to have the support of its white counterparts. i don't understand how it could be seen as divisive, as NSN suggested, that the black caucus is taking the reins in the campaign for a citizen review board. GIVEN that implementing a citizen review board is basically a no-brainer, it would be more divisive IF all the white aldermen opposed it. fortunately i don't think they will, and i don't know why they would.

Simple question: By Ald. French starting the process working through the ABC, does it give the effort a racial overtone?

Furthermore, in the meantime, the mayor's office is also exploring a citizen's review board:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 66e76.html

The mayor's office plan comes from the mayor's office and the city's public safety director, with 3 clearly stated goals:

1) Improve transparency
2) Improve relationships between police and citizens
3) Fairness to police

So in STL City, the table being set with competing proposals. A conflict inside a struggle?

There's the Mayor's office plan and the Aldermanic Black Caucus plan. That just sounds awkward and tense. Before this goes any further, why not bring the efforts together?

It's nice to see Antonio French using twitter to put race-baiting comments in Mayor Slay's mouth today. Insinuating Mayor Slay said something he didn't is dangerous and race-baiting is self-serving.

Ald. French's act is tired and its unfortunate he used Ferguson to gain a national audience.

It's an interesting dynamic to follow.

For years now, Ald. French has been attacking the mayor's office over crime in St. Louis, especially violent crime in North City.

So today, Slay announces a stepped up effort to deal with gun violence in the city, side by side with Senator J. Nasheed and Chief of Police S. Dotson, and French attacks the idea suggesting that locking up more black men will not improve conditions in N. City.

I would really like to hear what positive ideas Ald. French has for dealing with violent crime in the city.

His North Campus effort is good. But it's geared for assisting younger people and helping them get on a good path. Those kids aren't the ones shooting up neighborhoods.

What's French's plan for addressing crime today?

I think I know: attack the mayor's office.

Alderman French does nothing to move St. Louis forward. I'm sure some of his intentions are good, but mostly he comes off as the biggest self aggrandizer in the region.

Today he is reduced to tweeting live action about looters breaking into beauty supply stores. I'm trying to understand the value added by that but I don't see it.

The other irony is, on one side of town, he's registering voters in Ferguson, on the other, more unrest. If this "moment to movement" effort doesn't coalesce into something more organized at the local level soon, that's bad.

One odd facet to this whole thing: where is the leadership? Antonio French has emerged as somewhat of a leader, maybe. He's visible, sure. But he's a North St.Louis alderman. Where's the homegrown leadership?

If I'm a a Ferguson resident or protester, and I want to rally around a cause/moment/movement, do I want to be led by a city of St. Louis alderman? That just seems very odd and disjointed. For comparison, imagine if Mayor Slay was the one leading the protests and reform effort in Ferguson. Wouldn't that seem just totally bizarre?

Northside Neighbor wrote: I would really like to hear what positive ideas Ald. French has for dealing with violent crime in the city.

His North Campus effort is good. But it's geared for assisting younger people and helping them get on a good path. Those kids aren't the ones shooting up neighborhoods.

Do you not understand how you just contradicted yourself? Of course the gang members and criminals won't be helped by North Campus, but that's not the point. The point is exactly what you said--investing in children and their education and giving them alternate outlets to spend their time out of school and develop socially and intellectually.

(Some of) those kids he's "helping get on a good path" would be the same ones "shooting up neighborhoods" a few years down the line. The whole idea is breaking the cycle of poverty/poor educational performance/crime/prison through investing in young people's education.

It's not a quick fix to get homicides or whatever to drop 10% in a year like the Mayor or Chief would want, but guess what... nothing can do that except juking the stats. Mandatory sentencing probably won't accomplish that. More incarceration is not a good idea to prevent the cycle of violence. Investing in children is.

And I don't mean to say that's his only idea/solution for lessening violence, but investing in education/activities for young people should be an integral part of any plan.

The claim that French "does nothing to move St. Louis forward" is just absurd. Even if you disagree with his initiatives, which I would say are helping his community in a big way, at least he's trying. If he's not doing anything, then what are YOU doing to move it forward?

^ good points wustl_eng.

But why the constant blaming of the mayor's office? Do you think that helps or hurts French's effectiveness?

Excellent points.

Question: how long does an average north side hoodlum stay in "the game?" French is attempting show kids a different path before they begin a career of crime. Does one eventually leave a life of crime behind? What are the factors that drive that decision?

This is just a weird situation.

Before Ferguson, every time there was a shooting, French would start blaming the mayor's office for the high crime in the city. Lewis Reed would do the same thing. It sounded totally, 100% political. (Remember, Reed was running for mayor).

After Ferguson, French says mandatory sentencing not a good thing to deal with violent crime/improve conditions in North City. Listen to cops, elected officials, etc, and all you hear is how violent offenders are let out on probation, given short sentences, etc.

Then on the other hand, French develops (pretty much single-handedly) his "North Campus" idea. An effort to bring resources to kids of North city and his 21st ward. All good.

But again, the crime problem he's been attacking the mayor's office over for years is about gang violence, drug dealing, domestic shootings, etc. The North Campus effort and today's homicides are apples and oranges challenges.

North Campus is a long term proposition. If French loses his office, then what?

Meanwhile, street crime in the city is a continuing crisis.

James Clark at Better Family Life says the answer is to bring resources door to door to the people in the neighborhoods who need them. It's kind of a big umbrella statement.

Imagine there's an out of work, no GED, criminal record guy sitting on the steps of his flat. Clark walks up to him and gives him a flier. Then down the block a drug dealer gets into a shootout with a rival gang member.

How is any of this the mayor's fault?

It's all just so bizarre.

The problems we have are deeply rooted, multi-generational, complicated, and serious. Sadly, I'm afraid most politicians are more interested in building and maintaining their own image than dealing with such intractable problems.

And this tension between French and the rest of the establishment just seems counterproductive.

Wow, thanks for linking that article, even though it's infuriating. All Belmar has to regret is the OPTICS? Gimme a break. I really, really dislike this guy.

He made no apology for use of tear gas and other aggressive tactics against crowds that turned violent during nights of protests along West Florissant Avenue, near where Brown was killed.

“At the end of the day, we didn’t kill anyone because of our actions or seriously injure someone,” Belmar said.

That's a pretty low bar for successful policing/crowd management.

And with regards to to French blaming the Mayor... I really don't know enough about what Slay has or hasn't done in the Northside but I agree that it smacks of political grandstanding and probably distracts from French's main messages.

While the grandstanding politicians will say otherwise, many millions of dollars of city backed public investments have been made in N. City. Probably more than S. City.

The "Delmar Divide" is more a convenient media narrative than an accurate portrayal of reality today.

Would this approach start reducing gun violence?

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 5a316.html

Mandatory sentences won't do much good without convictions. Aren't a large portion of murders unsolved in part due to reluctance of witnesses to come forward?

I am beginning to get the feeling that nothing is going to really change following the incidents in Ferguson.

Today, a month or more after the initial event, Ferguson police chief releases a scripted apology. No resignation. If anything, an attempt to protect his job.

Also today, Atty General Eric Holder announced his resignation. When the players change, the momentum slows.

Yesterday, McCulloch said he expected the grand jury to make its decision in the case by "mid-November", putting the date beyond the November general election, the one for County Executive.

City cops are now balking at the notion of body cameras as a condition of employment since they are not included in the contract between the city and police officer's union.

The latest has been calls for calm no matter the outcome of the grand jury investigation, laying the groundwork for a "no-indictment".

So you see? Ground is being laid to do little to nothing, and as more time passes, more momentum is lost.

I pretty much agree with all of that. Chiefs Jackson and Belmar giving lame, too-little-too-late apologies (or in Belmar's case, a non-apology, more of a "sorry not sorry") to improve the "optics" of their departments is pretty insulting.

The body camera thing is just odd to me. Sure it's an additional cost but the figures I've seen haven't been astronomical--isn't it prudent to have them anyway to prevent costs from lawsuits and legal troubles from alleged police misconduct? Or do officers feel like they have something to hide?

Regarding the prosecution, I really don't know whether McCulloch's doing the right thing or not. I'd like to think he is despite all of the criticism, but it's hard to see the logic behind some of his choices.

--His office could've bypassed the grand jury and indicted Wilson right away. Happened in the Trayvon case, but would've been too controversial for him politically given his support base. Also would've resulted in a lot of criticism of "overreach" just like the Trayvon case did... Maybe a good decision overall? I suppose.

--His office could've presented a charge to the grand jury, but is instead just presenting evidence and letting them decide. Why?Adolphis Pruitt (along with many, many media/legal pundits) says it's to give the best chance of the jury returning no indictment at all. This is what McCulloch said in a WaPo interview today:

Kimberly Kindy: It’s unusual for you to have a grand jury hear all of the evidence in a case. Why did you choose to do it this way?
McCulloch: “Because of the interest that this case has generated and the concern it has generated in the community. Rather than have the lead investigator testify and a witness here and there, we are giving them everything.”

Now I dunno about you but Pruitt's explanation makes more sense to me than whatever that means. It sounds like he's just saying that he has no intention of actually prosecuting anything.

--He's promised to release all the evidence and transcripts of the testimony to the public. Now that sounds good on the surface--transparency is obviously needed here--but doesn't it seem like just another way of anticipating no indictment?

--And, he could've avoided all of this by stepping down and having a special prosecutor, without close ties to the police in the region and without a record of not prosecuting said police, handle the case. I thought that was unnecessary and believed he was capable and not biased, but I'm not so sure now.

Good point about waiting until after the elections. I'd also add that the further it gets pushed back the colder it'll get. It takes a somewhat cynical mindset to think that they're hoping that colder weather will deter people from getting out and protesting/rioting... but with this whole mess, it doesn't seem far-fetched.

In regards to body cameras, I'm ultimately for them, but try applying that "do they feel like they have something to hide?" logic to the increasing infringements on our personal privacy.

Many people who do all the important things right still feel uncomfortable with the idea of constant surveillance, and I think justifiably so. On some level, privacy should be a right we're all entitled to.

I think ultimately the need to know how our public police officers are handling enforcement situations trumps that, but I fully understand the pushback. And I think it's important to recognize that and probably put limits on exactly when video can be reviewed and/or made public.

I don't think we need situations where a cop gets disciplined because he accepted a personal phone call and talked for 10 minutes when he should have been watching radar just because he was wearing a body camera. It should be there as a way to review major important incidents, not to play full-on big brother to cops.

I agree that cameras should only be for major incidents where video evidence is needed. Everyone should definitely have the right to privacy, but as you said, on-duty officers need to be held accountable for how they do their job. By "do cops have something to hide?", I was just thinking that maybe officers might not want to wear cameras in case they do something wrong. That doesn't seem so hard to believe to me. As it stands now it seems pretty clear that the justice system is in general rigged against people who claim police misconduct, especially when it's their word against the cop's.

I agree with that too. I'm sure there's a certain level of that happening. But I do think just a general push back on the surveillance may be a factor as well.

Along with body cameras, we still need to change some policy and some training about how officers handle things. As we've seen (the STL City accident as well as the one that happened at a Walmart in...Ohio?), video evidence exists, but the acts are ultimately deemed justified.

And I think it's a bit of a grey area right now, but if policy shifts and if training shifts, we can get cops to be less "shoot-first," potentially.