Share
6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostFeb 14, 2008#51

stlmike wrote:
Ask your professor this - how does he (or you) explain the behavior of the hundreds (thousands?) of other poor, black Meachem Park residents who didn't kill 5 people?


You are supposing that the cause of crime is EITHER the choice of the criminal OR the social context. It is always the former, but that doesn't mean that you can ignore the influence of the latter. If you are born into an extremely poor family without any role models and have a lot of experiences with corrupt policemen, you can choose to overcome these things and fight your way out of it but it is obviously going to be a lot harder than it is for someone else who has already been born into better conditions. It's like saying person A has to run the same race as person B only with 60 hurdles. Yes, they can do it if they want to but there are bound to be many more that give up and take a short cut. It always boils down to personal responsibility, but it's difficult to ignore the handicaps people have in making choices. It doesn't excuse the crime, but it is enough to make me recognize that something needs to change.


Thank you for that simplified summary. If we can not agree on this, I don't think we ever will.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostFeb 14, 2008#52

And back to the original topic of local control, understanding the situation within these neighborhoods is why I believe a policy change is in order. Ignoring the idea of poverty and those areas being undeserved, let's look how we are all affected by not having local control.



The Police say they are independent from politics as the State controls the Police Department. Yet politics is most definately still involved. When Mayor Slay asked the Board of Police Commissioners to table their ruling on the residency requirement for non civilian employees, they refused. Then voters overwhelmingly said they wanted to keep the residency requirement. But that meant nothing because the Blunt appointed Board already removed the requirement.



Don't you believe that the wishes of local citizens should supplant that of the State of Missouri? As we are tax payers shouldn't we have the right to say how Policing is implemented?



Every other municipality has control over their Police. The State of Missouri cannot completely grasp what needs to be done. And even if they do understand somewhat, it is undemocratic to have their will imposed over the wishes of the electorate.



What about City rights? The whole idea of devolution is giving the people the ability to govern themselves. This is a concept you republicans want, right? Limit "top down government" telling the people on the ground what should be done.



So how can you be against local control? If you say the aldermen are incompetent, then use their incompetence as a campaign slogan and replace them! Thus you, the competent alderman, has say in how Police is implemented.
995
Super MemberSuper Member
995

PostFeb 14, 2008#53

Every other municipality has control over their Police.


Not correct. Again.



Kansas City's police department is directed by a police commission appointed by the governor of Missouri.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostFeb 15, 2008#54

Yes, Kansas City does not either, however besides St. Louis and Kansas City, a super majority of cities control their Police Department. States give cities the ability to police themselves. Why should we be denied?



The idea that alderman are corrupt or incompetent is erroneous. Hold them accountable. Replace them.



The idea that the Police are removed from politics is incorrect as well. It is a bureaucratic agency and will be inherently tied to politics. Wouldn't it be better if citizens have a direct voice? They should have the opportunity to determine who gets what.
5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostFeb 15, 2008#55

While Doug is talking in circles, I'd be more interested to hear what the Chief of Police and those a level or two down have to say about the topic. You know, considering they are directly affected by the decision and all.
120
Junior MemberJunior Member
120

PostFeb 15, 2008#56

^ Yep, I agree. And maybe some actual reasons how it will make ANYTHING better. Money-wise, beureucracy-wise, etc. What has Slay said on this?
101
Junior MemberJunior Member
101

PostFeb 15, 2008#57

I think congress should have control of the Mo State Troopers, and the UN should have control of the FBI. People with direct connections and responsibility to the people they serve are bad.



If our officials had more control (IE: a job worth having) wouldn't we get better candidates?



While I agree that the schools and fire fiascos are really more of an out of control scenario, I can't understand how par for the course is okay in a consistent 'worst crime area in the country'.



If they don't live in or near or even visit these ares how could they possibly know what is needed? I've heard of no programs to try to promote the police as the good guys in these areas. When I was a kid I remember cops coming to school, in the park on weekend engaging with the public, etc.



If the line between 'good and bad' is somewhere near Delmar, and that's okay, there's a problem that needs addressed somewhere, don'tcha think?



If the cops are too scared to live in the city, I guarauntee my wife is too.
2,093
Life MemberLife Member
2,093

PostFeb 15, 2008#58

"If the cops are too scared to live in the city, I guarauntee my wife is too. "



you know before I lived in the city I used to hear people bemoan the fact that city officers had to reside in the city and how unfair that was. I didn't think about it too much then, but now I look around and think what's wrong with living in the city?? I'm all for paying cops more, but don't get rid of the residency rule. Almost any option other than living on a three acre lot is available in the city. You can live in an apartment, a loft, an older house, a newer house, house with a yard etc. etc. And if we had gotten rid of the residency rule that would only serve to distance police from the community.

To be honest, the cops I've talked to who said they'd never work in the city because they had to live there. Well, they are the kind I wouldn't want patrolling the city streets anyway as they seemed to have animosity towards anything east of Skinker and those who lived there.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostFeb 15, 2008#59

^Pretty much. What incentive do they have when they are not stakeholders? They collect a paycheck and leave.
2,772
Life MemberLife Member
2,772

PostFeb 15, 2008#60

I don't know anything about the situation, but I was told a while back that they had gotten rid of the residency restriction in the city, and I thought it was pretty damn stupid.
2,093
Life MemberLife Member
2,093

PostFeb 15, 2008#61

I believe the residency restriction was taken away for those who had a minimum of 10 yrs. on the force.
2,772
Life MemberLife Member
2,772

PostFeb 15, 2008#62

OT, I had a guy tell me yesterday...



"You don't want to live in the city man. I was raised in the city and I wouldn't even walk to the street corner without pepper spray."



Me says: "I think it depends on who you are. [Insert name here] lives in south city and loves it, says she couldn't imagine raising her kids anywhere else.



Another suburbanite says: "Yeah, until they get abducted."



A south city resident overhears (not the one I referred to) and says "I live in south city."



The "another suburbanite" says "Until you get abducted."



On the other hand, we got to talking about the city because a 20-something girl that works here lives in the metro east (Madison county) and is looking for a loft downtown.
2,093
Life MemberLife Member
2,093

PostFeb 15, 2008#63

^sounds to me like this person has an irrational fear of abduction. And while I have no data to back me up, it seems to me like most of the time when I hear of an abduction it happens at a shopping mall--most of which are in the suburbs.

But I have the feeling that reasoning with this person would be about as worthwhile of one's time as explaining calculus to a cat!
2,005
Life MemberLife Member
2,005

PostFeb 15, 2008#64

^^I think that person needs to move to rural Franklin or Washington County that way they can sleep at night knowing they and their children are safe from abductions. :roll:



I thought it was bogus that the state board allowed cops with a certain amount of seniority to move out of the City. If you don't like it, be a cop somewhere else. That is one job where just because you clock out, doesn't mean your job is over.



I think there was a non-binding referendum where the City residents opposed lifting the residency restriction, but our state overlords overrruled us.
331
Full MemberFull Member
331

PostFeb 15, 2008#65

brickandmortar wrote:^^I think that person needs to move to rural Franklin or Washington County that way they can sleep at night knowing they and their children are safe from abductions. :roll:



I thought it was bogus that the state board allowed cops with a certain amount of seniority to move out of the City. If you don't like it, be a cop somewhere else. That is one job where just because you clock out, doesn't mean your job is over.



I think there was a non-binding referendum where the City residents opposed lifting the residency restriction, but our state overlords overrruled us.


I can only think of one high profile missing child in the city- Christian Ferguson, the boy in the car. Other than that, most high profile child abductions seem to have been in the county or rural area. For instance, Michael Devlin was raised in Webster, lived in Kirkwood and went to Wash. and Franklin County to abduct.



Heather Killorn was Maplewood. Cassidy Summers (?) and Angie Houseman were North County. Bianca Piper was St. Charles.



I don't think you can assume your community is immune to child abductions just by living in the county.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostFeb 16, 2008#66

Abduction.



My car was almost stolen but the guys were scared off by my neighbor who works at night.



Streets are safe with eyes watching.



When the streets don't have sidewalks, or where people never go outside, obviously there will be fewer eyes on the street.



The idea that the suburbs are safer because of their gated communities or exclusionary zoning is erroneous.



My particular street is safe as can be, and it is also very diverse ethnically.



Areas that aren't safe in our city are often those which have many vacant lots, thus few eyes on the streets, or those with concentrations of poverty, thus not enough jobs.



The city itself is quite safer than suburbia, provided the diverse urban environment is operating correctly. Obviously some neighborhoods in City are safer than others, yet the idea that we live in a warzone is simply based upon stereotypes and racism.



I believe the reason this negative propaganda still exists is because our media inherently hates St. Louis. Rather than actually promote the City, and even do objective investigations into why some areas are unsafe, they simply sensationalize crime as if to say "look, suburban audience, thank god you don't live here." It is an egregious failure and one of the reasons St. Louis, as a region, is so divided. The media propagates those divisions.
1,585
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,585

PostFeb 16, 2008#67

^I think you over exaggerate on the media. When I watch the news, I don't see anybody saying "A kid was murdered in cold blood in North St. Louis, for the love of God, do not, under any circumstance, venture there!" Instead, I watch the news and I see "A kid was shot on the (insert block number) of (insert street name) in North St. Louis today. The police are still looking for a suspect."



Now, I will tell you what annoys me about the media. And that is that some kid in some ghetto gets shot by a stray bullet on the way to the gas station to pick up milk and the story gets covered in a 15 second segment before sports. But, a rich kid from some wealthy place is drunk out of his mind and crashes into an 18-wheeler while driving a hundred miles per hour, and it makes top story for a week. Sure, there aren't enough positive stories. But that could be said about all media. Positive stories isn't what sells.



But anyways, back on topic.
399
Full MemberFull Member
399

PostFeb 16, 2008#68

Doug wrote:
Streets are safe with eyes watching.


Doug, I have to really agree with you on this one. I know people have different interpretations of their own situation, but for myself having lived in a number of area's urban and suburban in this region I always feel much more comfortable going to bed at night than I have when living in the city.

Probably the most uneasy I've felt was while watching a family friends house out in Wildwood for a week. It was isolated and dark and if anything happened there no would hear a thing.
2,005
Life MemberLife Member
2,005

PostMar 12, 2008#69

Interesting...I think this was one of my predictions for 2007, better late than never.



From mayorslay.com



Wednesday, March 12, 2008

HB 2117







I went to Jeff City today to express my support for HB 2117, which would allow the people of St. Louis to have their own police department for the first time since the Civil War.



This is what I planned to tell legislators:



Nearly 150 years ago, the State of Missouri took control of the police department away from it two border cities because it was afraid the police departments would be used against Missouri’s militia during the Civil War. Missouri wasn’t the only state that acted this way – and St. Louis and Kansas City weren’t the only cities so treated.



Unfortunately, the state never got around to yielding control of the departments. And St. Louis and Kansas City are the only cities or counties in the State of Missouri – and among only a few in the entire country — without their own police departments.



There is no rational explanation for this omission. Every other county and municipality in the State of Missouri has its own police department, while St. Louis and Kansas City do not. St. Louis taxpayers pay the bills for the police department, but have no say in how the department uses the money.



This is not about one mayor or one police board. It is about the people of St. Louis having a voice in the governance of their police department. Chief Mokwa and I happen to work very well together. As a result, the inherent weakness of the governance structure is currently minimized – and crime is going down dramatically in the City. But future mayors and future chiefs could return to historic patterns of disagreement — with tragic results.



I do not support any change to the governance of the police pension system.



For better accountability, for more responsive government, and to ensure the effectiveness of the police department long into the future, it is time for the State of Missouri to return the St. Louis Police Department to the people of St. Louis.



link to mayorslay.com
907
Super MemberSuper Member
907

PostMar 12, 2008#70

^ Beat me to it!



So when would the answer come?
10K
AdministratorAdministrator
10K

PostMar 12, 2008#71

That's the best explanation of this issue that I've ever read.
3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostMar 13, 2008#72

Yeah Richard Callow did a good job as usual.



So again why be against local control?
5,433
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
5,433

PostMar 13, 2008#73

Mayor Slay wrote:Wednesday, March 12, 2008

HB 2117[/b]







I went to Jeff City today to express my support for HB 2117, which would allow the people of St. Louis to have their own police department for the first time since the Civil War.



This is what I planned to tell legislators:



Nearly 150 years ago, the State of Missouri took control of the police department away from it two border cities because it was afraid the police departments would be used against Missouri’s militia during the Civil War. Missouri wasn’t the only state that acted this way – and St. Louis and Kansas City weren’t the only cities so treated.



Unfortunately, the state never got around to yielding control of the departments. And St. Louis and Kansas City are the only cities or counties in the State of Missouri – and among only a few in the entire country — without their own police departments.



There is no rational explanation for this omission. Every other county and municipality in the State of Missouri has its own police department, while St. Louis and Kansas City do not. St. Louis taxpayers pay the bills for the police department, but have no say in how the department uses the money.



This is not about one mayor or one police board. It is about the people of St. Louis having a voice in the governance of their police department. Chief Mokwa and I happen to work very well together. As a result, the inherent weakness of the governance structure is currently minimized – and crime is going down dramatically in the City. But future mayors and future chiefs could return to historic patterns of disagreement — with tragic results.



I do not support any change to the governance of the police pension system.



For better accountability, for more responsive government, and to ensure the effectiveness of the police department long into the future, it is time for the State of Missouri to return the St. Louis Police Department to the people of St. Louis.



link to mayorslay.com


That is a well-stated explanation of the city's position. I just wonder how this will be received by outstate politicians.
Read more posts (-2 remaining)
Share