"I say have the parade one more year and when they gather drop a bomb and wipe them all out." - NYC Police Officer Dan Rodney, who confirmed to The New York Times that he is a police officer and uses Facebook but denied posting the comment on Facebook under his name. His explanation: "That wasn't me. I leave my phone around sometimes. Other than that I have no comment."
"'Let them kill each... other,' wrote one of the Facebook members who posted comments under a name that matched that of a police officer."
In a front-page story on 12/6/11, The New York Times reported on the racist rants in September of a Facebook group entitled "No More West Indian Day Detail." The Times did a comparison of the names "of some of the more than 150 people who posted comments on the page with city employee listings and found that more than 60 percent matched the names of police officers..." This Facebook group, which had 1,200 members, was exposed by defense attorneys who now check to see if arresting officers are on Facebook, has since vanished.
The Times notes that some of the posted comments "appeared to have broken Police Department rules barring officers from 'discourteous or disrepectful remarks' about race or ethnicity." The chief spokesperson for the NYPD did not deny that the names posted in the Facebook group were police officers and said he would refer the issue to Internal Affairs.
Police may insist that the Facebook rants on "No More West Indian Day Detail" are not representative of the thinking of most officers. But the racist public posts by this group are a shocking revelation, with names attached, of the attitudes of too many.
Scott
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Sunday, August 14, 2011
17 Years Ago in the Bronx
Delgado v. City of New York, 14684/95
Appellate Division, First Department
Decided: July 28, 2011
The facts of this case are shocking.
Seventeen years ago, twelve NYC Housing Authority police officers terrorized the sleeping Delgado family in the Bronx, when officers crashed through the family's apartment door in the middle of the night, held guns to the head of the two oldest boys, slashed furniture, destroyed property, and threatened to place the youngest children in foster care if they found what they were looking for - drugs or weapons.
After searching for about three hours, the police found nothing and left.
On July 28, 2011, a New York appellate court agreed with a lower court's determination that the police lacked probable cause to search the family's apartment in the first place, because officers made no effort to corroborate an informant's information or to verify the reliability of the informant, who had been arrested for possession of crack cocaine.
The appellate court also noted that the police search did not constitute an emergency situation "given that six days elapsed between issuance and execution" of the search warrant.
The Appellate Division, First Department, dismissed the family's civil rights claim against the Housing Authority but allowed a lawsuit to proceed against the police captain who had approved the application for the warrant as well as the officer who had arrested the informant but failed to corroborate the informant's information.
It remains to be seen whether the Delgado family will ever receive any form of justice for the trauma which they collectively experienced seventeen years ago at the hands of the Housing Authority police.
Scott
Appellate Division, First Department
Decided: July 28, 2011
The facts of this case are shocking.
Seventeen years ago, twelve NYC Housing Authority police officers terrorized the sleeping Delgado family in the Bronx, when officers crashed through the family's apartment door in the middle of the night, held guns to the head of the two oldest boys, slashed furniture, destroyed property, and threatened to place the youngest children in foster care if they found what they were looking for - drugs or weapons.
After searching for about three hours, the police found nothing and left.
On July 28, 2011, a New York appellate court agreed with a lower court's determination that the police lacked probable cause to search the family's apartment in the first place, because officers made no effort to corroborate an informant's information or to verify the reliability of the informant, who had been arrested for possession of crack cocaine.
The appellate court also noted that the police search did not constitute an emergency situation "given that six days elapsed between issuance and execution" of the search warrant.
The Appellate Division, First Department, dismissed the family's civil rights claim against the Housing Authority but allowed a lawsuit to proceed against the police captain who had approved the application for the warrant as well as the officer who had arrested the informant but failed to corroborate the informant's information.
It remains to be seen whether the Delgado family will ever receive any form of justice for the trauma which they collectively experienced seventeen years ago at the hands of the Housing Authority police.
Scott
Sunday, May 29, 2011
My Tiny Protest
About two months ago, I attended an event at which the New York City Council presented Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly with the Thomas Manton Irish Man of the Year Award.
I stood near the front of the room and held up Leonard Levitt's book, "Power and Corruption in the Country's Greatest Police Force: NYPD Confidential." The Police Commissioner noticed, as did Council Speaker Christine Quinn and others in the room.
Eventually, someone, presumably an employee of the City Council, directed me to remove the book on the basis that I was being rude and disrespectful.
While I did lower the book, I nonetheless kept displaying it.
Compared to the protests taking place around the world in which people are risking their lives to stand up to dictators, my protest against the NYPD Commissioner was pretty tame. I didn't say anything. I didn't bring anyone with me or verbally disrupt the proceeding. All I did was hold up a book so others could see it, and in so doing, silently communicate my displeasure with the Council's guest of honor.
In a free country, citizens are supposed to have the right to criticize their government officials. This is a fundamental right which is enshrined in our First Amendment.
The New York City Council should respect freedom of speech and the right of citizens to criticize government officials.
I stood near the front of the room and held up Leonard Levitt's book, "Power and Corruption in the Country's Greatest Police Force: NYPD Confidential." The Police Commissioner noticed, as did Council Speaker Christine Quinn and others in the room.
Eventually, someone, presumably an employee of the City Council, directed me to remove the book on the basis that I was being rude and disrespectful.
While I did lower the book, I nonetheless kept displaying it.
Compared to the protests taking place around the world in which people are risking their lives to stand up to dictators, my protest against the NYPD Commissioner was pretty tame. I didn't say anything. I didn't bring anyone with me or verbally disrupt the proceeding. All I did was hold up a book so others could see it, and in so doing, silently communicate my displeasure with the Council's guest of honor.
In a free country, citizens are supposed to have the right to criticize their government officials. This is a fundamental right which is enshrined in our First Amendment.
The New York City Council should respect freedom of speech and the right of citizens to criticize government officials.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Sparing a Political Boss
I'm not in the habit of agreeing with editorials in The New York Post. But The Post was right today to condemn the light sentence which was given to Raymond Harding, former chairman of the defunct Liberal Party, for fraud involving the state's pension fund.
Harding received no jail sentence or fine -- and was permitted to keep $800,000 which he pocketed in fees for serving as a sham intermediary between the pension fund and investment firms.
This was an inappropriate sentence for the political boss whose machinations were crucial to the election of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Harding tricked voters into voting for a political party which was neither liberal nor a real party, but instead was a patronage operation for his sons and friends.
It will be interesting to see if our senior elected officials and political prognosticators have anything to say about this sentence. I'm not holding my breath.
Harding received no jail sentence or fine -- and was permitted to keep $800,000 which he pocketed in fees for serving as a sham intermediary between the pension fund and investment firms.
This was an inappropriate sentence for the political boss whose machinations were crucial to the election of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Harding tricked voters into voting for a political party which was neither liberal nor a real party, but instead was a patronage operation for his sons and friends.
It will be interesting to see if our senior elected officials and political prognosticators have anything to say about this sentence. I'm not holding my breath.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Shared Sacrifice
Politicians keep demanding "shared sacrifice" from public sector employees, although in reality the pain of layoffs and wage and benefit reductions is seldom shared.
Last week, I attended an event featuring Howard Wolfson, a NYC deputy mayor who in the private sector functioned as an attack dog for political candidates who preferred not to attack opponents directly (campaign examples: Bloomberg v Thompson and Clinton v Tasini).
When I asked Wolfson what sacrifices he was making, he repeated the Bloomberg line that wealthy people would leave NYC if taxes were increased on them.
Only after I repeated my question about Wolfson's own sacrifices did he respond directly by claiming that he made more money when he worked in the private sector. While undoubtedly this is true, it also is likely that our billionaire mayor will reward Wolfson for his relatively brief service in city government.
So again I pose the question, which should be asked of all politicians who oppose targeted tax increases but advocate solving budget problems through benefit reductions for employees and the public: Where is the shared sacrifice?
Wolfson other deputy mayors and commissioners should take substantial salary cuts before asking the rest of us for "shared sacrifice."
Scott
Last week, I attended an event featuring Howard Wolfson, a NYC deputy mayor who in the private sector functioned as an attack dog for political candidates who preferred not to attack opponents directly (campaign examples: Bloomberg v Thompson and Clinton v Tasini).
When I asked Wolfson what sacrifices he was making, he repeated the Bloomberg line that wealthy people would leave NYC if taxes were increased on them.
Only after I repeated my question about Wolfson's own sacrifices did he respond directly by claiming that he made more money when he worked in the private sector. While undoubtedly this is true, it also is likely that our billionaire mayor will reward Wolfson for his relatively brief service in city government.
So again I pose the question, which should be asked of all politicians who oppose targeted tax increases but advocate solving budget problems through benefit reductions for employees and the public: Where is the shared sacrifice?
Wolfson other deputy mayors and commissioners should take substantial salary cuts before asking the rest of us for "shared sacrifice."
Scott
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)