Civil Rights and a Possible Crime Emergency: Part 1.

I want to state one fact here: Despite how much I disagree with him on the Crime Emergency issue, I highly respect the man and was ready to hire him myself once elected. I agree with a large portion of what he wants, but on this issue and mainly this issue alone more than anything else, I feel he is wrong. This article, along with Part 2, are serious looks and criticisms I have about this and I have, and will, state as many facts as possible to back me up on not only my view, but the counterpoint as well.

When it comes to any and all comments, I ask you keep them civil. Thank you.

-Larry

The keystone of why I ran for mayor after the May Primary can be summed up into these words:

To make sure Nutter NEVER declares a Crime Emergency.

In essence, a Crime Emergency is this:

• prohibit or limit gatherings of people on sidewalks, streets, or any outdoor place in the designated neighborhoods;
• halt or limit the movement of vehicles through or within the designated neighborhoods;
• establish a curfew limiting the hours people could be outside their houses; and
• prohibit the sale, carrying or possession on the public street or public sidewalks, or in any public park or square, of weapons of any kind.

Let's stop for a second and look at this. To quote Nutter himself:

Title 10 of the Philadelphia Code authorizes the Mayor to take specified measures if the Mayor determines that “the City or any part thereof is suffering or is in imminent danger of suffering civil disturbance , disorder, riot or other occurrence which will seriously and substantially endanger the health, safety and property of the citizens.” Parts of Philadelphia are clearly suffering a wave of violence that endangers the safety of residents.

In other words, it's exactly what it sounds like: A last resort in case it is incredibly dangerous to even leave your house. For example, say we're under a real threat of terrorism and we've been attacked, that would be grounds to declare a Crime Emergency. Or a massive gang war erupted, where you have two rival gangs killing each other and anyone in their way. That's a good reason to declare it as well.

But at what cost? As you can see for yourself, Title 10, or as he likes to call it "Code 10", states that the local government now has the power to restrict where you can walk, where you drive, and where you go. The government becomes the baby-sitter, giving adults a curfew and telling them when they're allowed to leave their houses. It also restricts your ability to defend yourself.

I've been robbed multiple times in the past. It got to the point when I was 16 that I had to start carrying mace to defend myself. It has sense died-down a bit, but I still carry something at all times to defend myself just in case. This is the right to bare arms.

In order to give safety to the residents of Philadelphia, or at least the appearance of it, the following rights and amendments of the U.S. Constitution will be broken:

1. Freedom of Speech- The law limits gatherings on public sidewalks in certain areas. This permits the government to limit peaceful demonstrations and marches, as well as the ability to protest itself is now in jeopardy, as well as the ability to simply stand on the corner and sing, preach, or talk.

2. The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness - A fundamental principal of our democracy, the right to the pursuit of happiness is tampered by a curfew on adults. How many people will be effected? How many people will not to go out at night and have fun in town? How many bars will lose business, how many clubs will shut down, how will nightlife in this city be effected?

3. The Right to Bare Arms - The ability to just defend yourself if your attacked is basically suspended now. Anything can be used as a weapon. Will it simply be limited to guns and knives, or will it go to even mace and other legal non-lethal weapons?

I've covered two basic amendments and one ideal. At the same time, I've also mainly focused on extremes this "Extension of Powers" can go. While a bit far, they should and must be considered before we simply allow this to happen. We also must consider just WHAT this Crime Emergency will mean.

It should be noted that, per his own website, he makes the following statement:

Declare a limited crime emergency in targeted enforcement zones, as authorized by the City Code.

Now, considering Mayor-Elect Nutter wants this in "certain sections" of the city, he has never said or explained just how long it would last, and he never said which sections. This leaves a very, very, VERY wide hole of just how long our basic civil rights will be suspended, and just how it will be handled.

What would be to decide which sections are picked? Would it be based on police districts with high crime? Would it be based on a block-by-block quotient? For example, I live in the 14th Police District. Office Cassidy, who was shot and killed, worked in the 14 District and the place where he was shot is also in this district. Would the entire police district be put under the Crime Emergency?

At the same time, would this be block-by-block? If, for example, a block 5 blocks away saw crime but mine didn't, would the emergency be declared there and not here?

Could this possibly lead to criminals in targeted errors simply going to non-targeted areas to commit these same crimes?

Now, we are left to ask this same question over the Crime Emergency plan.

In fact, just how long could this be effective? Considering the fact that Operation: Safe Streets worked on criteria similar to a Crime Emergency without declaring one, and we did see a reduction in crime during the first year it was implemented, could we see a similar temporary effect, or do you think it could have a good, positive long-term effect?

At the same time, criminals in targeted areas simply moved to non-targeted areas. The Safe Streets program did not adapt using the CompStat program they had in place, and thus crime got worst. Resources have also started to dwindle, and you now have officers sitting in their cars waiting to go to the next crime instead of helping to prevent new ones.

That leads to the same problem we have now; most of the people out there committing these murders have been in jail before, are out now, and are now doing the same thing again. I understand Nutter's rehab program, but is it really going to be effective in 5 years when there new people come out of prison, let alone 10 after he's out of office?

These are questions we need to ask now before he takes his oath of office.

This is part one. Tomorrow, I'll discuss his new Police Commissioner and his history with Civil Rights, what this may mean for the Crime Emergency, and just how effective it could be. I'll also discuss more my feelings into what should be done instead.