Why Can't We Have More First Amendment Remedies?

The above is a video Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords reading the First Amendment on January 6th, 2011. It was part of a larger act where members of the United States Congress read the US Constitution aloud in hopes of reminding everyone of just what our nation is founded on.

On January 8th, 2011, she was shot in the head.

Sharron Angle, back in January of 2010, made a comment that for most of 2010 wound up haunting her. This is her exact quote:

You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

On January 8th, 2011, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head.

I've constantly have fought for the First Amendment, and truthfully, I never truly understood it until today when I saw that video of her reading it aloud. When we think of the First Amendment, we normally think about Freedom of Speech, followed by Freedom of Religion.

But how many of us even think about the fact that we are also given the ability to peacefully assemble? How often do we remember that we also have the right to petition out government when we don't like what they're doing? That our freedom of speech is actually more than being able to simply say what we want, but to also change things by petitioning them?

On January 8th, 2011, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head while giving a speech by a 22-year-old man who was mad at his government and wanted to change it.

After all the talk we've had over the past year, with so many people alluding to violence against politicians, why? Why violence? Why "second amendment remedies"? The first one alone would have fixed it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

To that end, I would like to encourage everyone to do more to help the First Amendment. Please, give to the ACLU, The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, or The First Amendment Center. We need more people using the 1st Amendment instead.

SEPTA Has New Busking Rules: Good and Bad News

Exactly 2 years ago as of May 2nd, the impact of an even that happened in March of 2007 came to a head. Anthony Riley, then 20-years-old, was arrested for singing in Rittenhouse Square. What followed on May 2nd was the blow back, a group of musicians and smart-minded people who realized that this was wrong. The protest was large, with nearly 100 people there. I was there during my run for mayor. I wore my favorite black suit and a pair of sunglasses. In one hand was a small red amp and in the other a gig bag for my Scott Ian Lyon/Washburn signature series guitar. I approached Anthony, talked with him for a bit and some other people and a reporter, and played along in protest to these insane laws. The police came to try and stop the peaceful protest, but Anthony was able to show the proper documents and we were allowed to stay.

In August, Anthony had his day in court. After an hour-long trial where the defense showed a weak and laughable case, the judge dismissed all charges. Anthony had beaten the system, and the ability to busk in Philadelphia was permitted.

I asked myself if our fight was just. It was... but I knew we had all created something that would not end well.

Although I was quiet about it then, I spent the months leading up to the trial watching as musicians came out of the woodwork for to exercise their right and ability to perform to the public. It was amazing and fun at first, but as the trial came, I saw more and more people busking and I realized that this may be a problem.

By the Summer of 2008, it is safe to say that there was a large problem with busking in Center City; everyone and anyone with a instrument and an amp to play pre-recorded music seem to come out and try their hand at being a small star. Some days it was a pain to go to Suburban Station, as 5 or 6 people would all peform in a small area at the same time. Trying to pick out one sound against another was a pain. There were some people who were great, though I don't know their names. A small R&B group that played at Market East Station, a child violinist who would pop up from time to time, and a man who was, in every since, a one-man band with class, playing the drums while singing at the same time and peforming, periodically, with other people.

It was Philadelphia seeing its first real busking boom since I've been alive. Up until 2007, there were very few, if any, people busking at SEPTA stations. It was nice at first, but one day as I tried to catch my train, a group of breakdancers created such a crowd, it was almost impossible to get by. At the same time, a lot of the people peforming were either mediocre, bad... or just plain boring.

In March I decided to go to Market East Station and give busking a try. I wasn't doing it for the money, just the chance to dress as I wished, paly what I wanted, and see how people reacted. I went down there with full distortion on my little amp and played whatever metal songs I could cover and a ton of original stuff and improve. After about 2 hours, on a good day, I made $15, which was more than enough for me! I had a employee tell me to move once (vey rudely, I might add)... that netted me $5 in pitty cash. I was mad I was told to move and in the back of my mind I though, "Well, put up a damn sign if I can't play there!"

They did.

Starting Monday, signs started showing up in Center City train stations telling people that they could no longer simply go up to a spot and start peforming. Instead, a rule was created: "All peformers will need to get a permit which could be attained for free and they could only play for 3 hours." I found this fair and sound, and OK. Then the last part: "No amplification of any kind." This part is where I have to disagree!

Yes, people can play loud with an amp. REALLY loud. But I have heard plenty of instruments, from accoustic guitars to drums to just people singing, that are louder than most amps turned to a reasonable setting. My beef is that there isn't wiggle room here, just "no". Some people need SOME amplification, and this rule smacks in the face of a lot fo people, in particular that small R&B duo I mentioned.

In an article in today's Philadelphia Metro, people had mixed feelings on this, and understandably so. The amplification part, in particular, had two interesting notes. A woman who goes to Suburban Station often said that the noise "became down-right annoying, especially from those with amplifiers." A man named Peter, who has played the keyboards for nearly 6 years, is angry as his revenue will most likely shrink from $80 to $20 because of the hour limit."

While the signs are posted, the rules don't go into effect until August 6th, 2009.

Myself? I'm sad I can't just pop downtown and play the train station like I used to. It was fun while it lasted. I'm just mad about the amp thing...


(Photo of the Busker in Suburban Station courtesy of Detainee)

An Open Letter to City Council

Dear City Council Member:

I am writing to you today in regards to three bills that will be presented tomorrow at the City Council Meeting by Councilman Darrell Clarke of the 'Licenses and Inspections' Committee. These bills are:

Bill No.: 070875 - The bill that would track sales of cigarettes and beer.
Bill No.: 070876 - The bill that would track sales of spray paint, indelible markers, and etching acid.
Bill No.: 070914 - The bill that would ban showing the image of a burning cross, noose, or swastika in public.

I am asking you to NOT pass these bills!

These three bills would limit the civil rights of the citizens of Philadelphia and impose unnecessary barriers in order to fight crime and racism, respectively.

These bills would allow the Government of the City of Philadelphia to violate the right of privacy to buy beer and cigarettes without having the government know. At the same time, tracking the sale of indelible markers would also include tracking when you bought even a Sharpie marker. What, exactly, is the point of that? Considering the large number of Sharpies sold in the City of Philadelphia, along with Spray Paint, it seems that tracking each and every sale will not lead to a crackdown on crime and being able to catch the criminals, but instead a backlog of useless information that seems more intent on harming the public rather than protecting it!

For those reasons alone, I am asking you not to pass Bill's 070875 and 070876.

As for Bill No. 070914, this bill has one intent and one harmful side-effect; in an effort to defeat racism and protect everyone, the First Amendment Right to freedom of expression is hampered! While the bill specifically state that it would be forbidden to show them with "intent... to incite violence", what that covers is a very large area. In essence, some forms of these symbols are meant to incite anger and hatred, but sometimes also to think. Would a teacher discussing racism being arrested for showing these symbols to provoke a reaction from their class to show them racism is wrong? Would someone wearing a shirt showing a Swastika to show their disapproval of something they see as fascist be banned as well?

The First Amendment is called into question with Bill No. 070914. While I understand and agree with the intent, we already have Hate Crime laws in effect doing the same thing. For a municipal government to create laws such as this is a step in the wrong direction and, in my opinion, a step toward limiting freedom and rights.

I urge you to NOT pass these three bills! They do not seek to help Philadelphia and Philadelphian's, they only exist to impose more useless legislation and barriers in a society built on freedom that slowly seems to be loosing them.

I thank you all for your time and consideration into this matter, and wish you a wonderful fay, the bet of luck in your meeting, and a happy holiday season!

Sincerely,
Larry West

Philadelphia City Council Member Darrell Clarke hates the First Ammendment

Did you ever get so angry you can't think straight? That's the case for me...

Whatever happened to the saying, "I may not agree with what you say,but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."? Day after day, I'm left asking this question as I see more and more people deny the right of letting others express themselves. Today, I learned that Czar, pardon, City Council Member Darrel Clarke is trying to ban the image of burning crosses, swastikas, and hanging nooses.

http://willdo.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/2007/11/city_council_to_1.html

While many of us will agree that those symbols are linked to years and years of racism and oppression, so are the following:

The Southern Flag
The Cross
Black Face
Pentacles and Pentagrams
Satan
Mohamed
Jesus
Whips
Chains
Swords
Guns
The Bible
The Koran

Ask yourself if you can say for a second that anything in that list hasn't meant someone didn't felt excluded. Ask yourself if anything on there, when you saw it in real life, didn't make you recoil a bit because you had to look at it, hear about, was told about it, or knew about it.

Myself? I'm offended more by people who don't give me room to breath on the train or bus than anything else. That, and people who click their gum. I think there should be a law banning both. Why not? Their offensive to me! Doesn't that stuff annoy you, too?

I went to Councilman Clark's office earlier today and spoke to his legislative aid. We went into a discussion about this and it came down to this conversation:

Staffer: "This is about public places. What if you had to go to work everyday and someone kept putting a noose around you?"
Me: "Well, it would be funny the first time, but it would get old fast."
Staffer: "Exactly!"
Me: "You know, back in high school, I had this guy who constantly tried to set me on fire every single day. He would take out his lighter and go, 'I'm going to set you on fire!' It was funny the first time, but it got old fast!"
Staffer: "That really happened?"
Me: "Yep. It was annoying as sin! And there's a law against that, too, right?"
Staffer: "Yeah."
Me: "So why are we creating a new law to do the same thing an existing law does?"

Yes, a classmate of mine DID try to set me on fire daily in high school. He didn't really intend to hurt me, just light my sweater on fire (It wouldn't burn, so it was annoying when he tried), and I honestly didn't care. He was more like a fly than someone out to kill me.

My point is this: There are laws on the book that ban a lot of this stuff already. The text of what Clarke wants to amend is this:

"No person shall display, with the intent to intimidate another person or incite violence, a symbol of racial or ethnic animus, such as a noose, burning cross or swastika, in a place of employment, in a public accommodation, in a public facility, on public property or in the public right-of-way."

So, in a sense, anywhere but your house. It's a bit silly, really. Let me give you another example: I have a t-shirt with a swastika crossed out on the back. Here it is on the right. It's obvious my intent is to piss off Neo-Nazi's. So, under Clarke's bill, this shirt is now banned.

If you own a Bad Religion shirt with the cross crossed-out (The "No Cross" shirt), it would be banned, wouldn't it? Your intent is to say you don't like the cross as a symbol, but someone else could simply say your intent is to piss off people. Maybe it is. Doesn't matter, IT'S BANNED!

I can also only assume that Marilyn Manson's "Last Tour on Earth" album cover would be banned, too. A flaming cross of TV's. It's a burning cross all right! Would a performance including this act be banned, too? It's done in a public space with the intent of inciting violence, although for the purpose of entertainment.

What about simple classes and lectures on this topic? Are kids now banned from learning about Nazi Germany and the Civil Rights movement because they contain these symbols? What about college courses where the teacher can use these subjects with the intent of inciting a form of violence, of making students angry about the events of the past and use it to make their communities better by eliminating hatred and racism?

The entire point of this boils down to this: You don't have a right to not be offended. In fact, you have a right TO be offended.

That's why I love democracy! It gives you a chance to be challenged, to make you ask questions, and to re-kindle why you are who you are. If I was walking down the street and someone had on a "Stop Snichin'" t-shirt on, I would be a offended by that more than someone wearing a shirt with a burning cross or a noose.

Honestly, why did the noose become racist? It's been used to kill people for centuries! Not just blacks, but everyone! What, just because a bunch of idiots in the South decide to make it racist, BAM, it's racist? One year I wanted to have skeletons hanging from nooses for Halloween, and that was when I was 10. I thought it would be scary, but I took it down because I couldn't do it right. I know I saw it at a haunted house or something.

The noose has a been a symbol for centuries, one that reminds people of execution, death, and even the lost of rights. It has a long history of making people think.

Am I trying to say all of these things are right? Not really. In this country, groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazi's, the Nation of Islam, and countless other racists are allowed to march in freedom. You may not like what they have to say, but it's safe to say we all agree that they have a basic right to say it.

We also have a right to call them idiots for it, too.

If you don't like something, you can either ignore it or call it names back. That options always open, too. I know I do! Someone doesn't like the way I dress, I just flip them off and go on my way. Its life, isn't it? Someone is always bound to disagree with you or do something to annoy you, and you either ignore them or do something.

Civil Rights and a Possible Crime Emergency: Part 3

I was going to post this yesterday, but I've been sick for a bit and it came to a head yesterday.

We've discussed the basic civil rights questions, and asked how long this Crime Emergency could last.

We've discussed the new Police Commissioner, his background in the issue, and and his impact on Crime.

Today, we're going to tackle a few things.

• Guns
• The impact Ramsey had in Washington D.C. (Part 2)
• What all of this boils down to.

So to start things off, we can kill two birds with one stone and discuss Ramsey, D.C., and Guns at once. Why? Because in case you didn't know, handguns have been banned in Washington D.C. for 31 years. OK, let's think about this: Despite BANNING HANDGUNS in Washington D.C., they still had ONE OF THE HIGHEST MURDER RATES IN AMERICA. So all that talk about "banning guns solve everything" is true, right? Ramsey's impact to lower the murder rate 50% during his time there must deal with simple enforcement of existing laws.

On that note, Mayor... sorry, Governor Ed Rendell (He'll be mayor in my heart!) talked to the State Legislators yesterday to try and create three new laws; One to limit gun purchases to one a month, another that would allow every city to create their own gun laws, and one more that would make it mandatory to report any lost or stolen gun.

At first, I did agree with "One Gun a Month", but then again, I live in a major city. I was contacted by someone in Western PA who said, very simply, "The law would effect legitimate collectors and recreational hunters." As someone who collects swords and daggers myself, I understood what he meant.

The second, allowing cities to make their own gun laws, does sound fairly reasonable. In the same vein that this nation allows states to make their own laws, it seems fair to let cities make their own laws. The last measure, to create a law to report a stolen gun, is sheer common sense.

The first two were shot down, and the last measure has been tabled.

During my campaign, my entire gun legislation could be summed up into one sentence: No new gun laws, just enforce the ones we already have. Really simple stuff and doesn't as much time as making a new law. So, guns aside, what does all of this mean? In essence, this is what a Crime Emergency means:

1. A Suspension on Civil Rights

• The right to bare arms and defend yourself
  
• The right to freedom to protest
• the Pursuit of happiness

2. A "Code 10" Lasting as Long as they Want

• No time table needed, or given, for a Crime emergency
• No restrictions on what makes is necessary of when to end it

3. No Discussion on WHERE to implement it

• No ideas given to what "Crime-Ridden" area means.
• No idea if it will be "block-by-block", done based on Council District, or Police District

4. No Criteria given AT ALL

• The only criteria is that there is a large amount of crime

That's IT! Despite some 8 months to discuss and develop and present to the citizens of Philadelphia a full and concise plan on how, exactly he plans to implement his Crime Emergency Plan, NOTHING has been revealed other than he wants to declare one.

I have often referred to the War on Crime here in Philadelphia the same as the War on Terror the US has declared. In much the same way, we need to worry about just how we tackle this issue and what we have to do in order to make sure we not only do something positive, but we also make sure we don't do to much damage to ourselves in the process.

In much the same way that Bush declared a war on Terror, and used our fear of bad men to lure us into a feeling that we must abandon our rights to fight these bad men, Nutter has used the same exact tactic in order to lose our civil rights in Philadelphia. I will hold to him that this was not intentional; That the move was more to honestly protect the citizens of Philadelphia, something that I don't doubt for a second. But even the most well-intentioned person can make a mistake.

Which is EXACTLY what a Crime Emergency is; A MASSIVE mistake.

So, with all of my criticism, what do I propose? It's very simple and boils down to this:

1. Focus on Community Policing

Considering Ramsey has a history of actual using Community Policing, I think we need to focus on THAT more than a police state. What is Community Policing?

Community policing or neighborhood policing is a policing strategy and philosophy based on the notion that community interaction and support can help control crime, with community members helping to identify suspects, and bring problems to the attention of police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_policing

On top of that, it also relies on you actually knowing who your police officers are and trust them. Something as simple as an officer in your community coming up to you one day and saying, "Hi, I'm Officer Bob. How are you doing? How's the family?" Very simple, everyday conversations can create more of a bond and trust in law enforcement than any camera can!

Look at New York City! There's a cop on almost every corner up there and their murder and crime rate has gone done drastically!

2. FOCUS ON MINOR CRIMES!
I can not stress enough how much this can help! Let's make this simple: Say there is a rather OK section of Philadelphia with a vacant lot. One day, a someone decides to start throw some trash on there. After a week, someone sees that some trash is building up on this lot and they start to throw more on there. In a month, theres a bit of trash there. After 2 months, someone starts dumping furniture on it. After 3 months, the entire neighborhood has taken a turn to the worst because this one lot has shown that the community doesn't care about what's going on around it. Enter the drug dealers.

OK, it's a bit drastic what I'm suggesting, but think about all the areas your afraid to go to yourself and how much trash is there. Maybe not trash; Graffiti, broken-down homes, etc...

If the police focused on targeting even small offenses, such as littering, graffiti, minor theft, jaywalking, all of a sudden you know that not only are the police there to be kind and friendly, but to enforce the law. If criminals learn that not only are the police involved with the community, but they're not taking any crap as well, you've successfully chipped away at the culture of crime that has been festering there.

3. Gun Law Enforcement
As I've said before, we're not enforcing our current gun laws. At the same time, when someone is caught, they're not getting enough jail time. We need to also make sure our police force focuses on making sure they do get illegal guns off the street. Part of my idea is to create a new police unit dedicated purely to this.

That's it. No civil rights violations, not a lot spent on extra man power, and if it proves successful, you can actually take down the cameras and sell them to recoup some money. I'm sure the citizens of Philadelphia would greatly accept this more than a "Code 10".

Mayor Street Steals my Idea: Will Perform a Same-Sex "Marriage" Saturday

Outgoing Mayor John Street will "Officiate" at a Gay Union this Saturday at City Hall. The move, of course, will be met with the usual bunch of assholes (no pun intended) who will claim it is evil, a sin, yadda yadda yadda...

The move is a bit surprising since John Street has been considered an enemy to the Gay community for years. Street said he was asked to officiate at the ceremony for Ryan Bunch and Micah Mahjoubian, a longtime colleague, this Saturday.

I'd just like to say I'm glad he used my idea. OK, maybe not, but from my own campaign lit:

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Philadelphia has an incredibly large homosexual population, and I believe in the right of two consenting adults being allowed to marry if they please. If elected, I will allow the City of Philadelphia to marry same-sex couples. For those of you oppose this plan, think of this; Philadelphia will see an expanded revenue base thanks to more money from marriage licenses, marriage taxes, and the like. I rather call it marriage, though; Civil Unions doesn't really have the same benefits and it almost makes homosexuals seem like second-class citizens, and I don't like that. The City Government will recognize these marriages and give them full benefits.

I'm still calling this another win in the "Larry West actually DID something positive by running", although I'm more likely than not am wrong for doing so. But, damn it, I'm still smiling about this!

Or not.

"Micah is my friend. He has been in my campaign and has been in my administration for eight years," Street said. "I've come to respect him as a person, and if this is something he would like for me to do, then I'd like to do it for him."

About 125 guests are expected at the ceremony, which will have no legal weight since Pennsylvania prohibits gay marriage.

"It's not marriage. It's not real marriage. They can't be married," said Street, a Seventh-day Adventist. "It's not a religious ceremony. I mean, it's not really marriage."

OK, so not really a win for same-sex couples, either, but I guess it's a bit of a start. I can only hope Mayor-Elect Nutter decides to do this, and then some, by just legalizing the thing, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania be damned (Some pun intended)!

Civil Rights and a Possible Crime Emergency: Part 2

THE CHARLES RAMSEY EFFECT

Hello, and welcome to Part 2 of my discussion of the Crime Emergency and the Crime Emergency. Yesterday, I discussed the basic civil rights issues that I feel could be threatened by declaring a Code 10, and asked the question of how long this would last and if it was needed.

Today, we'll start the discussion on the new Police Commissioner, Charles H. Ramsey. But before we do, I want to mention a few things first that I forgot to mention yesterday.

A large amount of my problem with this is, of course, Civil Rights. In all of my writing yesterday, I neglected to mention something that has been bugging me about all of this. Back in May, when Nutter's "Stop-and-Frisk" program was being called to task for violating civil rights, supporters brought up a Court Case where it was declared constitutional.

It was Nutter himself who coined this phase: "It's a Civil Right not to be Shot."

This bumper-sticker phrase was done so well, it is next to impossible to argue against it. To do so seems to allow for the same type of argument used by Conservative Republicans when you disagree with them; "What, do you mean you WANT people to be shot? You don't think it's wrong to kill and murder people?! No wonder you didn't win the election, you cold hearted bastard!"

The fact of the matter is, you don't. You have a right to live, a right to the pursuit of happiness. You have a right to be free and happy, and to live in a safe environment.

You don't have a right to not have bad things happen to you.

Being shot is something that can be prevented. In terms of federal legislation, you could easily create tougher gun laws, make better living conditions, and do everything you can to make the world a better case. At the same time, it is up to society to make sure that we are all raised well and correctly, that we allow everyone to be safe and happy.

The pursuit of happiness. To me, this is the very basis of our democracy and the idea that this nation is built upon. "Do as you will, but harm none." Not just a good idea, but words to live by if you ask me.

And this brings us to Charles H. Ramsey.

While police chief in Washington D.C., "on September 27, 2002, the MPD made a mass arrest of a large group of demonstrators who had assembled in DC’s Pershing Park to protest the World Bank and IMF meetings. The police enclosed over 400 people in the park and arrested them without ever ordering them to disperse or allowing them to leave the park. Many of the arrested were not actually demonstrators, but were journalists, legal observers, and pedestrians. On January 13, 2006, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the arrests violated the Fourth Amendment and that Chief Ramsey could be held personally liable for the violations."

http://www.philebrity.com/2007/11/15/good-news-about-the-new-guy-he-loves-your-civil-liberties/

In his time as chief, he declared Crime Emergencies as well. Not just once, or twice, but at least 4 times. My answer is to focus on this using the proven method of community policing and cracking down on minor crimes (Broken Windows Theory). When it comes to the Community Policing aspect, Ramsey has been declared an innovator for using it. Nevertheless, we have a new commissioner that has used Crime Emergencies in the past to reduce crime as well. According to the last record I could find, the one he declared in 2006 lasted over 2 months and, during the last week of it, there were 3 teenagers shot and killed.

http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/age...4/release/9745

At the same time, what was the result of civil liberties because of it? Admittedly, referring to the September 2002 protests where he was held accountable for the unlawful arrests of people there may be a bit much, it still need to be taken into account.

More than anything, we need to consider the effects this will have on the people on Philadelphia, and ask if there is no other way to combat crime here. There is massive personal rights we would eliminate in order for the proposed safety this could bring, and should not be done unless it must be.

I, personally, considered declaring a Crime Emergency the last result, the final straw when all else fails. In the eyes of some, this may be the case, but this is not a matter of organized crime, either. I feel this type of action should be reserved if the killings were more organized and done by a group of connected people. It has been proven that most murders are done, in fact, but random people.

Has this city as a whole really lost it's way so much that we must put everyone on lock down? Do you feel, personally, that you deserve it as well?

The questions I raised, about how long it would last and how it would be implemented, and valid questions and I simply wonder where the political discussion is on this. The elephant in the room of the Nutter election is that he wants to declare a Crime Emergency, but has not once explained how he would do it. Not once. The only parameter given has been that it would be in "targeted areas", and those areas were never explained.

While I may be asking for a hard answer from Mayor-elect Nutter, I am asking for an educated guess on your parts. I'm looking at what has happened in Washington D.C. and the fact that 4 Crime Emergencies were declared by this Chief by 2004. I'm also looking at the overall result in it which was a drop in murders on a whole.

But why did it take 4 of them? How long did each one last? Do they really work as well as it appears? Was the reduction in homicides there largely because of the fact that they declared a crime emergency or was it because of more community policing? Do you think it was a combination of the two?

Tomorrow, we'll probe a bit more and try to wrap this up.

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.