Tag: NYPD

  • Stupid-mobiles

    Stupid-mobiles

    Does anybody believe this is a good idea for subway patrol?

    Granted with only 13 the NYPD isn’t making a major investment, but it’s still a big waste.

    “Their biggest benefit is increased police visibility, as they put an officer heads and shoulders above the crowds, police said” in the Daily News. What? Actually, no. It puts police about six inches above their normal height. And if that were so important, hire taller cops. Or stand on a phone book. Or how about putting police in top hats? (personally, I would love to have an official NYPD top hat.)

    The downsides of these overpriced toys are almost so obvious I feel dumb for even having to point them out–along with cops in bike helmets looking incredible dorky–what about stairs? What about turnstiles? What if the elevator to the street breaks? And God forbid an overweight cop is seen on one of these. I mean, really, cops are supposed to ride up and down one subway platform?

    Once again, I’d like to point out there’s nothing wrong with walking!

  • Seven Shots

    Seven Shots

    I read this book by Jennifer Hunt. I loved this book. I’ll tell you more about this book… but only when I’m done writing mybook.

    On July 31, 1997, a six-man Emergency Service team from the NYPD raided a terrorist cell in Brooklyn and narrowly prevented a suicide bombing of the New York subway that would have cost hundreds, possibly thousands of lives.

    In the meantime I’ll leave you with my breathless blurb they put on the back of the book (I had an advance copy):

    Seven Shots uncovers the stories, rivalries, and human beings behind the New York City police officers who defused the subway bomb attack that foreshadowed September 11th. With unparalleled access, Hunt uncovers the never-before-told stories of heroism, September 11th, and petty rivalries that drive and destroy life in the NYPD. This is a true-life crime story that shows, warts and all, the unrequited love of good police officers toward an organization that doesn’t love them back. At times gripping, tragic, and theoretical, Seven Shots penetrates deep into the police world. Seven Shots vividly brings me back to my own policing days with laughs, tears, excitement, and adrenaline-filled moments of sheer terror. A groundbreaking, page-turning work.

    [I just wish they had edited the redundancy out of the “unrequited love… toward an organization that doesn’t love them back” part. There’s no other kind of unrequited love. Things like that bother me more than they probably should.]

    It’s a great book and a wonderful ethnography with amazing insight into the police culture. Plus it tells a story about a big bomb that almost wan.

    You can buy it here.

  • Alvarez released from hospital, arrested

    This is the guy shot 20 times by the police. One week later, he’s out of the hospital. How is that possible!? From the Times:

    The police have arrested Mr. Alvarez on charges of attempted murder, attempted assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal use of a firearm in the second degree.

    Is it just me, or does anybody else think that perhaps you should just get a free pass if you’re shot twenty times by police… and live.

  • Like Father Like Son?

    It’s yesterday’s news that Adrian Schoolcraft is suing New York and the NYPD for $50 million.

    It turns out, amazingly, that this isn’t the first Schoolcraft vs. P.D. lawsuit. No, it’s not the first. It’s not even the second.

    Turns out that Adrian’s father, Larry Schoolcraft, was also a police officer. In Fort Worth, Texas, I believe (though the Village Voice says Dallas). It seems that, like Adrian, after seven or eight years, Larry didn’t leave the police department on good terms, either.

    Schoolcraft v. City of Fort Worth was filed in 1999. Whatever it was about, it must have been for pretty big bucks because the city first budgeted $145,000 and then another $65,000 (1,2,3) for its legal defense. In 2000, Schoolcraft’s petition for review was denied by the Texas Supreme Court. I guess Larry lost.

    The Schoolcrafts have suffered a lot of loss.

    Larry Schoolcraft moved to upstate New York. Adrian Schoolcraft joined the NYPD in 2002 and hit the streets in 2003. A few months later his grandfather, Larry’s father, died. Soon after that Larry’s wife, Suzanne, died, either in 2003 from cancer or in 2004 from a stroke.

    A few years pass.

    Then in 2007, police got a call for a drunk man at a convenience store. Officers respond and decided the man, Larry Schoolcraft, can’t drive. Being a small town, they drove him home. Two or three days later, power company employees saw Larry passed out on his porch. It was cold. They called 911. Subsequently Schoolcraft sued the police. The local paper, the Leader-Herald, reported:

    The lawsuit filed April 15 claims Schoolcraft suffered permanent injuries because he was left outside in the cold.

    Schoolcraft’s attorney, James. W. Bendall, said his client had to be hospitalized and required surgery. Some of Schoolcraft’s muscles were permanently damaged because of exposure, the suit claims.

    Schoolcraft, who is in his 50s, was groggy because of some medication he had taken, his attorney said.

    The lawsuit claims deputies simply brought Schoolcraft to his porch [and left him there]. … Deputies claim they brought Schoolcraft into his home.

    Schoolcraft… had no memory of what occurred… [and] found out what had happened when his son, a New York City police officer, came upstate after receiving a call that his father was in the hospital.

    Out for two or three days in freezing weather? That’s some medication.

    No matter, after the 2007 incident, Larry went to live with his son Adrian in New York City. In February, 2008, Adrian’s maternal grandfather died. Two days later Adrian’s paternal grandmother dies, too.

    A very rough month. It might even be enough to push me over the edge.

    Two months after the death of his mother, Larry Schoolcraft filed his lawsuit against the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office. Six days after the Leader-Herald wrote about the lawsuit, the paper ran another story, this one about how Larry’s home had been broken into eight months earlier, back around September, 2007, after Larry went to live with Adrian in NYC. Among the stolen goods, Larry Schoolcraft says, were the ashes of his wife and the couple’s infant son, who he says died shortly after being born in 1988.

    If it weren’t for bad luck, they’d have no luck at all. But at least they had each other for support. Through thick and thin, through all their misfortune, father and son, living together, probably spent a lot time talking, mourning, recovering, and perhaps the subject of police departments came up and just how unfair life can sometimes be.

    On June 1, 2008, just six weeks after Larry files his last lawsuit against the police, Adrian starts secretly recording conversations that will become the basis for his first lawsuit against the police.

    Maybe it’s all just coincidence. Who am I to say? But I’d love to know what Larry’s lawsuit in Fort Worth was about. I mean, wouldn’t it be something if Adrian’s lawsuit against his police department in New York just happened to be similar to his father’s lawsuit against his police department in Fort Worth a decade earlier? Wouldn’t that really be something?

    (Update with working links to all the posts on Schoolcraft.)

  • Al Baker steps to the plate… It is high, it is far…

    …It is gone!

    Al Baker clears the bases and the New York Timesis back on top!

    Al Baker is a man I don’t know. Never met him. Never spoken to him (at least I don’t think I have). But I know his name because the man is good reporter on the police beat for the New York Times. When I see Al Baker’s name on the byline, I know I’m going to get a good story with no B.S.

    Without fanfare, Baker (perhaps suspiciously eying the journalistic wreckage left by his colleagues) steps up the plate and hits a home run. Maybe he had the weekend off, but better late than never.

    Kudo’s to you, Mr. Baker. Well done, as usually. And thanks for not quoting anybody’s mom.

    Seriously, though, this is what I want in my news story. Real reporting. Not easy quotes. Compare Baker’s writing to the earlier articles. It’s like night and day. As a sportscaster might say, “All you young journalists out there, take note. This is how you play the game!”

    [p.s. Am I getting old? If I said, “It could be… It might be… it is!” Would anybody still get that home-run-call reference?]

  • Why cops hate the New York Times

    Most cops hate the newspaper. I don’t. But that’s probably because growing up, there was more newspaper blood in my family than police blood. And a healthy freedom of the press is one of the founding principles of this nation.

    And just think for just a few bits every day, comics, sports, news, opinion, it’s all dropped off on my stoop every morning (well, not the comics. I have to get my comics online)!

    But police often have good reason to hate the press. Reporters, and it must be taught in journalism school or something, feel obliged to get all sides of the story. Sounds good… unless, of course, you understand that all opinions are not equally true. Sometimes, especially with crime stories, there really aren’t two sides to the story. Sometimes, as a reporter, you shouldbe biased (if bias is a taboo word, how about “be willing to reach a conclusion”?).

    Say a criminal gets shot by police. He had a gun. Some police spokesperson says as much. Duly noted. But then you talk to the dead guy’s mother who says, “Pookie was an angel. He would never hurt nobody! And he was home with me at the time he got shot.” Why, the mother may actually believe this. Or maybe not. But the gentle reader trying to figure out the truth sees this and says, “Hmmm, there are two sides of the story. I bet the truth lies somewhere in between.” Actually… sometimes… no. And it’s the reporter’s job to get the truth and not just lay out all the junk and let the reader decide what’s true.

    Now here’s a rule of thumb: don’t value mothers as objective determiners of their babies’ character. Nor should you value a criminal’s friends as objective determiners of the criminals non-criminal activity.

    Now the Timespresent a story that can at best be described as a police clusterf*ck and hints at a very bad police-involved shooting, with obligatory references to Sean Bell and hints at the idea that all the bullets were fired by police. The first headline said, “After 50 Shots in Harlem, One Dead and 6 Hurt.” Wow. Well, that certainly got my attention. And here’s this from the August 9th story by William Rashbaum, Karen Zraick, and Ray Rivera:

    The witness accounts retold by the police were at odds with what some other witnesses said had happened. Robert Cartagena, 19, Mr. Alvarez’s cousin, and another witness, Shariff Spencer, Mr. Alvarez’s friend, said they never saw Mr. Alvarez fire a gun. [well what do you expect them to say?]

    Mr. Alvarez’s lawyer [whose job it is to defend his client regardless of guilt] … said his client … motioned “no” when asked if he had had a gun or fired one.

    Now let’s go back to the August 8th storyby Trymaine Lee and Colin Moynihan:

    Yet questions were being raised among some witnesses as to whether the police had acted appropriately.

    When that first shot went off, “Angel was still punching,” Mr. Spencer [a friend of Alvarez] said.

    “Never once did you hear, ‘Freeze,’ ” he said. “Never once did you hear, ‘Stop.’ Never once did you hear, ‘N.Y.P.D.’ ”

    Several residents expressed outrage at the shooting, saying the police were overly aggressive.

    “People feel like they have no concern for life,” Sean Washington, a television producer who lives down the street from where the shooting occurred, said of the police. Before the gunfire started, he added, the D.J. at the block party said over the loudspeaker “how good a feeling it was because there was no violence. It was all love.”

    See… it was All Love. And then police showed up. Two guys just in a little scuffle and police blow them away.

    Having been a police officer, I assume — no, I know — that nine times out of ten the police version of the story is closer to the truth than any “witness” account.

    Now I wasn’t there. So I don’t know what happened. But I bet it’s pretty close to the Post’s account:

    Moments before a police-issued semiautomatic slug fatally ripped through Soto’s chest, he allegedly pulled his .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver on Alvarez, a small-time hood who was getting the better of him in a fistfight, sources said.

    Alvarez lunged for the weapon, and it went off twice during the struggle, attracting the attention of officers nearby, witnesses told police.

    Alvarez, 23, then allegedly fired at Patrolman Douglas Brightman — prompting the uniformed cop and three officers on the other side of the block to return a volley of 46 rounds, police said.

    Also, the A.P.’s Colleen Long has a good story.

    The Daily Newssays: “NYPD officials initially said Alvarez killed Soto with the revolver, before shooting at four cops who returned fire. Yesterday, cops said the revolver was in Soto’s waistband but Alvarez took it from him and shot at a uniformed officer with it.” For the record, Soto was killed and Alvarez shot many many times but is alive.

    So what’s my point? I’m not certain yet. But why does the Timessee fit to quote Ms. Craft, Alvarez’s bother, saying her brother has a job (auto mechanic) and a 2-year-old son? Well maybe because the story is trying to make Alvarez look like a victim, which makes police out to be the criminals.

    But if we want a character study on Soto and Alvarez, why not tell the whole story? The Postis willing to call Alvarez a small-time thug. And apparently there’s nothing small time about Soto. According to the Daily News:

    Both had records. Alvarez had two prior arrests, including one for gun possession and trying to run down a cop with a car, for which he served two years. Soto had been arrested eight times, including for burglary.

    But I can hear people saying, “So maybe they had trouble in the past. But how long can you hold that against them? Poor kids.” Whatever. And I have a bridge to sell you.

    Michael Feeney of the Daily Newsdigs up a Twitter account (I found this under the name BooBillzMB) and writes: “Luis Soto, slain in Harlem shootout, painted himself as tough gangbanger on Twitter.

    “I go 2 da grave b4 I be a b—h n—-! Fa’realll,” he wrote July 23.

    He posted photos of himself flashing gang signs, or holding a new iPhone, an iPad and cocktails.

    In one photo, he looked out at the camera over a thick fan of crisp new $50 bills – many thousands of dollars worth.

    Though he had no job, he planned to trade in his BMW 760, a $130,000 car, for an equally pricey Mercedes-Benz CL550, he tweeted.

    A turf rivalry between Harlem, where Angel Alvarez lives, and the Bronx, where Soto was from, surfaced in his tweets. “Not for nothin da BRONX Got More Real N—-s Den HARLEM,” he wrote July 28.

    Friends said Alvarez and Soto had an argument two weeks ago that led to their clash Sunday in Harlem.

    With a past record of illegal gun possession and assaults on police, and with a running feud with Soto, perhaps Alvarez’s biggest mistake was bringing a knife (or his fists) to a gun fight. Was Soto a b*tch n***a? Not for me to say, but he got his wish about going to the grave first. Was Alvarez just in the wrong place at the wrong time? I doubt it. Is any of this relevant? Actually, yes.

    Because imagine going to work and getting into a gunfight. Just another day at the office? Imagine the fear as you see a muzzle flash and think you’re going to die. Imagine the guilt of learning that you almost killing another officer. Imagine how lucky you feel to be alive. Imagine the relief of going back to your wife and kids. And for this the department and city you serve make you get a piss test and strips you of your gun “pending investigation.” And then in the papers your friends and family read about how you might have killed an innocent hard-working might for no reason.

    Did police behave correctly in using lethal force and shooting 46 times at these two fighting men with a gun? Absolutely. I don’t want to go too far, but it seems like the least we could do is appreciate what these officers went through and thank them for risking their life while just doing their job.

  • Schoolcraft sues NYPD for $50 Million

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for this to sort itself out. Here’s what I’ve already said on this one.

    [Update: A link to the lawsuit.]

    (Update with working links to all the posts on Schoolcraft.)

  • Mineo gets what he deserves

    Nada. Nichts. Zilch. Niks. Τίποτα!

    That’s what the lying Mineo gets for his $440 million B.S. lawsuit against the NYPD. Even better, he’s got to pay court fees.

    The jury was deadlocked (11-1, against Kern) on whether Officer Kern brutalized Mineo with a baton.

    From the Daily News:

    Jurors did find Kern liable for malicious prosecution for giving Mineo a summons for marijuana – but Brooklyn Federal Judge Jack Weinstein tossed that.

    The jury also cleared Officers Alex Cruz, Andrew Morales and Noel Jugraj of false arrest and excessive force, denial of medical treatment and malicious arrest.

    Personally, I’d be happy if Kern got something for being a d*ck. But that will probably happen departmentally. I’m more happy that Mineo gets nothing.

    And forgive a small bit of gloating, but I called this one back in 2008. Lucky for me, I just happened to right. At least this time.

  • A technicality?

    It’s not easy to separate emotion from constitutional issues. Ronell Wilson killed two NYPD detectives in 2003 and was found guilty and sentence to death by a federal jury. Good.

    Now, in 2010, an appeals court struck down the sentence (but not the conviction… the bastard did it).

    It’s easy for cops and conservatives to bitch about “liberal” courts letting cop killers go on a “technicality.” But the court is right.

    According to the Times, the “technicality” is that the prosecutors told the jury to consider Wilson’s demand for a trial and failure to plead guilty as evidence of lack of remorse. The prosecutors had “argued to the jury that his statement of remorse should be discredited because he failed to testify.”

    Like it or not (myself, I’m rather fond of the Bill of Rights), we all have the constitutional right to a jury trial–Amendment 6–and the right not to testify against ourselves–Amendment 5. Period.

    [Mind you, demanding your right to a jury trial isoften held against you. That’s why 90-some percent of convictions come from plea bargains — but that doesn’t make it right and that’s another story.]

    What kind of rights would these be if exercising these rights were held against you? What could be worse than a prosecutor implying, “Yes, the defendant had a right not to testify, and because he exercised that right, he should be put to death.”

    Call it a “technicality” if you want. I’d call it a fundamental right put in doubt by a serious and stupid error from prosecutors.

  • Heather MacDonald on NYPD Stop-and-Frisks

    Heather MacDonald has an op-ed in the New York Times. You know, on police issues we probably agree 75-80% of the time. And yet I’m always left frustrated and strangely disappointed by her writings. She’s too predictable. And her writing lacks depth as she simply sidesteps the main points of the opposition.

    I generally agreewith her, and yet still find myself unconvinced.

    When it comes to police matters, I also want to learn something I didn’t already know or think about something in a way I haven’t considered. No such luck.