Are taskforces where community hopes goes to die? I am about to find out. On Jan, 15, I went to the first meeting of the drunk-in-public taskforce, a group assembled by the council as their response to a heated public forum back in November.
That forum, which had hundreds of people recounting tales in which they claimed they were falsely arrested, was the council’s response to a Mercury News investigation that showed San Jose had more drunk-in-public arrests than any other city in the state, and had a disproportionately high number of Latino arrests.
De-Bug, the group I am apart of, was asked to participate on the taskforce.
Process-wise, the birth of this taskforce comes from a logical flow, and, to the credit of the city’s leadership, resulted from a relatively quick reaction. The original reporting on the issue had only hit the papers in October. But while the mechanics of how to arrive at an appropriate policy recommendation—bring in public input, gather stakeholders, produce proposals from an informed dialogue—feels correct, it is the substance of the conversation itself that will determine if we are genuinely solving problems or simply going through the motions.
With that said, this taskforce may need to revisit where this conversation started, because the first meeting felt devoid of the demands for change that prompted its creation to begin with. It was as if that forum back in November never occurred. The actual testimonies, the report by the Independent Police Auditor citing “boiler-plate” language on the incident reports—in short, the collective public call to action to the city leadership—was nowhere to be found last week.
The public outcry late last year had been so pressing that the police department, under its own initiative, has started using breathalyzers for drunk-in-publics. While nobody believes breathalyzers are the total answer, it was a sign that the police department was willing to listen to what was being asked of them. And while there will probably be push- back from the police department when requests for policy changes are made, it is the duty if this taskforce to at least press for the changes.
The opening three hour meeting included a host of San Jose decision-makers—the police chief, the district attorney, the public defender, the city attorney, the city manager, head of probation, and a number of Latino community groups. The result was that the taskforce wants a third-party study of the numbers. I don’t know what new revelation is expected, but as far as I’m concerned, we had a third-party study, that’s what the Mercury News investigation was that started this whole thing.
And if the purpose of the study is to get at the truth of the matter, we have chosen an unnecessarily long path to that place.
Early on in the meeting, the ACLU made what seemed to be a reasonable request: Let the taskforce look at the incident reports to then make a determination as to the validity of the arrests. Redact names if necessary. And what was remarkable was that the police chief didn’t even have to answer the question, the city attorney turned down the suggestion for him. Conversation over, and an opportunity lost.
The ACLU request came 15 minutes into the meeting. For the duration, we talked about and dissected hypothetical arrests. We were told that often-times the 647(f) (drunk in public) is way to prevent an anticipated crime, and were given a hypothetical example to explain the arrest. I didn’t even know it was legal to arrest someone for something you think they are going to do. The whole time that the legality of officers making anticipatory arrests was being explained, I kept thinking about that movie with Tom Cruise, ironically named Minority Report. That film, set in the future, was about how law enforcement used mind reading “pre-cogs” to arrest people before they actually acted.
Of course there could be reasons why our taskforce may be corralled into discussing more fiction than reality. Looming in the background of the taskforce conversation is a recently filed lawsuit that is threatening a possible class action lawsuit against the city of San Jose for racially discriminatory drunk-in-public arrests. Any public admission of wrong-doing could be seen through the lens of dollar signs by the city.
But not talking directly about the issue costs us, as a city, as well. Underneath those arrest numbers are the many San Jose fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, students, and workers whose lives have been turned upside down after getting arrested for something they did not do. People who have criminal records now that will plague them for years, costing them potential jobs, loans, and other opportunities. It is these stories that need to be redeemed, and thee community must be assured that now that the issue has surfaced, this practice will not be allowed to continue.
Yet even at this late stage of the discussion, there still are repeated attempts to reframe this issue as a question of what to do with the San Jose community’s hypothetical problem with alcohol, when the real issue is what to do about the inappropriate use of discretion by the police.
And to be clear, there are people in the taskforce that can affect change immediately. For one, we can stop criminalizing drunk in publics, as most other cities do that have dramatically lower arrest rates.
The evidence that there have been instances of police misuse of discretion for this charge is enough to take away that charging option all together. Where there are actual cases that warrant action, the police department could more fully utilize California Penal Code Section 849(b), which authorizes “peace officers to release arrested persons from custody due to that person being under the influence of alcohol or drugs and no further action is desirable.” The District Attorney herself can decide not to file 647(f) charges in the interest of justice, and the court’s time.
This drunk in public taskforce has four more opportunities to chart out a new path. The group certainly has the ability to usher in needed reform about problematic police behavior—it need only the will to do so.
Raj,
“Are taskforces where community hopes goes to die?”
YES! Didn’t you notice how many groups, departments, and offices were NOT invited to join this taskforce? That is a dead give a way right there that they have little to no intention of changing a whole lot! I watched the Rules Committee Meeting after your first taskforce Meeting, YIKES! Understandably the DA all but had her fangs out for not being included in these meetings.
Raj, I have sat through many over the years, as well as, been on Boards and Commissions that are supposed to help better things but DO NOT. I watched many times while we worked hard to find solutions to serious problems, only to see staff, the County Council, or City Attorney, or City Manager tear it apart in front of the Mayor and Council with a million reasons why these things won’t work. It is all BS.
They have their own agenda, and it is a no win. These Boards, committees and Task Forces are just “Shut up and Go Way Meetings.” If you notice all the meetings are firmly controlled by staff, and if any one gets emotional, or has knowledge they don’t, things are cut off and they move on. By the time these meeting suggestions hit the mayor and council, they do not reflect anything much of what was put forth in the first place.
The only way for you to get what you want is to get a majority of the Council to watch dog the issue, and push for what you want through. To do that you have to lobby them often, and make sure they send a competent, well-seasoned Aide to every meeting. And even then, it is a 50-50 chance you’ll get even half of what you want.
Election time is the best time to nail them because that is when they’ll actually help. They need your vote and if the issue is one that concerns a majority, or will help them win, you’ll get much farther. It is all about timing Raj.
Raj –
Part of the problem here is that you have made yourself such a critic of the San Jose Police Department, and by association, the City, that they see you as a critic and not someone who will work with them on your issues, and listen to them on theirs. You don’t represent yourself as someone who will take into account the point of view of the SJPD at all. I have been in too many mediations where one party is not asking anything unreasonable, and many times even logical, but because of the tone of voice, or because the two parties are always arguing, such requests get lost and/or distorted by the arguments taking place. If, from the beginning, you had taken a position of someone who has a concern and is willing to work with all sides to get it resolved – that is, willing to meet with the PD, help them understand your point of view, and how they can address it as well as working with them on their issues – your points might have been taken up long ago. Case in point – you said they have started using breathalyzers during drunk in public arrests. It was a reasonable request at the Council Meeting, and something they acted on.
I hope we can be more clear about cause and effect around this issue. SJPD’s recent decision to use breathalyzers should be welcomed, but we have to remember that the report by the IPA showing that this issue was a problem and recommending their use was written in 1994- well over 10 years ago!
I read the report at the city council meeting and could not help but see the huge irony in that many of the issues written in that report—SJPD’s abuse of power through unfair and unfounded arrests over something that most cities wisely decriminalize—were exactly the same issues raised in testimony that night.
So what was the reaction of city leaders? At first SJPD Chief denied that there was an issue at all and said most of the arrests were of people from out of town. Mayor Reed concurred. Then the Merc analyzed the numbers and showed this assertion to be completely false (showing that the police chief either at best makes uninformed statements without looking at the numbers or at worst lies to protect the reputation of his department). Then and only then did the Chief and Reed admit that maybe then there was an issue… oh, and maybe we should start using breathalyzers too!
I only hope that sending this issue to a task doesn’t go down the well beaten path of denial and inaction by the council and SJPD.
Hi folks, thanks for the words of experience on city issues. We’ll take in all the suggestions. We can use em. Also, in terms of being willing to sit down and problem-solve, we are making efforts. When the SJPD started using the breathalyzers, without any council pressure or requests, I wrote a note to chief davis applauding their initiative. We weren’t trying to politic, just wanted to commend any act from city leadership (including sjpd) when they respond to community calls. Breathalyzers were a common demand at the November 18th from public comments. The chief responded positively to our note and invited us to lunch to talk about issues. We are currently setting up a time for him to come by de-bug.
Raj:
Your words betray you. You clearly are not impartial and have proven to be an opponent of the police. What causes you to believe that you, at the suggestion of the ACLU, can DETERMINE the validity of these arrests? You think that is “reasonable” because,….? Maybe I missed it on your resume. What training, education, or experience do you have that might qualify you to determine the legality of arrests in CA??? And in case it crossed you mind, being “drunk in public” does not qualify you
The City Attorney dismissed that because it is an absurb idea. And by the way, what do you expect many, or hundreds of drunks, as you claim, to say after the fact? That they embarrassed themselves and acted like A$$ES? Give me a break! That is hilarious. Few will admit that when they can more readily be a VICTIM of the deep-pocketed city police and have that arrest cleared from their record. Again your lack of reason and fair-mindedness is painfully obvious. As well, go to any courtroom around the country and you will hear “boiler-plate” or “standardized”, language. It is the speak or legalese of the business. If it is not personal enough for you it is likely because of your ignorance, not because it is wrongful or symptomatic of a false arrests. I am not suggesting the police make no mistakes or that they are above reproach. I am stating that you would do well to be a reporter and less of advocate. This might cause you to see more clearly, be heard, and gain some ACTUAL credibility.
I hope this task force doesn’t just come to the conclusion that all we need is another study. I hope these are not just “motions” that the city is going through just to prove they addressed the issue. Raj is right—there are tons of evidence already—the statistics, the Mercury News investigation, and most powerfully, the stories of people who testified at City Council. There are real good people in the task force who can move this forward, and I hope it doesn’t get street-bumped by yet another tiring city process or a police department and District Attorney’s office unwilling to even consider that 647(f)‘s are being abused by their officers.
Hmm, does Steve Hazel, who frequently disturbs San Jose City Council meetings, along with Santa Clara City Council meetings, get evaluated by this task force?
I have to say. The TASKFORCE is way off track. If you want to solve the issues we face, everyone needs to be transparent. From the looks of it moving forward, all this TASKFORCE is doing, is going through the motions to appease the public and pulling the wool over the councils eyes.
PLEASE SOMEONE WAKE UP!
STOP WASTING TAX PAYERS MONEY!
How dull or dishonest does one have to be to file complaints, make allegations, form committees, and demand a change in a law without ever once accurately describing or demonstrating an understanding of the law as it is written? Raj and the rest of the race peddlers, idiots, and weaklings involved in this controversy have repeatedly referred to “drunk in public” arrests when voicing their complaints that SJPD is arresting people who are not “drunk.”
In his post, Raj identifies the law in question as a subsection (f) of Penal Code 647. Well, here it is as written:
—— 647. Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:
Notice, the crime is called disorderly conduct, a term that I have not seen used even once by the scoundrels pushing the issue. But let’s look further, to the actual subsection, and see what the law book says:
—— (f) Who is found in any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, controlled substance, or toluene, in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care for his or her own safety or the safety of others, or by reason of his or her being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructs or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way.
Subsection (f) contains 100 words… the word drunk appears nowhere. Instead, what is described are the elements of one particular type of Disorderly Conduct, and it is clear that the law is intended as a remedy for persons who, due to the influence of an intoxicating substance, are either:
1. Unable to exercise care for their own safety or the safety of others, or
2. Interfering, obstructing, preventing the free use of any public way
Just as the crime of DUI is often referred to as Drunk Driving despite the fact that being drunk is not a required element, Disorderly Conduct, subsection (f) is commonly referred to as Drunk in Public notwithstanding the fact that one need not be drunk to be in violation. As it is with the crime of DUI, the elements of 647(f) PC address a person’s problematic public behavior, not his blood-alcohol content.
Being under the influence is not the same as being drunk, no matter how many times Raj and the rest of the mindless militants scream it. No one can be arrested solely for having too high a blood alcohol content—no one; an arrest requires the additional element(s) (prohibited behavior) be present.
Though Raj referenced the “boiler-plate” language used in the arrest reports (another foolish complaint), no mention was made that the language in those reports always described behavior, be it “dangerously unsteady when standing still,” “staggering into traffic,” or “annoying passersby.” Preventing a person under the influence from falling to the pavement, getting hit by a bus, or bumping into and angering others is the DUTY of the cop on the street, no matter if the arrested person’s blood alcohol content is .01 or .40. There is no presumed alcohol tolerance related to any human behavior besides driving; no expert to equate a particular behavior with a particular number of drinks. The only presumption of which we can be certain is that of the officer being subject to a lawsuit should he observe a person in obvious peril and refuse to take action.
This controversy is pure political crappola. The malcontents and cop-haters, ever watchful for weak leadership (Chief Davis), pandering politicians, an activist media, and an exploitable issue believe they’ve found their opening. None of this is about what’s best for San Jose or protecting our individual liberty, if it was then there would be no need for such gross deception. This controversy is about political power, pure and simple.
One last point: Raj asserted that someone in authority said that 647(f) arrests were “often-times” used to prevent an anticipated crime, but he neglected to identify who it was that said it. Why is that? He elaborated his outrage over that statement at length, impressing us all with its wrongfulness, yet failed to do the one thing necessary to establish the credibility of his reporting. Who said it, Raj? Tell us, so that we can crucify him or her for her stupidity; otherwise we’ll just have to assume that you made it up.
2nd posting (first at 11:45 AM)
Thanks for the info finfan. The person who explained that the 647f was used to prevent anticipated crimes was taskforce member Victor Rodriguez, of the National Latino Peace Officers Association. Dolores Carr was the one who explained her position on the legality of that type of arrest. Since the meetings are public, and the statements were made during those meetings, I’m sure they don’t mind me sharing their names.
I have no way of knowing whether Raj quoted Victor Rodriguez accurately, but I do know this: no competent police officer would ever think it proper to make an unlawful arrest (that is, one in which the elements of the crime have not been met) based on the belief that a person is likely to commit a future crime. Police officers in this state are trained to a standard, and that standard includes no justification for false arrest. It is possible that what Mr Rodriguez said was that in those cases where a person was in violation of 647(f) and appeared likely to commit an additional crime, officers might be more inclined to make an arrest rather than seek some other disposition of the matter—the stop-it-in-the-bud strategy that is quite common and proper wherever authority is administered. For a police officer considering the necessity of making a lawful arrest for 647(f), his/her opinion regarding the likelihood of subsequent undesirable events is a proper component of the decision-making process no matter whether the concern is that the person might fall and bust his head open or that he will shoot-off his mouth and start a fight. The officer’s business is public safety, and prevention is part of that business.
However if Mr Rodriguez was quoted correctly, if he did in fact use words to convey the meaning reported here in Raj’s post (i.e. false arrest with good intentions), then he should have been immediately challenged by one of the officials present in order to prevent the citizen members of the task force from being misled. If Mr Rodriguez did justify false arrest, and he was at the meeting as a representative of the National Latino Peace Officers Association, then his words are either a reflection of his own approach to law enforcement or those of the race-segregated organization to which he belongs.
Why not extend an invitation to him to clarify himself here at SJI?
Raj (10),
Could you please verify their qoutes and produce them in full context. I would really like to understand them. Thanks.
Raj,
Frustrated Finfan makes some very valid points. I would like to see SJI invite members of the DA’s Office, Victims Rights Groups, business owners, and the Police Department to join in this discussion, so that we can ask questions and get BOTH sides of the story. While I respect your right to your opinion, you are very biased when it comes to people who break the law, and how you see the way Police Officers handle them.
Secondly, I read in the Merc that you have suggested that a moratorium be put on Public Drunkenness arrests. I strongly disagree with you on that. I also disagree with you that being drunk in public should be decriminalized because you think it ruins people’s lives, future, and chance of employment. When people make the choice to take drugs, drink, or to destroy property, or to assault someone, they need to be held accountable and be punished. Victim’s rights MUST ALWAYS come first, not those of the offender.
I seriously and honestly do not understand why you do not get that people have a right to walk the streets, or run a business without being violated, and that we must be held accountable for our behaviors, and our own personal choices in this world. Nor do you seem to appreciate the seriousness of the fact that the Police have a dangerous job to do that leaves them vulnerable to being killed daily. It saddens me that you have never really addressed victims rights, the dangers the Police face, but rather, you only defend offenders of the law under the guise of them being victimized.
FinFan and Kathleen,
I was at both taske force meetings. The officer Victor did make it very clear that he and most officers use 647f as a way to take people off the streets and thus prevent future crimes. He made it clear that is policy of this department.
Basically, they feel taking a person off the street for a lesser crime prevents future crimes and harm to our city.
Drunk in Public Task Force: Another Bridge to Nowhere?
Sitting in the audience of the second task force meeting, January 29, 2009, I felt the tension in the room. The tension was between those who want to make cosmetic changes in police work concerning 647(f) cases and community members along with some members of the task force who want systemic change in how the cops on the beat deal with people on the streets.
The SJPD insists on hiding its police reports from public scrutiny. What are the reasons? Is the department ashamed of how the reports have been written up? Indications are that they are very sketchy since the department states that future reports will contain more narrative. I take that to mean that the detaining officer did not set out clear criteria for determining whether the suspect met guidelines for a
647(f) charge.The SJPD stated that arrests were made to avoid more serious actions. Have 647f) arrests been used preemptively? Law enforcement “may act to prevent a crime that appears to be preeminent but not to prevent a possible future crime.”
The Task Force needs raw data to help it reach constructive recommendations. No. You don’t have to go over 4,600+ reports one by one. Collecting information through random sampling is efficient and useful. I shudder to think that there will be some changes in how to measure “drunk” and how to handle “drunks”. Focusing on police behavior will be a non-issue. There was a time when community policing was valued by many police administrators. Chief Davis evidently is not among that group. So, are we on another bridge to nowhere? What a waste of time, money and talent!
Betsy
647f (#17),
I stand by my statement in post #12: no competent police officer would ever think it proper to make an unlawful arrest (that is, one in which the elements of the crime have not been met) based on the belief that a person is likely to commit a future crime. If Victor Rodriguez made that statement and is, in fact, a police officer, then he is not a competent police officer, nor is he, by endorsing the abuse of authority, upholding the professional standards of that position.
I did note (Raj’s post) that Mr Rodriguez was participating in the task force as a representative not of the police department, but of the National Latino Peace Officers Association, an organization designed to serve the needs of its own ethnic class (as opposed to the profession at large), and one that relies on group identity and political power, rather than individual merit, as a means to promote the careers of its members. Such groups are in large part responsible for the increase in incompetence found in all levels of government service, for their efforts target not the improvement in the skills of their membership, but the undermining of merit-based hiring and testing systems. As such, it would not be surprising for a member of such an organization to demonstrate a less than accurate understanding of his professional responsibilities and the importance due process.
SJPD covers 647(F) in a one 7 hour course as described by Capt. Kirby. I see a problem in that. I can’t even to begin to think of becoming an expert in one subject in a 7 hour course.
Chief Davis, Please do us all San Jose residents a favor and resign already. The deptmartment faces way to much public humiliation, its embarassing to see our City get bashed. Do the right thing, just like the chief in Palo Alto.
We will gladly accept your resignation.
“…interferes with or obstructs or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way.” This was the favored clause to arrest anti-VietNam war protesters throughout California. It’s common name was “blocking the sidewalk”.
#15—you must be a slow learner. 7 hours to cover one subsection of the penal code is a huge amount of time. The criteria for making such an arrest are not that arcane or difficult to grasp. The last section of the penal code is 15003.
SJ Downtowner 70 (11) number 17’s description is what I remember too. Basically I asked the question as to why we need the law in the first place. Victor responded by giving an example of someone being drunk, and appearing like he was going to go on to commit a crime, like fighting. He used the words “anticipate a crime.” While I understood the rationale, I asked Dolores Carr (DA) and Mary Greenwood (PD) about the legality of it. Mary did not respond, and Dolores went on to say the police have wide discretion. She gave an example of a drunk person getting into a car.
#14-Betsy,
It is not that cut and dried. The Police cannot give out their reports to just anyone because the law requires them to protect victims, and yes even offenders rights. Secondly, criminals use these reports to figure out how the Police investigate crimes etc. It is in YOUR best interest that these reports are kept safe from criminals, and the media who not only distorts facts but also practically prints your name and address in the paper, when reporting crimes. Criminal’s families also deserve protection from vengeful people who might try to hurt them when a family member commits a crime.
#17- 647f,
I’m sorry but I just don’t believe what you and Raj are claiming this Police Officer said in the meeting. A Police Officer should NOT arrest ANYONE just because he/she thinks someone MIGHT commit a crime. I agree with Frustrated Finfan on this one. If this so called Police Officer, Victor Rodriguez is saying or doing that, or is instructing his men to do such a thing, his Latino ass needs to be kicked off the force because he is both a disgrace to the Police Department, and his race.
My question is, if what you two are claiming is true, how could you and Raj just sit there and allow him to make such a ridiculous statement without challenging him on the legality of it? Is it because he is Latino and not white, or is he siding with you guys on this issue?
#20-Raj,
Is it ridiculous to think a drunk would jump in his or her car and drive home? I don’t think so. Many people in DT on the weekend come out of clubs drunk, and then jump into their cars. I see them with my own eyes Raj. You aren’t the only one watching what is going on down there.
Again, you misrepresented Officer Rodriguez in your column and prior explanation. If, “Victor responded by giving an example of someone being drunk, and appearing like he was going to go on to commit a crime, like fighting. He used the words “anticipate a crime.” Being drunk in public is a CRIME, and therefore they should be arrested, whether they anticipate another crime will follow or not! You’ve been making it sound like the Police walk around and arbitrarily arrest minorities because they have a bad attitude, and use the Public Drunkenness law to justify said arrests.
This is precisely why SJI needs to be fair enough to incorporate other stakeholders in this discussion because your version is biased and inaccurate.
Kathleen, I was responding to the question that was posed to me. I asked the City Manager if they had a recording of the mtg, so I could just refer SJI readers there to hear the statements we are talking about, but they said they don’t have one.I’d say you should come to the meetings (I think the next one is on Feb.26 at 6pm), that way the conversation could be based on a dialogue we all witnessed. Perhaps then the discussion on this site would be more forward moving.
I do agree though with you that it would more voices the better, and an invitation to Victor, or another voice from law enforcement, would be useful.
Raj alleged:“Dolores went on to say the police have wide discretion [to arrest on 647f]. She gave an example of a drunk person getting into a car.” That seems unlikely. Most cops would wait until the drunk person started the car and drove off, then they’d bust her/him for DUI. .08 is .08—easy conviction.
Back when cops were (apparently) not so busy, and facilities (apparently) abounded, 647f was the way to get bums off the streets of Skid Rows.
Perhaps officer Rodriguez should have chosen his words more carefully. It certainly would be appropriate if an officer saw an obviously intoxicated and obnoxious person roaming the streets of beautiful downtown SJay, harassing people, challenging them to a fight, etc., to detain that person on suspicion of violating 647f. That anticipation by the officer could easily prevent a battery…or worse, if the drunk dude had a weapon.
Kathleen said / asked:
“My question is, if what you two are claiming is true, how could you and Raj just sit there and allow him to make such a ridiculous statement without challenging him on the legality of it? Is it because he is Latino and not white, or is he siding with you guys on this issue?”
Kathleen I was in the audience; so I’m not allowed to speak.
And yes, that is what the officer said. he made it clear that the police are encouraged to arrests persons that “might” committ a crime in the future. And using the 647f was a convenient way to arrest the persons who might committ a crime in the future.
#23- Raj,
Thank you for your comments. Hopefully the new owner of SJI will comply with our request to have more people involved take part in the discussion, but I won’t hold my breath that they will.
I am very familiar with how perception differs. I went to the same Council Meeting you did, Nov. 18th, and came a way with a very different opinion of what happened than you wrote on here. I have also watched the Rules Committee Meetings, and I know the law enough to know that anything you and the taskforce come up with will meet with many challenges. As I said before, been there and done that for 20 years now. They should televise this taskforce so that those of us, who can’t come, can see what you are doing for ourselves. You know, open government, transparency?
What are your thoughts on working with non-profits in educating youth, and young adults on how to behave when stopped by the Police? Your mentor, former IPA Attard did a pretty decent job of putting some excellent suggestions out for people to follow, on this very topic. She was a strong advocate of being “respectful, and cooperative,” when stopped by Police.
#25-647f,
Thanks for the 411. I agree with JMO, if this Officer indeed said that, he should either chose his words more carefully, or leave the force because arresting an innocent person you THINK might commit a crime is both illegal, and unacceptable.
Raj,
Your journalism/editorial are backed without facts. You are unable or unwilling to produce the officer’s statement, relying upon the recollection of someone else who refers to themselves as “647f”. I did some queries and cannot find in the media anywhere where the officer made a recent statement regarding this controversy. If you and your organization, “De-bug” are to be taken seriously I recommend, you work harder to get your facts straight and independently confirmed. This whole drunk in public issue is turning into wasted time and tax money.
I have yet to see any useful product of these allegations made against the SJPD. These “racist cops”, “don’t be downtown and brown”, and “racial profiling” issues have been being thrown like hand grenades from several “community organizations”. Not one has stuck. Not even a single arrest or conviction by the federal government, that SJPD officers are engaged with violating people’s rights based upon race. If there were, indictments would be flowing. There’s not one DA, Attorney General, or Federal Agent/Prosecutor who wouldn’t arrest or indict one police officer for violating person’s civil rights. The result would be a guaranteed political career.
I’m just a regular working guy, what do I know? But I think since the fed’s aren’t indicting 100’s or even one San Jose cop for violating a persons civil rights, based upon race, the reason is clear…. IT’S NOT HAPPENING! SAN JOSE POLICE DO NOT MAKE ARRESTS BASED UPON THE RACE, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN OF OTHERS!
#28—I suggest you contact Victor Rodriguez himself, to get the statement. That way you can analyze it, if you have a fear of it having been misstated or taken out of context. The other people you can speak with is the staff from the City Manager’s Office—Debra Figone ([email protected]) since she was running the meeting. I tried to get a recording, really just to answer your question, but they said no recording was done.
Why wasn’t the meeting taped? Why can’t the follow-up meeting be taped?
Rose Mary Woods passed away in 2005, as I recall.
Raj: WHAT GIVES? EVERY article you write attacks the SJPD is some form or fashion. You have painted your self-portrait as ANTI-POLICE blogger who had some bad experience and is now on a mission to rip them at every turn. Don’t you think it would be more productive and constructive to be more fair-minded or impartial if reform is truly your purpose?? You are clearly not simply reporting! I can only imagine what you would be writing if you were focused on a force with some issues to address, Oakland PD, as well as others, come to mind. Care to comment? I am sure alot of readers here at SJI would like to hear you address this question.
That’s so funny that Kathleen and Finfan ask for Victor’s quote; Raj and 647-f give it, and Kathleen and Finfan still get mad at Raj. Live in your world, man, and more power to Raj to tell it like it is.
Still waiting to see a prudent response Raj. You have no problem slinging the mud so perhaps you can address your motivations…