my first reaction to Evan Schnell's post was to ignore it, figuring it
was obviously ridiculous (i cannot use fully descriptive language
because the list manager/censor would expel me - free speech?). But i
could not resist responding to the specific points for fear that a
hurried reading might lead to acceptance.
Evan Schnell wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Jordan S. Kushner wrote:
>
> >
> > In the CODEFOR neigbhorhoods, people are subject to constant police
> > intrusions that they would not and should not normally have to endure, not
> > because they did anything wrong, but merely because they live, work or have
> > some need or desire to travel through a CODEFOR neighborhood.
> >
>
> Generally they're more likely to be robbed, mugged, raped or shot merely
> because they live, work or have some need or desire to travel through a
> CODEFOR neighborhood. Would you prefer that the police ignored this fact?
i would prefer not to have my civil rights or or others' civil rights
violated in the name of fighting crime. That is supposed to be the
difference between a free society and a police state. As Thomas
Jefferson [the contradictory forward-thinking philospher/slaveholder]
stated: [approximate quote] Anyone who is willing to give up a little
freedom for the promise of a little more safety is entitled to neither.
>
> > Although the police department insists that they follow the constitution
> > in deciding whether to stop, search or arrest people, (i.e. don't stop
> > people without reasonable suspicision that they are breaking the law and
> > don't search or arrest people without probable cause), the realities
> > are that 1) people are undeniably suffering more police intrusions in
> > CODEFOR neighborhoods,whether there is "probable cause" or not;
> >
>
> CODEFOR still requires a crime to be committed for someone to be
> stopped. Tagging, Jaywalking and driving a damaged car are illegal, there
> is nothing inherently oppressive about stopping people who do these
> things.
This statement is contradictory and full or problems. Jaywalking and
driving damaged vehicles are not "crimes," but mere legal violations. I
bet most peoople would disagree that it is not oppressive for police to
stop people for every conceivable violation. The reality is that the
police usually do not do so, and we do not want them to. Most would
prefer that the police spend their time on serious matters. It is not
fair, and in fact racist, that people in low income communities of color
have to be subject to much stricter standards than others. Furthermore,
the enforcement of every conceivable law on the condition of vehicles
places a far greater burden on people who are poor and cannot afford to
keep their vehicles in perfect repair, but need to drive to get to work
and make a living. It is known as "the criminalization of poverty."
In addition, when stopping people for non-criminal violation in CODEFOR
neigbhorhoods, the police regularly engage in intrusions that are only
legally permitted for criminal violations. For example, in February,
1998, a month after CODEFOR was started, I was stopped by Minneapolis'
finest for riding my bicylce through a red light at Franklin and Park
Avenues. The police physically searched me for drugs and weapons, and
detained me in the back of the squad car while checking for outstanding
warrants. After finding nothing, they politely explained to me that
their actions were all a result of CODEFOR, and they do this to anyone
who commits any legal violation. We are supposed to be constitutionally
protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. The search and
seizure for going through a red light was obviously unreasonable. Yet,
i know for a fact that this is regular practice in CODEFOR
neighborhoods.
>
> >
> > 2) the extra police intrusions disporportoinately impact people of color
> > and low income people because those are the neighborhoods that are
> > chosen;
> >
>
> Isn't the point of this thing to eliminate crime in these
> neighborhoods? Haven't they succeeded? I think we all remember the
> "Murderopolis" label? I personally would rather get hassled by a cop
> occasionally than have my place broken into all of the time and get shot
> at once in awhile.
Again, for anyone who believes in a free society, as we are supposed to
have, the answer is no. It is not worth ignoring civil liberties in the
name of reducing crime. It is a reality that authoritarian
police-states have lower rates of crime. Is it worth it? Maybe to Mr.
Schnell; not to me.
Furthermore, despite all of the effective propoganda from the city
government, there is no proof of any connection between CODEFOR and the
statisfical reduction in crime. THe descreases in reported crimes are a
nationwide phenonona, and are actually even greater in other cities than
in Minneapolis. THere are at least two factors that are much more
likely related to the decreases in crime: 1) the record-low
unemployment rates; and 2) the record number of people in jail and
prison. The latter factor again is an undesirable solution to the crime
problem. A third plausible reason for the reduction in reported crimes
- at least as plausible as CODEFOR, is that people in neighborhoods with
high crime rates have less trust for the police than ever and do not
report all crimes.
>
> Would you prefer that the cops just pulled out and let the gang and
> community leaders come to a consensus about how to run things?!
THis is just sheer demogoguery and clearly not worth any response.
> Get a
> grip, the program seems to be working. Look at what home prices and
> the VIOLENT crime rate are doing in these naeighborhoods.
Again, you have failed to link the supposedly desirable trends to
CODEFOR. It is questionable whether the high home prices are positive,
given all the poeple who cannot afford housing. But back to the
subject, it is obvious that the increase in home values has little if
anything to do with CODEFOR. It has a lot to do with the city's
practice of destroying housing and not significantly helping or
encouraging the creation of ne housing, thereby decreasing the supply
and increasing the demand.
>
> Lastly, I think it does a disservice to dissidents throughout history to
> apply that label to the Highway 55 protesters.
You again make an inflammatory statemet without any effort to back it
up. There is no basis to respond to such a baseless statement.
>
> Evan.
>
> Evan Schnell
> Ward 1, Como
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
Jordan Kushner
Ward 8, Powderhorn
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
