New Haven Independent

Posted by: JackNH | July 9, 2007 7:10 PM

Time for Ortiz to go, folks?

Posted by: Bobby | July 9, 2007 7:10 PM

So on one feels safe in New Haven. Well no one feels safe in Los Angeles. Even many illegal aliens don't feel safe. Conclusion: it is too bad that many so called progressives just do not respect the law. If they did, they would first consider what is good for the citizens of their societies, rather than what is good for some side issue. Illegal aliens are not citizens. Citizens have not invited them here. The corrupt administration has invited them here. The two corrupt political parties have invited them here. When an outcry by the citizenry to stop amnesty and further illegal immigration occured a couple of weeks ago, many Republican Senators responded to this outcry. Almost no Democratic Senators did. In fact, they want to increase New Havens problems. Learn the lessons or suffer the consequences, like you are now doing.

Posted by: WEBbloger 1 | July 9, 2007 8:28 PM

Maybe Smuts just doesn't get, or, maybe he does, but, chooses to pull the wool over his own eyes.

Ok.. here it is again Smuts.. Stop playing the mind games and deploy your force to the streets full time. Maybe then, the ordinary loitering, trespassing, destructive teens will be deterred from graduating into full blown hard core crime. Currently, the teens have little or no respect for the police because they now know that if 5-0 is called, they won't respond, at least not in the first hour. Don't expect the street out reach workers to accomplish what the police will not.
There is no need to continue in this debate over symantics, the fact is the job is not and has not been done.

The point is, that without regular police presence, civil disobience is increasing at a faster rate all over the city, especially in NewHallville.

Fact:1. Just listen to the car music full blown all over the city.

Fact:2 Shootings continue unabated all over the city.

Fact: 3 Traffic violations down town, through the neighborhoods unabated at all hours.

Fact: 4 Roving gangs on bikes stopping motorist, harrassing and robbing, unabated.

Fact:5 Little or no corrdination between New Haven, Hamden, Southern Ct., Yale police and Yale NH Hospital police.

Fact: 6 N0 intervention, disruptions or arrest of top tier drug distributors since the 1990's.

These fact are undebatable.

Posted by: bugupit | July 9, 2007 10:06 PM

I saw lawn signs like that button "I Support"...
They may as well say "I support John DeStefano for (MAYOR) (GOVERNOR) (FILL IN BLANK)" Who paid for the signs and buttons? WHO PAID!? Tell us you budgetary numbskulls! Say, I have not seen many green lawnsigns. Perhaps two.

Posted by: FairHavenRes | July 9, 2007 11:08 PM

WOW for WEB.

Our statistic quoting, overly defensive, self defeating Chief Ortiz, killer of community policing, now has this guy Smuts defending and quoting community policing innovations. WOW. It is contageous, this defensive, statistic quoting, cover your eyes and ears approach to policing.

The medicine to change the philosophy is to change its architect. Our statistic quoting, Chief Ortiz has become a threat to public safety.

If our Mayor can not see that, then it might be time to raise up another candidate who can bring new management.

As far as the ID NET goes, it was a joke. It was a model made for Chief Ortiz, based on crime STATISTICS. Saturating the hood with cops just gets the thugs to lay low for awhile, and then, they crawl out of the holes to continue with business.

Time to start listening to the people of the city.

WE DO NOT FEEL SAFE.

KIDS ON BIKES TERRORIZING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. GUN FIRE IN THE STREETS, AND A LONG LONG HOT SUMMER TO GO.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | July 10, 2007 7:34 AM

The DeStefano Administration view from the ivory tower vs. the street view of the people it rules could not be more polar opposite. Rob Smuts is the perfect person to verbalize it. This political strategy is old and tired just like the people who practice it -- deny there is a problem, talk about statistics (compiled by the police department), denigrate the people calling for change, and have a political system that blocks out legitimate alternatives.

For the last four years, our tax bills have claimed the need for more money was in part based on the need for additional police. With this excellent analysis, we see what that has bought us. Ch. 8 is reporting this morning, on another community group on bikes, policing it's neighborhoods. Had enough?

Posted by: on whalley | July 10, 2007 8:06 AM

So if they can meet with gang leaders and know who they are why arent they arresting them?

I think he's exactly right when he says New Haven is on the cutting edge. ID-Net sends groups of cops to harass and lock down a block while two blocks away thug kids are robbing and shooting. Balance criminal terrorization with police terrorization. That's the globalist, new world order, SPP.gov way. Keep everyone afraid then when they can't fear any more take awasy whatever means they have of defending themselves. Gun bans are next, followed by knife bans all the while New Haven will adopt a London-esque surveillance grid just as NY is planning to do. What's happening in New Haven and every other city is a symptom. Eventually economic policies will force all rural citizens into the cities where they can be watched, controlled and taxed.

Remember that Smuts said NH is on the cutting edge. He knows exactly what he's talking about.

Posted by: nfjanette | July 10, 2007 10:44 AM

One issue with this article is that it combines reporting on the statements made by WEB spokespeople with some editorial opinions by the reporter. Community policing as envisioned by WEB may be somewhat different that than defined by the reporter. For example, the concern at WEB meetings I've heard expressed is to make it safe for lawful citizens to walk around their neighborhoods, not treating criminals with respect as mentioned in the reporters' description of former community policing efforts. I don't respect criminals - I want them in jail and away from my neighborhood.

The number one focus has to be on increasing the number of police officers available to cover walking and biking patrols - that's the community policing we need. That will provide officers more opportunities for interaction with residents and give them a better eye on the "street level". Mr. Smuts correctly states there are more officers in training - but we need to attract even more candidates for future classes, and we need to do it without breaking the bank for ourselves and future generations. There will have to be some fundamental discussions about police contracts, compensation, and pensions; we may need to consider raising pay to attract more and better candidates while prolonging the pension vesting period to avoid financial disaster 20 years down the road.

Posted by: Paul Bass | July 10, 2007 11:05 AM

One of the great advances of the '90s community-policing experiment -- and yes, one brought up specifically by speakers at the WEB press conference, which the poster did not attend -- was the end of this false notion that respecting people who commit crimes somehow keeps them on the street committing crimes. In fact, treating people with respect helped catch MORE of them in crimes, because the police had more trust in the community. Francine Caplan and Peaches Quinn both spoke at the press conference about how Chief Pastore and other top cops walked on all sides of the street, dealt respectfully with everyone from block watch organizers to agency heads to, yes, what are now called "the bad guys," to insist on law and order. We locked up a lot more gang leaders that way back then, for a longer time, than we do now.
"the concern ... is to make it safe for lawful citizens to walk around their neighborhoods, not treating criminals with respect." To consider those opposite ideas is to revert to the broken, ineffective, scary, failed style of policing New Haven suffered under in the '70s and '80s. Yes, more criminals (and innocent people) got beaten up by cops, cheered on by their chief, back then. And violent crime went through the roof, much higher than it is in Edgewood these days. Fascism and militarism might make people feel momentarily safer and stronger, but that feeling is based on an illusion.

Posted by: nfjanette | July 10, 2007 4:49 PM

You've present a false dichotomy and then argued against it. You seem to have an agenda to define community policing that is somewhat different that the residents of WEB have discussed. You have a right to that opinion, but you shouldn't mix it into reporting about WEB's more concise positions: we don't feel safe, and we want more police resources on the street in the form of walking and biking patrols backed up from the highest levels of city and police management.

The concept of "respecting criminals" was in no way a part of the WEB discussions that I attended on this topic when community policing was discussed. I attended both the monthly meeting and the special meeting held to discuss and debate this matter and to craft the language of the WEB position. Yes, we discussed the desire to have the police work in mutually respectful relationships with the groups you mentioned (block watch groups, local management teams, other agencies, etc.) and we want police officers to walk and bike on the "street level" so they can interact with residents and learn about the area and the people. But no, there was not what you are claiming is a concern - that the police are poorly handling criminals.

I am unaware of any conclusive proof to back your claim that the allegations of rough handling of criminals was in any way responsible for crime statistics of any time period. Let me state clearly I don't advocate beating criminals, but I do advocate giving the police as much training and as many weapons as is reasonable to deal with them as well to protect the police and the citizens - not the criminals. While we should always seek to protect the civil rights of citizens - yes, even criminals - you'll not find many fans of your concerns about how criminals are handled by the police by the residents that are living in fear in their own homes.

Posted by: Experience | July 10, 2007 7:43 PM

Please explain what experience Mr. Smuts has with overseeing the NHPD. He spent his entire time at city hall running with the mayor to campaign for gov. In fact he ran all the power point shows. Nice kid, but absolutely no experience. If he claims to have it. Then show us. I never saw him as a person with any knowledge of the NHPD when I worked as a department head. Time for a clean administartion.

By the way nice to see the mayor with, what six kids, at Yoga. Still did not hear a response to how New Haven coulds only graduate 986 kids, from both public and charter schools. Plus, don't charter schools take kids from outside New Haven? Does anyone have the facts. Mr. Iezzi asked a valid question, but recieved no follow up.

Posted by: tartanjug | July 11, 2007 7:30 AM

I and many others agree that Smuts does NOT have any experience that should allow him to be holding the important position of Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). We wonder why John Burtula really left the City and are disappointed in his leaving because he listened and talked to the community as an EXPERIENCED person with maturity and knowledge. We were just getting to know him and respect him when he suddenly left.
Mr. Smuts is always defensive and not knowledgeable about the issues that we are talking about. He really did not understand what community-based policing is and did not do his homework on a issue that was started here in New Haven in the 1990's. For someone with a Yale degree he has no smarts and is totally unaware of the realities of people's lives and comments to him.
As he stated at the press conference and quoted in the Register article and elsewhere he actually thinks that the illegal alien identity cards are an example of community-based policing because as he says, "it solves problems." He just doesn't get it and just for that statement alone the Mayor should put him in a campaign position because Smuts seems to always be in that campaign mode of telling us all how great everything is going!

Well, maybe he is in campaign mode now with the Mayor's re-election coming up along with all the Alderperson's that "support" the Mayor.
But if this Mayor wants respect from the community and hopes to have a strong, mature CAO that the Chiefs of Police and Fire report to Smuts is certainly NOT that person. It is an embarrassment to the City, to the Mayor and I can tell you firsthand, that when the appointment of Smuts to CAO was first announced everyone in my district thought it was a joke but
now that laugher is not funny anymore.
Do the right thing Mr.Mayor: conduct a national search for a worthy CAOfor your administration: replace Smuts now.

Posted by: here | July 27, 2007 12:53 PM

To nfjanette,

I find your comments worrisome, I really do. The WEB team has a representative on the citizens review board. All the management teams do.

You aren't explicit about it, but taking your comments on this story, other stories and comments at meetings I have formed an opinion that you are not that aware of the entire mission of the management teams.

I think you might think that your particular interests and desires for where the most emphasis should go, and what the aims should be are synonymous with the management teams' agendas.

I think you need to pause, step back and correct yourself a little.

You don't have to embrace every goal and every bit of the mission of communiity policing, but should be aware of where you diverge.

Taking your comments as a whole, over the last year or so, I find that with the exception of the desire for walking beats, your philosophy diverges with community policing and is more akin to the broken windows philosophy of the Guiliano adminsitration and even more militaristic and traditional forms of policing.

The NH police academy can supply you with its curriculum. It might help because the academy here was established for community policing and instituted a community policing curriculum.

The management teams can consider all goals and missions save one -- the abolition of community policing. The management teams are part of community policing. They were created to be so.

Officer conduct is a crucial element of community policing, thus the citizens review board representatives. The fact that this is no longer on the table, the fact that the rhetoric has changed, the fact that it is controversial to discuss it at management meetings, the fact that you are not even aware of it, is in fact one of the signs that community policing has died.

So I hope you take stock and study up a little. It would be downright subversive to try to get the management teams to abandon community policing.

Posted by: here | July 27, 2007 1:03 PM

PS to nfjanette,

I meant to comment also on your contention to Paul Bass that you are unaware of any stats supporting the notion that crime is reduced by CP style interaction with criminals.

That's like saying I am unaware of a fire hydrant on a street I have never been to, in a city I have never visited.

You seem just to have never looked into it.

This is why I find your comments especially worrisome -- you seem to have a strong desire not to look into it.

If you agree with WEB on more cops on the beat, then leave it at that. Don't try to get the group to abandon communuty policing.

Posted by: nfjanette | August 5, 2007 12:49 AM

"HERE",

I'm honored to be the subject of your analysis, although it's badly mistaken. There is no one definition of "community policing" and it may be that I don't support some criteria that you and others may find important - even critical. It may also be the opposite - that I believe certain ideas or programs are important to the effort, and you may disagree. That's why I believe it's important to distill the definition of the term "community policing" down to a small number of criteria that would be most commonly supported by the citizens involved. In this case, the establishment of walking and biking patrols is that lowest common denominator that all seem to support. I'll leave it to others to by flowers for the criminals that are caught by those patrols.