New Haven Independent

Posted by: FairHavenRes | August 12, 2008 12:31 PM

The honeymoon period is over.

Are these AR15 part of the PERF report?

Cowboy Sheriff Lewis is headed for a hard collision with the community. Long rifles, shoting to kill, pistols shot at a distance, are not as accurate, dogs that bite. Great topics for some of the first contacts with the public. Sounds like Sheriff Lewis is trying to appeal to our suburban critics. MORE FIRE POWER IN THE STREETS AND DOGS THAT BARK AND HOLD, just what we need Sheriff Lewis.

Community policing is dead! This guy will put the final nail in its coffin.

Watch the Mayor with Cowboy Chief Lewis, DeStefano has someone to do his bidding. Cowboy Chief Lewis is far enough from the mayor so he can deny this guy, yet close enough to take the credit.

Posted by: Manuel Venator | August 12, 2008 1:02 PM

AR-15 rifles are military style so-called assault rifles. They are illegal for civilian purchase in this state, in fact. They are the semi-automatic version of the M-4 carbines used by the US military. While it makes sense to have some of these sorts of weapons on reserve in case of situations where their use is required, issuing them instead of handguns as regular service weapons is just another step in militarizing the police force. It seems that instead of community policing our new chief wants to make the police into an occupation army.

New Haven: more like Fallujah every day.

Posted by: Moira | August 12, 2008 1:11 PM

Rifles? Wow. Well, the dogs are definitely a good move. It will be an even better move if Chief Lewis considers these guys:
Law Dogs

Posted by: robn | August 12, 2008 1:13 PM

But marijuana isn't a gateway to stronger drugs. Its a gateway to carpentry.

Posted by: James | August 12, 2008 1:16 PM

Wait a minute, what are we talking about? Replacing sidearms in favor of rifles or simply making rifles available as part of their kit? Because the former makes no sense and is like nothing I've heard of or seen outside of the Spanish Civil Guard. An AR in the car or trunk so that they have the firepower they need if they should need it, OK. But carrying a rifle for every call, having to draw in close quarters is not such a good idea. What about mobility? What about public perception? Are we talking about a cop responding to a civil disturbance call with an AR-15 or similar weapon in tow? That seems both unnecessary and tactically unsound. Much harder to operate in close quarters, much more reaction time needed unless the weapon is already drawn and pointed in the direction of the threat. Does this mean that cops will be interviewing suspects at the barrel of a carbine? I don't want to introduce hyperbole here, because I support properly arming police. But what I am reading just doesn't sound right at all. But how do you misinterpret "he plans to order rifles to replace the handguns that most of his officers carry on the job?"

They can hit longer-range targets with more accuracy -- which is why, he said, you never see reports of accidental police shootings with rifles. Only with handguns.

Actually, the reason is far more likely that there is a far greater number of police carrying sidearms than rifles. I don't know of any metropolitan police force in the country that has replaced all sidearms with AR-style weapons. How often do police need to take a shot at greater than 25 feet, let alone 100 yards? In an urban environment? There's a time and place for a rifle versus a sidearm, but replacing the sidearm as standard issue seems excessive and tactically unsound. How often do NHPD actually have to discharge their firearms? In those cases, how often was the perp better armed and at a range of over 25 feet?

"If you were to have a shooter with an assault rifle on top of a building or even in the middle of the Green, and the police officers could not adequately respond to that with a handgun

Very true, but how likely of a situation is this? Again, if such a situation should arise it makes sense for police to have an AR or similar long gun at their disposal. One could argue that this is the purpose of SWAT, but it does take time to get a SWAT team into place. Better that a cop could go to the trunk of his cruiser and rearm himself for the situation. But Lewis seems to be intimating that this is a common occurrence. I would venture to guess that the majority of the situations in which NHPD would actually need to draw or even fire would be better served by a sidearm.

Again, I am all for giving our police the firepower they need. Law and order, kick some ass. Ooh-rah, Cheif Lewis! But what I'm reading here sounds like replacing the traditional sidearm with rifles. This is odd to say the least. Tactically and from a public perception standpoint. NHI, please get some clarification here.

Posted by: Steve Ross | August 12, 2008 1:37 PM

"They don't bite you as often."

Wow....

Posted by: Eddie | August 12, 2008 1:40 PM

"I'm very, very confident that convictions will follow."

Sure, chief. Why even bother with juries and trials, since we already know they're guilty? I realize there's not a whole lot of public sympathy for accused johns, but why do I have a nagging feeling that this chief harbors a guilt-by-virtue-of-arrest crime-fighting philosophy that will extend into other areas of law enforcement as well?

I'm all for law and order, but I'm a patriotic citizen first. I believe in American values and due process under the law, and I frankly don't see these values reflected in the new chief's statements. I hope I'm wrong.

Posted by: RedScare | August 12, 2008 2:03 PM

"The gateway drug"

Wow. Naive. Simple-minded.

Posted by: Brian F. Green | August 12, 2008 2:09 PM

Sounds reasonable to me. His explanation of why rifles should be available to officers is excellent. Police officers are not social workers, and they need multiple tools to do the job. As far as dogs are concerned, we need to get over the 'Birmingham' hangup about them. We do use dogs now, but we have to borrow them from neighboring towns and the state police. It's time for us to get real and use all the tools at our disposal. Non-lethal weapons like tasers are in use now, and others tools like beanbag guns should also be part of the inventory.

Posted by: True New Havener | August 12, 2008 2:18 PM

Steve -- ditto.

Posted by: joey | August 12, 2008 2:21 PM

Good for the Chief! He understands that somtimes political correctness has to be put aside. Do you really believe that the side arm will be replaced? I don't! The riffle will be kept in the car like the shot gun of years past.

Posted by: Cheri | August 12, 2008 2:23 PM

"What if it turned out an arrested alleged john was asking for directions, and there was a misunderstanding?"

Close to impossible that a trained cop will misunderstand someone asking for directions for someone asking to pay for sex, so I'm not the least bit worried about posting names of johns.

I'm also not too concerned with a violent criminal getting bitten by a police dog - it beats getting shot with a police gun.

As for the rifles...I think the issue needs to be clarified i.e., when would the rifles be used/carried? Is the plan for them to be used in a terrorist type situation? I would be pretty spooked to see walking beat cops with rifles, but according to the article that would not be the case. Perhaps they would be useful in drug raids? Again, my feelings lately are not very sympathetic to criminals, who are more and more emboldened to mess with just about anyone, so screw em!

Posted by: Anon in Fair Haven | August 12, 2008 2:42 PM

Hello critics! Have you missed the recent murders in New haven??? This City is out of control. I'm all for a stronger presence. I'm glad the police will arm themselves with stronger weapons and I think the police dogs are a great addition. If anyone is worried about being wrongfully accused, then maybe you should look at what you are doing to be accused...if your not doing anything the police wont bother you!

Posted by: Deuce | August 12, 2008 2:52 PM

I'm with you Cheri. The only people who are going to complain are criminals and those who make excuses for them.

Posted by: Chris | August 12, 2008 2:57 PM

"They are illegal for civilian purchase in this state, in fact. "

What?

AR types are perfectly legal in CT. Granted I left the state about 4 months ago so I guess that could have changed in that time but shame on me if it had and I didn't know about it. Maybe you mis-typed?

Christ, I'm so glad I don't have to sit and wonder about what's "legal" (read: mommy allows me to have it, gee thanks mommy) anymore. See something interesting or read a great article and then do all this homework to find out if great lord government will permit you own the damn thing. What kind of life is that? I want something I just go get it. And no sales tax to boot. And you're all getting mugged and shot to death by crack-heads and parentless children. WTF, CT. WTF?

Should take some of that Southern border fence money and close off CT so it can't spread it's cancers. One big fence around CT, MA and NYC. Call it the Tri-State Thunderdome.

Posted by: Paul Bass | August 12, 2008 2:59 PM

Chief Lewis called in response to readers' questions. He wanted to clarify that he isn't REPLACING the handguns; the rifles will be a supplement and they will be kept in the trunks of vehicles. Thanks to readers for seeking the clarification -- the chief had been clear from the start, but my original article wasn't.

Posted by: Greg | August 12, 2008 2:59 PM

This is definitely a better story than the one about the seagulls.

The chief's statement regarding accuracy and accidental shootings is correct, but it just needs expanding. Yes, there are more handguns than rifles, but you correct for the number of shootings that took place over a certain period for both and find the rate at which shootings with one firearm (handgun) are accidental (ie 10 in 700 or 1.4%) to the rate at which a rifle is involved (ie 1 in 210 shootings or 0.5%). For the record I can't remember the percentages off the top of my head, but this is what the chief was meaning to illustrate.

The rifles, if they have to be used, can more accurately shoot a hostile subject with non-fatal shots (leg/shoulder).

The cops in this town need all the help they can get, and as a citizen who follows the law, I'm not too worried that there will be any ill-effects to non-crimials with cops having access to the right tools.

Also, 'Gateway to carpentry' is super-funny! My suggestion is to crack-down on the crack and meth...those are the kinds of addicts that we need to remove the source of drugs from. Many of their lives will turn around if there isn't a source for their addiction.

And who wants to donate to a reward fund that we can use to snuff out the culprits in the van-driver beating?? How much money do you think will make some people want to share some information??

Posted by: cedarhillresident | August 12, 2008 3:02 PM

Sorry eeekkk sometimes I feel like a bit of a republican. But way to go Lewis! The rifle will be part of the kit not replacing the sidearm but their if they need it. And I agree with Cheri better a dog bite than a gun shot! The bad guys no longer fear the law and have taken over community's in this city! And unless you are one of them or you do not live in one of these community's you can not grasp the need for the "show" of force to let them know that the party is over!
Paul I love your line of questioning in this interview.
A war on drugs in my opinion is what we need at this point in time. And it is not a matter of say goodbye to community policing...I believe that that, that is still an option...but not untill the communitys are in a better state where that can work again.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | August 12, 2008 3:07 PM

Can I add that I ask every officer I see how is it looking with the new chief. They all seem very positive at this point in time.

Posted by: Norton St. | August 12, 2008 3:28 PM

chris, i wasnt aware a human could be born without parents and when was the last time a crack head shot anyone, seems to me that a crackhead would sell his gun or give it to a dealer for...umm...oh i dont know-crack?

Posted by: Edward_H | August 12, 2008 3:33 PM

Greg

The rifles, if they have to be used, can more accurately shoot a hostile subject with non-fatal shots (leg/shoulder).

This is straight from TV/movies. What American police force allows or trains their officers to use lethal weapons to purposefully cause non fatal wounds?

Posted by: Nestor Makhno | August 12, 2008 3:38 PM

Better arms for the police is fine, but what does he recommend for regular citizens? I would like his advice on what type of gun is most effective in a short-range situation, say, when facing a mugger or a burglar.

Posted by: James | August 12, 2008 3:46 PM

Paul-

Thanks for the clarification. Big difference. Providing the police with more tools to do their jobs is vital, and there's no reason why they should not be able to access more firepower when needed. I do wonder where they will do the training since the Academy range is not sufficient for practice with this type of weapon, but that's a discussion for another day. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to build a birdhouse with ROBN.

-James

Posted by: Esbe | August 12, 2008 3:46 PM

Paul --- thanks for the update.

I am perfectly happy with the new Chief's approach so far, but we also need your history lesson about Pastore's approach to community policing. The key point is that it *worked*, mostly because law abiding folks in crime-ridden communities started to cooperate with the police. That cooperation is missing right now -- "no snitching" is literally killing us.

*Real* community policing can fit perfectly well alongside rifles, public humilation of suburban johns, and long-term investigations of drug gangs. If folks know and trust individual officers, they will start talking.

Posted by: For Real | August 12, 2008 3:46 PM

I am not sure that "cowboy" is the word to describe this new guy. This is really scary. This is New Haven 2008, not Birmingham 1963. We don't need Bull Connor - we need someone who will revive community policing. Attack dogs and rifles ... what next, high powered hoses?

Posted by: JP | August 12, 2008 3:47 PM

I don't get the riffle thing at all. I mean go a head and buy them if you want but what situation is going to occur where you have a subject you need to shoot 100 yards away who's going to stand in relatively the same place for 3 or 4 minutes while you get the gun out of the trunk but you cant possibly wait for the swat team or negotiator arrives. If this were the suburbs maybe but other then the green or long wharf where is this even possible? And to say that you never see reports of accidental police shootings with rifles.
It kind of silly I mean its not like your going to chase drug dealer for 3 blocks and pull the riffle of your shoulder to take a shot like you would with a hand gun. The only shots you could take would have to be slow and calculated so of course there are fewer accidents. It's like saying there are less car accidents when people drive power wheels because the power wheels are more manuverable.

Posted by: Webblog 1 | August 12, 2008 3:49 PM

Dogs and rifles are no good if we do not have a proactive police force which is loaded with policies and procedures. Perf does not recommend the use of long rifles and dogs.
Something needs to be made clear Chief Lewis, New Haven, Ct. is NOT Pomona CA. or Green Bay WIS. or any of your other short stints.

You need to do away with your frequent references to your prior past as a remedy for New Haven.

More importantly, long rifles will negate the need to use the tasers we recently obtained. Long rifles will be more difficult to trace the chain of possession to a officer or officers who fired the weapon.

I am not against installing a forceful police presence, but, lets not go over the top, especially since there has been no history for the need for it.

Posted by: Steve Ross | August 12, 2008 3:53 PM

"The only people who are going to complain are criminals and those who make excuses for them."

Deuce, you forgot to add "and people who are disconcerted when their civilian police force begins to resemble a paramilitary death squad." Aside, and dropping argumentation: your "trout solo" comment in the jazz fest article is hilarious! I actually laughed out loud in an inappropriate place when I read that one.

Posted by: James | August 12, 2008 3:59 PM

Nestor, the best weapon when facing a mugger is compliance. I know it's humiliating and emasculating to be held at gunpoint, but if your goal is to live, your best be is hading over your wallet and walking away alive. Pulling a gun on a mugger, unless you're one hell of a quick draw is not going to get you anything but killed.

In the rare event of a home invasion, if you're seriously worried and feel that you need a firearm in the home a shotgun is still the untrained civilian's best bet. Simple and requires very little accuracy. That being said, if you have kids in the house you may want to reconsider given the far more likely chance of an accident. Either way you go, just put safety number one. Remember that if you are arming yourself you are doing it to protect yourself or family. That includes not only being able to physically defend yourself from intruders but making sure that nobody in you home is placed in danger through irresponsible or careless storage or use of a firearm.

If you ask most cops what the ideal weapon is for home defense is they will likely tell you to remember to lock your doors at night and consider a dog and an alarm. A barking dog is a great deterrent that says, "hey, there are easier targets out there." Have a phone near your bedside to call 911. A firearm is you last line of defense.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | August 12, 2008 4:01 PM

ps I would love to know what streets the poster live on? I believe that there views on this may differ depending on the demographics and on ownership. Ex: we went to meeting once with the popo and our issues where prostitutes and drug dealers but the "others side of the track" where devastated that a man was taking the cans out of there recycle bin that were on the road side? Crime activity can vary street to street in a city. Just because your street does not need rifles and dogs and johns pics posted does not mean one street over does not. And if we truly want to be a community we need to support and help those community's.

Posted by: James | August 12, 2008 4:13 PM

Steve, are we a bit prone to hyperbole today? "Paramilitary death squad"? Maybe switch to decaf for the rest of the day.

But yes, I too am dismayed with the "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" attitude. What's wrong with proving said john guilty in a court of law before putting their names in the paper? Cheri says, "Close to impossible that a trained cop will misunderstand someone asking for directions for someone asking to pay for sex." That's and awfully assertive statement and one that I don't find much comfort in. What are you basing this on? Too many episodes of Cagney and Lacey? Are our cops psychic now? If it's impossible for them to make such a mistake, why do we still have courts? Why not just let the cops sentence on the spot?

Lastly, Edward_H, I agree wholeheartedly. Most defensive training teaches you to go for center mass (chest area). Trying to disarm or hobble someone with a well-placed shot is far more likely to result in a missed shot and "collateral damage." We're not training a squad of police snipers.

PS. "Paramilitary death squad" has replaced weed-fueled carpentry as my favorite NHI quote of the day. Sorry.

Posted by: True New Havener | August 12, 2008 4:17 PM

I gotta say I am 100% with Steve Ross on this one.

"Historically they [dogs] got kind of a negative connotation because of how they were used in the '60s for crowd control,"

I think a more accurate statement would be "Police gave their dogs a bad name by coupling them with fire hoses to eviscerate the flesh and civil rights of African-Americans."

When have our officers been outgunned? It seems to me that our biggest crime problems are teenagers shooting each other and passersby with handguns, drug sales, muggings, prostitution, burglary, and bad drivers.

Which one of these crimes are particularly in need of more firepower?

We are in need of a reinvigorated detective bureau that solves crimes, undercover operations with the feds to break the back of drug gangs again, cops back out on the beat, real community policing, lots more technology and managers who can use it, a better relationship with the states attorney's office, and a strategy to stop youth violence. I get all of this from just reading this and other New Haven newspapers every day and talking to cops and neighbors.

Once again we are getting cowboy antics which in the long run risk alienating the community, not building bridges.

I am glad to hear about traffic enforcement and new technology.

But dogs and long rifles?

Will we be using either in our high schools? Will we be using them at our concerts on the Green? Will we be using them when officers walk the beat?

Somehow our discussion has moved from trying to find less lethal methods like Tasers to more lethal and scary methods like dogs and rifles.

If a police officer does not get what dogs represent in a city with the number of people of color that this city has then maybe we all need a reality check.

Again -- I want the chief to succeed. Hey my quality of life depends on it. But chief put the cowboy hat down pardner.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | August 12, 2008 4:35 PM

Norton St.

Maybe we can actually start a "crack for guns" exchange program. Sure beats a $100 gift certificate.

Posted by: walt bradley | August 12, 2008 4:36 PM

Weed is a gateway to mass consumption of ice cream and watching bad movies. Alcohol is THE gateway drug to other, bigger things. I've never met a pot smoker who acted violently or was looking for coke at midnight after indulging in some smoking of the herb, alcohol on the other hand....
Decriminalize pot and keep my girlfriend and dog safe from killers, that's what i'd like from mr. carpetbagger police chief man.
As for the dogs and bigger guns, i'm cool with it, however in the end, community policing must be part of the big picture.
Gotta go now, it's 4:20, i've got an appointment with my buddy and a pint of ben & jerry's.

Posted by: True New Havener | August 12, 2008 4:53 PM

CedarHill,

To your question about streets. I have lived in several New Haven neighborhoods but never in East Rock, Westville or the East Shore -- which is I assume what you were getting at.

And while you are undeniably a force for good, I think you should hold back on this line of trying to explain why people might raise the concerns that they do. When it comes to our civil rights, we should listen wherever voices of concern come from.

Maybe some of us are concerned about the nature of police-community relations because we have seen firsthand what happens when the police think policing is something they do to us, instead of with us.

Dogs and rifles are meant to intimidate.

When the police show up with either to a public event, they intend to send a message that they are in control and will use extreme force to maintain that control.

No rifle or police dog would have stopped a single murder in this city over the last several years.

Why the chief would be focused on them in his first interview with Paul Bass is confusing. Unless he intended to send a message about control and not crime solving or reduction.

We just seem to be getting a lot of chest thumping.

I want the police to be a presence, I want them to stand up to drug dealers, I want them to move prostitutes from the corners, and I want them to solve crime. We need all of this.

Dogs will accomplish none of these. And if we need dogs to help with arson (currently done by state police) or search for drugs (often the same), then I say bring on the dogs.

But the chief seemed to want to send a message and that message is that dogs can intimidate. But who he is trying to intimidate and why we need intimidation remain unclear.

Posted by: Doriss William | August 12, 2008 5:04 PM

When the police have all the legal dogs, the citizenry will be left with illegal dogs and mongrels,... or something like that. Read my important story at www.africanindependent.com/LAW_doriss_case1 and 2. A cautionary New Haven tale for those of you who applaud hyper-armament of New Haven police.

In the middle of my completely bogus criminal trial at New Haven Superior Court, Nov. '02, I had massive insomnia--couldn't sleep. I called former chief Pastore at home, 1:00 o'clock in the morning. He actually answered the phone. (God bless.)

I said, "Chief, there's no community policing in the Hill anymore,...!"

He said, "Bill, where have you been? There's no community policing anywhere in New Haven anymore!"
True story! I know the rank-and-file never liked him. I know the judges and prosecutors hated him at the courthouse, but in my book, Chief Pastore was a good chief, a great man to know personally, and the right man for New Haven.

I hate to sound pessimistic, but Chief Lewis is getting off to a bad start, and I have serious doubts--posted by me previously--about his ability to fill Pastore's shoes. Why would you give moronic, retarded, illiterate, trigger-happy police officers increased firepower?

That is just crazy! New Haven police should be DISARMED and sent to ANGER MANAGEMENT SCHOOL.

"gATEWAY to carpentry," funny Robn! The New Haven Department "of Police Service" may indeed be the gateway to the Prison-Industrial Complex, as we slide unremittingly toward that police state we were warned about in high school and college.

(yes, I went to college. Has any single N.H. police officer?)

Posted by: Doriss William | August 12, 2008 5:46 PM

I forgot: Congratulations Paul, you made THE NEW YORK TIMES! A Man with a Plan! Not only did I go to college, but I read The Times, religiously,... occasionally the New yorker,... Never never never the Ragister. Nuff said!

Posted by: Alex | August 12, 2008 5:48 PM

Funny, I still don't hear anything about getting the guns off the street and out of the hands of teens. Really, effectively stopping the gun trafficking is what is needed to prevent Gospel Fest incidents and teen gun deaths. Good detective work is needed not street cops carrying rifles to solve the problem. The detective department needs a huge overhaul. All these changes to street cops are more for show. Only good detective work will get the real criminals off the streets.

Also, marijuana is not a gateway drug any more than alcohol and cigarettes and the meds they are giving kids with ADHD. If it were legalized it could be controlled like alcohol, cigatettes and prescription drugs which isn't great but better.

Posted by: Dave | August 12, 2008 5:49 PM

oh great i can't wait to get bit in the ass by one of those police dogs

Posted by: cedarhillresident | August 12, 2008 6:06 PM

Walt I agree. Weed is illegal so that hemp is not put on the market. And to not allow medical weed is a joke. But right now it is illegal and does bring other drugs into community's, so not a gateway drug but it does open the door to dealers to use community's.
True New Havener
love your post as always. I understand the potential for this to bite us in the ass. Yes those where the community's I was suggesting. But in general all community's are affected by crime in other community's because the users will go to those community near the dealers to rob for cash. So until you get rid of the dealers and prostitutes all community's suffer.
When the chief came to our meeting he explained that he told the cops if being friends is what it takes then do that, if playing basketball with the community helps then do that...so As a whole he is not storm trooping the city and I am sure most community's will not see this show of force but the options will be their. Our officers are lacking options right now. He is trying to develop some. I do not have enough fingers on my hand to count how many time so old stinky man has pulled over when I was guarding my street or cleaning it and propositioned me....of course my response may have kept them out of my area for ever :) or as posted a long while ago I was chased by a pimp with a gun for telling him that I did not want their sh*t on my street...took the cops hours to come! So ya see Some areas really need this.

Posted by: Robn | August 12, 2008 6:12 PM

I'd like to re-emhasize my earlier statement. Marijuana is NOT a gateway drug to woodworking, its a gateway drug to carpentry...

...also roofing.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | August 12, 2008 6:53 PM

Robn...hmmmmmmmmmm

Posted by: JohnEB | August 12, 2008 7:05 PM

AR-15s are NOT assault rifles. Assault rifles are full-auto.

AR-15s can be legally owned in CT.

AR-15s fire some of the smallest, lightest bullets and among the least powerful cartridges of any centerfire rifles. A common deer rifle is far more powerful.

AR-15s are less likely to over penetrate people/walls than most handguns.

AR-15s are accurate to about 300 meters. A handgun is accurate to about 20 meters.

Posted by: che15 | August 12, 2008 7:26 PM

Not to sound corny but whether drugs are legal or not legal make limited difference on useage. it is probably easier for a 13 yo kid to get weed than it is to get smokes. like most social ills the solution is in the home handled by parents, which is not to say kids with parent wont do drugs but i bet they have a better chance not to become junkies.
With regards to long guns, hey the world in not getting safer. Lets not forget incidents at Virginia Tech, Columbine or the LA bank robbery. Ask yourself this folks, would you approach a subject(s) armed with an assault rifle loaded with armor piercing rounds, shooting indiscriminantly at helpless victims if you had the standard 9mm weapon the police have? If you would well i hope you are approaching that subject with multiple people in the hopes he has to many targets and not enough rounds, and you are lucky enough not to be shot.
Dogs. bring em in
Both tools ofcourse need to be used accordingly. One should not brandish an assault rifle when stopping a car for failure to obey a stop sign or when dispersing a crowd of people at a football or basketball game. Same goes for the dog. Responsibility should take care of all issues.

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | August 12, 2008 8:17 PM

"Sorry eeekkk sometimes I feel like a bit of a republican."

Cedarhillresident

I am soooo proud of you! Isn't it wonderful to think clearly? We'll get you listening to Rush Limbaugh next!

Posted by: Manuel Venator | August 12, 2008 8:51 PM

JohnEB:

Connecticut state law prohibits possession or sale of any of a list of guns they define as assault weapons. One of the guns on that list is "Colt AR-15 and Sporter." If you don't believe me, look at the DPS web site: http://www.ct.gov/dps/cwp/view.asp?a=2158&q=294488

click the link "List of Assault Weapons"

Or check out state law. Chapter 943 sec. 53-202a defines an assault weapon (listing the Colt AR-15 by name), sec. 53-202b prohibits sale or transfer of said weapons.

Whether these weapons are correctly referred to as assault weapons is probably a moot point. They have come to be referred to as such by the general public and in law. It is annoying, though.

Posted by: Edward_H | August 12, 2008 9:10 PM

Nestor

James advice is right on the money. While compliance with a mugger would be the correct response in many cases. There may be a time when you are attacked in public and you might have a chance to defend yourself or a loved one with a firearm. Or if you own your own business you may decide you need a firearm. In these cases the best gun to have is the one you feel most comfortable firing. While gun caliber is indeed a factor many people forget to take account for the size and shape of your hand and where upon your person you intend to carry it. There is no best gun for every situation. And when you do make your gun purchase, practice, practice, practice.

As for home defense a shotgun is an excellent choice under most circumstances, but consider other family members when making a shotgun purchase. Will the shotgun be the only firearm in the house? If so will your wife/husband/partner feel comfortable using it should the need arise? Also shotguns can be more difficult for persons with limited mobility to handle. Also consider that a shotgun is darn near impossible to conceal. If someone is banging on your door at 2AM you will not be sure of their intentions. Did they just get into an accident and are seeking help or are they pretending in order to get you to open the door? Most likely you would feel the need to take your shotgun to the door with you in case the person on the other side intends you harm. Now if you open the door and the person is really seeking help or just a random drunk there is a possibility of them telling the cops you were "brandishing" your shotgun and you might find yourself in trouble depending on which officer responds to the call. Now if you have a handgun you can slip it into your waistband or a belly band designed to carry a gun and your won't have any anti-gun person freaking out even though they were knocking on your door asking for help.

Posted by: Alex | August 12, 2008 9:12 PM

Still the point is to disarm our teens. Rifles for cops are not going to do that, only good detective work to keep gun dealers, who are worse than drug dealers, from selling guns to our kids! Doesn't anybody get it!!! Let's solve the real problems.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | August 12, 2008 9:52 PM

My daugther has German Breed Schtzhund train Rottweilers and a Home Alarm System.Never a break
in at her home.

Posted by: Shane | August 12, 2008 10:03 PM

Alex,
What the heck to you have against the current detective bureau? Most of the problems there were taken care of recently and many new detectives have been made. I know, you have all the answers. Dogs ARE needed, for patrol, drugs and bombs. As with any tool, if the handler is misusing it, take it away from them. True New Havner, dogs CAN help to get guns off the street by apprehending the people with them. Didn't you just read about the four people arrested last week for robbing a bank in East Haven? State dogs helped with that case and, due to contractual issues, CSP can't always be called in. Dogs can also help in missing children/elderly and yes, to restore order. Too bad if the thugs are afraid of them....it's about time they were afraid of something. They're not afraid of beating an innocent man half to death or shooting near innocent people, breaking into homes/businesses... I say, bring 'em on....some of us have your back, Chief!

Posted by: FairHavenRes | August 12, 2008 10:32 PM

Paul, thanks for the depth you brought to the questioning of this interview. Remember that nut reporter asking the Chief about if he had New Haven pizza yet? Please.

The honeymoon is over for Short Stint Sheriff Lewis, cowboy of New Haven.

Where was the mayor's media relations person on this interview? Bet you it is the last time he is allowed to solo on an interview.

Chief Warring took guns of the street. That is what we need to do!

Short Stint Sheriff Lewis is trying to gain points with the cops and the "repuublicans." Grandstanding.

I cant wait to see these other guys he bings to New Haven. This cowboy serial would be funny if their werent so many people dying.

Posted by: Edward_H | August 12, 2008 11:22 PM

Cedarhill

a long while ago I was chased by a pimp with a gun for telling him that I did not want their sh*t on my street...took the cops hours to come!

Next time try sprinkling some flour on the street and tell the cops the pimp did it. I am sure you will get a faster response.

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/09/city_wont_make.php

Posted by: Jimbo | August 12, 2008 11:33 PM

Good for the chief. America's cities need more Police Chiefs like James Lewis who are willing to fight crime and take on criminals. Of course all the crazy libs will protest more criminals being locked up, but you know what, that's where criminals belong - behind bars. It sounds like the former police chief was a con mans dream. I'm sure he had a part in allowing New Haven to become the hell hole it is.

Posted by: Bob Abuey | August 13, 2008 12:36 AM

Thank you JohnEB for posting FACTS, unlike some other people. For all who dont know, the term "assault weapon" means a gun that can be switched between automatic and semi-automatic fire.
Its about time a police chief takes a stand against the past ways of no chase, no dog, Pastore-whore-mongering (ouch, did I say that?), thug coddling, political a#% kissing, and the list goes on...
People need to stop labeling Lewis as a "cowboy" and start looking at him as a leader who has been a success in other cities who has something to offer.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | August 13, 2008 3:24 AM

Word on the street is you can get good weed from those seagulls posing as community college students on Crown Street. What next?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | August 13, 2008 8:17 AM

fedupwithliberals

:)

Posted by: anon | August 13, 2008 8:42 AM

OK, I have heard enough. This chief was brought in to implement PERF recommendations and I have not heard him publicly address a single one of those recommendations and how he would do it.

Seems like he is running for a more permanent position? Does he want the job permanently?

If he doesn't address PERF now, the honeymoon is over.

Posted by: True New Havener | August 13, 2008 8:47 AM

Shane --

I don't disagree (as I said before) with using dogs in most of the ways you suggested. Unfortunately the chief did not only highlight those ways. He pointed to use of the dogs in ways meant to intimidate. And that intimidation will necessarily happen to lots of people who are not criminals. While there are good investigative uses of dogs, there are basically NO good enforcement uses of dogs. Simple distinction.

Bob Abuey --

I'm guessing you moved away from New Haven and remember with disdain when Pastore stopped cops from beating up kids on the regular. Of course he also broke up the drug gangs, reduced the murder rate, and basically created community policing. This in turn led to a generation of safer streets which only in the last few years started to go in the other direction.

Edward_H --

Love ya. You are consistent. Mugger -- buy a gun. Home defense -- buy a gun. Leaky sink -- buy a gun.

Fed Up With Liberals

Yoda says: You will not bring Cedar Hill to the dark side. Luke, get in here and banish Vader back to East Haven. (But touché on your comment nonetheless.)

Posted by: anon | August 13, 2008 8:53 AM

Round about now it would be a good idea for the NAACP, which did nothing after the Elks meeting, to make up for it with a letter to PERF asking about its basis for recommending this man, to the committee put together by mayor to deal with PERF to see if they have any responsibility to opine on this cheif's ability to implement PERF, to Kevin Kane and Michael Dearington, state's attorney, demanding that PERF be implemented, to the mayor and alderman and public safety committee demanding that PERF be implemented and demanding that Lewis submit his schedule for doing so.

and by the way - I am leaving new haven -- another of the kind of suburbanite you lured back here only to screw

Posted by: eddie | August 13, 2008 9:00 AM

Jimbo: Nothing against locking up criminals. But that's by far the most expensive way of dealing with crime. Prevention, intervention, drug treatment, youth programs and community policing give you a lot more for your money. Us "crazy libs" kind of prefer an ounce of prevention to a pound of cure. It costs less.

Posted by: Steve Ross | August 13, 2008 9:18 AM

James,

I never drink decaf (unless I'm at my girlfriend's parents' house, in which case I do so very politley). Also, I was exaggerating for comic effect.

I can't believe how many of us aren't appalled by this. Still, the commentary has been of a high quality, and I can see how scared many of us are. I just worry about those whose fear has turned to anger and cynicism. Is it excessive to see these things as precursors totalitarianism? Maybe. But our national politics might indicate otherwise.

Posted by: EASTROCKR | August 13, 2008 9:27 AM

More Guns are never the answer.

How about taking that money and increaing foot patrols and communitty outreach.

Posted by: Edward_H | August 13, 2008 10:41 AM

True New Havener

Love ya. You are consistent. Mugger -- buy a gun. Home defense -- buy a gun. Leaky sink -- buy a gun.

Love you too. But if you were attempting humor you need to work on it a bit more. Did you read Nestor's original question? If not please read below:

Better arms for the police is fine, but what does he recommend for regular citizens? I would like his advice on what type of gun is most effective in a short-range situation, say, when facing a mugger or a burglar.

While I freely admit I am not the Chief I do have more than your average citizen's knowledge of firearms. Nestor did not ask "What should I do when confronted by a mugger?" or "What is the best way to secure my home?" or "How do I fix a leaky sink?" He specifically asked for firearm recommendations for certain scenarios. Was I supposed to assume that Nestor does not know he should lock his doors at night and get exterior motion lights? I certainly did not recommend a firearm as an all purpose solution for personal protection and home maintenance. Please let me know what part of my post made you think I did. Some people are better off with a alarm system or a dog. Although you did not ask, in an effort to show you I don't recommend a firearm for all people I would like to recommend that you use wine/cheese and a group hug when confronted by a burglar /home invasion.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/13/america/NA-ODD-US-Robber-Group-Hug.php

Good Luck!!

Posted by: bfair | August 13, 2008 10:57 AM

My initial reaction was not to react, just read and move on but as I read and shook my head I also knew that some of you who would be disappointed if I do not comment so here it is. Sharpen your knives. I applaud Cowboy Lewis for his scare tactics. A+. You can now cement your plan to turn New Haven in an unrelenting warzone. Remember violence begets violence and fear and intimidation accounts for much of the violence we witness on the streets now. Dogs, guns, rifles, tasers. What's next? tanks and the national guard? Wow! Snipers on buildings and on the green, Virginia Tech? Are you sure you're watching the right movie? How will the dogs and rifles address corruption withn the ranks, community concerns and mismanagement? Rush Limburgh is a perfect example of the injustice and inequity of the drug war. We should all begin to listen to this self admitted drug addict who spent 0 days in jail for his drug policy violations. Cetain convictions? Every onther day we hear about yet another man (primarily Black men) who have been released from prison after spending decades behind bars for crimes they never committed because of the "certainty of conviction" in Amerikkkan Justice.Final question? When the officers try to befriend the youth will they be explaining how the rifle and dogs cement that relationship? To my fans:Don't be disappointed if I don't make it back to respond to your responses. Get it off anyway.

Posted by: Cheri | August 13, 2008 12:39 PM

I don't know what all the fuss is about with comments of violence begetting violence, etc.

Although I understand why some people may be uncomfortable with the rifle thing, perhaps we should wait and see if/how/what changes take place over the next several months before screaming "police brutality."

I am extremely concerned about the big upswing in crime in New Haven, and I've been harrassed and threatened just biking through town on several occasions. Not all violent criminals are going to have some magical life changing experience just because of some after school program - some of these people need to be dealt with like the miserable menaces to society that they are. I hope that some new police policies are enacted, and that they scare the shit out of certain criminals who at present, seem to be fearless and without conscience. Remember, they are CRIMINALS, NOT VICTIMS.

Posted by: Edward_H | August 13, 2008 1:09 PM

Norton Street

seems to me that a crackhead would sell his gun or give it to a dealer for...umm...oh i dont know-crack?

Crackheads are addicts, but most of them aren't stupid. Many know they can get much more over time buy using a gun to rob people. And drug dealers usually have access to guns. Trading crack for a gun off a crackhead is a total waste of crack.

Posted by: Deuce | August 13, 2008 3:27 PM

Edward H: "I certainly did not recommend a firearm as an all purpose solution for personal protection and home maintenance"

I prefer a crossbow.

Posted by: Nestor Makhno | August 13, 2008 3:57 PM

James and Edward, thanks for the tips on firearms. In homage to William S. Burroughs, I have been painting a series of shooting range targets. In fact my recent interest in guns really has less to do with concerns about crime than a desire to riddle my paintings with holes! Still, I think it wise to purchase a gun that's well suited for self-defense, too, and I'll be taking the advice each of you provided into account.

Posted by: Insider | August 13, 2008 4:32 PM

I don't understand the debate over the use of the long rifle, over a handgun. You only have to look at recent history Virgina Tech, Columbine, the Amish school in Pennsylvannia, the bank shoot out in Los Angeles.

Would our cops be prepared for somthing of that magatude?, or would there be a ton of dead people and cops? And the arguing over the dogs, it's a no brainer, dogs track better then humans, and it safer for the cops to send in a dog rather then be ambushed like an Officer Aselton.

I know your going to get the same liberal garbage about cops with guns, but public and officers saftey should come first, not the la la land of touchy feely liberal, criminal coddling that governs the bloggers of this page.

Posted by: bob Abuey | August 13, 2008 4:56 PM

What kills me is all the complaints of how these rifles will make new haven a militaristic state. Lewis is just keeping New Haven up with the times, many towns have some type of long gun SECURED in their patrol cars. They dont take the gun out to respond to calls, or walk down the street with the guns slung over their shoulders, theyre there for emergency situations which would require the additional firepower. Same thing with the dogs, almost ALL towns have some sort of canine unit (New Haven has NONE). It seems to me that NHPD cant do a damn thing without catching flak from all ends of the city.

Oh, and "Amerikkkan justice"? Cute, real cute.

Posted by: che15 | August 13, 2008 6:32 PM

i didnt realize every one in prison was innocent. thank you to the bloggers of the independent who pointed that out. i think the nhpd should now sit in there cars and laugh as new haven falls futrther and further into social decay. amerikkkan justice, fing hysterical!

Posted by: JZ | August 13, 2008 6:35 PM

Chief Lewis will be here 18 months. If he wants to try something new, then so be it. Parts of N.H. are completely under the control of thugs. Dogs, longer guns, and publicizing names (which I think might be extremely effective) is unlikely to make the situation worse. Might as well give it a chance.

There was serious outcry when Guiliani unleashed an agressive police force in NYC, but everyone appreciates the wildly sucessful end result.

The knee jerk reactions of my fellow liberals are all too predictable. Violence begets violence ("let peace reign" and other bumper stickers), more social programs, dogs = Birmingham. Oh brother! This town is too much sometimes.

Posted by: True New Havener | August 13, 2008 7:09 PM

Edward_H --
While I freely admit I am not the wine and cheese expert that Julia Child was, I do have more than your average citizen's knowledge of wine and cheese. Nestor did not ask "What Guda should I use when confronted by a guest?" or "What is the best way to secure my chardonnay?" or "How do I fix a leaky cork?" He specifically asked for wine and cheese for certain scenarios. Was I supposed to assume that Nestor does not know he should chill his wine at night and get exterior refrigeration? I certainly did not recommend a riesling as an all purpose solution for personal gratification and home visitors. Please let me know what part of my post made you think I did. Some people are better off with a zinfandel or a limberger. Although you did not ask, in an effort to show you I don't recommend a havarti for all people I would like to recommend that you use guns and dogs and a riot baton when confronted by a group of youth headed to a little league game.

Oh . . . SNARK! I assume you were joking as well . . . right ??? !

Posted by: JohnEB | August 13, 2008 8:23 PM

Manuel Venator

"Who may possess Assault Weapons in Connecticut?

Law enforcement and military personnel may possess Assault Weapons in connection with their official duties, and any person who has a Certificate of Possession issued by the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit may possess the Assault Weapon listed on their certificate."

If you owned an "assault weapon" prior to the passage of the law, you had the ability to register and keep the firearm.

Posted by: JohnEB | August 13, 2008 8:29 PM

Bob Abuey,

Actually an assault RIFLE can be switched between modes.

An assault WEAPON is a horribly redundant term which before it was usurped by the gun controllers had been used to refer to anything from a knife to a revolver to a semi-auto pistol to a bolt action rifle to a machine gun. Until the passage of laws in a few states and by federal law in 1994, the term was undefined. After these laws, it became defined as certain specific firearms or firearms with certain objectionable features (like bayonet lugs - when was the last rifle bayonet attack?).

Posted by: JohnEB | August 13, 2008 8:33 PM

BTW, "AR-15" is trademarked by Colt. Several other companies (Bushmaster, DPMS, Armalite, Stag, PWA, Olympic, etc) make or have made AR-15 clones. Though they are commonly referred to as "ar-15s, they are not legally AR-15s and are therefore not banned by the name "AR-15".

Posted by: Manuel Venator | August 13, 2008 9:10 PM

My own complaint had to do with the original, apparently inaccurate, version of the article, that said that handguns were to be replaced by rifles. Now that the article was updated to make it clear that the story is only that rifles will be made available if needed but police will keep their sidearms, I think the real story is not that they are being supplied but that they were not already there.

Posted by: nfjanette | August 13, 2008 9:18 PM

This article setup the false dichotomy of weapons vs. community policing and the masses appear have gleefully followed down that path. There is no contradiction at all. Community policing does not mean going easy on criminals. It means providing regular person to person exposure of beat cops to residents so that relationships are formed based upon trust and mutual respect. That respect doesn't have to come from coddling criminals.

It should be up to law enforcement professionals to determine what equipment and training is required, not the left-wing peanut gallery. Such decisions, if placed in the hands of the anti-cops, would result in police uniforms with neckties and officers with flowers in their hair rather than the equipment required to best protect and serve the public.

If a situation regrettably occurs in which an officer must use deadly force, I would prefer that officer was aiming a rifle with a modern enhanced optical site with laser dot marker and placing shots carefully rather than letting loose with an entire magazine of 9mm Glock rounds (most missing the target and becoming a potential danger to the public) trying to stop an armed criminal.

I understand the historical negative image of the police dogs, but let's also note that trained canines ride every day in cities throughout this country working with their handlers to protect and serve, and sometimes pay the ultimate price for their service. Far more good than bad has been received by the public from police dogs and the brave officers who work with them.

Posted by: jlowe332 | August 13, 2008 9:47 PM

Hello you people are reading into this inrerview to much. The sidearms will not be replaced if you listen he said its another alternative. Other big cities in Connecticut have long rifles or shotguns in their cars. I talked to my cop friend and he said how all the small towns surrounding this city have shotguns in their cars and some have rifles. You people sound like he wants to make this Iraq but he said its a safety issue for the police and citizens. (thanks for the protection)
This is the only city I know that tries to run the police. Thanks to Chief Pastore this City has this problem. He ruined the cops, the department and the moral by hiring unqualified officers. The department is finally getting rid of some of the Pastore trash (hired by Pastore) Pastore only catered to drug dealers. Did we forget why he left he was not moral himself. He treated his officers like crap.
When it comes to catching Johns start watching more cops shows where arrests are recorded and filmed. If you want to know more talk to the officers and stop speculating. I think your all cop haters. Maybe you should live in Mexico or Cuba and then maybe you would probably appreciate the police. I dont think Chief Lewis said he wants the police walking around with an AR-15 be real.

Posted by: jackie | August 13, 2008 9:52 PM

(/i) "Lewis said both tactics need to be used: longer-term investigations, and occasional sweeps to relieve neighborhoods, even temporarily of danger and out-of-control behavior." (/i)

Please note that remarks that attempt to characterize Lewis with a "plan to turn New Haven in an unrelenting warzone" (vel sim.) have totally ignored his remarks I quoted above.

You know, it is possible that community policing (or its most recent manifestation in the past few years) had already begun to fail due to a lack of the kinds of sweeps that can restore order and that Lewis proposes to reinstate. There can't be "community policing" either, if the community is afraid that the law enforcement will refuse to enforce the law. That's why I like this guy. He seems to say it's possible to do both.

Oh. And the characterization of Lewis as a cowboy is inept. HE'S NOT A LAWLESS BANDIT--HE'S THE GOSH DARN SHERIFF. All the people who suggest we shouldn' have such a strong-appearing chief are the real "cowboys" -- "No respect for the law..."

Now as to the real "bandits" -- they would be the gang members. And guess what?

They're the ones who have been making the "west" that is New Haven so "wild" -- not the new chief whom we have no reason to distrust (yet). Heck, he even followed up with Paul on the comments.

Posted by: James | August 13, 2008 10:26 PM

I would like to object to the presence of Germans on the force. Historically the Germans did some very bad things to the Jews. Given the city's large Jewish population I think that it is insensitive to have anybody of German descent on the force. Why can't this city be more culturally sensitive?

PS. Of course the dogs cannot be German Shepards. My reasoning should be obvious, plus they are scary. Again, cultural sensitivity should be the first priority of the police department. I would like to suggest that they use non-offensive, non-threatening Chihuahuas. I mean, if that's not somehow offensive to our Mexican-American residents. If it is, I guess we could just use cats. "Sir, if you won't surrender peacefully I am sending in Fluffy!"

Posted by: Bob Abuey | August 13, 2008 10:43 PM

Johneb - You're right, rifle would have been the right term as opposed to weapon, and was what I meant to say. Sorry for the mixup.

Posted by: LastStraw | August 13, 2008 11:05 PM

"Several other companies (Bushmaster, DPMS, Armalite, Stag, PWA, Olympic, etc) make or have made AR-15 clones.......they are not legally AR-15s and are therefore not banned by the name "AR-15"."
If we really wanted to make everyone nervous we could point out that over 230 "clones" made by various companies are currently available for purchase in CT.

"Such decisions, if placed in the hands of the anti-cops, would result in police uniforms with neckties and officers with flowers in their hair rather than the equipment required to best protect and serve the public."
Did this remind anyone else of Pastore's idea to make the police uniforms bright red??

"New Haven: more like Fallujah every day."
While this one was part of an anti-gun post, the sentence rings true when you consider the NHPD is understaffed and under-equipped. Yep, just like our boys and girls in Fallujah.

What really surprised me about this article was the fact that NHPD officers didn't already have these tools at their disposal.

Oh, and have we really had this many responses without a single "traffic calming" reference?!

Posted by: anon | August 14, 2008 9:57 AM

this debate has gotten naive.

Lewis is supposed to be implementing PERF rec's.

He chooses what public pronouncements to make and he isn't making any about that.

there is a reason for that.

I like his policy about johns. I don't mind cops having rifles in their cars.

But open your ears.

NAACP, which got all kinds of energy going at Elks and then did exactly zilch with it because they are totally lacking in leadership ability should take that support and use it now to write at least some of the letters I recommended above and find out what the heck this guy is doing.

You don't have to be against rifles and prostitution crackdowns to write those letters -- it is past time to know what he is doing on PERF.

escalating hysteria on the blog posts isn't going to get that done

After a few public releases, how Lewis is playing the press is starting to become evident

Posted by: Steve Ross | August 14, 2008 10:03 AM

I don't know, James, my brother's chihuahua is pretty threatening, especially when brandishing the red rocket (semi-automatic weapon of Canis familiaris).

Posted by: Manuel Venator | August 14, 2008 12:40 PM

Laststraw: You have no idea what I was objecting to if you think I am anti-gun. I am actually an advocate for civilian ownership of most firearms, including so-called assault weapons, and if I had my way this state's lame, badly written and ultimately useless assault weapon ban would be rescinded.

What I object to is police acting like an occupation army. I also object to police who are increasingly encouraged to have and us vs. them mentality, where them means not the criminals but anyone who doesn't wear a uniform. The article, before it was updated and corrected, seemed to indicate that while some beat cops would still have handguns, everyone else would be wandering around carrying rifles, which struck me as entirely inappropriate for anything other than an occupation army. Thus my Fallujah reference.

The police should have access to rifles when needed and the fact that they apparently don't seems to be something that someone should be investigating.

Posted by: Westville Mom | August 14, 2008 2:07 PM

A recent article about a smaller city, for what it's worth:
"Annapolis Crime Decreases Under New Police Chief"
http://wjz.com/local/annapolis.crime.2.794474.html

Synopsis: Article credits creation of police "teams", as opposed to single officers, and increased intelligence, enforcing of warrants, and use of high technology. Mention is also made of community groups providing "mentoring" in such capacities as help with homework.

Posted by: Edward_H | August 15, 2008 10:22 AM

True New Havener

Sorry ,all jokes aside, but I cannot make any sense of your post @ August 13, 2008 7:09 PM. Was this another attempt at humor?

Posted by: Edward_H | August 16, 2008 7:06 PM

Rush Limburgh is a perfect example of the injustice and inequity of the drug war. We should all begin to listen to this self admitted drug addict who spent 0 days in jail for his drug policy violations.

Anyone else shocked that BFair is a Rush Limbaugh fan?

Posted by: KAMB | August 17, 2008 1:09 PM

EXCELLENT chief! We're all behind you.