[Summit] Jackson Recall election set for May 2

[Emlyn Addison]

I can't speak to the wisdom/viability/enforceability of the CSA, which has
its heart in the right place, but suggesting that one evil should be
tolerated in the distant hopes that it *might* curtail another is, in my
view, an unwise use of our civic efforts.

Of course we all care about police brutality and racial injustice but,
again, let's take a victory when it's in the offing.


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Itisa Costume <itisacostume at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The discussion of the CSA is largely irrelevant to the recall.  It is not
> the case that "lives stand in the balance."
>
> The CSA just isn't the kind of thing that will do much at all. We aren't
> faced with a choice of saving some number of victims of police violence or
> recalling an allegedly corrupt politician. That's not the situation.
>
>
>
> Look at the CSA.
>
> https://providencecommunitysafetyact.wordpress.com/full-text-of-the-csa/
>
> I don't see how it has a chance of passing. It's a cobbled together list
> of various requirements and checklists combined with a little anti-Trump
> immigration rider.  I'd never vote for something like this.  It's riddled
> with problems that would, at best, make policing a hassle.
>
> Consider this provision:
>
> "(2) Prior to performing a search of any individual, law enforcement
> officers must inform the individual of the right to request that the search
> be performed by an officer of the gender of the individual’s choosing.
> Officers must comply with such requests in the performance of searches. If
> an officer of the requested gender is not present at the time, one will be
> called to the scene as soon as possible so as not to unnecessarily delay
> the time required to perform the search."
>
> I love it.  Image a couple guys who get pulled over and are suspected of
> selling drugs or having a gun.  The provision would allow them to say that
> they want to be searched by a woman. I guess we'll have to wait around
> until we can get one of the women on the force on the scene.  Nice. If I
> were a criminal, I'd use this every time I got pulled over.
>
>
> The section on language access is fun too:
>
> "*G. Language access for Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals*
>
> 1. The Police Department shall establish a language access hotline to
> connect police officials in the field with qualified interpreters in a
> timely manner. Officers who wish to question an LEP individual for any
> reason and are not fluent in a language spoken proficiently by that
> individual, shall not question that individual until a qualified
> interpreter is present, except in emergency situations.
>
> 2. Police shall not use family members, friends or bystanders as
> interpreters except in emergency situations."
>
> So, if the police arrive at a crime scene, they can't question anyone
> unless they share a language in which they are both fluent.  They can't
> even ask a guy sitting in a store a question about what the criminals
> looked like unless they speak his language, fluently! They can't even ask a
> bystander to help interpret. Ya, that's a great idea. They should have to
> wait an hour before they can get a description of the suspects. Brilliant.
>
>
> The anti-Trump section contains this:
>
> "2. No department, agency, commission, officer or employee acting on
> behalf of the City of Providence shall use any City funds or resources to
> assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law or to gather or
> disseminate information on the immigration status of individuals in the
> City of Providence."
>
> So, the police can't even provide any information on immigration status.
> Not even information on murders and rapists. I guess the assumption is that
> no one, not even a rapist should face deportation.  I don't get it.
> Regardless of what you think of Trump, this sounds like a bad idea.
>
>
> In any case, you can pick nearly any provision in the CSA and find odd
> problems.  I wouldn't vote for it.  And even if it does pass, it's not
> going to do much of anything except slow down the police a little here and
> there.  They'll have to jump through an extra hoop or two, fill out a card,
> word things differently. Overall, it looks like a waste of time. Its
> potential passage is certainly not a good reason to keep a corrupt
> politician in office.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20170315/bf81d886/attachment.htm>