Fitgerald To Deny Police Bullets For Their Guns!!!

Moderator: Jim DeVito

Kevin Butler
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:56 pm
Contact:

Postby Kevin Butler » Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:57 pm

I haven't seen FitzGerald's complaint, but I think the remainder of it had to do with the mayor representing that Ed's campaign had been "convicted" of wrongdoing by the Elections Commission when, in fact, it hadn't. (I believe the commission found probable cause on that claim today too.)

In a similar vein, the mayor's campaign has not been found liable before the Elections Commission, but the commission thought enough of FitzGerald's complaint that it has referred the matter for a full hearing.

I posted today because I voted with Ed (and all five other councilmembers) to wait for another reading before we passed the appropriations ordinance requesting additional money for non-emergency ammunition (as well as non-emergency copy paper and non-emergency jail food). I took offense to the mayor's mailing, which would suggest we were irresponsible when we took that vote -- never an allegation until now. Obviously, in an emergency, we would fund police bullets. The fact is, there was no emergency when we were asked to hurry that legislation through, so our delay was justified and the hit piece on Ed was plain wrong.

Grace, I've never been offered the law director's job. Please state the source of your information.

Kevin


Bill Call
Posts: 3312
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:10 pm

r

Postby Bill Call » Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:01 pm

As I understand it the Mayor's complaint was that Ed Fitzgeral's campaign says that crime is increasing in Lakewood and the Mayor insists that crime is not increasing. Is that right?


Grace O'Malley
Posts: 680
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:31 pm

Postby Grace O'Malley » Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:04 pm

Mr Butler

The talk that you are being considered as Ed's law director, should he win, has been going on for some time. I've heard it from various people in many different situations. Surely you are aware of it.

Since Ed cannot formally offer the job before he actually becomes mayor, you may be correct that he has not formally offered you the job.

Would you go on record and state that you would not take the position if it was offered to you?


Kevin Butler
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:56 pm
Contact:

Postby Kevin Butler » Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:11 pm

Not really, Bill. I have seen Councilman Seelie's complaint, and the allegation is that because Ed used criminal court filings rather than convictions for the proposition that crime is increasing, Ed's literature was somehow incorrect. In other words, Mr. Seelie apparently is making the argument that his definition of "crime" (convictions) is different than Ed's (filings).

In any event, that claim was thrown out by the Elections Commission at the probable cause hearing last week, and is no longer at issue. In other words, the Commission's decision would stand for the proposition that it's OK to use an increase in court filings to make the claim that crime has gone up. (It would be logical to assume that more court filings, by the way, beget more convictions, unless our police are arresting and ticketing people for no good reason, which is not the case.)


Shawn Juris

Postby Shawn Juris » Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:15 pm

I don't understand Grace. Why would he promise that?
By the way where is your candidate of choice on the question that Bill raises that I've been asking about throughout this race. How can you look at the FBI crime rates and say with a straight face what he has been claiming, let alone accuse Fitzgerald of "phony stats" when they clearly show increases?


Kevin Butler
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:56 pm
Contact:

Postby Kevin Butler » Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:18 pm

Grace O'Malley wrote:Mr Butler

The talk that you are being considered as Ed's law director, should he win, has been going on for some time. I've heard it from various people in many different situations. Surely you are aware of it.

Since Ed cannot formally offer the job before he actually becomes mayor, you may be correct that he has not formally offered you the job.

Would you go on record and state that you would not take the position if it was offered to you?


You can put it to bed, Grace. I've not been offered, I won't be offered, and I won't accept the law director job. Any insinuation that my support of Ed's campaign has something to do with a job offer would be purely contrived. I want Ed to win because I think he's better for the position of mayor. I'm not unlike the great many others -- 56% -- who voted for him in the primary without the promise of a job.

Sources, please. You can send me a private message if you wish. I'd like to shelve this tall tale.


Jeff Endress
Posts: 858
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:13 am
Location: Lakewood

Postby Jeff Endress » Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:22 pm

the Commission's decision would stand for the proposition that it's OK to use an increase in court filings to make the claim that crime has gone up.


But, given the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, mere court filings are not the proper measure of crimes having been committed. Without a determination of guilt, no crime was committted, no matter how many filings there may have been. But, why let constitutional niceties get in the way of a good spin.

Boy....I sure will be happy when this whole thing is over.....

Jeff


To wander this country and this world looking for the best barbecue â€â€
Kevin Butler
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:56 pm
Contact:

Postby Kevin Butler » Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:29 pm

Jeff,

(1) Do you really think convictions, whether by plea or jury, have gone down if filings went up 130% over 10 years?

(2) It's probably the case that court filings are easier stats to obtain from the muni court records than are convictions, but you know what, I'm not sure on that. You raise a valid point.

(3) I agree with you that I want this to be over; I'm not a fan either. I just didn't like the literature claiming Ed and by extension, the rest of us, were irresponsible when we didn't fund ammunition on an emergency basis when it patently was not an emergency.

Kevin


Shawn Juris

Postby Shawn Juris » Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:33 pm

All due respect, Jeff, given that the UCR reports from the FBI don't tell the whole story and that it seems to be abundantly clear that there are many perspectives that need to be considered in order to even begin to understand if crime is up or down, is it not fair to say that this is as good as any? I understand that the court filings do not indicate who is convicted but neither would complaint calls. Given the lack of a comprehensive tool to measure "crime", this would seem to be yet another perspective to take into consideration. There certainly seems to more substance to court filings than just saying that the FBI reports are positive and hoping that no one notices the details.


Jeff Endress
Posts: 858
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:13 am
Location: Lakewood

Postby Jeff Endress » Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:02 pm

Shawn

You can look at whatever data you want to. But, my point was simply that no matter how many reports, complaints, charges, arrests, indictments, informations and extraditions there may be....even if they have increased a million fold, none of those are an accurate gauge of crimes having been committed. Unless there is a conviction for having committed a crime, due to the presumption of innocence, there is no crime.

Jeff


To wander this country and this world looking for the best barbecue â€â€
Kevin Butler
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:56 pm
Contact:

Postby Kevin Butler » Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:11 pm

Jeff Endress wrote:Unless there is a conviction for having committed a crime, due to the presumption of innocence, there is no crime.


Agreed, Jeff. But note FitzGerald's literature at issue says, exactly:

"In the last 10 years, Lakewood Court filings have increased:

Violent Crime
up 30%

Drug Crime
up 70%

Property Crime
up 134%"

Again, Ed is quoting the "Lakewood Court filings" in those specific areas of crime. I think he's careful enough to distinguish, and know the difference, between filings and convictions.

What's lost is that any measurable increase in filings would by logical extension very likely, almost certainly, mean to most folks including myself an increase in actual crime. Anyway, Jeff, I respect your position; I just don't think it's at all irresponsible to use crime filings to account for an increase in crime.


Jerry Ritcey
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:09 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Postby Jerry Ritcey » Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:15 pm

Jeff Endress wrote:Unless there is a conviction for having committed a crime, due to the presumption of innocence, there is no crime.


This just isn't true unless you define "crime" as being an event for which there is a criminal conviction only, which is begging the question. There's categories of crimes committed and never reported, crimes with insufficient evidence to bring to trial or issue arrests, and crimes not prosecuted due to the prosecuting attorney's judgments. Otherwise, if - for example - you cut the police patrols and prosecutors office, it might drop the number of convictions, but certainly not drop crime.

This is aside from the question of whether crime is actually increasing or decreasing or unchanged, which I'm not sure of myself.


Grace O'Malley
Posts: 680
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:31 pm

Postby Grace O'Malley » Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:21 pm

Mr Butler

Thank you for the clear response. I believe the airing of the rumor, and your denial of it, on this public forum should go a long way to "putting it to rest."

Again, thank you for responding. If I am confronted with the rumor again, I can refute it and direct those interested to this post.


Patrick Andrews
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 3:20 pm
Location: Lakewood

Postby Patrick Andrews » Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:57 pm

Mr. Endress,

Criminal convictions and presumption of innocence are unrelated to whether a crime has been committed. If a person is murdered and a suspect is tried and found not guilty, you would certainly not conclude that therefore the crime had not been committed.

It naturally follows that criminal convictions under-represent the number of crimes committed to the extent that reported crimes are unsolved (no suspects charged) or the suspect is acquitted.

Patrick Andrews


chris richards
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:05 pm
Location: Lakewood

Postby chris richards » Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:57 pm

Kevin Butler wrote:
Again, Ed is quoting the "Lakewood Court filings" in those specific areas of crime. I think he's careful enough to distinguish, and know the difference, between filings and convictions.

What's lost is that any measurable increase in filings would by logical extension very likely, almost certainly, mean to most folks including myself an increase in actual crime. Anyway, Jeff, I respect your position; I just don't think it's at all irresponsible to use crime filings to account for an increase in crime.


Using crime filings also helps indicate that the man power needed to process those, as well as the police force needed to make arrests needs to be increased.
Last edited by chris richards on Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Return to “2007 Lakewood Mayoral Election”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests