I am not responding to this incident but to the underlying issue of police tactics. Those tactics were raised by Daniel and are big picture issues (unlike this incident).
The pro and cons of those tactics were succinctly described in my earlier notes and did not reference "our safety".
It has been my personal experience that there are severe problems with Mr. Yudelson and the departments that he supervises. It is well known of our struggles with Mr. Yudelson administration what is not known are the facts involved.
We asked the town to rectify a problem that they themselves caused, Being fully aware of the drainage challenges that existed they allowed Mark IV to develop the adjacent property without any consideration to potential adverse effects. As required by Henrietta code an environmental impact study was submitted by the developer not by an independent agent. Under the freedom of information act I requested a copy of the report to find only the superficial aspects of the report exist the main body of the report no longer exists.
In early 2013 in an effort to stop further development by Mark IV adjacent to our property we went to 300 + households and since then many more in addition to businesses within Henrietta. The conversations with home and business owners enlightened us to the fact that our problem with this administration is one of many issues residents have with this administration.
In my opinion based on my personal experiences and the collaboration of the numerous conversations we have had with residents Mr. Yudelson represents an ineffective management style of years past. In my opinion he maintains no sense of
being progressive and leading this community into the future .
Daniel, Ted and Lincoln,
It seems to me that not considering how the incident started makes any discussion totally meaningless here. We know someone called the police. We know that when they arrived they didn't actually witness a fight or a crime (otherwise they would have started with an arrest and not just questioning) because there would have been charges. It appears that the 16-year old, Romengeno Hardaway, asserted his rights (to speak #1, not to be questioned and not to allow the police onto his family's property to question him) and the police did not like that. In my book that is usually "contempt of cop" which is not a legal offense. All people should be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights in my opinion no matter where they live or what they look like.
What I interpret two of you saying is that it is OK to violate someone's rights, especially a minority's rights in a troubled neighborhood in order to ensure all our safety. Now we have not seen the police's side of the story, but apparently they did come onto the family property despite not being allowed to do so. Is that really what you are advocating?
I dont understand the Henrietta Town Board has 5 members, if 4 vote against Jack Moore's suggestions how can that be Supervisor Yuldenson's fault? Does that mean that when Jack Moore takes over his opinion and vote are the only that counts? The present Henrietta Town board has done a super job taking care of the people of Henrietta, anybody can make an appointment to see the supervisor with concerns or problems and he always available for the citizens of Henrietta,
Apparently you never had a problem with your house. Try calling or even emailing Mike Yudelson. He does not return phone calls nor will he meet with you... Or better yet call his engineering dept- have them come down and promise you the world and then nothing is done. I have been telling the Breese/ Yudelson administration about my wet property since 2004. NOTHING WAS DONE. They were going to investigate it. Now because the town allowed mark Iv to build next door high on berms with a BOGUS envirmomental impact study( try finding it through the freedom of information act- 11 pages are missing) that wet water has tripled and now sinking my house.( the town never did the study. They allowed mark iv to present their own and they submitted the previous builders impact study). And the town accepted it?
Also the town lawyer and Mr. Yudelson they should keep their story straight. Their version of why they cannot build a covert around my house conflicts with what their insurance states. I was promised since last June" don't worry about it' from Bill Mulligan( who is supporting Yudelson) something will be done- over and over again. NO ONE told me to file a claim. I had trust in the town. I sent letter to the other board members also, Basically I was stalled. The town insurance company told me that I filed too late! What? Filed too late? But I was told by the engineers, bill mulligan - don't worry about it. So I waited until May to file a claim- not to repair my house but to build a covert. My home is an historical landmark. Does this matter to the town supervisor. No. Or to the other town members who are supporting him?
And I went before the town in 2004-2006-2008-2010 to ask them to help me with the wet land. I have red creek running along side that floods. So the town allowed Mark Iv to move in- Flood the wet lands and the red creek next to me and thereby flooding my house.. If the town acted 9 years ago I wouldn't be in this situation now,.
So unless you have a problem with your property anyone can say anything about how good or bad a leader is- But not until you have a health and disaster issue should you be able to look at the town board and wonder if they are the right leaders for this fine community
Vote for Jack Moore. He returns phone calls and listens
ps. Look at the articles written about my house with Mr. Yudelson not getting back too them.. No comment until much later and this is done by the town's attorney.. The town's attorney is saying what needs to be said to the community- however- their insurance company in Buffalo says something entirely different
This article is severely lacking in research! Yudelson's commitment to Town for 30 years the has been unparalleled. Every board member that is not running against him (one ) fully supports Mr. Yudelson. The half truths in the challengers expensive campaign are self serving not the whole story. Mike Yudelson has had a tremendous impact on Seniors and Youth in Henriettta for many , many years--- and continues to have positve impact on the town , with accessibility via personal availbility and use of social media and technology to continue to share and to tirelessly lead Henrietta for many years to come. There are good reasons and an undeniable track record that have earned the 3 other town board members FULL support......
As I alluded to the principal beneficiary of the recent trend toward aggressive policing has been young African American males by reducing their deaths at the hands (or guns) of other young African American males. By the way in a recent piece by Mary Anna Towler she cited crime statistics. The significant one she didn't comment on was the 21% - the percent of violent crime victims who were not African American but in which the perpetrator was African American.
I could have similarly commented on living in "inner cities" but it is irrelevant. By working in a heavily populated hot spot - along Dewey Ave. - surrounded by many young people and regularly looking out on to the street scene there I get a feel for these issues that I never ever could come close to in living in the South Wedge.
As a more particular example, last year after some nearby assaults (one of which led to an African American women suggesting I reconsider volunteering there due to the apparent targeting of white men) we had a meeting. The meeting was delayed a bit as a city official was late. As he walked in he said in passing, 'I was late due to attending a meeting about assaults on immigrants'. No one at the meeting needed any more details.
So the question left for you and others with similar "liberal academic backgrounds" is can you in any way be critical of those that you presume are "far more deserving of our sympathies"? For future reference if somehow I fall into this category then please forgo the sympathy or pity and just offer your honest critical opinion. Honesty can be productive, pity very rarely is.
Living within inner cities my entire life, including growing up in Rochester and graduating from the RCSD, is my relevant experience. As a member of the NYS bar, protecting the vulnerable from state power is my profession. My liberal academic background taught me that discussing these issues with others and trying to understand their experiences is necessary to forming my opinions.
That said, this is really a thought experiment, not a question of fact. Justifying police violence isn't a matter of crime statistics. It's really more about how we value the intrusions into others' lives. RPD doesn't intrude on my life. The entire time I've lived in this city, I've only been approached by an RPD officer once. I was in highschool and having a rowdy house party. They asked me to send everyone home because neighbors were complaining. Then they left.
But that's not everyone's experience. How can we say that a certain frequency of intrusion into someone else's life is justified by OUR safety. Why is it OK for a certain group of people to bear the costs of public safety?
Finally, the "they've got a tough job argument" is completely unhelpful. This is certainly not a discussion about fairness for the people EMPLOYED by RPD. They're paid. They chose to be there. If they're injured, they get paid time off or Workers' Comp benefits. There are many people who are far more deserving of our sympathies and concerns than those gainfully employed by our municipal government.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I guess the actual frequency of police intervention is something I'm not aware of. It's interesting to hear your experience. I agree that there is good policing in this city and that meeting a police officer with aggression is always a bad choice. I would never do it.
I still question why we assume the necessity for full compliance at all times, and why violence is absolutely justified. That's a different question that I don't think we ask enough.
Daniel (and Lincoln),
First, Lincoln your fine write-up contained a reference to "David" when I think you wanted "Daniel".
Daniel, you have a nice liberal academic perspective but do you have any relevant experience with the issues here?
Having volunteered in north Rochester for a little over three years now (4 afternoons a week) I have gotten a feel for the terrain and with it the police's perspective. I also commute there via bike. The crime threat there appears to be dominated by young African American males as it is in the immediate vicinity of the library (Maplewood) where I work. Assaults have been a significant problem. The library has had to call in the police to remove such people and I was there when an officer was injured by an arrestee. It is inherently difficult work for the police and I doubt PC idealizations are in any way helpful.
The targeting you were refer to was covered in an August 2011 article in Scientific American entitled "How New York Beat Crime". The principal victory of that aggressive policy was in reducing violent crime and in particular the deaths of "young men of color" (i.e., African American males). The trade-off of course is that many "young men of color" are stopped.
The rationale for such an aggressive policy was also indirectly made in a frank emotive moment of the NYC mayoral campaign. Questioned about his support for "Stop and Frisk", African American candidate Bill Thompson "thundered" back, "I'm the one who has to worry about my son getting shot on the street".
David, I am white but I do live in a decidedly unprivileged area of the northeast quadrant which is about 80% black and which has a visible police presence. From my experience, and yes I'm not black but based on what I see with my eyes, it's not actually the case that police are harassing city residents just for being black or for being out and about.
Except when the police are explicitly called on, mostly they just seem to ride around in their cars. The only people I've seen the police routinely stepping out with are the groups that are dealing drugs on the corners, and even that is not done too aggressively. I've never seen anybody roughed up.
There are a lot of burglaries and robberies that occur, and oftentimes police are searching for suspects based on a description, so I get it that for a young black person going about his business, perhaps he has had some negative experiences with the police. In this case let's assume that the people weren't actually fighting but were just verbally arguing, and the neighbor called the police out of an abundance of caution, falsely stating that they were fighting. Maybe it isn't fair that an innocent person is sometimes suspected, but it doesn't warrant or excuse screaming at cops, swinging on them, pulling out mace on them, or anything of that nature. For somebody to initiate a physical thing vs. the police and then claim to be the victim, it's deluded - even if the police are trying to handcuff a person and they haven't done anything wrong. But being belligerent with police is wrong and interfering with their work does warrant some response.
The police do have important work to do and they are working in our interest, so in the occasion where a police officer asks for some of our time, most reasonable people will just automatically give it. To say that a whole neighborhood of people are experiencing routine police intervention in their lives, I just don't see it. Believe me, police are not that overstaffed and mostly what they're doing is responding to explicit calls for service and/or trying to solve real crime that's actually just happened.
"I say this especially since the consequences of getting into even a relatively minor scuffle with the police are always severe, as I suppose they should be."
Let's assume, for argument's sake, there is a group of people that is targeted, and comes into frequent contact with the police. For this group, there is a constant threat of police intervention in their lives. Some of that contact inevitably escalates into "minor scuffles".
Set aside for a minute whether there should be frequent police intervention in their lives to begin with. Why is the "severe" response justified? Most people would say: (1) officer safety; and (2) forced compliance with the state. The response must be severe because we can't risk our officers getting hurt and because no matter the circumstances, everyone must yield to police force.
Officer safety is a non-issue. He was not in danger. He had the gun. If Officer Krull disengages- walks away- he would have been much less likely to be harmed.
Clearly, it's all based on the idea that everyone must comply with the police in all circumstances. I get it, from the privileged- from even the majority's point of view- this seems reasonable. But it's reasonable because it's rare. It's not going to happen to YOU. It certainly does not happen to me. For the vast majority of Monroe County, who will have no police confrontation other than the occasional speeding ticket, universal compliance is well accepted.
But for that certain group of people, whose lives are deeply intertwined with the RPD solely based on the color of their skin and the neighborhood they live in, is full compliance ALWAYS reasonable? Their constant contact all but ensures "minor scuffles", which according to you, justifies "severe" consequences. Under this regime, there WILL be "severe consequences" in the lives of the members of this group.
Can you morally justify that outcome?
The privileged class must be humble in its assessment of this case and the important policy implications. Remember that our value judgments are based on our experiences. And we have no monopoly on human experience. Have empathy for Ms. Hardaway,
In the video you can plainly hear the officer state to Ms Hardaway to stay away from that - if he felt she was reaching for his gun then yeah the hit to the back of the head (NOT the face Lovely, not the face - sheesh woman and you are running for Mayor?? Get the facts right which you SAW in the video) was more than justified.
I am one of the biggest detractor of the RPD - I have had several run ins with them - none of them overly positive that would allow me to "trust" the police - but in all cases I was compliant and they didn't have to use the level of force needed for these 2 folks. Might not the fact that they RPD is called several times a month to the very address have played into this also??
Bottom line - the individual who stated the video will not help Ms Hardaway is dead nuts on. She basically sunk herself with her behavior and non compliance. What is the name of the baby jesus was she thinking????
“Stop and Frisk” is a breach of civil rights for anyone stopped, regardless of their race. The actions and abuse by the NYPD are filling the very definition of a “Police State” where citizens are under never ending scrutiny in order for cops meet a quota designed to turn profits. You can read much more about our Justice System running amok and how they’ve violated civil liberties across the country in the name of the almighty dollar at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/08…
It is obvious there was a family arguement. I agree that you shouldn't resist arrest but in this case I have mixed emotions. I myself have experienced racial discrimination from the RPD and I did nothing to be harrased but be Black woman. I have witnessed RPD beat down a young man at the Public Library and spoke to the officer that he was using excessive force. I was called a racist to excite me to respond. I didin't I just asked for his name he then growled very nasty and threatened to jail me. So, as far as the RPD I have very little respect for them this is just a few that I am highlighting.
I don't think any woman Black, White,Asian, Native American or Hispanic should be hit in the head at 6 months pregnant that was distasteful and there is nothing that can justify punching pregnant woman in the head and throwing her belly down to the pavement. I don't care what race she is, how much she weighs, how tall she is she is. The officer should be charged with child endangerment
They need to throw this case out and have the officer publicly apologize for unecessary force. if not you they're making a big mistake because there are children watching and they won't forget this . They are going to have a bad attitude towards the RPD and they will have communities against them. More folks will get handguns and defend themselves by any means necessary, if this continues. Then you will have a problem on your hands because not everybody will go get a gun legally to defend themselves. That is something to ponder RPD.
I think Police Chief Sheppard summed it up well when he said that none of this would've happened if the Hardaways had complied with officers.
Trying to figure out why this video was released? Apparently the family was hoping the video would produce outrage. To a point that's worked - it's clearly a rallying opportunity for the anti-police crowd and even makes mainstream news. But it seems almost certain that the use of force will be judged appropriate and justified in the eyes of the review board and probably majority public opinion too.
Meanwhile the video is pretty-much conclusive evidence against the woman as far as the charges she's facing. So it might make it much harder for her to mount a defense and/or get a good deal. Without the video at least she could claim the cops lied. With the video, well you can see.
Some people are just obstinate by nature and have real difficulty accepting any authority over them. According to other news reports, Ms. Hardaway's behavior in court today was also atrocious, at least initially. It's sad to see these sorts of scenarios play out, especially when people aren't even the subject of police action but nevertheless blow up during police contact due to a character fault. It's as if they just can't help themselves.
I say this especially since the consequences of getting into even a relatively minor scuffle with the police are always severe, as I suppose they should be. Obviously if you resist or run from the police, the police really have no choice but to take you to jail at least for that night. Personally I hope that the woman is able to get the charges reduced as part of some plea deal so that at least she won't suffer a felony conviction. If she can get probation and counseling, I think it would be best.
I think that stepping up the deployment of Tasers to the police force could help here. Without these, if you resist then the police aren't left with much option besides to get a bit physical. With them, the police can often neutralize you rather than needing to continue in a violent struggle. Yes Tasers are already deployed among Rochester police, but only some officers are trained on (and issued with) these. In this case, it seems that none of the responding officers had one. Don't get me wrong - a distracting/compliance strike to the head is likely preferable to using a Taser on somebody who claims pregnancy. But, consider that if either of the two officers who were arresting the brother (who was also resisting) had used a Taser to effect that arrest more quickly, Ms. Hardaway may have not had as much of a chance to interfere, or at least one of those other officers would have been freed up to help with the arrest of Ms. Hardaway.
Perhaps the dome site will be used for this. Imagine the cries of "Winner winner Wegmans dinner!"
I think the operative word on this article “More good news for sturgeon” is ‘early’. (“And the early results of that work are positive”) Sturgeons used to fill our rivers and Great Lakes, which probably made them a keystone species for these ecologies.
We applaud the efforts now being made to bring them back and recover our lakes’ and rivers’ ecology that has been decimated by years of dumping toxic waste into them. It’s good, I suppose, that the test sturgeons have survived ten years in the Genesee River.
But because sturgeons don’t reach sexual maturity until 20 years or more, we don’t know if they can reproduce healthy offspring and whether these offspring can reproduce. It’s going to take a long time to find out.
We don’t know what the other “approximately 200 other substances” will be found in the test sturgeon’s blood. We don’t know if comparing sturgeon from another ‘unpolluted’ river merits comparison to what historic sturgeons were like.
And, we really don’t know if the toxics from the Genesee River—the 32nd most toxic polluted river in the US (see Wasting Our Waterways 2012 http://www.environmentamerica.org/reports/… be encapsulated, entombed, or otherwise kept permanently out of the river’s ecology as we dredge and constantly reinvent the Genesee River for our pleasure.
Website powered by Foundation