When Mayor Kevin Faulconer announced July 13 that he’d be heading up the statewide campaign to oppose Proposition 57, it took some folks by surprise.
The measure would grant early parole consideration to certain offenders, allow inmates who engage in educational and vocational programs to earn good-time credits and give judges discretion over whether juveniles should be tried as adults (right now, district attorneys make that call).
Faulconer’s move pit him against District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, usually a Faulconer ally, who in January announced her support for the measure.
There was speculation Faulconer joined the campaign to boost his statewide profile for a 2018 bid for governor — though he’s repeatedly denied any plans to run. Since his July announcement, though, he’s been relatively quiet about Prop. 57.
Faulconer’s most significant contribution has been monetary: According to campaign finance reports, his 2016 mayoral campaign has given more than $6,700 to No on 57. And in an interview with Voice of San Diego earlier this month, Faulconer said he was responsible for securing $10,000 each from developer Tom Sudberry and financier David Malcolm, both of whom supported Faulconer’s mayoral bid.
But Faulconer was less successful in rallying support from a constituency that’s arguably the most impacted by the over-incarceration that Prop. 57 seeks to address: the black community.
We Stand Up for You. Will You Stand Up for Us?
Say, here's a thought. Perhaps the "communities impacted by over-incarceration" can become less impacted if their members commit fewer crimes.
@Joe Jones Here is a thought that will have, at its end, a command.
The persons in "communities impacted by over-incarceration" are targeted by race and ethnicity. Were other "communities" similarly targeted, the outcomes would be similar; but they are not. I say this because it is well established, by people smarter than either of us, that all groups have similar criminogenic tendencies.
I command you to learn some facts or to acquire some data, the contents of which will prove factual, upon analysis. Fact- driven comments are superior to those produced by an overactive amygdala. Moreover, to sensible people you will seem less silly.
@Joe Jones @rhylton Again,sir, I find you intransigent and disobedient; perhaps dense; maybe all three. Crime rates do not provide the police department with the specificity to stop individuals who have committed no offence or do not meet a specific suspect description. I do not care what you or Myrtle Cole think, for you are both misguided.
To simplify it for you, you cannot stop more blue people because they commit more crimes. California law and the U.S. Constitution does not allow that. Sorry.
@Joe Jones @rhylton The City of San Diego did not release the biased-policing report, as was feared. The scoundrels, instead, have prepared a"presentation", devoid of scale, for public consumption. An article
that covers it may be found on KPBS at:http://www.kpbs.org/news/2016/oct/26/initial-results-show-race-might-matter-when-pulled/
The revealing moment is when you come to the passage that says: 'the researchers list recommendations for the department, including: "acknowledge and address existence of racial/ethnic disparities" and increase
"officer training and oversight." However they do not elaborate on their conclusions."' Officers are recommended for training when a need is perceived for that training. And, like the alcoholic, acknowledgement of the existence of a problem is where you must always start.
Faulconer is a liar, who works with cowards on the City Council. Together, they create, implement or approve policies and practices that result in massive disproportionate abuse and incarceration rates in certain "communities." It should therefore come as no surprise that he will find no support there.
May this lack of support, in all knavish activities, prove to be so for each and all of them; the members of the City Council and all who support them.
With a grimace I welcomed the mealy-mouthed "apology for Historic Abuse of Minorities" that came from the President of the Chief's of police, who are assembled in, this, our Mississippi Of the West. The grimace was provoked by the knowledge that this City's report on biased-policing is more than one year overdue (Phase 1) and will be made public tomorrow. I cannot wait to see if the weasels made their way into its words.
@rhylton Oh, here's a wild guess how you'll react, rhylton...if the public report shows bias, it's proof that all police are Evil. If it doesn't, it's proof that Evil Politicians have covered it up. How "knavish" of those "liars and cowards," in either case. And it's the policies and practices of law enforcement, not the actual perps, who are to blame for crimes committed. And the beat goes on in Fantasyland.
@Joe Jones @rhylton Your guess is indeed wild Joe, but I do not care about guesses, give me facts. And the fantasy is in your comment about crimes and perps. A biased-policing report is a report about police actions. It is not about criminals or crime rates.
As it stands The Apology is something of a breakthrough, since it comes from a lot that have heretofore steadfastly denied bias, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
As for the SDPD biased-policing report, I was the source of the first 9 month's data that was examined and reported upon by SDSU. They reported massive disparities and inverse HitRates. My concern is that they, SDSU, may reverse course, since, after all, the City of San Diego is paying for the report. If they, SDSU, reverse or cook the report; if they are the knaves that I fear, I shall sue them.
Try to learn a little -not a lot, since I do not wish to tax your limited faculties- before embarrassing yourself with a silly uninformed comment again.
@Joe Jones @rhylton Your possession and use of police jargon is undisputed, impeccable and it is matched by your powers of prevarication and grasp “for” wild things (not “of” them.) Unless I am mistaken, I did not claim to be the “sole” source of data to Josh Chanin or SDSU. I rather suspect that the word "sole" does not appear in my post.. Others said or intimated so. My assertion speaks for itself as does the all Document that are embedded here.
My assertion of the two seminal data elements that, in-and-off themselves are strong indicators of policing bias, are supported by the charts that plot Field Interviews over the last 33 months and the other for Hit rates for the same period. As a point of beginning please use the definition of the terms "Field Interview" and "Hit Rate" in evaluating the embedded; if you have the wherewithal to do so.
Finally; what I am writing now and have written before is really not meant for you, but for those who believe that they can use taxpayers funds to deceive taxpayers. To a lesser degree it is meant for those who use the term "communities" because they lack the fortitude to write plainly.
TIME WARNER'S PISSPOOR SERVICE PREVENTS ME FROM UPLOADING EVERYTHING THAT i SOUGHT TO.
@Joe Jones The Rose memorandum advocates the targeting of persons who are predominantly, members of the "communities" that you disparage. But targeting is illegal. It violates not only the California criminal code but also the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly Rose advocates criminal conduct by the police, and she obtained it (even though its practice preceded her advocacy.)
The Field Interview chart shows the disparate impact of the advocated illegal practices, over 33 months, and the Hit Rate chart shows the unproductiveness of the effort, for the same period. Targeting Whites would have been more productive. Asians, until 2015, were a better source of contraband than either Blacks or Hispanics.
If you are unable to understand any of this, please remember that it is not meant for you only, but for deniers or those who would use taxpayer money to deceive. Please feel free to point out any typographical or style errors. I am used to those and commit many of them.
Please share this with your cop friends.
@Joe Jones @rhylton No to both requests, I immediately, from the tone of your first response, recognized you as one of the many who are inconvenienced by facts; those who are comforted by "wild guesses."
As regards the documents (emails) and charts, I was sure that you would not understand, or would feign that claim. As regards the proposed or threatened suit, if SDSU (Josh Chanin) and company produce a document where the findings are essentially congruent with what they presented in December 2014, I will keep my peace. However, if they change their tune, i.e. revise their findings or try to invalidate the data (2014 or 2015), I will rear my handsome head. They (SDSU and Chanin) were warned of the SDPD's self-inflicted wounds, to its data.
If shenanigans occur, I will waste time by providing you with a link to the filed lawsuit.
I am off "to the funny farm, where life is beautiful all the time"...Napoleon XIV
ACTION ALERT: Speak up about racial profiling
We need your help.
In February 2015, the City of San Diego commissioned San Diego State University to analyze San Diego Police Department traffic stop data to shed light on possible racial profiling of local drivers. The SDSU report is scheduled to be presented and discussed at the City Council’s Public Safety and Livable Neighborhoods Committee meeting on October 26, 2016. We look forward to reviewing this long-awaited study; to participating in a candid, constructive and evidence-based discussion of policing in San Diego; and to working with all stakeholders – affected community members, organizations, policy makers, and law enforcement – to bring about positive change for all concerned.
Serious concerns have been raised that Mayor Faulconer may not release the SDSU report as promised. This is deeply troubling given the efforts to achieve transparency and accountability and build community trust with police.
The time has come to hold Mayor Faulconer and San Diego Police Department accountable for a policy instituted more than 16 years ago to monitor for racial bias in police traffic stops. The time has come to hold them accountable for more than two years of broken promises to publicly disclose what the data reveals about racial profiling of San Diego drivers.