The family and friends of Sean Bell will receive more than $7 million from the city stemming from the shooting of Bell and his two friends, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield. The settlement is a large one, but it doesn't beat out the settlement reached last month in the case of Barry Gibbs, a man who spent 19 years behind bars after being framed by an NYPD detective for murder. Gibbs will receive $9.9 million from the city.
So who pays the $17 million for police malfeasance? You and I do, of course. Despite the fact that we know who pulled the triggers that killed Bell and injured his friends - Marc Cooper, Gescard Isnora (who fired the first shot), and Michael Oliver (who fired 31 shots, requiring a magazine change) - none of these men will be contributing to the $7 million settlement. This is also not the first time Michael Oliver has cost the city more money than he's worth: in 1995 Oliver shoved a livery cab driver's head into a car window, resulting in a $10,000 settlement to the victim. Somehow Oliver kept his job so he could later cost the city even more money in the Bell case.
Former Massachusetts House speaker Salvatore DiMasi, who is awaiting federal charges related to bribery, including conspiracy to defraud the federal government, extortion, mail fraud and wire fraud, will continue to receive his $5,000 monthly pension. The ruling, handed down by Boston Municipal Judge Lawrence McCormick, explained that the state erred in taking away DiMasi's pension without a hearing. He even went so far as to call it "offensive."
I'm actually OK with this, because I'm down with the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra. I think its true purpose is to protect everyday citizens from abuses of police power by those in charge, rather than protecting those in charge from answering to their abuses of power, but so be it. I don't really buy McCormick's whole "You should have held a hearing" spiel, though, because you don't need a formal hearing to understand that people facing 185 years in prison for crimes like extortion should not really be collecting $60,000 a year in public monies for doing nothing. But for the sake of fairness let DiMasi collect the money for the time being. Under one condition.
It's been a while since I focused on a local story, and I read about one that outraged me today and figured I would take a closer look at it. It has to do with absolute power and the police (big surprise there for those who have followed this blog). It seems that two narcs from Queens are accused of framing four men for dealing cocaine at a club in Elmhurst, Queens a year ago. It seems that one of the officers, Detective Stephen Anderson, claimed that he bought one bag of blow at the club from two men (Gabriel Lira and Julian Martinez). The other officer, Henry Tavarez, claimed that he bought two bags of blow from four men (Jose Colon, Maximo Colon [they're brothers], Raul Duchimasa, and Luis Rodriguez). The reality of the situation is much different.
What really happened was that Detective Anderson bought three bags of the nose clams from Lira and Martinez (the two have since pleaded guilty) and Officer Tavarez took two of the bags and claimed that the Colons, Duchimasa and Rodriguez sold them to him. The arrests occurred on January 4, 2008 and five of the men were released the next day with no bail (Maximo Colon spent three days in jail until he could post $2,500 bail). Charges against the four innocent men were dismissed when Jose Colon was able to go back to the club (called Club Delicioso) and obtain video footage which showed that the four men had no contact with the crooked narcs. Since the indictments have come to light, Officer Tavarez has been placed on modified assignment without his badge or his piece (so don't worry, he's still being paid with taxpayer dollars). Detective Anderson is no longer with the NYPD, as he left to join the Nassau County Police Department but dropped out before graduating from the academy (probably did not pass the professionalism and ethics portion).
So here are my questions: what if Jose Colon went back to the club and could not obtain a copy of the video that exonerated him and his brother and their friends? What if the club had no CCTV or had erased the tapes? Would our taxpayer dollars be used to prosecute and imprison these four innocent men? What about all of the other collars these two officers have made? This opens up massive room for appeals and calls into question every arrest made by Detective Stephen Anderson and Officer Henry Tavarez. So, because of their boneheaded actions, legitimate drug dealers could be back out on the streets because these two boys in blue tried to lock up innocent bystanders.
It does not end there. This also exposes the NYPD to a lawsuit, which would be paid out with taxpayer money. It also erodes confidence in the NYPD, which has had less than a stellar week as one officer pleaded guilty to illegally accessing the feds' terrorist watch list to help a friend in Canada with a child custody dispute, and a NYPD lieutenant stabbed and shot his wife to death (in front of his own daughter) before turning the gun on himself (the gun was his service revolver). What is unfortunate about police officers getting caught doing horrible things is the fact that it erodes the public's confidence in the police force as a whole. There are some good officers out there who care for others, but there are also people like this, and you cannot tell just by looking at a cop whether he's good or bad. Though impossible to implement in this economy, the best things to weed scumbags out of the NYPD would be to increase training, salary, and the requirements to be a police officer (make it more competetive). Being a cop is an important job and one that is needed in America, but there's got to be a better way to do this so we don't have as many issues as this.
In summation, Anderson and Tavarez should go to prison, just like they tried to get the four bystanders in prison. We give police officers a lot of power and expect them to use it correctly and justly. All the NYPD cars say "Courtesty, Professionalism, Respect" on the back of them, and it's clear that neither Anderson nor Tavarez embodied that slogan. How Tavarez was able to rise to detective in the NYPD is beyond me and hopefully his superior officers are doing some self-evaluation trying to figure out the same question. If Anderson and Tavarez don't see the inside of a prison, they won't learn their lesson and will join other people of power who get away with murder (literally and figuratively). Peace.
Photos - Jose and Maximo Colon (l. to r.) (New York Post), Screenshots from the video that exonerated the Colons and their friends (New York Post)
One may be the illegitimate cry of racism coming from Burris supporters. Bobby Rush even said that we should not "lynch" Burris just because Blagojevich appointed him. No one is lynching Burris, just like no one lynched Clarence Thomas, but Rush understands the powerful symbol of the noose in American politics and politicians' inability to defend themselves against it, even if criticisms are legitimate (like being appointed by a corrupt scumbag). This is similar to when Sarah Palin supporters called criticisms of her credentials (or lack thereof) sexist. I've said it before; Burris may very well be qualified for this seat, but the process through which it was (tentatively) obtained is not legitimate. Hell, his papers aren't even in order, as Illinois' Secretary of State Jesse White refuses to co-sign the appointment with Blagojevich. So if you want to get technical (which Burris seems to want to do), his appointment is not yet completed. Additionally, the Senate has the ability to govern itself and can refuse to seat someone, as outlined in Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.
Another reason why leaders in Washington have lost their previously displayed backbone against corruption is that they were bluffing and hoping that Burris would not call their bluff. It's like a mother at the supermarket when her kid starts throwing a tantrum for a piece of candy. "Don't make me count to three. One... Two... Two and a half... Two and three quarters..." What's going to happen when she gets to three? Nothing, it's a bluff. In the end, the mother has two choices: continue to take a stand against the immature kid or just give the kid the piece of candy to shut him up. Burris is in the midst of a pretty severe tantrum right now with his actions. Rallying supporters who lashed out at anyone opposing Burris' seating as racist, declaring that his Senate status has been ordained by the Lord, and going to Washington despite repeated warnings that he will not be allowed into chambers are all acts of immaturity and egotism and embody the modern-day political temper tantrum.
One thing that Burris and those who support him need to understand is that this is not a "crusade" against God's chosen Illinois senator. This is people standing up to corruption and sleazy politics. Why Burris would even want to be associated with Blagojevich is beyond me, but to accept his appointment and fight, esentially, on his behalf? This legitimizes Blago, which is the last thing that should be happening right now. The problem is this: by seating Burris you are legitimizing Blagojevich and willing to sidestep the fact that he is involved in a massive corruption scandal over the very same seat Burris so desperately wants. To not seat Burris is not racist; it instead says that we will not allow the corrupt governor (the real target of peoples' animosity and who, by the way, is white) to appoint anyone, not just Burris in particular.
At the end of the day, anyone appointed by Governor Blagojevich to the U.S. Senate has no business being there while the investigation continues. Because Roland Burris was appointed by Blagojevich and the investigation into Blagojevich's actions is ongoing, Roland Burris has no business being in the U.S. Senate. His qualifications and accolades (not to mention his race) have nothing to do with this. Unfortunately I see the Senate seating him to shut him up, just like the mother finally relenting and giving her kicking and screaming kid candy in the supermarket. Peace.
Photos - Burris meeting with Senate leaders today (New York Times), Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White (Illinois Channel)
Despite being named to the Senate seat by one of the dirtiest politicians at the moment (if not dirtiest), Roland W. Burris continues to jump over hurdles of logic by departing for Washington this afternoon for what the New York Times is predicting will be a "public showdown on Capitol Hill." I don't think there's any need to go into the details of embattled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's "pay-to-play" scandal but suffice it to say that Blagojevich was essentially selling the Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama to the highest bidder. The Department of Justice came in, declared that they had miles of tape with Blagojevich on it saying how "fuckin' valuable" the seat was and that he's not going to give it up for free. Blagojevich went on to nominate Burris, despite the imminent impeachment proceedings and his tainted reputation. Even more stupidly, Burris accepted the nomination as if nothing were wrong and now has the gumption (thanks Brusty) to be surprised when people say he should not be seated.
To begin with, can we just take a moment to realize the absolute absurdity of what is going on here? Shouldn't it be common sense that Blagojevich should not be allowed to seat a senator, at least not until this whole "pay me to seat you as senator" thing works itself out (or he is impeached, whichever comes first). And then, to accept a nomination from Blagojevich - are you serious? If I were Burris, I wouldn't accept a dogcatcher nod from Blago. But to take it to this level of histrionics and drama is just childish and embarrassing. Yet, we know Burris has no shame in the first place because he accepted the nomination from Blagojevich (so maybe we should not be so surprised). What is shocking is that Burris seems to think he is on a mission from God: "We are hoping and praying that they will not be able to deny what the Lord has ordained." Using a defense that old European monarchs used to rule absolutely (and undemocratically) is not the way I would have gone with that one.
But one thing that caught my eye - and really pissed me off - was those who come out and say, "If you don't back Burris, it smacks of racism." It's not that I don't back Burris (though accepting this nomination certainly calls into question his ethics and judgment); he could well be qualified. It's that Blagojevich nominated him. I don't care if you put a white guy there, or a golden retriever - whoever it is should not be seated. It's funny that those in New Covenant Missionary Baptist Church - who have formed a group that the Times says is more focused on Burris and his race than the corrupt Blagojevich - are more concerned about getting a black man in the Senate than an uncorrupted choice. It is here that I want to pose this question: should former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick be put in the seat over a non-black man, simply because of the color of his skin? Is race so blinding to some people that it clouds good judgement and clean politics? I agree that the nationally elected officials of this country do not accurately reflect the landscape of the American population (especially in the Senate), but I certainly would not want to sacrifice dignity and respect by allowing a scumbag like Blagojevich to nominate someone in order to get a minority senator in the Capitol.
So to sum up: everyone involved in this matter should shut up and go home. Burris has no place in the Senate as long as Blagojevich put him there, Blagojevich needs to be impeached so he can stop wreaking havoc in the state of Illinois, and those who want to cry racism at logic and anti-corruption need to re-assess the situation. Just like a woman who cries rape who really wasn't raped, those who cry racism when none exists just denigrate the seriousness of the charge. Then when a truly racist incident occurs (something, maybe, like calling the president-elect a "magic negro") no one wants to hear about it because the racism charge was used to allow a corrupt governor to seat a Senator. In the end, everyone involved in this is simply childish. It just shows the selfishness of those involved, for if Burris really wanted to serve the state of Illinois and his country, he would have avoided all of this by saying no to a governor who is recorded on tape trying to sell the Senate seat. Peace.
Photos - Roland Burris at Midway Airport before heading to Washington (New York Times)
