Captain Smith Addresses ACLU Claims

Just read the article in the Times and i put a smile on my face. i have always hated the ACLU for their BS. they remind me of the BRU. They twist one or two cases to damn the whole positive effects.

Capt. Smith posted a variation of this response to Ripston's March 12th editorial on the LAPD's blog on March 16th and it was posted on DLANC's Public Safety Committee's Yahoo Group on March 19th.

There are only minor variations in syntax although Smith seems to 'dial it up' in the intro to the Times' versus the earlier posted version:

"Like the police officers that patrol Skid Row in Downtown Los Angeles, I am truly disappointed with American Civil Liberties Union President Ramona Ripston's complete distortion of our efforts to stem the lawlessness, suffering, and human misery that was commonplace on Skid Row a few months ago. I am deeply disturbed Ms. Ripston implied our officers violate the very Constitution they are sworn to uphold and protect. I am also perplexed, because just last year, Ms. Ripston herself walked Skid Row streets with our officers, rode around in a Black and White, and personally witnessed the horrific conditions under which our most vulnerable citizens survived. How soon she forgot!"

The Central patrol district of LAPD is without a doubt one of the most challenging areas of patrol. If you have any doubt read the article from the LA Weekly (don't pass up the photos) and you'll understand what dangers these officer face.

The Scourge of Skid Row A staph infection threatens the lives of cops, firefighters and homeless people. But don’t expect any help from county health officials By CHRISTINE PELISEK http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/the-scourge-of-skid-row/14810/

As an ACLU member, I support the group's mission, which is to secure individual liberties. But I don't support them on every issue, definitely not this one.

In this case, the street people are being searched/questioned if they are violating the law. Loitering, trespassing, blocking the sidewalk, and jaywalking are against the law. So much of this behavior has been tolerated in Skid Row that is not tolerated elsewhere. It leads to an atmosphere where people act like the area is exempt from laws. The way Skid Row has been, the very idea of criminality becomes very blurry.

If the ACLU wants to change the law, they should approach legislators to do so. But the officers in Skid Row are simply enforcing the law -- for the first time in years. They should not be condemned by the ACLU for doing what they are sworn to do.

Yeah, I'm pretty disillusioned with the ACLU. Particularly, when it comes to the issue of the homeless. As I've said before, so many homeless are mentally ill. When a person can't make rational decisions for himself, the community ie government should be able to do this for the person. It is not rational to want to eat out of trash cans or sleep in your own waste and it is not a kind or caring society that lets this continue in the name of civil liberty.

Secondly, If you are a person who is out preying on homeless--dealers, pimps, thieves, you should be forcibly removed, arrested etc.

In a society where the mentally ill are released from mental institutions, where commonly used substances are illegal, and urban renewal is subsidized by a distant central government, you will have worsening skid rows. Ours is indeed worse than ever. If you stamp out the drug-dealers there, they will go elsewhere, as will there customers. If we improve services for the homeless and mentally ill, their numbers will increase to exceed whatever capacity we offer them. We can only initiate policies that increase or decrease their numbers at a specific location. Beyond that there is no solution except to incarcerate the mentally ill, legalize drugs, and make developers pay full price for land and buildings. Since none of these reforms are feasible now or indeed ever, we should fully expect that Skid Row will only get worse.

Bruce touches on something which gets to the heart of the ongoing debate around Skid Row. He states "we should fully expect that Skid Row will only get worse". What exactly are the metrics for defining the status of Skid Row? How do policy makers define success and, more importantly, what empirical criteria is used?

What I ultimately find frustrating about the homeless maps is that they don't provide enough empirical context. Simply showing the movement of data points representing people seems only to lead to speculation about what accounts for their movement. I'd really like to know what the numbers governing the situation? Moreover, what is the data over time? When you've got historic data, then you can see metrics and policy makers can actually focus on what works and what doesn't. So when people like Bruce say things are only getting worse, he can point to numbers supporting his claim. Alas, he can't or doesn't do that.

But, I've never seen much empirical data about the homeless situation downtown beyond head counts. (Of course, accompanied by much handwringing and little action.) Without more detailed empirical data, the debate around the situation devolves into competing ideological narratives with people shouting at each other. (I'd characterize the debate as the hard heads vs. the soft hearts.)

In fact, what I think would truly be helpful is a history of skid row which delineates policy decisions over the decades and how these fostered the growth of Skid Row. Again, without this historic context, we exist in the ever present moment where people simply accept the existence of Skid Row and all it misery as permanent and irredeemable. Skid Row exists because we as a society have created it. Yet, we lack elementary information and data to allow us thoughtfully analyze the situation. Thus, we seem incapable of reforming it.

The real question is, how do we define a "safer city" ?

By living in a police state, in which all homeless people and criminals are, efficiently rounded up off the street and thrown into overcrowded jails ?

Or by increasing our education, drug treatment, and employment resources, to give those at risk a better chance in society ?

For now, enforcement works, but look at the bigger picture, from where does our community fail these people ?

^ Your timeline is incorrect.

The do-gooder approach to dealing with homelessness (an emphasis on education, drug treatment and welfare programs) has represented the status quo, partly because of judicial fiat, since the 1960s, and became even more of a fixture of conventional wisdom throughout the 1970s onward.

The opposite is true of the law-enforcement approach, meaning it started to lose traction, or become unfashionable, following the early 1960s.

Does state institutionalization of the mentally ill fall under your definition of "the do-gooder approach"? That's one big government program that was dismantled during the 1960's that led to the streets being flooded with the mentally-ill.

Also, what exactly is the law-enforcement approach to homelessness? (Note: I don't dispute that laws need to be enforced.) How does law enforcement get rid of homelessness?