Philadelphia burning; 3 cops shot - 1 dead - in 4 days

Veteran Philadelphia Police Officer Charles Cassidy passed away Thursday morning, November 1, 2007, almost 24 hours after being shot in the head when he unknowingly walked in on an armed robbery at a regular stop on his beat.

He was the third office shot in the line of duty in four days here in the city of 'Brothery Love.'

Meanwhile, our Police Commissioner, unable to contain the surging violence here, has seemingly thrown in the towel.  He has taken potshots at the mayor-elect and exclaimed "Somebody's got to realize we've got a gun problem in this city."

Isn't that your job?!?

Brendan writes

Earth to Sylvester Johnson: your current "policy" is the disaster. Until the recent "lull" (described pithily with a Metro headline "Only One Person Killed in Philadelphia Yesterday", sorry no link), the murder rate was on pace to beat least year’s murder rate, which beat out the year before that! There are fewer cops on the street (admittedly not your fault) and you’ve basically adopted a strategy in which ordinary civilians are invited to police their own neighborhoods: what will you do when one of them gets shot? Furthermore, "stop-and-frisk" is already policy here in Philadelphia, and while I’m troubled by questions of Constitutionality, I don’t understand this pretense that something untested is being thrown into the mix.
.
.
And then the rest is whining that the problem has nothing to do with his leadership: it’s all someone else’s fault, whether it’s the critics who are so unfair to criticize the "fair and compassionate" Commissioner, the criminals who use guns against the police (who woulda thunk it?), and of course the entire United States’ fault: "this country is very, very violent."

This is all on top of a shooting spree that is going on three years here, with hundreds of citizens shot and killed each year.  Even CNN ran a story on 'Killadelphia.'

My feelings are that Johnson has lost the city...He is done...his goose is cooked, and his legacy as police commisioner will be one of surging murder rates, increased crime, and an apathetic attitude from the police department.

Taking pot-shots at the Mayor-elect and passing the buck on surging violence which has gotten three cops shot in four days is pathetic and shiftless...

Don't go away mad, just go away...

•  What, pray tell,

  is "stop-and-frisk?" Is it something like "Walking While Black?"

  by kyril on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:08:48 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, basically

    The idea is the cops are given free reign to stop people they thing look suspicious and frisk them.  And, yeah, it's probably unconstitutional.

    It's indicative of the level of desperation a lot of people in Philly feel about the crime rate.

    by drmonkey on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:18:52 AM PDT

    •  Ick.

      Yeah, in that case, I sympathize with the people shooting cops. Touching me without cause, consent or warrant is assault even if you do have a shiny badge and a nice little unconstitutional ruling to back you up. Although I'd probably limit my resistance to presenting my ACLU card at the time and filing a lawsuit later.

      by kyril on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:24:31 AM PDT

      •  I'd troll rate you if I could.

        You "sympathize with people shooting cops"?

        Jesus.

        by mmcole on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:27:34 AM PDT

        •  I said sympathize with

          not agree with. I understand how they feel.

          by kyril on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:29:11 AM PDT

        •  And I'm sorry that my comment sounds insensitive

          On re-reading it, it does. I mean no disrespect to their victims. What I meant to say was that I can understand how life in the shadow of an oppressive police presence, with little safety and security despite that presence, can drive some people to that sort of desperation - just like I understand that the cops sometimes shoot innocent people out of fear, and I sympathize with both our soldiers in Iraq and the Iraqis who fight back against them. I don't normally sympathize with violent criminals - I have no sympathy whatsoever for Charles Manson, for instance - but in some instances, like this, I do because I can see where they're coming from. But I don't endorse their behaviour.

          by kyril on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:55:16 AM PDT

          •  I hear ya.

            I'm a bit sensitive on the crime issue; I live in urban Birmingham and it's been pretty rough lately.  Someone was carjacked at gunpoint at the end of our block a couple of days ago--luckily the cops came quickly, the carjacker crashed the car and was arrested.

            I do see the poverty that drives some to crime. I see it everyday, and it breaks my heart because life in America shouldn't have to be that way. Small steps, though, I suppose. Education, social awareness, job training...

            by mmcole on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:24:34 AM PDT

      •  uh...

        Apart from the fact that the stop and frisk thing isn't being done currently (or so I believe - it's something Nutter, the Democratic candidate for mayor, is proposing), people aren't shooting cops because of some idealized struggle for their rights or against "the man."

        One of the cops who was shot had just walked into a Dunkin Donuts during a robbery.  It's just people shooting cops to get away with crime.  

        by drmonkey on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:01:41 AM PDT

  •  Nailed it in one, I think, sir.

    Frequently, the police will observe somebody who needs to be checked out. That is the purpose of a stop and frisk, which has many different names: a field interview, a field inquiry, a threshold inquiry, or just routine questioning...

    A stop is justified in any combination of the following circumstances:

    1. the suspect doesn't seem to "fit" the time or place

    2. the suspect fits a description of a wanted person in a flyer

    3. the suspect is acting strangely, emotional, angry, frightened, or intoxicated

    4. the suspect is loitering, hanging out, or looking out for something

    5. the suspect is running away or engaging in furtive movements

    6. the suspect is present in a crime scene area

    7. the area is a high-crime area (not sufficient by itself or with loitering)

    ...

    The one and only purpose of a frisk is to dispel suspicions of danger (to the officer and other persons; i.e., that this person isn't armed & dangerous). A frisk is a search for concealed weapons, necessarily involving an invasion of privacy. A frisk should not be for anything other than a dangerous weapon or contraband. However, if other evidence, like a suspected drug container, is felt, it can be seized by the officer under the "plain feel" doctrine...

    Special situations [including but not limited to]:
    SEXUAL SOLICITATION PROFILING. Ritualistic driving behavior of someone who appears to be a "john" shopping for prostitutes justifies a stop.

    http://faculty.ncwc.edu/...

    Yeah.

    In the list of criteria, only No. 6 seems like it couldn't just be made up on a whim.

    by Shaviv on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:22:55 AM PDT

    •  Who knew?

      the suspect is loitering, hanging out, or looking out for something

      the suspect doesn't seem to "fit" the time or place

      Being lost is now justification for police harassment!

      by kyril on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:28:05 AM PDT

    •  Oh. Maybe not "sir"...? sorry if I'm wrong. nt

      by Shaviv on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:31:51 AM PDT

      •  'tis ok :)

        hazard of picking a gender-neutral name.

        by kyril on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:34:25 AM PDT

    •  If stores placed metal detectors

      in their entrances the criminals would find life with a gun difficult.

      "This store prohibits the carrying of hidden weapons. We may have a metal detector. If you set off such a metal detector. You may be subject to search by a police officer called to our store. Entering this store constitutes contractual acceptance of such a search."

      by SingleVoter on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:36:53 AM PDT

      •  As someone who carries a bunch of metal keys,

        as well as a belt buckle, a padlock (in my bag), a pack of spare AA batteries, sometimes a loop of half-inch metal cable (also in the bag, if I don't need it to secure my bike), and occasionally steel-capped boots...

        I'd rather not have to get searched every time I step in there to replenish my stash of peanut butter, bread or coffee, which are as you probably know the staples of the college student's diet.

        by Shaviv on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:48:22 AM PDT

      •  you are kidding right? unreasonable search and

        seizure anyone. Isn't the police state growing fast enough without our helpful suggestions?

        by buddabelly on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:49:37 AM PDT

•  I hate to say it

  but we never should have let Timoney go. Yeah, he was a cryptofascist who had his cops beat up protestors at the 2000 Republican Convention but there was law and order in the city.

  by terrypinder on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:17:30 AM PDT

  •  I don't know if it is Timoney ..

    as much as the present Police Chief is incompetent .. he's done nothing to address the record breaking pace of murders in Philly

    by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:29:35 AM PDT

    •  i'm watching this from afar

      but what's been going on in the city has been a mess. yeah he's incompetent. might be time for a new police  chief under Mayor Nutter.

      by terrypinder on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:31:16 AM PDT

      •  there will be ..

        Johnson is leaving when Street leaves office(technically .. I am not sure if he's staying on till Nutter finds a replacement or not)

        by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:36:22 AM PDT

        •  good

          I hope he starts to seriously address the poverty that's just plaguing parts of the city.

          by terrypinder on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:46:44 AM PDT

•  The Phildelphia police may wish

  to wear military-grade bullet-resistant body armor.

  It is starting to get cold, so the extra garments will be bearable.

  by SingleVoter on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:21:33 AM PDT

  •  Philadelphia

    sorry

    by SingleVoter on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:25:31 AM PDT

•  Since I used live directly across the street

  from the Dunkin' Donuts where Officer Cassidy was shot , I know the neighborhood well. I also know that guns are a menace to our neighborhoods. As a brother of a retired Philly cop, I think your screed against Sylvester Johnson is unwarranted. First, there is no way you can predict what happened this week in Philly was the fault of the police commissioner. Nor could you definitively state that if cops were allowed to randomly frisk people, anyone could have prevented what happened to any of the police officers who were shot. There is currently a bill in the state legislature that Rendell supports that would mandate prisoners sign a waiver against their 4th Amendment rights in order to be paroled from state prison. That would be a legitimate way to frisk someone without probably cause.

  Even with that, it may not have prevented what happened. The bottom line is anyone can get a gun. Officer Cassidy had no idea a robbery was taking place when he entered the Dunkin Donuts. Random frisking would not have prevented what happened yesterday. A question to ask is if we give cops the right to frisk anyone in the city, what do you think the thugs who have a hidden weapon would do to the cop who comes at them with the intention of frisking them? You think that might cause more violent confrontations where more cops are shot?

  by tazz on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:26:34 AM PDT

  •  What happened this week is not ..

    Johnson's fault .. but the overall state of the city is ... what has he done to try to curb the violence? .. as of a month ago .. the number of murders in Philly was on pace to be even larger than last year .. it's been only in the past 6 weeks or so when Kenny Gamble(yeah .. the music guy) got a group together to patrol trouble spots .. that the killings have gone down .. It took almost two years of escalating violence before a private citizen did what Johnson couldn't .. or wouldn't do .. and at least Nutter is willing to try new ideas .. Johnson had none

    by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:34:53 AM PDT

    •  The diarist jumped the gun a little, sorry.

      Nutter is not yet Mayor-elect, even though it would be a miracle if he wasn't elected. After re-reading this screed, you seem to think abrogating the 4th Amendment of the Constitution is the answer to ending the violence in our neighborhoods. You also think the police are responsible for the violence. You also think police are ultimately responsible for stopping violence from happening even before it happens. You also think police can do anything about the flow of guns into the neighborhoods. You are wrong. No one has come forth to name the killer yet. That deals with the keep silent crap that 60 Minutes covered a couple of months ago. Bottom line, my heart is very heavy right now because of that shooting. I see people living in North East and Chestnut Hill are the loudest voices for random frisking. Only African Americans will be targeted for frisking from G'town, North Philly and West Philly will be targeted, and you know it.

      by tazz on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:43:24 AM PDT

      •  No .. police are not responsible for the violence

        .. but Johnson has done nothing to try to stop it .. which is my point ... has Johnson advocated for a better police protection program?  No.  What exactly has Johnson advocated for?  I don't like the violation of the 4th Amendment, but something has to be done.  The sad thing is that they(meaning Street and Johnson) know where most of the violence is taking place and haven't done much about it.  Hell, I am sure some might say that Street and Johnson are turning their backs on their own(African-American) community.  Is there anything you suggest?  The interesting thing is, I know Johnson talked about getting people out of poverty and all, but that is a long term solution, not a short term one.  You can't let the rate of killing go on even for a few more years.  It's unacceptable.

        by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:31:33 AM PDT

•  Guns! Guns! Guns!!!!!

  Let's all run out and buy one!

  This is a direct result of our super duper gun culture...  Guns are so socially acceptable that it does not surprise me that people think the first way to solve a dispute is to bust a cap in someone's ass so to speak...  Of course nobody will stand up to the damn NRA cause ya, know everyone hunts with a glock or a 9mm ;-).

  Hey, and when your government's first response to every issue is to blow something up, why shouldnt the rest of the population follow their lead?

  I'm done my tirade now...

  by dsagherian on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:32:03 AM PDT

  •  I wonder how holdups happen

    in countries with fewer firearms among the populace. I mean, even here, people try to hold up places by saying they have a gun, or a bomb, or even occasionally by waving a flaming torch, so actually having a firearm isn't necessary to pull the crime off. Getting away with it is a different matter, but guns don't necessarily help there, either.

    by Shaviv on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:34:05 AM PDT

  •  if that is the correct reasoning then why isn't

    the murder rate in a place like Tucson, where we have concealed and open carry, and many if not most legal adults own or carry a gun, through the roof?

    Our violent crime rate is actually down even with the increased violence associated with smuggling.

    We even passed a no need to retreat law similar to Florida's yet no explosion of violence.

    Something is causing the violence present in many of our cities but it isn't guns. Could it be rapidly worsening socio-economic conditions in the old guard cities?

    As the economy collapses and day to day living becomes harder violence rates increase. Anti-poverty and healthcare programs would do more to cut the violence than anything else imho.

    by buddabelly on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:46:39 AM PDT

    •  I agree on some of these points...

      ... but it's still harder to kill police without a gun that it is when you can get one on any corner...

      It's not just the guns - it's the gun worshipping violence solves every problem culture.  Guns are glamorized, criminals are elevated to celebrity status...  I'm not saying we should do away with the 4th - but the fact of the matter is that guns are doled out like candy in this country.  It's harder to get a driver license for god's sake.  And hey, if you want to "bear arms" to protect yourself from the gubmint...  get a rifle that can't be concealed when you walk into a F***n' Dunkin Donuts.

      by dsagherian on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:51:37 AM PDT

      •  illegally it is easy to get a gun

        not so much legally. A background ck and a waiting period are in place already for handguns.

        If a person is willing to evade the law now to purchase an illegal weapon what will stop them after new laws are passed?

        The gun is a symptom not the disease. I agree with you on the glorification of violence and as a society we need to turn from the gangster as hero mythology but it has always been a part of the american psyche, see Bonnie and Clyde et al.

        by buddabelly on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:57:55 AM PDT

    •  this isn't even disputed anymore

      more guns less crime. in america.

      by antoniomachado on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:35:04 AM PDT

    •  and PA has conceal-carry permit laws

      as I understand it---so what's going on in Philly is a combination of poverty, poor planning, and an inept police chief.

      by terrypinder on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:40:34 AM PDT

      •  yeah

        honestly, philly has a HUGE problem with those three things. Lot's of corruption under mayor street, and as a result lots of poverty and therefore crime. I guess it's easy to talk about gun control than it is to actually fix the social and economic problems behind all this violence.

        by SaMx on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:09:52 PM PDT

•  With that comment was he saying something to

  people who laugh off gun control? It's not his job to make legislation.

  by Little on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:35:21 AM PDT

•  WTF

  Have the people had enough of the bullying, "storm tropper" tactics or have the people become as lawless as this administration, having no respect for the law, and the cops are at the mercy of criminals...Maybe if Congress would do its job..(accountability, instead of just holding hearings) people might feel as though law and order had been restored to our country....that crime does not pay (sure seems to in this Administration, this Congress and this DOJ..among other government departments)

  by chabuka on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:38:15 AM PDT

•  I've invited Adam B to add his legal expertise;

  I hope he has time to fill us in on some of the minutia of the stop-and-frisk procedure: what SCOTUS has already ruled, and whether or not the city already can/does utilize a stop-and-frisk procedure

  It's a very treacherous area to enter, a walk on the oft referenced slipery slope.  Yet, I wonder how we can reign in this surging violence and murder rate here.

  As I said to Adam,

  Personally, I'm really torn about the issue, and question the constitutionaltiy of being stopped simply for being somewhere/anywhere.  But I also feel that if any subsequent charge or indictment is dropped for a rights issue, simply getting that illegally owned/carried gun off the street may still trump not getting a conviction.  Either way, they're not getting that gun back, right?

  Stronger gun control and laws won't get the existing guns off the street until after crime occurs, if we're lucky enough to seize the gun before it disappears into some other hands...

  by lutton on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:51:09 AM PDT

•  Not from Philly

  ... so maybe I should just shut up, but since I seem to have an opinion on everything, here's my thoughts.

  Is it really the job of the police to prevent violence? For the most part, I don't think so. The police are there to enforce consequences on lawbreakers of all types, including violent criminals. The presence and/or reputation for effectiveness of the police should act as a deterrent to violence. But the only way police can really prevent violence is if they have tight supervision and control of every person at all times. Not where we want to go.

  The impulse to commit a violent act is the real problem. I don't see that as something the police can or should have much control over.

  As to gun control, I'll cite the old NRA bumper sticker: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. It is true that easy availability of guns converts the impulse to do violence into a high murder rate. But for every violent criminal, picking up a gun is the last thing that happened in a long chain of causality. The availability of the gun is not irrelevant to the crime, but is also not the only or even the main cause of the crime.

  Gun control and better policing can help lower murder rates, but they are repressive tools. If we want a real fix, we have to address the hopelessness and rage that create the impulse to violence in the first place.

  by DBunn on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:05:05 AM PDT

  •  spot on

    Gun control and better policing can help lower murder rates, but they are repressive tools. If we want a real fix, we have to address the hopelessness and rage that create the impulse to violence in the first place.

    lack of hope is a major contributer to street violence imho.

    by buddabelly on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:07:11 AM PDT

    •  I absolutely agree

      and who can blame people for lack of hope. If you're a kid growing up in a poor black neighborhood, you're poor, your parents are poor,your grandparents were poor, and when you grow up you're still going to be poor. How many of those kids get to go to college? How can they get in to college when they don't even get textbooks in class? They see white suburban kids go to college and get successful jobs, and they know it can't happen to them. What do you think they think the reason is? Isn't it obvious that they would turn to violence and crime?

      by SaMx on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:14:10 PM PDT

  •  You're half-right

    Is it really the job of the police to prevent violence? For the most part, I don't think so. The police are there to enforce consequences on lawbreakers of all types, including violent criminals. The presence and/or reputation for effectiveness of the police should act as a deterrent to violence. But the only way police can really prevent violence is if they have tight supervision and control of every person at all times. Not where we want to go.

    The impulse to commit a violent act is the real problem. I don't see that as something the police can or should have much control over.

    It's also the job of private citizens to be alert, be on the lookout, report suspicious activity, and to take a stand when they see something happening that shouldn't be happening.

    While Lutton was kind enough to link my Killadelphia post, anyone visiting and who might've chosen to reload the main page would've read about how I attempted to chase down a brazen daylight purse snatcher today.

    I could've just watched what happened. Or I could've taken action, which I tried to do. Of course, I don't  generally advise people to get involved in potential criminal activity but in this city, there's an atmosphere of apathy and reluctance at changing the status quo here.

    It's really sad. The people of this city really do need to take back this city. The police can only do so much without a public willing to help them whenever they can.

    by Stand Strong on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 02:37:31 PM PDT

•  Adam suggested we take a look here

  Adam:

  Aw, geez.  It takes a while to explain.  They're called "Terry stops".  Plenty here: http://www.google.com/...

  by lutton on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:11:28 AM PDT

•  I hear Rudolph Giuliani is looking for a job

  Maybe after he loses the election he could try to help out Philadelphia.  I'm pretty sure NYC won't want him back.

  by Eddie Haskell on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:18:02 AM PDT

•  an article on stop and frisk

  Adam's suggested search led me to this article by my friend Catherine Lucey at the Philadelphia Daily News.

  a highlight:

  In fact, the number of pedestrian stops made in Philly has jumped significantly over the last three years. According to police data, the 132,765 pedestrian stops last year were up from 102,321 in 2005 and 87,812 stops in 2004.

  William Johnson, executive director of the civilian Police Advisory Commission, said that the increased stops had not been accompanied by an uptick in complaints.

  "We haven't seen a comparative increase in the number of complaints as the result of that, no," Johnson said. The Police Department's public-affairs office did not provide data on complaints made to the department.

  Police lawyer Healy said officers are instructed in the police academy on when they may legally stop and pat someone down. Training continues in the police districts as well, he said.

  Nutter wants officers to be reminded of stop-and-frisk rules in their daily roll call so that "it's in the front of their minds."

  He also plans to air public-service announcements about the policy to spread the word that police are targeting guns.

  The idea is to get people with illegal guns to leave them at home. Fewer guns mean fewer homicides.

  When asked how soon he would release a complete plan of action, Nutter, who faces Republican Al Taubenberger in November, said, "I want to get elected first."

  The legal guidelines for stop-and-frisk go back to a 1968 Supreme Court decision, Terry v. Ohio. In that case, the court ruled that officers could stop someone if they had "reasonable suspicion" that the person had or was about to commit a crime.

  by lutton on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:23:18 AM PDT

•  philadephia burning? sounds like baghdad

  two years ago.

  by antoniomachado on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 09:36:08 AM PDT

•  "mayor-elect"?

  I know it's a foregone conclusion that Nutter will be elected, but I don't think the term is appropriate until after November 6.

  by N in Seattle on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 10:46:41 AM PDT