Community Forum in light of July 5 police videos

Sweetsnuggles said:

I don't understand why our police department did not make the video and audio tapes publicly available last year when this happened.  

It was explained at the TC meeting that the reports, tapes, and videos were not released sooner due to on-going investigations: 1st at prosecutor's office and 2nd by internal affairs.  TC members did add that the time these investigations took was too long.

mikescott said:

Copihue said:

No one is excusing anything, but I think that they learned from their experience the previous year.

I think anytime you have a crowd of thousands and only about 2 dozen police, there is chance something can go wrong.  Small towns do not have enough police to handle these kinds of events, not to mention the shortage of parking, the intrusion into residential neighborhoods and the garbage left is more than reason enough to end the July 4th Fireworks celebration.  

Not an acceptable excuse for what happened.  Not at all.

The July 4th Celebrations have been going on for a very longtime judging from the mural in Town Hall. I've attended or at least watched the fireworks for over 30 years. There is no reason to end those celebrations.

There are probably more people at Maplewoodstock. No one dare suggest ending that.

"investigations"

max_weisenfeld said:

ctrzaska said:

erins said:

Have you seen the video??  I just watched a clip where a teen was walking and a police officer body slammed him to the ground.  Under what circumstances is this appropriate and acceptable behavior?  This happened July 5 2016 - how much longer do we need to "WAIT" for them to come up with a solution??? 

Copihue said:

Who are you suggesting that we bring so that there are absolutely no errors made among thousands of incidents?  

Let the investigation proceed and the recommendations heard before calling for the Chief's firing.  CALM DOWN.  See what they are going to come up with to make sure that this never happens again. 

I once did slightly less than what that teen did (and walking wasn't the only thing he did, obviously).  I found myself with my hands twisted behind my back, dragged down a flight of stairs, my face and shoulder used to open a heavy plate glass door, and nearly tossed over the hood of a police car until cuffed, charged with assaulting a PO, and tossed in the squad car.  

Conversation with my father the next day after bailing me out:  You ok?  Yes.  What did you do (he was already told)?  Nothing, really.  You did something, what did you do?  (Explained what I later learned he already knew.)  What the hell were you thinking?  Um... I wasn't.  Clearly. 

Once the police made the assumption that, since the teens in question were POC they could not be our children, which then gave them license to handle them differently than they would if they were 'our kids' every action taken is framed by that assumption.

The investigation has been going on over a year.  It reeks of obstruction, including releasing the tapes in August, three days before the only TC meeting in August.

I have spent the better part of 20 years defending Maplewood and our police.  I was wrong.  When I am wrong, I admit it and I try to fix it.

This is me, trying to fix it.

If you have an issue with that, please step to the side and get out of my way, because I have work to do and I do not have time to be pissing around on MOL with you.

One:  No sure how your post squares with mine.  My response was to the fact that the teen was "just walking".  If we're going to frame an argument, then frame it.

Two:  You're welcome to make whatever assumptions layered on other assumptions you like.  You use "police" generically.  If you've chosen to paint the MPD as a merry band of violent racists in our midst, set free to unload their aggression on POC because they're not 'our kids', then have at it.  I'm not going to argue any universal premise based on such bullshlt.  If, OTOH, you're directing your ire at Cimino and his orders that evening, you'll receive no disagreement from me, and there's nothing further to discuss.  The TC has dealt with it in the most complete way they can at the moment, not that it was ever in doubt.

Three:  You're welcome to hold some sort of conspiracy theory of intentional obstruction on the part of the TC by withholding the tapes. They've laid out the timelines.  Want to fault them for not pushing harder, earlier?  Fine.  Vote all five out when you can, no quarter given. Reality is, if they really wanted to bury this they would have dealt with it immediately last year, and it would have gone poof, but that's water under the bridge. 

Four:  How you choose to piss away your time is entirely up to you.  I didn't ask for a response from you to my post above, let alone the additional verbiage which accompanied it-- you're welcome to disagree or not respond at all.  We all have work to do.  I suggest you may want to be less solely dependent on assumption and incorporate some balance, however.  It'll help, I'm sure.  The actions of the past evening have now opened up a new set of concerns, as should be quite clear to anyone with 20 years under their belt defending the MPD.

Reading comprehension, Chris.  At the time of my post, the TC had not dealt with it, so coming back now and telling me that my premise (which was BTW your assumption of my premise since what you say was not something I said) is "Bullshlt" based on what happened after I posted is, well, b******t. 

I also never accused the TC of withholding the tapes.  I don't have full knowledge of how the tapes were withheld, but I believe there were several players who acted not in an organized conspiracy but through mostly negligence to aid top Police brass in trying to cover this up.  Again, the timeline was released after my post.

Your last point is hysterical coming from you, though.  I jump to conclusions?!  I make assumptions and then shoot off online?! Look in the mirror, Chris.

Don't waste your time, ctrzaska.  You can't have a conversation with someone who thinks he knows everything.

max_weisenfeld said:

michaelgoldberg said:

"The forum will be a safe place to express our feelings and to strategize future action."

After already condemning the Police over the weekend, this sounds like the time the CCR endorsed a candidate for Bd of Ed PRIOR to a debate that the CCR was hosting.

This incident happened over a year ago.  The tapes were released last week, as were the transcripts.  It is clear what happened, and who is responsible.  The fact finding has happened, and the response up to this point has been insufficient.  Your analogy is poor and your conclusion weak.

Has the fact finding occurred? Prosecutors office declined charges and it seems as though (?) the IA function at the PD did likewise administratively... are those reports available? They would constitute fact finding, of course. And the TC hired a company to investigate just this week.

I've seen a transcript and an edited video- a video I have no reason to think has been misleadingly edited but edited nevertheless.

Is there some sort of investigative report available that leads you to conclude this is case closed? I'm not arguing your views of what we saw and heard, or read in the police report. Those are meaningful inputs into an investigation, but they are not the output of one.

Perhaps res ipsa loquitor... but want to be clear on how we're concluding "case closed". Is that a personal opinion or an investigatory one?

Again- NOT arguing about your conclusion of the inputs you've seen. I think reasonable people could agree that there certainly IS something to investigate based on what's publicly available.

Jackson_Fusion said:

Has the fact finding occurred? Prosecutors office declined charges and it seems as though (?) the IA function at the PD did likewise administratively... are those reports available? They would constitute fact finding, of course. And the TC hired a company to investigate just this week.

I've seen a transcript and an edited video- a video I have no reason to think has been misleadingly edited but edited nevertheless.

Is there some sort of investigative report available that leads you to conclude this is case closed? I'm not arguing your views of what we saw and heard, or read in the police report. Those are meaningful inputs into an investigation, but they are not the output of one.

Perhaps res ipsa loquitor... but want to be clear on how we're concluding "case closed". Is that a personal opinion or an investigatory one?

From http://www.nj.com/essex/index....

"The township has hired consulting firm Hillard Heintze to examine what happened on the night of July 5, 2016, and how the department responded to it. Law enforcement consultants interviewed members of the police department Monday and plan to soon talk with residents, said Robert Davis, the firm's senior vice president of law enforcement consulting.

Likely at the end of September, the firm will deliver a report of its findings and recommendations to township officials, Davis said."

michaelgoldberg said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

Has the fact finding occurred? Prosecutors office declined charges and it seems as though (?) the IA function at the PD did likewise administratively... are those reports available? They would constitute fact finding, of course. And the TC hired a company to investigate just this week.

I've seen a transcript and an edited video- a video I have no reason to think has been misleadingly edited but edited nevertheless.

Is there some sort of investigative report available that leads you to conclude this is case closed? I'm not arguing your views of what we saw and heard, or read in the police report. Those are meaningful inputs into an investigation, but they are not the output of one.

Perhaps res ipsa loquitor... but want to be clear on how we're concluding "case closed". Is that a personal opinion or an investigatory one?

From http://www.nj.com/essex/index....

"The township has hired consulting firm Hillard Heintze to examine what happened on the night of July 5, 2016, and how the department responded to it. Law enforcement consultants interviewed members of the police department Monday and plan to soon talk with residents, said Robert Davis, the firm's senior vice president of law enforcement consulting.


Likely at the end of September, the firm will deliver a report of its findings and recommendations to township officials, Davis said."

Thanks Mike- I get that. My question is, has someone seen the prosecutor or IA report? There are really strong opinions here that all that needs to be known is known- or if it's not, the outcome (fire the Chief) is.

To be clear- the 3 reports have different purposes- the first, criminal. The second, administrative and proceedural. The last... and I am not saying this perjoratively- political, in the sense that the TC has to determine who, if anyone, should be fired in the absence of criminal (PO) or departmental (IA) violations. 

The Chief reports, ultimately, to the TC who report to the voters- not arguing that. But this final investigation is not a replacement for the first 2- it has a separate purpose. 

If the PO and IA reports are not public, have elected authorities seen them? It just seems there are a lot of people declaring they know all they need to know about the situation. And that's their right! But I want to understand what it information they are using to form that very solid and confidently declared view.

And why a 3rd investigation if you already know enough, in the case of the TC, to ask for a resignation? Isn't that a waste? Or maybe a case of "shoot ready aim"?

Is it something more than what has been seen in the news that has been made available? 

max_weisenfeld said:

Reading comprehension, Chris.  At the time of my post, the TC had not dealt with it, so coming back now and telling me that my premise (which was BTW your assumption of my premise since what you say was not something I said) is "Bullshlt" based on what happened after I posted is, well, b******t. 


I also never accused the TC of withholding the tapes.  I don't have full knowledge of how the tapes were withheld, but I believe there were several players who acted not in an organized conspiracy but through mostly negligence to aid top Police brass in trying to cover this up.  Again, the timeline was released after my post.

Your last point is hysterical coming from you, though.  I jump to conclusions?!  I make assumptions and then shoot off online?! Look in the mirror, Chris.

michaelgoldberg said:

Don't waste your time, ctrzaska.  You can't have a conversation with someone who thinks he knows everything.

Well, in this case, to quote Max: when I'm wrong, I admit it.  He's right.  I read the posts from the latest backward, and a) didn't notice that his particular post on the 1st was from before the meeting and b) may have relied more upon what I knew (or strongly surmised) beforehand vs what he knew then.

So to Max: mea culpa. 

ml1 said:

Sweetsnuggles said:

I don't understand why our police department did not make the video and audio tapes publicly available last year when this happened.  

Because they didn't want people to know what they did. 

The OPRA request wasn't made then.

LOST said:

The July 4th Celebrations have been going on for a very longtime judging from the mural in Town Hall. I've attended or at least watched the fireworks for over 30 years. There is no reason to end those celebrations.

There are probably more people at Maplewoodstock. No one dare suggest ending that.

Maplewoodstock is over a few days and people come and go during the day.  The traffic is not nearly as crazy and I do not remember the same enormous number of people all leaving at the same time.  different event, different situation and not a good analogy.

ctrzaska said:

max_weisenfeld said:

Reading comprehension, Chris.  At the time of my post, the TC had not dealt with it, so coming back now and telling me that my premise (which was BTW your assumption of my premise since what you say was not something I said) is "Bullshlt" based on what happened after I posted is, well, b******t. 


I also never accused the TC of withholding the tapes.  I don't have full knowledge of how the tapes were withheld, but I believe there were several players who acted not in an organized conspiracy but through mostly negligence to aid top Police brass in trying to cover this up.  Again, the timeline was released after my post.

Your last point is hysterical coming from you, though.  I jump to conclusions?!  I make assumptions and then shoot off online?! Look in the mirror, Chris.

michaelgoldberg said:

Don't waste your time, ctrzaska.  You can't have a conversation with someone who thinks he knows everything.

Well, in this case, to quote Max: when I'm wrong, I admit it.  He's right.  I read the posts from the latest backward, and a) didn't notice that his particular post on the 1st was from before the meeting and b) may have relied more upon what I knew (or strongly surmised) beforehand vs what he knew then.

So to Max: mea culpa. 

We really need to have a beer or cup of coffee.  I think we would have a lot in common IRL.  ETA:  I'll buy the first round.

Jackson_Fusion said:

michaelgoldberg said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

Has the fact finding occurred? Prosecutors office declined charges and it seems as though (?) the IA function at the PD did likewise administratively... are those reports available? They would constitute fact finding, of course. And the TC hired a company to investigate just this week.

I've seen a transcript and an edited video- a video I have no reason to think has been misleadingly edited but edited nevertheless.

Is there some sort of investigative report available that leads you to conclude this is case closed? I'm not arguing your views of what we saw and heard, or read in the police report. Those are meaningful inputs into an investigation, but they are not the output of one.

Perhaps res ipsa loquitor... but want to be clear on how we're concluding "case closed". Is that a personal opinion or an investigatory one?

From http://www.nj.com/essex/index....

"The township has hired consulting firm Hillard Heintze to examine what happened on the night of July 5, 2016, and how the department responded to it. Law enforcement consultants interviewed members of the police department Monday and plan to soon talk with residents, said Robert Davis, the firm's senior vice president of law enforcement consulting.


Likely at the end of September, the firm will deliver a report of its findings and recommendations to township officials, Davis said."

Thanks Mike- I get that. My question is, has someone seen the prosecutor or IA report? There are really strong opinions here that all that needs to be known is known- or if it's not, the outcome (fire the Chief) is.

To be clear- the 3 reports have different purposes- the first, criminal. The second, administrative and proceedural. The last... and I am not saying this perjoratively- political, in the sense that the TC has to determine who, if anyone, should be fired in the absence of criminal (PO) or departmental (IA) violations. 

The Chief reports, ultimately, to the TC who report to the voters- not arguing that. But this final investigation is not a replacement for the first 2- it has a separate purpose. 

If the PO and IA reports are not public, have elected authorities seen them? It just seems there are a lot of people declaring they know all they need to know about the situation. And that's their right! But I want to understand what it information they are using to form that very solid and confidently declared view.

And why a 3rd investigation if you already know enough, in the case of the TC, to ask for a resignation? Isn't that a waste? Or maybe a case of "shoot ready aim"?

Is it something more than what has been seen in the news that has been made available? 

The outside consultants have been brought on to effect systemic changes to the entire police department.  Their mandate is larger than just investigating this incident.

ETA the NJ.COM article (and Star Ledger front page story) are less than perfect.  It is unfortunately not easy to get the big picture, but Village Green is a good place to start -- their coverage has been quite good.

max_weisenfeld said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

michaelgoldberg said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

Has the fact finding occurred? Prosecutors office declined charges and it seems as though (?) the IA function at the PD did likewise administratively... are those reports available? They would constitute fact finding, of course. And the TC hired a company to investigate just this week.

I've seen a transcript and an edited video- a video I have no reason to think has been misleadingly edited but edited nevertheless.

Is there some sort of investigative report available that leads you to conclude this is case closed? I'm not arguing your views of what we saw and heard, or read in the police report. Those are meaningful inputs into an investigation, but they are not the output of one.

Perhaps res ipsa loquitor... but want to be clear on how we're concluding "case closed". Is that a personal opinion or an investigatory one?

From http://www.nj.com/essex/index....

"The township has hired consulting firm Hillard Heintze to examine what happened on the night of July 5, 2016, and how the department responded to it. Law enforcement consultants interviewed members of the police department Monday and plan to soon talk with residents, said Robert Davis, the firm's senior vice president of law enforcement consulting.


Likely at the end of September, the firm will deliver a report of its findings and recommendations to township officials, Davis said."

Thanks Mike- I get that. My question is, has someone seen the prosecutor or IA report? There are really strong opinions here that all that needs to be known is known- or if it's not, the outcome (fire the Chief) is.

To be clear- the 3 reports have different purposes- the first, criminal. The second, administrative and proceedural. The last... and I am not saying this perjoratively- political, in the sense that the TC has to determine who, if anyone, should be fired in the absence of criminal (PO) or departmental (IA) violations. 

The Chief reports, ultimately, to the TC who report to the voters- not arguing that. But this final investigation is not a replacement for the first 2- it has a separate purpose. 

If the PO and IA reports are not public, have elected authorities seen them? It just seems there are a lot of people declaring they know all they need to know about the situation. And that's their right! But I want to understand what it information they are using to form that very solid and confidently declared view.

And why a 3rd investigation if you already know enough, in the case of the TC, to ask for a resignation? Isn't that a waste? Or maybe a case of "shoot ready aim"?

Is it something more than what has been seen in the news that has been made available? 

The outside consultants have been brought on to effect systemic changes to the entire police department.  Their mandate is larger than just investigating this incident.

ETA the NJ.COM article (and Star Ledger front page story) are less than perfect.  It is unfortunately not easy to get the big picture, but Village Green is a good place to start -- their coverage has been quite good.

Thanks Max. I've seen the coverage there and it has been quite good. I hadn't seen however that the consultant had been hired to comprehensively review the PD- according to this article the mandate appears to be focused on the night of July 5.

http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2017/08/maplewood_seeks_to_replace_top_cop_over_controvers.html

If that is inaccurate it is a different story. Will have to look around.

Getting back to the original question- have you seen something besides what has been in the press that leads you to feel as strongly as you do? I want to know if I'm missing something. I have opinions based on what I've seen but I don't feel as though I can strongly call for one outcome or another based on what's out there. Thank you ....

Edited- I hate that the "" makes a laughing face. Meant to make a smile.

Edit again- here's the RFP response- interesting formulation of point 2, suggesting examining township oversight of PD (I assume the "training" and "supervision" portions of #2 aren't modified by the formulation "by the township"... need a grammar expert to tell me if it should be viewed as inclusive of the entire statement) , not just PD itself. Points 1&3 are focused on the evening in question.

http://www.twp.maplewood.nj.us/Archive/ViewFile/Item/2811

Grammar aside, I read No. 2 to mean a review of training and supervision in the Police Department, as well as a review of township oversight of the department.

That would jibe with what was said at the Township Committee meeting, where the mayor and two Hillard Heintze represenatives stressed that the report would include recommendations for changes in department operations, based on best practices followed by other police departments around the country.

Village Green made their OPRA request a year ago.

lewis9961 said:

ml1 said:

Sweetsnuggles said:

I don't understand why our police department did not make the video and audio tapes publicly available last year when this happened.  

Because they didn't want people to know what they did. 

The OPRA request wasn't made then.

I think the Maplewoodstock crowd at any point in time is far smaller than the fireworks crowd.

mikescott said:

LOST said:

The July 4th Celebrations have been going on for a very longtime judging from the mural in Town Hall. I've attended or at least watched the fireworks for over 30 years. There is no reason to end those celebrations.

There are probably more people at Maplewoodstock. No one dare suggest ending that.

Maplewoodstock is over a few days and people come and go during the day.  The traffic is not nearly as crazy and I do not remember the same enormous number of people all leaving at the same time.  different event, different situation and not a good analogy.

mikescott said:

LOST said:

The July 4th Celebrations have been going on for a very longtime judging from the mural in Town Hall. I've attended or at least watched the fireworks for over 30 years. There is no reason to end those celebrations.

There are probably more people at Maplewoodstock. No one dare suggest ending that.

Maplewoodstock is over a few days and people come and go during the day.  The traffic is not nearly as crazy and I do not remember the same enormous number of people all leaving at the same time.  different event, different situation and not a good analogy.

No analogy is perfect. I like the July 4th celebrations and I like Maplewoodstock. I do not know how many people stay to the end of Maplewoodstock or the crowd control situation. For whatever reason there were groups of disorderly adolescents on July 5, 2016. I do not know if this was true on July 4, 2017 or in past years. 

Perhaps the new Acting Chief of Police will weigh in on what can be done to better control traffic leaving the July 4th Celebrations.

yahooyahoo said:

I think the Maplewoodstock crowd at any point in time is far smaller than the fireworks crowd.

I haven't been "inside" for the fireworks in a number of years. Maplewoodstock seems like wall-to-wall people. I wonder if the Police have stats.

4th of July Celebration covers a far larger portion of Memorial Park than does Maplewoodstock.  It also attracts many more participants who remain outside of the park area for the fireworks than Maplewoodstock does for the performances.

Maplewoodstock is wall-to-wall in a relatively small part of the park.  The fireworks crowd fills the entire ballfield area plus all those that hang outside the fence.

LOST said:

yahooyahoo said:

I think the Maplewoodstock crowd at any point in time is far smaller than the fireworks crowd.

I haven't been "inside" for the fireworks in a number of years. Maplewoodstock seems like wall-to-wall people. I wonder if the Police have stats.

joan_crystal said:

4th of July Celebration covers a far larger portion of Memorial Park than does Maplewoodstock.  It also attracts many more participants who remain outside of the park area for the fireworks than Maplewoodstock does for the performances.

Thanks. 

After looking at the video one more time, I began to ask:  were there black and Hispanic police officers there?  what was their response?  did they join in the harassment? if so, why?  I would imagine that if they joined in, that the non-minority police officers would take their lack of protest as meaning that what they were doing was fine.  I am just speculating, trying to understand how the police officers viewed the situation at that time.  

I read somewhere that police officers are bullies in socially acceptable jobs, that as police officers they use their drives to protect those who they swore to help.  That generalization feels right to me; I have always felt protected by police officers and I called them for all sorts of help such a finding my mom when she was wandering; she died of Alzheimer's.  So I ask myself:  what made them turn to kids they viewed as outsiders.  

I don't buy Max_Weisenfeld's theory that they saw Black kids, and they turned against them for no other reason.  Maplewood is full of Black kids, so I don't think that was it.  Maybe it was the spitting and the cussing and the fact that a large portion of the participants at the 7/4 celebrations are from nearby towns.  Maybe they think "Maplewood kids don't do that to us; they must be outsiders."  Just speculating.  

I worked with teenagers for twenty years, and they like to push adults' buttons, and some of them are very good at it.  It sounds as if they got the police officer from Irvington's goat.  The officers from out-of-town were there to help, and our police officers may have all decided to instinctively say "that could have been me" and "they are here to help, and they are being mistreated", so they joined in in the action.  Maybe.  Does this sound plausible to you?

I am not justifying anything, the outcome was not good, and I don't condone it.  I am just trying to understand what might have made our officers behave in ways that seem uncharacteristic of them to me.  I'm Hispanic.

Did any of the officers feel at the time that the situation was out of hand, and that it was going in the wrong direction?  If so, why did they not speak up?  Why didn't say to the kid:  "Kid, where are you from?  why don't you go home?" in a tone that was that of a rational, calm adult.

It seems to me that everyone is trying to focus on condemnation, and that is understandable, since no one liked what happened.  I want to know why; why did this happen?  How did it happen.  I don't buy that the Chief told the police officers to escort them to Irvington, and that that caused the kicking and the pepper spray and the insults and the spitting.  Police officers are human beings just like you and I, and we have all been given crazy orders by bosses, but we don't decide to use it as an excuse to violate anyone's rights.  Why did it happen last year in Maplewood.

"Did any of the officers feel at the time that the situation was out of hand, and that it was going in the wrong direction?  If so, why did they not speak up?  Why didn't say to the kid:  "Kid, where are you from?  why don't you go home?" in a tone that was that of a rational, calm adult."

This is a fine idea in theory but by the time the situation was out of hand, or near out of hand, this opportunity was gone. How many kids were there for every officer, maybe 40-50? (Just guessing.) At a certain point, when the decision is made to disperse the crowd, an officer can't spend his/her precious manpower engaging in debates or discussions with individual citizens. They need to be helping with the collective effort to disperse. 

max_weisenfeld said:

We really need to have a beer or cup of coffee.  I think we would have a lot in common IRL.  ETA:  I'll buy the first round.

Would be quite pleased to have either.   Coffee at Able (or wherever) or breakfast at VC are easiest weekends when I'm usually free off and on, but some weeknights and the odd weekday morning can work.  Pop me a msg on FB if you have some time free in the near term, and would love to meet whenever convenient. 

DaveSchmidt said:

Grammar aside, I read No. 2 to mean a review of training and supervision in the Police Department, as well as a review of township oversight of the department.

That would jibe with what was said at the Township Committee meeting, where the mayor and two Hillard Heintze represenatives stressed that the report would include recommendations for changes in department operations, based on best practices followed by other police departments around the country.

There's a layer in here not specifically disclosed as part of the mandate, but still could be part of the recommendations, which could include direct oversight of the PD's policies and procedures (and by default guiding the operations) by the town (whether TC or TA).

DaveSchmidt said:

That would jibe with what was said at the Township Committee meeting, where the mayor and two Hillard Heintze represenatives stressed that the report would include recommendations for changes in department operations, based on best practices followed by other police departments around the country.

This ^^

Both Vic and the HH reps stressed best practices and a comprehensive review at the TC meeting.

Copihue said:

It seems to me that everyone is trying to focus on condemnation, and that is understandable, since no one liked what happened. 

Actually, a lot of us moved past condemnation on Tuesday, and are focused on the next steps to create a level of trust and accountability.