Candidate Fattah has taken issue with Signe Wilkinson's latest cartoon.
Here's the letter:
To: Dan P.
From: Chaka Fattah
Subject: Daily News Prints Offensive Cartoon About Violence
Dear Philadelphian,
Four of the five men running for Mayor--not to mention countless community leaders and citizens--have raised valid concerns about Michael Nutter's proposal to allow the 6,500 members of the Philadelphia Police Department to stop and frisk our sons, daughters, grandchildren, nephews, nieces and neighbors in the pursuit of illegal guns.
I know that removing illegal guns from our streets is a key part of the plan to reduce violence in our city--in fact my gun amnesty buy back program has gotten 1,061 guns off of our streets--but I disagree with Michael Nutter about how we should go about it.
Today's Daily News took this important difference of opinion to an ugly place with this editorial cartoon:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chakafattah/493720103/
[if you can not see the image above, click here.]
Today's Daily News cartoon was offensive to all of us who are searching our souls to come up with real answers to the violence and crime that are ripping our communities apart. I have spent my entire career protecting our children and offering them opportunities to succeed. And I have raised questions about the wisdom of allowing an entire police force to stop and frisk anyone they think looks suspicious.
In my plan on gun violence, I proposed forming an elite group of specially trained police officers to pursue illegal guns in our neighborhoods that will be spread out across the city, not just in some neighborhoods.
Our city needs a Mayor who can handle the violence epidemic fairly, with sensitivity, and who can produce real results. If you agree that I am the man to do that, please vote Fattah for Mayor on Election Day.
Very truly yours,
Chaka Fattah
PS- You can also support my campaign by making a contribution online here or signing up to volunteer on Election Day here.
Comments (31)
Ooooooo Dan. Now you've done it. Oh ! what's this riding over the hill. Its Jas to the rescue.
Dan , Renee is probably feeding his ego. Dan if you hear from Renee tell her WJJZ has some jazz going on Wednesday nights. Trust me. She'll know.
Jas....
Posted by Jasper Zeigler Jr | May 11, 2007 12:56 PM
So while Nutter calls "Stop and Frisk" what it is, Fattah calls is "pursuing illegal guns in our neighborhoods". It's the same thing, no matter how you slice it!
Posted by Roman | May 11, 2007 12:57 PM
No, Roman, it is not the same. At Monday's debate, Nutter said that his plan would "specifically and specially train our police officers, and i have confidence in the 6,500 men and women who risk their lives..."
He said the same thing during the channel 6 debate.
Let's not fool ourselves, people are already being routinely stopped and frisked in this city. Ask anyone under a certain age and in "certain" neighborhoods and that fact will be confirmed.
The question is do we want to make it the practice of all police officers in the city to routinely search anyone--to make that distinction between the bulge of a large cell phone vs. the bulge of a gun--or do we want to train an elite corps of officer,likely less than 100 city-wide, who would be specially trained to track down illegal guns?
[Disclosure: I am staff for Fattah for Mayor.]
Posted by Ray Murphy | May 11, 2007 1:06 PM
Sorry Ray, but your candidate doesn't have a prayer. He is lazy and out of touch with reality.
Philadelphians are SICK AND TIRED of do-nothing politicians, out of control crime, and a do-nothing City Hall. Your lame scare tactics will not make up for a lackluster campaign.
Posted by Anonymous | May 11, 2007 1:12 PM
How are they going to track down illegal guns? By stopping people and frisking them, it is in Fattah's position paper. The fact that he heaps such scorn on Nutter for a plan that is quite similar to his own shows blatant hypocricy. Nutter never stated how many of the officers will be trained to do these searches, but it makes perfect sense to do it in the most dangerous neighborhoods where the killing is happening.
Ray, you and your candidate are grasping at straws, and people are not buying it. Way to run a positive campaign!
Posted by Roman | May 11, 2007 1:17 PM
By attacking Nutter's plan even though it was similar to his own and then grandstanding in favor illegal gun owner's civil rights instead of a common sense public safety measure Fattah earned this great cartoon.
Sorry that he took it hard but sending to supporters isn't a way rally the troops. He had my vote awhile back but he lost this race to Nutter.
Posted by Andrew | May 11, 2007 2:03 PM
I just think that by going so hard against "stop and frisk" he's misjudging the constituency he says he's advocating for. Yes, any "stop and search" policy is going to have to be carefully crafted, implemented and monitored, but I don't think the policy, in and of itself, is objectionable to many voters in high crime areas. Fattah's own crime plan seems to include the same policy, so it's curious why he would choose to come out so strongly against it. It gets him off the most important issue in this year's election, which is gun violence. It makes him seem weak on the issue, as though just because it's a delicate policy we shouldn't even consider it out of an over-abundance of caution for civil rights. I think that underestimates exactly how desperate many people are to reclaim their neighborhoods.
Posted by Anonymous | May 11, 2007 2:04 PM
Ray - thanks for signing your own name and identifying yourself as a staffer.
Posted by Wendy | May 11, 2007 2:12 PM
OK I get Fattah's plan to only allow certain officers the training to "stop and frisk" for fear that if all the police officers are encouraged to do this it will get out of control. So it comes down to this, do you trust the police? This is the heart of the matter. If you don't trust the police then Fattah's plan will be more appealing.
Beyond that I think that the cartoon was really insulting to Fattah because he has spent so much of his life trying to help young people. I don't think Fattah should be mayor but I DO think he should be respected for what he has done and tried to do in this city.
Posted by philly on the rise | May 11, 2007 2:13 PM
I do somewhat agree that the cartoon was insulting, but aren't most political cartoons insulting to one degree or another? That's the whole point. Every politician, at one time or another, becomes the target of cartoon satires. Fattah's just upset about the timing of this one, days before e-day.
Posted by Anonymous | May 11, 2007 2:19 PM
it's not about trusting the police.
Our police officers work hard and they do their job.
However, enabling the entire force to stop and search anyone they think may possess an illegal weapon opens up many officers to dangerous situations and it creates a whole lot of liability for police who accidentally stop and search the wrong person.
By designating a select few officers to be empowered to routinely seek out illegal guns protects both police and citizens.
As a sidebar I have to say that I am really amused by how many people perceive this conversation, especially from the Fattah side, as "negative" attacks. This site was designed to highlight the issues, not the ego (did I get that right Dan and Wendy) in this race and this is very much an issue-based conversation.
I have no doubt that Michael Nutter has proposed what he has because he is a good man who cares about the city. Fattah is a good man too, but he disagrees with the ideas that Nutter is supporting.
[once again, I am staff for Fattah for Mayor].
Posted by Ray Murphy | May 11, 2007 2:31 PM
Fattah is upset about a cartoon?!?!?!
He's SO upset in his e-mail he ends the e-mail with "P.S. give me money!"
Posted by Anonymous | May 11, 2007 2:37 PM
This is the first time that I've heard Fattah make that distinction. Up to this point he has persistently critisized Nutter for stop and frisk because it violates civil rights, not because too many cops will be doing. Has Nutter said how many cops will actually perform stop and frisk? Is there any evidence that the entire force will be involved?
I believe we are debating issues, more specifically, how the candidates present the issues. How they mischaracterize their opponents on the issues....like Fattah does when his ads state that Knox and Nutter will cut services. Like the issue of campaign promises not to go negative that have been broken. Like the issue of hypocritically criticizing a policy that in essence is almost identical to the one in your policy papers.
Posted by Roman | May 11, 2007 2:47 PM
I already addressed this above. Nutter said at two debates that his policy would apply to the whole force.
Posted by Ray Murphy | May 11, 2007 2:58 PM
Ray (and Fattah) are simply misleading here. Both Nutter's plan and Fattah's plan cite specifically Lawrence Sherman's studies in Kansas City that used a specifically trained force to do constitutional searches as the basis of their plan. Both emphasize an approach that focuses on signs that someone is actually carrying a piece. In Kansas City this approach led to a 49% drop in gun homicides. It makes perfect sense why both candidates would support such a plan. It makes no sense other than cold calculating political spin why someone would try to drawa distinction between the programs that simply put isn't there in the two candidates crime plans on this point.
Posted by seand | May 11, 2007 3:04 PM
I don't see where he states: "We will train our entire police force to do stop and frisk". He does say he has confidence in the police force, but those are 2 different things. Besides, why would the whole force need to be trained if it would be targeted in specific neighborhoods...makes no sense.
You still haven't answered why Fattah broke his promise not to go negative.
Posted by Roman | May 11, 2007 3:06 PM
This proposed stop-and-frisk policy is of great concern to me. It creates a great potential for civil rights abuses, as Fattah suggests.
Police officers in Philadelphia need special skills to patrol economically and racially diverse neighborhoods. The skills sets required to patrol North Central Philadelphia are quite different from the skill sets required to patrol Center City.
Before we can propose policies that are likely to inflame tensions in neighborhoods with high-crime rates, we owe it to residents to make sure that the officers first have the cultural competencies required to get the job done.
No organization - not a newspaper, a corporation, or a law enforcement agency - can build strong crosscultural relationships unless its workers are able to communicate and work effectively in diverse groups.
The City must invest in the appropriate cultural training before it can send officers onto the streets. An understanding of culture, language, racial sensitivities, personal challenges and history are required in all professions, to be effective in our city.
Citizens also need to be able to identify, manage and control our personal biases.
Residents and police must each make the effort to speak one another's lingo and respect each other's challenges. As the police are being paid by the taxpayers, I think it is reasonable that they should lead by example.
Putting untrained police personnel into emotionally-charged situations is a danger to them. Such a strategy might ignite tensions in neighborhoods where frustrations already are running high due to high foreclosures and unemployment.
As a community, we must begin to view situations through multicultural eyes. We must include all voices in our deliberations.
Then we can all move forward as a united city.
Posted by Linda | May 11, 2007 3:11 PM
Philly On The Rise - Tom Knox for Mayor.
Jas....
Posted by Jasper Zeigler Jr | May 11, 2007 3:22 PM
Stop making politically correct excuses for criminals and start aggressively enforcing the law.
Philadelphia must stop pandering to the lowest common denominator (criminals, the lazy, irresponsible, stupid) and start demanding accountability and high standards from its citizens.
The right to be safe and secure overrides the rights of criminals to commit crimes.
Posted by Anonymous | May 11, 2007 3:22 PM
Linda, I agree with your sentiments but don't see where Nutter or anyeone else is suggesting the police not be trained or culturally sensitive. Yes, the risk for abuses is there (as there already is within the police's current duties), but I don't think that means we should abandon what could be a worthwhile idea, especially an idea that have been implemented with success elsewhere. My problem with Fattah is that he is not simply saying there are civil rights issues that we need to address in the policy. He's saying the policy itself is a violation of civil rights, which it clearly isn't since other cities have done it and the Supreme Court has found it to be okay. If Fattah wants to discuss the way in which the program is implemented to minimize the chance for abuse, then that would be great. But that isn't what he's been saying. I just think he's being very clumsy with the issue. Campaigns are about taking clear stands on the issues most important to the voters. Fattah's message on gun violence has been less than clear or coherent.
Posted by Anonymous | May 11, 2007 3:29 PM
The Nutter crime and safet plan - which too few of th epeople arguing about ithave actually read -
http://www.nutter2007.com/images/uploads/Safety_Now_Latest.pdf
- does not sepcifically describe the training of oficers in the limited time selectively chosen "emergency zones". It is true. Neither does Fattah's plan - other than to say the patrols will be "specially trained". Both plans however cite the exact same Lawrence Sherman study which does describe the use of studying people's clothing and posture to see if they are likely packing a firearm in more detail. Basically both plans Fattah's and Nutter's skim over this exact question of how exactly officer's will be trained to identify weapons and point back to the same source for more details for how they would implement their plan. Nutter's plan spends more detail going over the constitutionality of the approach as laid out in the landmark Supreme Court Case Terry vs. Ohio. The difference Fattah is attempting to draw between himself and Nutter on this issue is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Posted by seand | May 11, 2007 3:57 PM
yes jasper
we know
Posted by philly on the rise | May 11, 2007 3:57 PM
These distinctions being mentioned by Fattah now mean nothing to me. He only pointed out the "differences" between his policy and Nutter's once he started trailing in the polls. There is no difference between the policies other than Fattah is now saying he will only empower a small number of cops. I also take issue with the notion that this "elite team" of 100 cops will be pursuing guns citywide. That is illogical because the shootings are concentrated in specific areas. My attempting to be politically correct and pandering to the fears of black residents Fattah is actually proposing a watered down "stop and frisk" that will be so undermanned that it wont be able to stem the tide of shooting. Why in the hell would Fattah propose equal deployment around the city instead of focusing on the worst areas? While people are being shot in SW Philly Fattah would have his elite, colorbling, non profiling team looking for guns in Chestnut Hill and Rittenhouse square. How is that going to help the black people in the REAL problem areas who are afraid to come outside?
Also, why do Fattah's papers cite the work of Sherman and the results in Kansas City and other places if he doesn't support a targeted use of stop and frisk? Didnt they target its use in the cities where it's worked?
Posted by sj | May 11, 2007 4:02 PM
Ray
I am concerned with your basic points against Safety Now plan.
First I believe that whether it is 100 or 10,000 police officers will need to be trained as to how to approach and handle these situations. We also need to make sure that the Police Advisory Board has a significant voice.
You said
"...enabling the entire force to stop and search anyone they think may possess an illegal weapon opens up many officers to dangerous situations..."
Well I think the people of this city are open to these dangerous situations every day . That is why they are dying at a rate of 1 a day. It seems more resonable that the police, who are trained and armed, start dealing.
Second you said:
"it creates a whole lot of liability for police who accidentally stop and search the wrong person."
If the choice is to stop people from getting shot or the stop the city from getting randomly sued, I'm going for saving a life and paying a lawyer.
Posted by philly on the rise | May 11, 2007 4:09 PM
If the concern is about getting sued, how does Fattah's "stop and frisk" plan eliminate that risk?
Posted by Anonymous | May 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Fattah speaks with a forked tongue.
Posted by Anonymous | May 11, 2007 6:26 PM
As I said, this only became an issue once Nutter went to top of the polls. Stop and Frish has been in Nutter's crime plan for months and all of a sudden Fattah is so concerned about civil rights. So concerned in fact, that he never mentions how he plans to "take illegal guns from criminals".
Posted by SJ | May 11, 2007 6:36 PM
Fattah also supports stop and frisk.
Posted by Anonymous | May 11, 2007 9:42 PM
Fattah is desperate and pathetic. He and his campaign are simply unprofessional.
He is a weak, lackluster, do-nothing candidate who also needs to be voted out of the US House of Representatives.
Posted by Anonymous | May 11, 2007 10:42 PM
Fattah is one step away from being an Al Sharpton.
Fattah is an embarrassment to the city.
Posted by Anonymous | May 13, 2007 6:30 AM
Signe Wilkinson and Vance Lehmkuhl's animated cartoon suggesting the glove one oops I mean Mike Nut is so low in the polls is the - Broken Hearted Melody soon to be sung by Mike Jackson , oops I mean Mike Nut with Chaka Fattah lowering the poll gage/gauge.
Jas...
Posted by Jasper Zeigler Jr | May 14, 2007 12:11 PM