Residents carrying weapons on bike patrols (ct)


PDA






nate392
June 12, 2007, 11:42 AM
Well it's about time someone stood up to crime here, good for them.

http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.... 590581&rfi=6
Residents carrying weapons on patrols (CT)Residents carrying weapons on patrols
William Kaempffer, Register Staff
06/12/2007
Email to a friendPrinter-friendly
-NEW HAVEN — Tired of what they describe as lip service and hollow promises from the city and Police Department, members of an Orthodox Jewish community and other activists from the Edgewood neighborhood started armed patrols of their own streets Monday night.


"We're not vigilantes. We're not going out looking for trouble. We have to protect what's ours," said Gary Lynes, of Irving Street, who has a pistol permit and will carry his weapon on patrol. So will Rabbi Dov Greer and his brother, Eliezer, both sons of prominent developer Rabbi Daniel Greer.




"It's a very reluctant step. It's an unfortunate step, but we have appealed and appealed and appealed. We have met and met and met," said Rabbi Daniel Greer, who runs the Gan School at 765 Elm St. and nonprofits that in the last two decades have rehabilitated about 40 houses in the area.

It was clear Monday the armed citizen patrols were designed to send an unmistakable message of frustration to City Hall and the mayor. The Greers have appealed to police Chief Francisco Ortiz Jr. for years for increased patrols and walking beats. Every mugging or robbery, Eliezer Greer said, generates a few calls from the city and a cosmetic, and short-lived, increase in police presence.

"Meeting after meeting with the chief and the mayor have accomplished nothing," said Hank Campbell, a Democratic co-chairman for the 24th Ward. "So if you have to bear arms, the Constitution gives us this right. We have to protect what's ours."

Daniel Greer called for Ortiz's ouster, saying he is the Donald Rumsfeld of Mayor John DeStefano Jr.'s administration.

"It's clear the man is not competent," said the elder Greer. "He's a very sweet guy. ... I'd like to have drinks with him. He just can't run a department."

It was an attack Sunday on Dov Greer outside his Elm Street home that triggered the call to action. The younger man wasn't seriously hurt, but the episode appeared to be the tipping point for the Greers.

Through his spokeswoman, DeStefano expressed regret over the attack and said the incident prompted the department to review deployments for that neighborhood. Cops were walking beats at the time of Sunday's incident and Dov Greer chatted with two beat officers not long before the attack, the mayor's office said. The Greers' solution, however, could have disastrous consequences.

"Individuals who carry weapons with the intent of enforcing what they find to be appropriate or inappropriate behavior in their neighborhood is a recipe for disaster," DeStefano said.

He also reaffirmed his "complete confidence" in Ortiz, his command staff, the district manager for the neighborhood and the department as a whole.

If you enjoyed reading about "Residents carrying weapons on bike patrols (ct)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kentak
June 12, 2007, 01:05 PM
Good for them. But, also effective, is keeping up the political pressure on the police and city admin. And, perhaps they have or will be looking for media sympathizers to keep the failures of the city in the public eye. It's the kind of sunshine incompetent politicos and other cock-a-roaches hate.

K

oobray
June 12, 2007, 01:06 PM
This is a great story. I hope things work out well for the community. However, when the gov says things like this

"Individuals who carry weapons with the intent of enforcing what they find to be appropriate or inappropriate behavior in their neighborhood is a recipe for disaster," DeStefano said.


We have little hope for our future. I have been studying criminal justice matters, and specifically police matters for a year or so now. It is quite evident that even increased police presence DOES NOT deter criminals. A few studies, and one long term study was done on this to prove empiracally this is true. (ask me about the Kansas City Study)

30 cal slob
June 12, 2007, 01:20 PM
wonder how the cops will react to pistol permit review board's "ruling" on no open carry. :barf:

Devonai
June 12, 2007, 01:41 PM
Care to elaborate, 30 cal?

Leatherneck
June 12, 2007, 01:49 PM
Good luck to these citizens. God help them if they ever shoot a thug. The establishment has a long memory.

TC

Sage of Seattle
June 12, 2007, 01:52 PM
The establishment has a long memory.


Good. Then the establishment won't forget the reason the citizens felt the need to arm themselves in the first place.

cbsbyte
June 12, 2007, 02:14 PM
Its good to see people being actively involved in their community but I fear that this move will have undo consequences if they actually have to use their weapon, such as being arrested and charged for the shooting, or if not that their permits will be revoked. I do not believe in Connecticut their is a "stand your ground law", in reality they would have to be physically attacked by the criminal before they could pull their weapon. You have understand here in the Northeast, the Police do not like the idea of armed civilians protecting their neighborhood.

JohnL2
June 12, 2007, 02:33 PM
For some reason, this story made think of the comedy spoof "Ghandi II" from that Weird Al Yankovic movie.

Ghandi II (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2BlNxKQQR4)

Go get 'em rabbi!

ravencon
June 12, 2007, 03:16 PM
"Individuals who carry weapons with the intent of enforcing what they find to be appropriate or inappropriate behavior in their neighborhood is a recipe for disaster," DeStefano said.

Mayor DeStefano and his cronies have also proposed that the City issue identification cards to illegal aliens so that they can carry on their illegality more conveniently.

Don Gwinn
June 12, 2007, 05:12 PM
"Individuals who carry weapons with the intent of enforcing what they find to be appropriate or inappropriate behavior in their neighborhood is a recipe for disaster," DeStefano said.

Wait, what?
Did he really say that? The residents are talking about muggings, right? Armed robbery, assault, that kind of thing. I think we can all agree that there's actually a broad consensus that muggings are "inappropriate," don't you?
He acts like they're patrolling to look for kids necking in cars.

Zundfolge
June 12, 2007, 05:20 PM
"Individuals who carry weapons with the intent of enforcing what they find to be appropriate or inappropriate behavior in their neighborhood is a recipe for disaster," DeStefano said.

This is a frightening insight into the mind of many antis who project their own thoughts and feelings onto other people.

Deep down inside DeStefano (and antis like him) would love to kill people for doing things they don't approve of, like watch FoxNews, eat red meat, drive an SUV, drink non "Fair Trade" coffee out of a Styrofoam cup, or whatever other "sins" the left is always complaining about.

JohnL2
June 12, 2007, 05:31 PM
Translation: We (your government officials) think you are too dumb to look after yourselves. We are pretty sure you'll do something stupid and tragic with those guns you own. So why can't you be good citizens and lock yourselves behind your doors in fear and let us handle things? You know, the smart people.

Valkman
June 12, 2007, 05:45 PM
The only recipe for disaster is thinking the police will protect you. I am not anti-cop but people must take responsibility for their own protection. Good for them.

In Vegas a 75 yr-old lady in a wheelchair was beaten and robbed and later died. If only she could have pulled a gun....

Car Knocker
June 12, 2007, 06:15 PM
In Vegas a 75 yr-old lady in a wheelchair was beaten and robbed and later died. If only she could have pulled a gun....
Tourist?

GlowinPontiac
June 13, 2007, 02:24 AM
Mayor DeStefano and his cronies have also proposed that the City issue identification cards to illegal aliens so that they can carry on their illegality more conveniently.

actually a few days after these cards were issued there was a roundup of illegal immigrants in the city. seems like they just did it so they could find out where all the illegals lived.

kd7nqb
June 13, 2007, 03:04 AM
As a former CT resident and most of my family still lives there this bothers me.

I dont know much about Connecticut law but in Oregon these guys would need to be licensed as private security if they patrol anything more than the property they own.

gunsmith
June 13, 2007, 07:29 AM
"Individuals who carry weapons with the intent of enforcing what they find to be appropriate or inappropriate behavior in their neighborhood is a recipe for disaster," DeStefano said.

Hey, DeStefano! it is a disaster already!

CSBYTE
"undo" please define???? you don't mean undue, do you?

romma
June 13, 2007, 10:34 AM
I dont know much about Connecticut law but in Oregon these guys would need to be licensed as private security if they patrol anything more than the property they own.


No law in Ct against riding a bicycle... Even if you are armed!

However, use that firearm to stop a crime that is not being perpetrated against yourself, and you will be in for it! It is sad that the people are being denied the ability to thwart criminals in a legitimate manner.

Titan6
June 13, 2007, 11:18 AM
So an armed man can stand by passively and watch a woman being raped and not face charges? What a world you guys live in up there...

HonorsDaddy
June 13, 2007, 12:19 PM
An armed man not only can stand idly by and watch a woman be raped, but he is legally obligated to not interfere! He'd only face charges if he came to her defense.

Now i don't know about you, but to me, that just seems like a really bad way to run things, and i really don't understand the mindset of a population which would allow that.

'Round here, if you come upon a woman being raped and choose to "educate" the rapist as to the error of his ways, the local constabulary tends to be rather appreciative...

romma
June 13, 2007, 01:14 PM
I don't believe if you happened onto a rape scene while armed and stopped the encounter that they would charge you with anything. However, if you were riding around with the intent of looking for rapists, if the cops don't charge you for stopping it, then expect to be sued by someone...

30 cal slob
June 13, 2007, 01:18 PM
State Police making up the law as they go along.

Open Carry is legal in CT BUT you risk not getting your permit (which is a permit to possess AND carry in CT) renewed if you raise a ruckus:

http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=1252&q=254186

Frequently Asked Questions
Part 3 Carrying/Transporting Handguns


Q36. Does my permit to carry pistols and revolvers permit me to carry it on my person?

A. Yes. However, mature judgment dictates that every effort should be made to make sure that no gun is exposed to view or carried in any manner that would tend to alarm people who see it. When your gun becomes visible so as to cause alarm, the police are called, and your permit to carry is placed in jeopardy of revocation.

30 cal slob
June 13, 2007, 01:28 PM
guys, check your deadly force laws carefully. CT OLR recently did some research on "Castle Laws" in other states and in that analysis summarized lawful use of physical and deadly force:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm

CONNECTICUT LAW

Under Connecticut law, a person may use physical force (self defense): to protect himself or a third person, his home or office, or his property; to make an arrest or prevent an escape; or to perform certain duties (for example, a corrections officer may use force to maintain order and discipline, a teacher to protect a minor, and a parent to discipline a child). A person cannot use physical force to resist arrest by a reasonably identifiable peace officer, whether the arrest is legal or not (CGS § 53a-23).

Self defense or justification is a defense in any prosecution (CGS § 53a-16). The person claiming justification has the initial burden of producing sufficient evidence to assert self-defense. When raised as a defense at a trial, the state has the burden of disproving self defense beyond a reasonable doubt (CGS § 53a-12).

Physical Force in Defense of Person

A person is justified in using reasonable physical force on another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force. The defender may use the degree of force he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself or a third person. But deadly physical force cannot be used unless the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.

Additionally, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force if he knows he can avoid doing so with complete safety by:

1. retreating, except from his home or office in cases where he was not the initial aggressor or except in cases where he a peace officer, special policeman, or a private individual assisting a peace officer or special policeman at the officer's directions regarding an arrest or preventing an escape;

2. surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own; or

3. obeying a demand that he not take an action he is not otherwise required to take.

Lastly, a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the person to use physical force, (2) use of such force was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law, or (3) he is the initial aggressor (unless he withdraws from the encounter, effectively communicates this intent to the other person, and the other person continues to or threatens to use physical force) (CGS § 53a-19).

Devonai
June 13, 2007, 01:34 PM
Thank you very much for the relevant data.

Titan6
June 13, 2007, 02:52 PM
I got it. How a criminal can easily disarm a law abiding citizen in CT:

''Hey that is my gun, Give it to me now and you won't get hurt.''

(Since he claimed it was his property and told him he would not be hurt if he turned it over to him there is no reason not to give it up now is there?)

ravencon
June 13, 2007, 03:18 PM
So an armed man can stand by passively and watch a woman being raped and not face charges? What a world you guys live in up there...

What to you mean "up there". I doubt if any state in the U.S. has a law obligating a private citizen to intervene during the commission of a crime. Those private citizens who choose to so intervene do so at their own risk.

Autolycus
June 13, 2007, 03:27 PM
I thought LE was our friends?:rolleyes:

It is nice to see citizens taking back the streets. It is sad that they have told the administration about these problems for years and the administration has done nothing. I wish more and more people would start to do this kind of thing. Does anyone remeber the article about the offduty cops, civilians, and other guys doing this kind of thing in Brazil or some other South American country?

When people get sick of the crime on the streets and the crime in the bereaucracy it is perfectly ok to take things into their own hands in my opinion.

Titan6
June 13, 2007, 03:28 PM
Ravencon- You are probably right. Maybe I have been in the military too long...

obxned
June 13, 2007, 04:34 PM
There is no evil intent in wanting to live in peace. In order to secure such peace, citizens may need to patrol their streets to witness and report criminal activity. Some of those people might happen to be legally carrying a firearm. It is possible that in witnessing and reporting a crime, the witness might be force to use that firearm if attacked by a criminal who is engaged in an activity he does not want witnessed or reported to the police. I’m not seeing anything illegal in that by Connecticut law.

Mayor DeStefano knows that there is a problem with crime in their area, but seems unwilling or unable to do anything about it. Has he tried bike patrols, beat cops, or just the same old ‘drive-by’ policing that has not been working? Maybe he needs to get his lazy butt out there and help.

romma
June 13, 2007, 04:46 PM
I’m not seeing anything illegal in that by Connecticut law.


It doesn't take much for them to make stuff up around here... Public Nuisance, obstruction of justice, threatening,,, who knows?

You may beat the wrap, but you won't beat the ride! As it has been said many times here before.

BTW, I am all for people having backbone and standing up and doing this, I just believe some in the justice field prefer to have a monopoly on justice...

Aguila Blanca
June 13, 2007, 11:40 PM
wonder how the cops will react to pistol permit review board's "ruling" on no open carry.

Care to elaborate, 30 cal?
Not 30 cal, but my brother lives in CT and I have a CT permit. The CT permit is simply a "License to carry a pistol or revolver." It says nothing about having to carry concealed, and neither does CT statute. But CT has this ... entity ... called the Firearms Review Board (or something like that) that has promulgated a FAQ brochure that pretty much implies that open carry is verbotten and will be cause for, if not arrest, at least loss of license to carry.

Aguila Blanca
June 13, 2007, 11:44 PM
An armed man not only can stand idly by and watch a woman be raped, but he is legally obligated to not interfere! He'd only face charges if he came to her defense.
Maybe in Oklahoma, but not in Connecticut. CT statute allows the use of deadly force in defense of third parties. Most states do so ... are you certain OK doesn't?

Devonai
June 14, 2007, 12:30 AM
Thank you very much. I have maintained a CT non-res permit for several years, and I always assumed it was for concealed carry only. I wouldn't want to be a test case for it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Residents carrying weapons on bike patrols (ct)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!