Here’s a discussion about Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske feeding steak to homeless people.
By volunteering during this event he is raising awareness about our need to eliminate/reduce poverty as one of the many ways to reduce crime.
Good luck with that eliminating poverty thing. Billions have been spent on this since the LBJ era. I’m not convinced all the steak dinners in the world will make much of a dent in the mental illness, drug/alcohol addiction, and illegitimacy underlying homelessness.
That said, Millionaire Club does seem to be doing a good thing by providing work opportunities to those who are ready for them.
If prevention and “safety net” activities were more prevalent we would see a drop in crime.
Wouldn’t the police chief doing his actual job cause a more direct drop in crime? I assume you’re not saying sufficient giveaway programs would eliminate the need for police.
As someone who’s lived on First Avenue for years, here are some things I’ve observed lacking:
Responding competently to 911 calls, locking up violent criminals, permanently stationing officers in high-crime areas, discouraging uncivil behavior in public parks, sidewalks, and buses.If this stuff ever starts happening, I’ll be more impressed with Chief Kerlikowske’s charity work.
The first time I heard of Chief Kerlikowske was after he ordered police not to intervene in a riot that killed Kris Kime. The PI quotes his defense:
“I think we moved in at the proper time, given the size of the crowd and their mob mentality,” Kerlikowske said. “Every police decision in this situation is that we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.”
OK fine, but why was it a question of “moving in” in the first place? Was the “size of the crowd” for a scheduled, well advertised drinking/partying event a surprise for anyone but Kerlikowske? Wouldn’t having officers on the ground controlling the situation in the first place prevent the “mob mentality” from developing? Is “moving in” with a wall of officers in riot gear the only available tactic?
“A lot of officers” had a different assessment than Kerlikowske’s:
“There’s been a general feeling among our officers that they were held back,” Edwards said. “I understand that this is a tough call. You don’t want to put officers in harm’s way, but what you’re there to do is protect the public’s safety. And a lot of officers are frustrated that they may have been kept from doing that.”
Police officer Stuart Colman was quoted by the Seattle Weekly:
As he looked below, he saw at least three severe beatings in the space of five minutes and felt sickened by his enforced passivity. “At some point,” he says, he and other officers stationed there “were even wondering whether to disobey command and do something maverick.”
The same article quotes another officer:
Police firearms instructor and Guild board member Ken Saucier, however, wonders whether the balance struck had more to do with a concern for public image than with the on-the-ground reality of Tuesday night. “You don’t leave people bleeding and dying on the street because you don’t want to look bad.”
I would have expected Kerlikowske to lay low after something like this, but as I recall he continued to defend his decision after a conference with police in other cities.
And now, after a trip to Philadelphia he’s downplaying Seattle’s gang violence.
The fact that larger, older cities have it much worse is an argument for, not against, nipping this in the bud here. Do things have to get as bad as Philly to light a fire under this guy?
