What’s A “Homicide”? Categorically Speaking, It’s An “Assault” Gone Wrong!

Everyone’s definition of “crime statistics” differs.

First, you’ve got the NYPD’s definition – based only on what they record. Then, you’ve got city and state representatives, who base the severity of current statistics on what’s happened in past years. Then, you’ve got local precincts which throw various crimes into different categories that don’t make things sound “too bad.”

THEN…THEN you have the residents – homeowners and folks in the community – who REALLY see what’s going on and catch all the action that often turns out to be “nothing,” as police report.

I started rethinking about how crime is reported when I wrote about two stabbings that took place in the community within one week early in October. Then, in our October 30th issue, there were three more stabbings that took place – in only three days!

Whether the public knows this –or disagrees with it – officials file crimes like stabbings and non-violent shootings (which don’t result in death or casualties) under “assaults.” Legally, an assault – which is what most non-fatal shootings and stabbings are categorized under – is “carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent present ability to cause harm.”

Bodily harm? That’s all? WHY? You were STABBED! You were SHOT! If you were within a foot of the person who shot or stabbed you, does the word “assault” really even begin to describe what you experienced? Whoever shot or stabbed you took a chance at ending your life.

Someone punching you in the face or somewhere on your body is also just an “assault.” Is someone kicking or choking you – almost to death – also considered an assault – not just an attack?

In my opinion, if someone’s using a lethal weapon – especially an illegal one – that has potential to end one’s life, shouldn’t whatever harm they cause be considered more serious than just “an assault”?

Let’s break it down…You could get stabbed with a knife once in a major artery or in your heart and bleed to death. You could get shot once in your head or chest and die. In those cases, the “assault” resulted in death and it’s rightfully labeled a homicide.

It’s sad to know that if you get stabbed or shot at and you don’t die as a result of your injuries – it might be counted as an attempted murder. But it’s still listed in crime stats an “assault.”

Nahhh, the suspect didn’t mean to kill you – they just have fun poking people with a knife and firing a gun at you for no reason! Plenty of innocent people get wounded by gunshots when they were the in line of fire. Whoever fired that shot or pulled their weapon out – consciously – acted with the intent to harm or kill someone. So that’s simply an assault? If someone gets arrested for carrying out a brutal beating – and that’s also an “assault” – how can they throw something more serious, involving a gun or knife, into the same crime statistic/category?

I know – there’s a lot of legalese and technical terms that subsequently allow the bad guys to continue walking the streets – armed, dangerous and a threat to others’ lives. All of these sub-categories and toned-down labels of pure intentional violence also results in less time in prison for someone carrying a weapon.

Lastly, the time served in prison should be A LOT longer than a decade or so for attempting to take someone’s life. Yes, 20-year-old Kareem Potomont was charged with attempted murder after he “unintentionally” shot young Gama Droiville, who was caught in the crossfire earlier this year in the East Flatbush area.

Come on! The poor kid was left scarred, blind and visiting hundreds of doctors months later so he could receive a prosthetic eye. Potomont, already noted by the press as a troubled individual whose aim was not Droiville, was said to get “25 years to life” for carrying the heinous act. Only 25 years…to life? He opened fire on a public street and changed an innocent boy’s life for the worst! He could have killed multiple people – and the minimum is 25 years?

There’s apparently a fine line between attempting to kill someone and actually killing them…It’s only matter of exactly where the bullet or knife strikes you! Remember, if you’re gonna shoot someone, please don’t kill them – cuz, according to our legal system and crime stats, you’re only “assaulting” them and you won’t really be punished for all that long…

Unpublished 10-29-14

Our Government Is Home Alone!

When someone trespasses on your property and tampers with its contents, what’s the first thing you want to do? What’s the first thing that comes to mind? Train a ferocious dog to rip them apart? Rig up some type of booby trap like that kid did in Home Alone? Hire your own security guard to search the premises and stand at the door like a bouncer?

Okay – maybe you want to take a lighter and less expensive route and do what the NYPD advises. Install some surveillance cameras to capture the crooks’ images and if you can get an alarm for your home, that might work, too. Police say doing simple things like locking your windows and doors will help keep intruders out, too.

I’ve received plenty of calls at the office from homeowners who were robbed while they were inside their house. It’s frightening to know that anyone can just enter your comfort zone at any time and rob you blind. That’s why people should also set their home alarm systems when they go to sleep – we’re most vulnerable when we’re asleep and not paying attention to what’s going on.

It’s ironic that the city puts out all of these advisories for residents to “protect their homes” and properties when the city can’t even protect its own property! In early October, Federal legislation was proposed to “toughen” penalties for those trespassing high-profile structures. That’ll scare away those kids and “activists” who were able to climb to the top of the Brooklyn Bridge! That’ll show those hooligans who somehow gained access to the top of the World Trade's Freedom Tower!

I don't care about security “oversights” and lack of resources. What if, in one of those instances, the perpetrators made it to the top of the structure and planted a bomb? What if those scoundrels were able to place cameras where they intruded and plot an attack? What if they were carrying weapons and were able to obliterate vehicles or passersby?

Ok – maybe you want a lighter and less invasive excuse for why they climbed some of the city’s most vulnerable high-profile structures. They just wanted to “make a statement” and make the news! They didn’t hurt anyone!

In an ideal, post-9/11 world, we wouldn’t need to make excuses for why our government isn’t protecting us from trespassers. Do you realize how easy it is to access a public structure and potentially plan something dangerous?

Sure, now they’re taking measures to put “new barriers” in place…once the damage has been done. That’s like waiting until your gorgeous house gets ransacked by a pack of thieves before you finally decide to dish out money for an alarm system.

Why are we waiting for someone to trespass on a high-profile building or structure to implement a stronger safety or prevention plan? What have they been doing all of these years? The more you hear about these incidents on the news, the more an average New Yorker will realize how the government really isn’t prepared to protected us.

Out of the security breaches that were reportedly “prevented” already, where do those handful of dangerous incidents fall in the “prevention” category? If it happened before, what makes anyone think it won’t happen again?

Plenty of “safety measures” can be put into effect. Deterring offenders through “tougher fines” doesn’t really address the issue – that we’re vulnerable and unprepared because no one is physically preventing trespassers from getting to their destination.

Let’s get real…Who was patrolling the Brooklyn Bridge when someone stuck a white flag at the top? If this act was committed in the dead of night, when no one was around – what does that say about limited the hours during which we’re protected? Shouldn’t the grounds of the Brooklyn Bridge be protected 24/7?

Oh, well…Isn’t it good to know that the government can’t afford around-the-clock protection for our most vulnerable landmarks? How can we prevent trespassers in the first place if access points are so easy? Which landmark or high-profile structure will be next?

If you ask me, the government’s been sleeping for way too long. Maybe it will take another catastrophe and another breach of security for Senator Chuck Schumer and other lawmakers to start practicing their open-mouthed Home Alone expressions. 

Unpublished 10-20-14

Canarsie’s Reputation Joins The Rest Of The City’s In Moving Forward

Last week, while watching the evening news, I caught a story on a massive protest taking place on the Upper East Side. Parents held contrasting signs with graphics of children wearing sports outfits and others with gas masks. Only a few blocks from schools, playgrounds and residential areas, a marine transfer station, which looked like a huge warehouse, was being proposed.

A few New York Daily News articles cited that residents were already complaining that the garbage transfer site would result in “foul smells, pollutionspewing trucks and dust and debris blowing around” when more than 50 trucks per hour would bring waste to the site, located near the Asphalt Green athletic complex on 90th Street on the East Side.

Wait a minute – this sounds a lot like what happened in Canarsie a couple of years ago when residents protested the medical waste transfer site at East 100th Street and Farragut Road. While everyone says we’re the city’s stepchild, we’re no longer the only community dealing with this issue.

Upon further research, I found articles from 2008 and 2009 on the Department of Parks’ plans to reconstruct Washington Square Park.

Once riddled with drug dealers and unkempt lawns, Washington Square Park is one of the city’s most populated recreation area. But, according to Plannyc.org, a web site that informs New Yorkers about city events and renovations, members of Community Board 2 expressed “disappointment in what they said was lack of information provided by the Parks Department at the most recent task force meeting for the redesign of Washington Square Park.” Reports said protesters believed the renovations would erode the park’s 183-year-old character and destroy several dozen trees.

This sounds a lot like local opposition to the reconstruction of Canarsie Park and other natural areas such as Paerdegat Basin, which are sorely needed to improve the way our community looks.

When I hear civic leaders, residents and politicians say that Canarsie is the only community that gets dumped on – and that we’re not included in decision making – it seems like communities all over the city are in the same boat!

Many issues that have scarred Canarsie are beginning to scar other communities typically deemed financially and demographically “better” and comprised of more “dedicated” people than Canarsie.

Another issue we’re not alone in dealing with is the placement of a charter school to share the building that houses P.S.114. Borough President Marty Markowitz held a public forum on Wednesday, June 15th, on citywide school co-locations. According to the press release following the forum, over 800 public school buildings in the city share space with a charter school. Markowitz said he hopes charter schools and public schools will start regular dialogues to work through the issues they have with sharing building space. P.S. 114 is the only local school which is being slighted by co-location, but so are hundreds of other schools – and those communities hold massive protests against this new idea, which has been implemented by the Department of Education.

When you read the newspapers or watch these unfair stories on the evening news, everyone quoted says their community “doesn’t deserve this treatment.” So who does? New York City as a whole is changing and, unfortunately, Canarsie has no choice but to do the same. 

http://www.canarsiecourier.com/news/2011-06-23/Guest_Column/Canarsies_Reputation_Joins_The_Rest_Of_The_Citys_I.html 

Advice To Residents: Help Yourself Before Reaching Out To Us To Help YOU

There will always be something going on in the community that annoys someone. And there will always be a handful of people whose first course of action is placing a phone call to the local media, such as the Canarsie Courier, about a longunresolved issue.

Without acknowledging who is actually responsible for the problem, and without researching the city and state agencies who can generate a possible solution, some residents think we can swoop to the rescue and pursue their story as if we are miracle workers. However, information-savvy residents took proper measures before contacting us. They’ve called local politicians, city housing or building authorities, and attended civic meetings to congregate with others who share the same grievances.

Those who believe we are a print version of 3-1-1 think their problems will be solved by telling our staff, “You have to do something about these deplorable conditions!”

As much as we enjoy being a soapbox for our community, as many newspapers are, we cannot literally, physically DO anything. It would help us greatly if residents knew what type of issue they were dealing with and if they understood how to facilitate valuable public information that is readily available.

I received a call a couple of weeks ago from a resident who couldn’t believe there were rats plaguing Canarsie Pier and lights that weren't working. He ordered me to take a trip down there and “tell someone to fix everything.”

First, he admitted that he’s never been to a community meeting where Gateway Recreational Area officials made a presentation on repairs at the pier, and, second, he didn't know Gateway is the Federal agency responsible for upkeep at the site. He also seemed tongue-tied when I asked him if he was aware that we've been publishing articles on the pier as often as information is available to the public.

It disappointed me that he had no idea WHO operated the site he was complaining about – it bothered me more that he hasn’t been reading our newspaper!

The same way reporters have a listing of government agencies and politicians they can contact, residents can be active citizens and also call these entities.

In other instances, when I interviewed angry residents living in some terrible conditions within New York City Housing Authority buildings, for example, many already did their homework. They called city maintenance, had physical records of ticket numbers and they reached out to tenant's associations. Their last step, after getting nowhere, was calling us.

It's easier to help expose a persistently unresolved issue when an active community member has already fought the system through their own investigative measures. Stories are also better when residents demonstrate they are responsible citizens.

The best way for us to help you is to first help yourself. Become familiar with who your representatives are, be aware of who fosters the most change and how to get in touch with them. I completely agree that if you give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for life.

http://www.canarsiecourier.com/news/2011-10-13/Guest_Column/Telling_It_Like_It_Is.html 

The Not-So-Thin Line Between Reporting And Writing

 Everyone wants to write or be a writer. Not everyone can or should be a writer.

In the past few years, as Associate Editor of the Canarsie Courier, I received some positive feedback from people in the community who want to do some writing for our publication. Many of the candidates, who are professionals in other fields, are interested in submitting pieces and covering newsworthy events. There are those who love to “write” and those who are simply interested in getting their foot in the door of the wonderful world of publishing.

While meeting some great writers who had their works published previously for other media, I realized that many applicants who hope to write for us don’t seem to understand the fine line between creative writing and professional reporting.

Not to discourage those who want to dig their hands in the news world, but if you haven’t heard of “the five W’s and an H” (who, what, where, when, why and how), chances are, reporting may not be for you. A lot of people say they want to write the “hard news” bits, yet they will start a sentence with a number in numeric form and not spell it out – a BIG no-no in newspaper reporting – and they do not follow the format of anecdotal leads or the hour glass structure. Furthermore, “hard news” is classified as a report on an incident that just happened with the raw, expedient facts at the beginning in the “lead” and a review of any other history later in the story. If I’ve already lost or confused you with this mini-journalism lesson, then you’re definitely not heading down the road to being a reporter.

It took me all of three and a half years at Brooklyn College to learn how to write headlines, address a hard news story, hone my interviewing techniques and allow my writing tone to flourish while simultaneously following the professional format of newspaper writing. Once you learn the basic structure of a news article, being able to write for the public – especially when it’s a small community – is easier.

There are still some basic grammar faux pas that writers can’t get past. One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone writes “they must of” instead of “they must have.” It may seem like the simplest thing to sit down and write a story, but if you don’t even have the basics of grammar style covered, the skill of reporting as a journalist is almost lost completely.

What prevents someone from expressing themselves in a clear and accurate manner once they are sitting in front of a screen ready to write a story? One of my colleagues and I discussed the disconnect that exists when it comes to understanding a topic and actually writing about it on paper. Some very intelligent teachers, businesspeople, and passionate civic leaders write to us about what it is going on with their organization. However, there is something that prevents the average professional, who may not write often, from interpreting clear, concise, and organized facts in their minds and then putting them on paper.

Admittedly, even though I practiced writing stories at only six years old because I loved to write, I’m still learning how to efficiently and effectively incorporate my personal style with the professional journalism format.

We welcome writers of all kinds who would like to give professional reporting a shot, but our readers must understand, in clear, simple yet thorough terms, what is going on in their neighborhood. Therefore, it helps to have skilled and schooled reporters, who are able to clearly express on paper what’s going on.

You may think you’re a writer because you enjoy “writing,” but – hey – I’m just telling it like it is!

Preserving History: Saving Your Life vs. Saving The Community

 In the small town of Yaphank, Long Island, the historical committee has been at odds with the fire department who says there is a dire need for a cell tower to be installed somewhere in the community. A cell tower would better help first responders communicate with residents in the event of an emergency and improve the department's ability to respond to fires. Even though the supposedly huge tower would be placed behind the fire department's facility, Yaphank's 13-member Historic District Advisory Committee has turned down two proposals to approve the project. The board believes that the tower would ruin the town’s rich character, destroying historic districts in the area. Does this scenario sound familiar?

What's sad about this situation is that the fire department wants to erect the tower to improve the community – make it safer and help expedite response time in the event of an emergency or life-threatening situations. Television reports indicated that there are also numerous dead zones in the Yaphank area - where you can't even reach 911 if you're in trouble because there are no signals coming into certain parts of the town. When the fire department proposed they would creatively disguise the cell tower as something that might look somewhat aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood's character, the historical committee still rejected the idea. The visual impact this tower will have on their quaint town is more important than saving lives, they say. This ideology also sounds familiar.

The only difference between Canarsiens' arguments and that of Yaphank residents is that we've expressed our fears of living in such close proximity to cell towers because they may or may not radiate unhealthy electronic waves. Many community members here opposed the cell tower at Avenue N near Canarsie Road. Some local arguments are for preserving old homes and structures that no longer pass building safety codes. With old buildings, as beautiful and classic as they are, it's often easier and more cost efficient to replace them with more modern structures that aren't ridden with asbestos and flammable materials that no normal contractor would use in today's construction guidelines

However, if an old building that's worthy of being landmarked with a rich history can be modernized for current use and follow the city's safety measures, there's no reason to ruin it or tear it down.

The only reason some of those rustic, yet admirable Brooklyn houses – like the Wyckoff Farmhouse and the Lefferts Historic House – can be preserved is probably because they're not utilized as living quarters. I'm sure if someone opted to permanently live in these Dutch homes, they'd have to rip apart those beautifully crafted walls to reroute gas and electrical lines and those centuries-old classic wood floors would be completely redone to comply with FDNY and Department of Buildings materials. Who knows if the fireplaces in those old homes are really safe – they might just have to demolish and then rebuild them completely, too. Is that really preserving history and the way things were in the old days? Of course, these museums must be up to various basic safety codes on a daily basis for the general public –but they certainly don't need to revamp the details of the building the same way living dwellings are monitored.

Even though I'm all in favor of preserving a community's historic value, the safety and overall improvement of quality of life should come before anything else. We shouldn't, like those dedicated Yaphankers, fight the authorities when they're trying to prepare for worst-case scenarios.

Every community – not just Canarsie – has residents who want to preserve their neighborhood. But if you cut your nose to spite your face, you will be preserving ignorance and not your life. 

http://www.canarsiecourier.com/news/2011-11-24/Guest_Column/Telling_It_Like_It_Is.html 

When Courteousness Is Mistaken For A Dangerous Encounter

Walking to work Monday morning was like trekking through an urban version of Tales From The Crypt. My route was sheathed by a thick layer of fog and the visibility range made me glad that I wasn’t driving those few blocks. It wasn’t cold out, but it was certainly eerie.

As I walked along one of the avenues, a man walked alongside me and said, “Hello, good morning,” then mumbled a compliment – seemingly expecting me to reciprocate some acknowledgment of his existence. Instead of responding, even in an uninterested manner the way some women choose to do, I took a right turn and completely averted any communication with him.

Maybe I came across as being rude, self-absorbed or inconsiderate, but if you’re a sociable man in this community and you go around walking beside random women dishing out compliments just to get their attention, you obviously don’t read or watch the local news. Some men need to realize that their efforts at being “nice” and “courteous” are not appreciated when we read that a young girl was raped by someone who sidled up next to her for no reason.

Having lived here all my life, I remember when Canarsie was a community where everyone knew each other. You would see the same people on the same blocks every day and you knew their names, their families, and what their routines were.

As people from other communities and countries moved here and kept to themselves – instead of going outside every day to talk to all of their neighbors – long-time residents were less inclined to be polite. Some crimes even resulted from someone “looking” at another person the wrong way, or someone having a problem with the way they’re being approached. 

In ANY community that has high crime and rape rates – my question is: What do men expect when they approach a woman in the middle of the street? Do they really expect them to start a conversation under these impersonal circumstances?

Do these men read reports that clearly show young women as victims – on their way to and from work – who are suddenly approached by a stranger and the next thing you know, they’re either missing or another rape/attack statistic?

And do these men walk around Canarsie, and the surrounding areas, realizing that if they make one wrong move, a sketch of their face will be plastered everywhere on a wanted sign?

Even though most of the rapes and attacks in Canarsie statistically involved victims who may have known their assailants, men who are trying to be nice and courteous don’t seem to comprehend that women are, in turn, trying to protect themselves. Some of us aren’t interested in starting a conversation with a complete stranger who can potentially threaten our safety!!

Understandably, many Caribbean and Haitian men in our neighborhood may come from small, quaint communities where it’s commonplace to say hello and compliment a woman walking down the street. I can’t confirm whether they would follow a woman several blocks with hopes of getting more than a simple greeting.

However, they have a warm, welcoming politeness and casual social interaction that doesn’t really exist on city streets.

Outside New York City, there are thousands of communities where it’s safe to smile at a stranger – and then go about your way. But some men in the city who intend to be friendly don’t understand that women are conditioned to be suspicious of strangers approaching us. No woman wants to be mentioned in yet another newspaper headline. I certainly don’t want to be the subject of a headline in the very paper of which I’m employed!

One of the rape/attack incidents reported in our newspaper was in July 2011. According to local detectives, the rape took place on a Friday morning when a man followed a 13-year-old girl to her apartment and, officials said, pushed her inside and then took a knife from his belt and threatened her with it.

Even though reports said the girl didn’t indicate whether she knew her attacker or not, this public information makes women cautious of their social interactions with strange men. This is no longer a "small town community" where everyone knows one another. Women can’t afford NOT to be paranoid and “rude,” therefore ignoring suspicious males while walking the streets.

Don't take it personally, but if I ignore you as I’m expediently making my way to my destination, I'm only trying to survive in a community now scarred by crime and the potential danger of those who I’ve never encountered before.

It’s one thing to courteously say hello and go about your business – it’s another to follow a woman and aggressively walk beside her when you’re not welcomed into her personal space. 

 http://www.canarsiecourier.com/news/2011-12-08/Telling_It_Like_It_Is/Telling_It_Like_It_Is.html

Are “Decreasing Crime” Stats Parallel With Reality?

Many New Yorkers – and specifically Canarsiens – don't seem to believe the cold hard facts. If you tell someone crime is down, they might ask: Where or who did you get that idea from?

Those who attend 69th Precinct Community Council meetings every month get to SEE the facts on paper. 

Residents can pick up a copy of the latest Compstat report, which breaks crime rates into several categories, such as murder, grand larceny, rape and robberies. Monthly Compstat reports compare crimes over respective weeks, months and years.

So, why, when we turn on the news or read a newspaper, does it seem like we're still not safe walking the streets where teens are shot and police officers are dying in the line of duty across the city?

It was nice to receive a press release from the city that quoted Mayor Bloomberg, who said, “Despite tough fiscal times, New York's frontline public safety agencies - the NYPD and the FDNY - continue to keep our city safer than in any time in record history.”

Unfortunately, while I was reading News12’s feeds on Facebook, another report stated this year was the first time in 14 years that more law enforcement agents died in shootings than traffic accidents. There was a 13 percent increase in police deaths this year in comparison to previous years.

And as many weapons as police are taking off the streets through gun buyback programs and numerous arrests, gunfire was still noted as responsible for most cop-related casualties. The number of police casualties around the area are not, for some reason, listed on the Compstat reports.

When our November 24, 2011 issue hit the newsstands, everyone in Canarsie wanted to read about the murder of 17-year-old Shaquille Jones that happened near East 79th Street and Flatlands Avenue. Only a few days later, Dwight Langdon was murdered near East 82nd Street and Flatlands Avenue. Shootings - whether they resulted in a death or not - seemed to happen every week. Bodega employees are held up at gunpoint and innocent deliverymen, often held up at gunpoint, are victims of theft.

There were also reports in the news that thefts of electronics are on the rise - whether you’re walking on the street or you're riding the subway, warnings about being more vigilant when using a gadget in public are plastered everywhere. Now, if this city is such a SAFE place and we're better off than we were 10 years ago, why do we have to hide our iPods, cell phones and cameras when we're traveling to work?

The way Bloomberg speaks about the safety of our city, we shouldn't worry about someone attacking us for our cell phones and we shouldn’t be paranoid about who's going to walk up behind us as we enter a train station late at night. If we're down so much in crime, shouldn’t a good percentage of the “bad guys” be off the streets already?

The only way to justify the “safe” aspect of decreasing crime stats is the supposed fact that some murders are incidents involving individuals who most likely knew each other and had personal disputes with each other prior to the shooting, stabbing or robbery. These “isolated incidents” allegedly involved gang rivals, friends, family members, drug-related interactions and boyfriend/girlfriend arguments gone awry.

From my experience as a reporter, crime isn’t up - and it isn’t down. It seems to be remaining somewhat the same, with arrests being made not too long after the crime occurred. Elected officials in East Flatbush, Crown Heights and East New York aren’t holding anti-gun protests for the fun of it and parents aren’t picketing in droves for safer conditions just because they like to show off oak tag paper with their handwriting displayed.

We still have some serious improvements to make - but the Mayor should face the facts when it comes to the accounting for the horrific crimes that go down in the city’s small, dangerous communities. It may not be particularly good for New York’s tourism to admit the truth but it’s also not good to tone down what’s really happening on our streets.

http://www.canarsiecourier.com/news/2012-01-05/Telling_It_Like_It_Is/Telling_It_Like_It_Is.html 

Hungry During Your Commute? Meals On The Go A Possible No-No

A brawl broke out on a train in March 2012 when an older woman noticed a younger woman across from her gobbling forkfuls of spaghetti from a styrofoam container.

She was heard saying, “Only animals eat on the train…” which spurred numerous arguments. It wasn’t clear how long she was sitting there before the feud, but the older woman’s comments seemed to come from nowhere – as she arrogantly criticized the younger girl, who eventually got up from her seat, approached the rider and a full-on catfight erupted (the most hilarious part to me was that she was holding the open container of saucy pasta in one hand during practically the entire fight).

Some of those foods ARE NOT portable!

If you got a kick out of Youtubing this video (which I’m sure you’re about to Google now if you didn’t catch it on the news), you might not get a kick out of proposed plans to ban eating on New York City trains.

A bill sponsored by Harlem Senator Bill Perkins would impose a $250 fine for those caught eating on trains. The food ban, according to reports, would help decrease the number of rat infestations underground. I haven’t come across an official study that concluded food from trains directly leads to rat infestation, a major justification for the eating ban.

Rats live in dirty dark places – food or no food – that’s what undergrounds have been plagued by for centuries.

Yes, I’ve seen plenty of garbage-strewn tracks all over, including our very own L train line, which has undergone so many station rehabilitation projects. But how will they enforce this ban on food? Maybe they would have transit cops do inspections for food before you enter train stations at the turnstyles?

Where does it end? No gum chewing or snacking? What if you’re a mother whose baby needs their bottle in the middle of the commute – she’s going to be fined for feeding her newborn? What if you’re diabetic or have a medical condition that requires food consumption during a long one hour commute?

And will this ban include drinking? When it’s sweltering hot in the stations during the summertime, is consuming a cold bottle of water going to be a violation? And where will these “guidelines” be posted so commuters can go over a list of foods that are potential rodent-attractors?

Some children have their breakfast on the train while on their way to school. It’s not right to issue a summons to a hungry student who might have a long commute. Will an on-the-go snack like a banana or granola bar warrant a violation?

In addition, it would be next to useless for newsstands inside stations to sell candy or other goodies – and they’d lose a lot of profit. Food carts positioned, like the one near the L train at Rockaway Parkway, accommodate commuters in the mornings with a quick bite to eat and a hot cup of coffee. What good are these vendors’ businesses if people won’t be able to buy anything they can enjoy during their ride?

If you manage to hide food in one of your pockets or inside your jacket and you sneak a bite of a sandwich, who’s going to stop you? I would personally hate to get caught by an enforcement official on a train and have a half eaten egg sandwich grabbed from my hands so they could and give me a fine for simply being HUNGRY! Maybe they’ll list penalties according to which food you’re caught with. Popping a donut in your mouth before a transit agent can say something, shouldn’t be more than a $50 fine.

While eating is a healthy thing to do on trains, smoking bans on platforms (recently enforced on LIRR and Metro-North lines) can be justified. Other commuters are affected and bothered by secondhand smoke and there’s also the risk of possible track fires if a cigarette is discarded on the tracks. Other than the “stench” from someone’s food in a train car, what’s the worst it can do for fellow riders?

Obviously, some lawmakers just want to put a fine on ANYTHING that can generate revenue needed to help the city get out of debt.

Let’s get real – we’re paying hundreds of dollars each month to ride the rails on a daily basis, and even then, most commuters still don’t think they’re getting adequate service. If the MTAis going to have us sitting in between stops for a good 20 minutes because of “train traffic up ahead,” or because of “technical difficulties” that happen more than they should, the least they can do is let us enjoy a muffin while they get their act together.

Monitoring a law like this would be nearly impossible and guidelines would be so off the charts, it would be worse than the confusion that may have taken place when recycling paper and plastic goods was mandated over a decade go.

Even though a full meal like spaghetti, which requires a fork and several napkins, should be eaten at a dinner table, officials who would have to enforce this law should look at the more important issues and take a bite out of crime in the subways instead. 

http://www.canarsiecourier.com/news/2012-02-23/Telling_It_Like_It_Is/Telling_It_Like_It_Is.html 

Another Means Of Dangerous Travel That’ll Have You Flying Off Your Seat

Imagine flying hundreds of feet above the air – seeing the best New York has to offer – and getting to your destination in record time. If you can also imagine being stuck in midair for hours and NOT getting to your destination at all, you’re probably thinking about the frightening aspects of relying on a new form of transportation proposed for the city.

Remember this debacle?

We already had a disaster with the Roosevelt Island Tram in 2006. I remember watching the news and seeing the tram suspended in the middle of the line over the East River for what seemed like endless hours. It was pitch black by the time everyone was saved. Over 60 unfortunate commuters, who simply wanted an easygoing trip from one place to another, were stranded until rescue workers showed up.

Published reports stated that this wasn’t the first catastrophe that happened on the tram. Our city takes thousands of people, from one borough to another, 24 hours, seven days a week on public transportation and there’s no guarantee that everyone’s going to make it through their commute without problems.

So why are we entertaining the idea of the “East River Skyway?” Someone (or a group of residents) should protest what could be another dangerous and lagging means of travel. Haven’t we learned our lesson?

The city already can’t keep up with the amount of commuters it has to transport every day. Hundreds are moving into the city as more multiple family dwellings are being built in posh and hipster communities. The ‘L’ train alone is constantly having more cars added to its line – and trains that run more frequently – every year to serve the growing population in Williamsburg, Greenpoint and Bushwick. And what happens as a result of added trains and constant traffic?

DISASTER!!

My little sister, coming home from the city on her first week of high school, was stuck at Broadway Junction during rush hour with no ‘L’ train in site. The whole line was out of whack, but the MTA didn’t even provide a shuttle bus as soon as the problem occurred – leaving my sister stranded and looking for an alternate route to get home via an East New York bus she never traveled on before.

Let’s get real! The irony of spending millions to improve our transportation system, which leaves commuters stranded because of its overuse, is not a lesson we want to learn the hard way! We’re spending millions to “upgrade” a system that constantly has signal and switch problems. Construction debacles cause shuttle trains and buses to run for weeks and months at a time. In addition, we’re always being herded – literally like cattle – from one train or bus to another when the MTA encounters a problem.

Isn’t this proof that our city needs to focus on improving the flow and dependency of transportation methods we already facilitate? Sure, “it happens” but do you want incidents to “happen” while you’re in a tiny, caged car with dozens of strangers, dangling over the East River?

Okay, I get it – maybe the East River Skyway will help alleviate some of the train and bus traffic that causes congestion. And who doesn’t like a scenic view of our bridges and boroughs? If developers and engineers can truly build a system that will handle our daily abuse – and come up with a safety contingency plan that won’t leave people hanging over a body of water for more than an hour – then it might work.

Unless you ride the rails every day, you’ll never know the fear the MTA has instilled in commuters who need to get back and forth from work. No matter how attractive, costly or efficient any new form of transportation seems, the real test will be enduring the countless hours – stranded in the middle of nowhere – when these beauties malfunction. Happy trails to you and happy spending on a system whose destination is ruining your sanity! 

http://www.canarsiecourier.com/news/2014-09-25/Telling_It_Like_It_Is/Telling_It_Like_It_Is.html 

They’re Teaching Us A Thing Or Two About REAL Education!

Threesomes, secret meetings, raunchy messages and specially assigned “homework”…

Is this the start of your typical porn movie? 

No! Sadly, it’s the way headlines and news stories begin when dirty teachers are finally exposed!

You’d think after all of the stories that were published over the years of teachers being arrested and caught having affairs with students, that many educators would STOP! You’d think that the only cases left to report would be years old – and that teachers and principals currently employed would smarten up.

Two awful stories made the news in a week – one about the teachers in Louisiana who were arrested for having a threesome with their student, and the other was about the Brooklyn Tech High School teacher who “traded sex for good grades,” among other nasty things. It’s discouraging to acknowledge that authorities in our public schools don’t think about their actions before even making moves. I’ve definitely lost respect for today’s educators. Of course, I’m not going to stereotype all teachers for making academics a dirty realm in which to learn and grow.

Kids are told to respect and listen to teachers…That teachers “sculpt” a child’s future. If by “sculpt” they actually mean entice students into a sexual act because things aren’t going right in their marriage or because they don’t think they’re going to get caught…well, then “sculpt” away!  I can use the word sculpt in a sexually suggestive way, too but let’s get real! I don’t want to keep using sexual innuendos to get a message across…

Oh, that’s right, for some teachers, that’s the only way to get through to their students!

When I went to school in the 1980s and 1990s, most of our teachers were older women and men who we couldn’t tolerate. They were gross! They stood over us in class or in the cafeteria and sprayed us with saliva every now and then during their lectures. But hey – THAT was as much bodily fluids as we exchanged with them! We couldn’t wait to get out of class. We put gum on their seats and said, “We’re not finished taking notes!” when they wrote something on the blackboard, subsequently holding up a lesson on purpose. We praised the earlier generation of students who wrote: “Kick Me” on a sheet of loose leaf paper and stuck it on a teacher’s back.

I’m in no way, shape or form promoting any of these shenanigans – but no kid wanted to come near a teacher in any sexual way and teachers didn’t seem to fancy us either! While today’s sleazy teachers carry on affairs for MONTHS with their students, before somehow getting caught, teachers from my days looked for any reason to have a student suspended and sent out of the building. There was very little conflict-resolution going on and the minute a fight ensued between us kids, the parties involved would get a week off from school – OOPS, I mean, they’d get suspended for a week.

Of course, there were probably plenty of scandals that went unreported when I went to school. But when 75 percent of the teachers are in their 60’s and 70’s and have bad body odor or hygiene, how enticing could an affair be? Maybe today’s teachers are “hot” and young – and maybe the students are getting so desperate for attention and good grades that they’re willing to get some “private lessons,” no matter how much they’re going to have to legally skate on thin ice when everything’s exposed.

Are students looking to get their teachers in trouble? And why can’t educators resist getting themselves into these messes? Perhaps they’re ignorant to becoming another statistic – and maybe they don’t read the news or think an afterschool romp is that big of a deal. Don’t they get it??? Do they want their careers and reputations ruined? What motivates someone – who’s supposed to be a role model for our kids – to enroll themselves in an illegal tryst?

In the end, who knew the popular “School’s Out” song lyrics would take on a whole new meaning… “No more pencils…no more books…no more teachers dirty looks.” Whatever those ‘dirty looks’ refer to, I’ve learned a thing or two about today’s educators. They need to have the book thrown at them in more ways than one!

Unpublished 10/3/14

Snap Away NYPD – If You Can Find ‘Em, Then Arrest ‘Em!

MTA surveillance - is this a squashed penguin or a crime?

When the Canarsie Courier gets a media alert from the NYPD, we’re excited that there’s a video or photo attached of a suspect or bad guy who’s on the loose. Photos and videos give a lot of character and substance to a crime story. And if a photo is taken/captured at just the right angle, you’ve got an exclusive view of a coward caught in the act....well usually they haven't been caught...YET!

With all the talk of adding more cameras around the city, it’s no surprise that officials are looking to make the city "safer" and get a stellar image of those dirtbags committing the ultimate crime. Whether speed cameras are going off and catching the bad guy, generating thousands of dollars a day, or surveillance cameras are set up in the subway to deter sex crimes, we’re a city that likes to snap away!

On the flip side…have you ever SEEN these still images from the NYPD? Have you seen those blurry shots from a dark alleyway or sidewalk where a “man in his 20s wearing all black” is accused of attacking a young girl or walking around with a loaded handgun? I don’t know about you – but my eyesight is pretty good and I can’t even make out what these thugs look like. You’ve got pixelated shots of someone’s face and body, or the backs of their heads – and if there are TWO bad guys, you’ve got to distinguish who’s who and squint A LOT to make out any details. Quite possibly, the only people who will know what the suspects really look like are the victims and those who were in the immediate vicinity of the reported crime.

I have problems choosing which NYPD photos to publish in our paper since none of them are even clear enough to give the public an idea what the crooks look like! Snapshots of thugs wearing a doo rag…gray sweat pants…black cap…Well, that describes clothing that A LOT of people wear, so how the hell are we supposed to help the police catch anyone?

I’ll estimate that three out of 10 surveillance images are actually visible, usable and CLEAR! I understand something is better than nothing – and there are hundreds of scenarios where the NYPD disseminates images to the public which are recorded by private businesses and homeowners who can’t get the best quality that’s out there. 

But distributing a blurry image doesn’t help – especially knowing some media outlets, like the Canarsie Courier, will be reprinting or republishing the photos in black and white. And it's not going to help solve the crime if we can't see the damned people!

This leads to my next question: If the MTA plans on putting cameras on their trains, what kind of cameras are they going to be? Are they going to capture everyone? What about when a train is packed to the brim? If they’re looking to catch perverts on the train, they’re going to have get real close and have some type of zoom lense. Suspects – if they’re arrested and make it to court to defend their case – can say it wasn’t them and that, “That footage looks like it could be anyone!”

Let’s get real! If someone KNOWS there’s going to be cameras capturing their every move, they’re going to take extra measures to hide their face, or whatever else will give away their identity. Shouldn’t the MTA do this on the down-low so offenders won’t go out of their way to make their identity hard to distinguish? All they have to do is commit the crime right before they get off a train and “flee in an unknown direction” as officials like to say. Someone exposing themselves on a train might take a chance when commuter traffic is so busy that no one can make out the details of their characteristics.

The only thing surveillance can do is possibly help victims identify a suspected predator. But then, how do you catch the guy so he can get arrested? We have to hope and pray that wherever he went, someone recognized his clothing and other features and reported him to the authorities. How often do cops capture a guy whose image has been plastered all over the city? And are those awful stills they send out to the media responsible for helping with the arrest?

Of course, NYPD Commissioner Bill Braton said this useful “crime fighting tool” will provide more evidence to detectives and serve as a “deterrent to bad guys.” I don’t know how this assessment can be made when there’s so much to consider…How many cameras would you need per train? Per car? Which trains are going to be equipped with these cameras first? What angle will they capture – and how good will the quality of the photos be?

If the images resemble anything like what the NYPD already releases to the public – barely visible faces and distorted details that resemble a large portion of people walking the streets – good luck tracking anyone down. Put that in your camera and develop it!

Unpublished 10/2/14