This is a recounting of the minutes of the Crisis Response Committee for
the Community Safety Meeting conducted on 4/28/2011 at Subrosa.
Three participants present for entire meeting. One listened and left before the group concluded.
1. Review of notes of previous meetings, strategies: Legal ramifications of having a group such as this. U.S. Code 1503: Obstruction of justice was reviewed. Discussion was had regarding the charge of "Interfering with a police investigation," and the need to be careful in dealing with police, as well as examples of situations in which this statute was interpreted broadly, resulting in arrest and/or prosecution of witnesses attempting to observe and record police action with a video camera.
2. What is the purpose of having such a group? Someone suggested: Linking people in your neighborhood, building community and neighborhood trust, to create the possibility of neighbors calling on each other rather than authorities. A variety of viewpoints were presented about the nature of a "Crisis Response Team."
Two of those present saw the Team as being primarily non-confrontational, with an emphasis non non-violent communication, but the point was made by another about the unfortunate need to be prepared for a violent response, as, by definition, a "Crisis Response Team" will, in fact be called to respond to crises, some of which will involve violence, or at least violent intent. A discussion ensued regarding the limits of so-called "Protective violence," liability as it related to self defense, and potential liability problems which could arise from attempting to intervene in situations in which not all parties have agreed to mediation.
3.Possibility was suggested that the group might benefit from pre-paid legal representation. Someone suggested contacting a attorney to clarify rights and obligations inherent in so-called "Good Samaritan Laws."
4.The question was posed: Will the police likely to see the group as interfering with investigations? Or will they see the group as a helpful component of an interconnected community, to fill in the socio-economic gap where a group like neighborhood watch, composed of property owners, leaves off? Does the potential usefulness of our efforts to police make us a component of "gentrification?" The discussion was tabled.
This is a recounting of the minutes of the Crisis Response Committee for the Community Safety Meeting conducted on 4/28/2011 at Subrosa.
Three participants present for entire meeting. One listened and left before the group concluded.
1. Review of notes of previous meetings, strategies: Legal ramifications of having a group such as this. U.S. Code 1503: Obstruction of justice was reviewed. Discussion was had regarding the charge of "Interfering with a police investigation," and the need to be careful in dealing with police, as well as examples of situations in which this statute was interpreted broadly, resulting in arrest and/or prosecution of witnesses attempting to observe and record police action with a video camera.
2. What is the purpose of having such a group? Someone suggested: Linking people in your neighborhood, building community and neighborhood trust, to create the possibility of neighbors calling on each other rather than authorities. A variety of viewpoints were presented about the nature of a "Crisis Response Team."
Two of those present saw the Team as being primarily non-confrontational, with an emphasis non non-violent communication, but the point was made by another about the unfortunate need to be prepared for a violent response, as, by definition, a "Crisis Response Team" will, in fact be called to respond to crises, some of which will involve violence, or at least violent intent. A discussion ensued regarding the limits of so-called "Protective violence," liability as it related to self defense, and potential liability problems which could arise from attempting to intervene in situations in which not all parties have agreed to mediation.
3.Possibility was suggested that the group might benefit from pre-paid legal representation. Someone suggested contacting a attorney to clarify rights and obligations inherent in so-called "Good Samaritan Laws."
4.The question was posed: Will the police likely to see the group as interfering with investigations? Or will they see the group as a helpful component of an interconnected community, to fill in the socio-economic gap where a group like neighborhood watch, composed of property owners, leaves off? Does the potential usefulness of our efforts to police make us a component of "gentrification?" The discussion was tabled.
5.The point was made that it is a vital component of the credibility of the group, as well as the safety of its members to always intend to de-escalate situations, analyzing appropriate responses intelligently. The point of the Team is to de-escalate confrontations and encourage dialogue, not to hurt anyone, it was suggested. The observation was made that assertive politeness is a good default persona when dealing with sketchy situations, and the presence of people with this attitude tends to make a neighborhood safer at night.
6.Someone suggested a review of the effectiveness of similar programs in other areas.
7. It was suggested that it would be wise to monitor police radio frequencies to avoid unwanted contact with authorities, if, for example, someone presented a false or mistaken report to police regarding activities of the group, characterizing a constitutionally protected free-assembly as illegal activity of one sort or another, i.e.:"Loitering" or "Failure to disperse."
8. The question was posed: What should our response be if we are ordered to leave the scene of police misconduct?
The subcommittee meeting was then concluded.
5.The point was made that it is a vital component of the credibility of the group, as well as the safety of its members to always intend to de-escalate situations, analyzing appropriate responses intelligently. The point of the Team is to de-escalate confrontations and encourage dialogue, not to hurt anyone, it was suggested. The observation was made that assertive politeness is a good default persona when dealing with sketchy situations, and the presence of people with this attitude tends to make a neighborhood safer at night.
6.Someone suggested a review of the effectiveness of similar programs in other areas.
7. It was suggested that it would be wise to monitor police radio frequencies to avoid unwanted contact with authorities, if, for example, someone presented a false or mistaken report to police regarding activities of the group, characterizing a constitutionally protected free-assembly as illegal activity of one sort or another, i.e.:"Loitering" or "Failure to disperse."
8. The question was posed: What should our response be if we are ordered to leave the scene of police misconduct?
The subcommittee meeting was then concluded.
0 comments:
Post a Comment