Live From the Post-Columbia Heights Shooting Press Conference; Evans Says Think West Side Story!
Jason Cherkis is on the scene for the press conference announced after yesterday's shooting at the Columbia Heights Metro.
3:37 Press conference hasn't started, but there's a band of protesters already across Irving Street. They're protesting the gang injunction. Roughly 10 of them, waving signs with a bullhorn. Protesters are changing, "Intervention, not injunction," and "Prosecute criminals, not innocent people." Press conference is 10 minutes late.
However, the fight at the convention center that yesterday Councilmember Jim Graham said was related to the shooting appears to be unrelated to this one.
Assistant Police Chief Alfred Durham tells Cherkis both kids were arrested at the convention center---the ones with the revolver and the brass knuckles. Police spokesperson Traci Hughes says incident at the convention center is unrelated to the shooting yesterday afternoon.
Durham stated at the press conference that all involved were adults and that police had zeroed in on a possible suspect. He said that he expected an arrest warrant for the shooter to be issued by this afternoon.
UPDATE 3:43
Cherkis caught up with Attorney General Peter Nickles. He asked Nickles if if the proposed civil gang injunctions would have prevented yesterday's shooting.
"I'm not going to speculate on what happened yesterday," said Nickles. "The investigation is still ongoing."
"Then why are you here?" Cherkis asked Nickles. Nickles refused to answer.
UPDATE 3:48
Cherkis asked Graham if he thought civil gang injunctions would have prevented yesterday's shooting. "You know that specific event? No, I don't think so," Graham said. But he did say "There's no question" that the incident involved gangs.
Cherkis asked Graham why he thought the council rejected the gang injunctions.
"One mentions racial profiling, and the whole thing jumps the track," said Graham. "I think there was a lot of hyperbole...maybe more than a little bit of politics."
Would, in Graham's opinion, there be buy-in from rank-and-file cops on the gang injunctions?
"I don't know."
UPDATE 3:59
Protesters have just moved across street. Fenty is starting to speak. He is joined by three white councilmembers--Catania, Evans, and Graham. [Although expected to make an appearance, Councilmember Bowser failed to show up]. Protesters are surrounding Fenty holding up signs about abuse of power.
Suddenly, the protesters go silent and just let Fenty squint into the sun and give his talking points (none of it worthy of actually quoting). He says that Columbia Heights and other neighborhoods have seen far too many shootings. He then rattles off a list of how much he's spent or how much time he's devoted to non-criminal justice arenas: education, "state of the art" rec facilities, the closing down of Oak Hill, and the opening of New Beginnings. He says that those interventions haven't worked or at least reached gang members.
Nickles then gets his turn at the podium. The pitbull AG sounds more like a kitten imploring the passage of the gang injunctions "for 90 days." He insists that the injunctions would not focus on drug corners or loiterers. The injunctions would only go after the hardcore criminals. The law needs to be enacted he says "before the summer." Isn't it already summer? Kids are out of school. And that was Nickles sweating in front of that bank of cameras.
I asked Nickles earlier if civil fines would really work against gang members. I noted that perhaps enforcing the fines just would not work considering that studies have shown that gangs members do not make all that much money. (See Freakonomics and Gang Leader For A Day). Nickles insisted that the fines would be aimed at the kingpins.
Graham offered defiance: "We are not going to lose this fight." And later states: "We have a major gang problem in this city...We need intelligence. We need intervention." And still later: "But I need this new message, this tough new message."
Evans sounded a desperate tone: "I need the community's support." He encouraged constitutes to lobby the more skeptical members of the city council. He played up his experience (19 years on the council!). And Evans insists he is down with the Peaceoholics. He also played up his own liberal credentials--offering that he is a member of the ACLU.
"If you don't like my idea what's your idea?" Evans asked rhetorically. Mendelson's ideas were clear. Evans chose not to vote for what was in Mendo's emergency bill which included plenty of crime fighting tools.
Catania then admitted that this gang injunction tool was not a "silver bullet." Oops. "Hand wringing is not a solution," the councilmember stated.
If Fenty and Co. tried their best to capitalize on yesterday's leg shootings with more fear speeches, Assistant Chief Durham wasn't interested in playing along.
Violent crime is actually down citywide by 4 percent and that homicides are down 17 percent from last year, Durham said.
After the press conference, Evans tried to convince Gary Imhoff that he would totally accept the gang injunction if you took out the racial angle. Instead of thinking about D.C. gangs, Evans advised, think about West Side Story. If only we thought about sharks and jets!
Imhoff did not look convinced.
Evans then pleaded that the city should be allowed to just try the gang injunctions for the proposed 90 days. Just 90 days.
As a card-caring member of the ACLU, Evans should know that the organization has already consented to a number of police tools in place like stay-away orders and nuisance property laws.
Before the press conference, Catania tried to make a weird personal argument: "I have friends who live here and there"--the councilmember then pointed to two new condo buildings on 14th--"and they can't sell because of the [crime]."
Photograph from yesterday's crime scene by Darrow Montgomery
Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
5:53 pm
..."He is joined by three white councilmembers"..."and just let Fenty squint into the sun and give his talking points (none of it worthy of actually quoting)"
Curious, Jason, would you call your reporting objective? Alternately, would you object someone observing this doesn't appear to be the work of a reporter?
6:06 pm
those are facts.
6:06 pm
Bews Flash! The Grahamstander brought the shooter into police custody.
6:46 pm
Jason: That's a cop out.
Facts are all around us. Often, slant is evident not in, fabrications or lies, but in which facts are "reported", in the context in which they are "reported", and, even, in their relation within a single sentence.
I would expect a reporter with your level of experience to know this.
8:10 pm
Does anyone bother to take Cherkis' views on the crime bill seriously?
He's as ridiculously biased on the matter as Harry Jaffe. Except that Jaffe writes a dopey opinion column, where as Cherkis thinks he writes a straight news story. Both are in the can for their points of view, and their reporting of "facts" should be taken as nothing more than personal opinions.
10:08 pm
Jason, maybe you were right on target based on the Breaking News. Jim Graham and others are now eating their talking points.... This means you too Rez
10:19 pm
Did I hear right? Was the shooter an intern in Graham's office??
10:33 pm
Hey Rez and Sally, if you want the same BS political quotes without balance journalist opinion based on the facts then go listen to WTPO, Watch WUSA 9, and read The Washington Times; O Yea... and comment on their dead blog sites.
Good work Cherkis. [WCP Keeps It Real.} Yep Fred, ole Jim boy's young hot thug "intern"?????? When did Graham learn this fact Rez?
10:38 pm
Correction WTOP
12:02 am
I don't get why being skeptical about this crime bill means bias. I have no idea whether the gang injunction would work or even whether it violates civil liberties. So by asking pointed questions and raising points, I guess I'm biased.
I'm not going to write a straight news story on this p.r. event which uses a fresh shooting to score political points because certain politicians didn't get what they want out of a crime bill.
The other side--i.e. the councilmembers who rejected the gang injunction did not attend. Why not raise points and not let Evans, Fenty, etc. off the hook.
There are plenty of laws on the books that mimic these gang injunctions--nuisance property laws where law enforcement can shut down houses that are suspected crack houses. Just about every defendant who enters Superior Court walks out with a stay-away order.
This latest idea just feels like an old one and one that would never work because a) cops won't enforce it and b) gang members won't pay the fines.
Downtown Rez, I'm not sure why you expected a straight news story on this press conference. Wouldn't that just be boring? Haven't you already heard these same talking points over and over again. Aren't you the least bit skeptical that these politicians would use this shooting to score points?
12:37 am
Jason, I usually like the stuff you write, but I agree with Rez on this one. Your angle wasn't clever, wasn't poignant, and made you come off as lame. The questions you asked were on point, but the "three white councilmembers" and "pitbull AG" lines added nothing to the article. Believe it or not, a straight news story would've been hilarious, simply because of the recent facts surrounding the suspect. Instead, more people are blogging about what you wrote instead of the story. Was that the intent? The Examiner has Jaffe as their pariah, the Post and Times have multiple ones. Other than Valdez and Amanda, the City Paper was usually reliable in getting the facts, but with enough slant not to take away from the story.
I'm not a critic (or trying to be), but the reason that some of the bloggers took offense is that they have come to expect BETTER from the City Paper. It's your own fault for putting out so many quality articles in the past, you are a victim of your own success. LOL!
6:55 am
Jason - Stop being a tool.
In your own response, you can't even keep your story straight. In your first paragraph, you're saying you're not biased simply because you're asking tough questions.
Yet in your last paragraph, you're asking why anyone expected you to do a "boring" straight news story on the topic.
You are totally unreliable in presenting an unbiased report on this issue. Same as Harry Jaffe and his ridiculous spin in favor of the crime bill.
I've got no problem in you presenting the usual, tired snark that passes for witty commentary in the City Paper these days. Just don't try to claim that the same commentary is "just the facts." It's insulting to the intelligence of your readers.
9:05 am
In a community as diverse as Columbia Heights, [three white councilmen] is material, especially when their proposed legislation specifically impacts minority groups in such a significant manner. The AG as a [pit ball] is factual based on Nickles behavior; viciously attacking innocents individuals without cause and threatening attacks on any citizen, employee, or business that even looks wrong or question the one that feeds him, fresh raw bloody meat, from the spoils of misused resources and stolen tax payers funds. The AG has earned this reputation; injuring many and scaring a few with his pusillanimous sneak attacks and delay tactics. Nickles appears unashamed and proud of the same. Jason reported the facts. And in my opinion did a decent job. However, he omitted the fact that the pit bull is old, gray, wrinkled, and toothless. Now that would’ve been bias!!!
10:08 am
How the CP refers to the Councilmembers is to me about as inconsequential as you can get. It's the City Paper for cryin out loud!!!!!
I'm just waiting on them to actually report the story. Or, don't they work on the weekends?
11:42 am
Jason: You continue to mischarictarize my objections. I do not expect CP (or any entity with an editorial arm) to always do straight news. That would not be reasonable of me. But I do expect editorial to be labeled as such. Otherwise, when I read a report about a news event, especially on City Desk (News, Politics...etc) I expect that report to be... news.
My own opinion on any given set of facts really has no bearing whatsoever on this basic expectation, which really comes down to one of honesty.
12:04 pm
Anybody who thinks race doesn't matter in DC is a fool. & "AG" Nickles is a lawless pit bull.
This article was good, solid reporting. You have three white council members, whose kids will not be considered "gangsters", trying to impose an unconstitutional law on a majority black city. You have a white "AG" from Virginia who practices toxic litigation trying to further the interests of the white ruling class of DC.
People who refuse to see the central role played by race in this issue are worse than fools. They're knaves.
1:09 pm
So if Barack Obama ever has to send tanks through the streets of Idaho or Nebraska or any other majority white place are they supposed to object categorically? I mean, at what point does race NOT matter? Don't we dance with the ones that brung us? I mean, ok, protest if you wish, but I'm saying if the situation called for it (and I don't know if this one does) then I would expect my elected politician to act, be he/she black white or latino. You know?
5:27 pm
If Jason is guilty of anything, it’s being overly detailed in his reporting. Courageously highlighting information other reports wouldn't or maybe fail to notice. That's why I read this stuff; keep up the good work……..WCP
3:58 pm
http://wordsofwitte.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/anti-crime-act-of-2009-press-conference-at-columbia-heights-metro-station/