Reply to Ward 3 Crime Meeting w/CM Frumin, USAO Graves and AG Schwab 1/17 6pm Cleveland Park library

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Ward 3 Crime Meeting w/CM Frumin, USAO Graves and AG Schwab 1/17 6pm Cleveland Park library"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I thought the presentation and dialogue last night was productive. There is really only so much a councilmember can do.

Yes, fund more police, yes, make sure laws are on the books, but it is up to the mayor and MPD to enforce the laws and execute crime mitigation programs.

And yes, attacking the root causes of crime - poverty, lack of education etc is critically important as well. We need to address the current issues while also being foundational for the future.[/quote]

There’s only so much a councilmember can do, but one thing a councilmember can do is not consistently work to make crime in their own Ward worse like Frumin has with a vengeance.[/quote]

Oh cmon, he's been in for a year.  He's not responsible for crime being worse in ward 3.  JFC.[/quote]

1. He voted to reduce the penalty for car jackings.  
2. He voted to decriminalize illegal street vending. 
3. He refuses to ask for a moratorium on new housing vouchers until the city can show it has adequate wrap around services.  
4. He opposed police requests to abandon the Connecticut Ave project because it will increase police/EMS response time.

That’s his record.  He’s done all these things in just one year.  It’s stunning. [/quote]

#1 never got enacted and even if it did, it was right-sizing sentencing and the problem isn't the sentencing in the first place, its the capture by police and prosecution of these people
#2 that was mostly for food/craft vendors to stop people from harassing them.  Not people selling stolen goods.  People selling stolen goods is still a freaking crime.
#3 *most people* who are using housing vouchers are NOT criminals.  Just because some are doesn't mean we should F-over others who are in dire need of these services.
#4 LOL.

Just because you're an overly sensitive snowflake doesn't mean I need to believe your doom and gloom.[/quote]

"Right sizing" sentencing?!  To be sure, apprehension and prosecution are important, but so is a meaningful sentence that reflects a crime of violence against victims who feel particularly vulnerable.

No food or "craft" vendor gets harassed unless they are breaking the law.  And knowingly selling stolen goods should be a felony.

DC does need to have a moratorium on voucher concentration in certain buildings.  Much of the spike in crime on Connecticut Avenue correlates rather closely with the location of buildings that have a concentration of voucher getters.

The Connecticut Ave bike lane plan is dead, and Frumin knows it.[/quote]

A meaningful sentence?  A crime of violence against victims?  I mean you say these things.  But what did the revised criminal code have in it?  Current guidance is between 7 and 21 years (unarmed) and 15 and 40 years (weapon + other factors).  The revised guidance from early last year would have 4-18 (unarmed) and 12-24 (armed), with kickers available to tack on to either of those if there was a crime of bias.  Note that within these ranges there are sub ranges, as instead of just "armed carjacking" or "unarmed carjacking", there would be degrees of 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree, each which have tighter bounds within the broad ranges above.

Those are all still meaningful sentences.

The problem is arrests don't happen.  And when they do, the DA fails to pursue trial or pleads out to lesser charges.

But I'm apparently the uneducated voter.  Gtfo.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics