The media is covering the Sunday shooting at 144th Street and Lenox because of its controversial circumstances (50 shots mostly by police officers) but unfortunately, gun violence is no stranger to the city in the warmer summer months. The New York Daily News reported on a Sunday 3:00 AM incident at the South Street Seaport where a crowd was fired upon near a tourist destination: LINK. Then there was the lobby fracas in the East Village at 4th Avenue that ended up with gunfire and a stabbing on Saturday night at 11:00 PM: LINK. Even though crime has been dramatically reduced over the past decade, 2010 has seen an overall increase of 4.8% in gun violence across the city. The Daily News also reports that there is a 58% increase in the 12 precincts that make up northern Manhattan (which includes Washington Heights and beyond) from this year compared to last: LINK.As for Sunday's Central Harlem shooting, many questions still linger on what actually happened in the 32nd precinct. The community board-approved block party ended at 9:00 PM but crowds stayed on the streets up until 3:00 AM when a fight broke out between two men. Police arrived on the scene and gunfire soon ensued. The initial report was that one of the brawlers fatally shot the other and that is why the police opened fire. There was also an unrelated incident from another block party at 149th and Lenox in roughly the same time period. Read more in the Wall Street Journal: LINK. Photo by David Goldman
The NYPD is in major "cover your ass" mode. I was at the scene yesterday at 4pm, location still taped off, location being examined by several dozen investigators, a dozen plus special investigation vans and vehicles doing forensic work on site.
ReplyDeleteFor the NYPD, the story of what happened has to make sense and be in compliance with procedure. Sure, a bullet can ricochet, but it can also be fired directly at a person the NYPD does not know is an undercover cop. That's when it should get interesting to hear the NYPD state how they followed procedure with verbal commands, despite the dozens and dozens of witnesses who were feet away saying the NYPD said _nothing_, they just fired away, 46 shots, wild wild west style.
This was "throwback Harlem", how it used to be on a regular basis. Wanna bet when the smoke clears this will be one bad guy shot a rival with 4 shots. From that point I doubt the NYPD version is true that the guy turned the gun towards police - I am sure from this point it was NYPD shooting at NYPD (they just did not know it at the time). Should we discount the dozens and dozens of witnesses that watched this?....because they are Black and Brown? Why on earth should we believe BLUE? Because they're BLUE? LOL. This is NYC, we know how BLUE is, their wall of silence, how they reach to cover their asses.
Please, defense Lawyers were standing in front of Harlem hospital yesterday from noon to 6pm, I saw them, they were also seen on the news. It might take a couple of years but any and all innocent victims of the NYPD's OK Corral adventures will be getting handsomely paid. That incident will cost the tax payers $10M+ in settlements down the line...just watch.
I watched the entire thing from my apartment window Saturday night into Sunday morning. I live a few blocks away and the noise on the street from the block party was keeping me up. As early as 11pm there were hundreds of kids on the sidewalks and in the street. The crowds never seemed to thin. People were walking out into streets, stopping traffic and causing problems with the shuttle buses replacing the 2/3 over the weekend.
ReplyDeleteI feel like everyone in the neighborhood knows that large groups of kids always lead to fights and problems. Yet, from what I could see there were not nearly enough police on the ground. Perhaps if the crowds had been cleared out earlier, the situation wouldn't have escalated. When the barrage of gunshots rang out at 3:00 am, I wasn't surprised. Which is really sad. I stayed up until about 3:45 watching from my window - the ambulences, the police helicopter, the people wandering away from the shooting and those walking over to get a better look.
It's all very upsetting. I love my building and love my neighbors, but this isn't the first time there has been a shooting at that same corner since I've lived here. The police don't seem to care about this neighborhood. And when they do respond to incidents its with a level of force that seems excessive. Sure, the throw a bunch of rookie cops on the corners who do nothing more than text their buddies and hang out at the delies, but the violence continues. I'm very curious to see what facts come out as the investigation continues.
Since murders were so low over the last 5 years it was initially hard to say the uptick in violence was truly statistically significant. However, it's increasingly becoming hard to deny this is a real uptick and a really alarming trend.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt this is in large part due to the decreased police presence and lack of "beat" cops. Though I also agree that large groups of teenagers - of any color or economic status - is not a good thing. The question is, how can the police legally break these things up?
We also just need to reduce the number of guns on the street.
At any rate we all need to start attending the precinct meetings and fight for this. I will be at the next 28th precinct meeting.
I have to say though - I do have a fair amount of faith the city will get this right. An uptick in crime could threaten to reverse the trends of the last 15 years and could be a disaster for NYC's tax base. Bloomberg is a businessman and this will not be lost on him (for all his failings, as Sanou's Mum has pointed out, in certain areas like homeless policy).
Will we ever know the truth and all the facts: probably not.Unfortunately, the NYPD has a poor credibility rep and Reynolds 93 is right about their overdrive on the damage control.
ReplyDeleteOne thing is certain though the easy availibility of guns continues to contribute to these sad incidents , daily.
Right now, i see the city retreating back to the "bad-old-days' the economy, the cut-backs are leading us right back to the scary late 70's.
NY 1 said they have the whole thing on video tape. I wonder how many bullets it takes to bring person down. 10 would seem high but 50. I know that some of those were not fired by NYPD but I'm sure the vast majority of them were. I’m surprised the guys parents are not on the tele right now screaming about how the police killed there kid. This event needed way more police and they should have forced its closure at 9 when it was supposed to be.
ReplyDeleteWhile the police seem to have fired in excess -- why the devil are people bringing guns to block parties? I'm in agreement that the police (on the face of it) handled everything horribly, but there would be nothing to react to if there was no shooting.
ReplyDeleteFinally, if the 9:00 p.m. closing was enforced, this would've never happened. Give a pass to small bad behavior, and you end up with big bad behavior.
How many people, aside from the police, are packing guns in Harlem? Why? And how do we get them out of the neighborhood?
Simple math. The killer used a .38 revolver. That's a maxium of 6 shots. That means at least 44 other shots were from other shooters. The only other shooters we know about at this time is NYPD. The cops have left the door open to there being another shooter, but this sounds unlikely to me based on the facts.
ReplyDeleteThe police have a very difficult job and I think generally do a good job of protecting the area from violent crime. I'm hesitant to criticize because of this, and since I wasn't in the heat of the battle. With all of that said, one clearly could conclude that the NYPD response was overkill.
Bob, I agree ... if they have any way the police should end these parties when they are supposed to. How many of these things go sour? Remember that shooting last year near 121st street where that 13 year old boy was hit ... also happened at like 1:30 a.m. I'm not saying things never go sour at 8 or 9 pm, but a lot more seems to happen late night.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure exactly what happened here or what the police did but it sure doesn't sound right.
I agree with Bob and GreenGirl. This block party, which was sanctioned by the community board apparently, was slated to end at 9pm. Witnesses say that even at midnight there were hundreds of people in attendance, many of whom were children. The shootings took place at 3am. There is a serious lack of enforcement in Harlem. This is an issue with the parks, the bbqs, block parties, etc. Maybe making a permit to block off the street harder to acquire is the answer. And determining past compliance could be a factor in renewal of the permit.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Bob. The 9pm end time should have been enforced. When I looked out my window at 11 pm I was absolutely shocked at the number of people on the street. This part of Lenox is never that crowded, even on a nice summer saturday evening. What was even more surprising was that nothing was done to get people to leave the area at midnight, 1 am, 2 am, etc. Even after the shooting there were still large crowds. At first, I was annoyed because I wasn't feeling well and the noise was keeping me up, but I quickly realized that it was a public safety issue. There were so few police out there. Everyone I talked to in my building said that once they saw how large that crowd was that they went or stayed inside, knowing that things would get out of hand at some point. I really believe that if they had handled the situation properly in the beginning, this wouldn't have happened.
ReplyDeleteHopefully, this unfortunate event can be turned into a positive. We will continue to work towards improving Harlem, period!
ReplyDeleteIt has been said before on here, why are there strict laws for other parts of the city that are not enforced in Harlem? Bikers, litterers, mass gatherings like these that in principal I have nothing against until a reasonable hour, but nothing good ever happens in the early hours of the morning.
ReplyDeleteAny other part of the city and the NYPD would have cracked down on it a long time ago. Add to that blatant drug dealing by the peeps in the SRO down the road from me. Cops drive buy, dealers head indoors and nothing is done about it.
Chris -
ReplyDeleteI'm a little more understanding of cops not entering and cracking down on (what we all know are) drug houses. You can't just enter a house you suspect of being a drug house - not without a seach warrant. And obviously there is legwork involved with that and limited resources it may be difficult ...
However, large public gatherings are a different thing ... the littering probably could be stopped too with stricter issuances of permits.
This gathering was evidently to honour the memory of a young man who was killed in the Bronx last week.
ReplyDeleteWould be ironic if it weren't so damn typical. And sad
And once again—where are the parents? So many of the kids pictured and interviewed are still in their teens.
ReplyDeleteWhere are the parents and why do we not have stricter gun control laws?
ReplyDeleteIsn't there any sort of curfew in NYC for kids under a certain age? Not usually a fan of that sort of thing (never had it in London), and might be a b****d to enforce, but something should be done.
ReplyDeleteIf we want to try to stop this kind of thing from happening over and over again we have to look at how these block parties originate. Who pays for them, who grants the permits that allow the street to be blocked off, what authorities are notified prior to the beginning of such a party, what safeguards are in place to ensure that they do not go past the designated ending time? There is no accountability. Should community boards be held accountable? The precincts? I don't have the answers, just lots of questions...
ReplyDeleteNYC has strict gun control laws, it's other states, mostly Southern, who do not and guns are bought and brought North. Thank you, NRA and all to whom you pander.
ReplyDeletePermits are necessary for block parties if the street is to be closed. I believe only one per year can be issued and I think it's through the precinct although not 100% about that.
Chris, at 1:48, poses an interesting question. I have some insight on that which I would like to share with you.
ReplyDeleteI went to Senator Bill Perkins office at the ACP building yesterday.
I’m a 20+ year public relations professional who has just moved to Harlem. I’ve liked Harlem a great deal, except for the fact that I live across from the Adam Clayton Powell Plaza. Every weekday at the Plaza, a group of 5-6 drummers plays from about 5 till 10:30 p.m. It’s maddening and I have been everywhere about the problem: Charles Rangel’s office, Keith Wright, Inez Dickens, the 28th Precinct. But I can’t seem to get anyone to do anything.
Yesterday I stopped by Senator Bill Perkin’s office and met with his aide, Mr. Shay.
Mr. Shay said that the sound was “not noise, it’s cultural. And just because it’s illegal everywhere else, doesn’t mean it’s illegal in Harlem. We don’t have to follow laws that are against our culture. And if you don’t like it, leave the neighborhood.”
So, there you have it. Senator Bill Perkins’ office doesn’t believe that the same laws apply to everyone, and that there is a Harlem exceptionalism that gives a pass to illegal behavior.
Just thought you’d like to know.
Sanou's Mum: If you think a lack of gun control laws is the problem, you are fooling yourself. As long as there is demand for illegal guns, the supply will take care of itself -- and this would be true even if (somehow, magically) all other states and localities in the U.S. adopted NYC-style gun laws.
ReplyDeleteEvery state, as well as the federal government, has strict prohibitions on the sale and possession of Schedule I narcotics. Last time I checked, there was a massive and growing underground trade in the stuff (which, no doubt, finances much of the illegal trade in firearms).
There will always be a street price for an illegal handgun. If we hope to succeed in reducing the problem of violence in our society, we must focus on reducing criminality -- something that will take sustained effort on a number of fronts. We should not be distracted from this challenge by the fantasy that criminals -- who, by definition, break laws -- can be effectively de-fanged or constrained by creating more laws.
CoolBlueReason -
ReplyDeleteIntersting perspective. I don't think gun control laws are a solution in and of themselves, but I do think fewer guns mean fewer murders.
Look at Canada - Canada has stricter gun control laws, and much lower violent crime, although its overall rate of crime is not that different.
I understand the comparison to drugs - drugs making them illegal doesn't stop people from doing them. But this argument is actually less true than many think.
First, if you look at history, making something illegal does ALMOST ALWAYS make it less prevelant - simply because not everybody wants to go through the effort.
For example, during prohibition, alcohol use fell to about 30% of its pre-prohibition levels. Eventually it increased back to 70% of prohibition levels and appeared to stabilize there.
The issue with prohibtion - other than whether this is something the government even has the right to control, which is an issue I will not address because it's a seperate issue altogether - was that the cost vs. benefit was out of whack. Drinking went down, but a whole cottage criminal industry went up around it. Net net, the societal cost of illegal alchohol was almost certainly worse than the societal cost of alcohol being legal (and despite being a moderate drinker myself I'd be the first to acknowledge the societal cost of alcohol).
If handguns were illegal in this country it's possible the same thing would happen - that the illegal dealing of handguns would be more problematic than the guns themslves.
It's my view this is unlikely. I don't think most people "enjoy" owning a handgun in the same way they do a drink (though I would note that people who own hunting rifles in the South fall into a different category - but how many inner-city youth are shot with guns used to hunt deer?). I think most people own a handgun for self defense. But that's a zero-sum game if everybody else has a gun too. So we'd have fewer guns on the street in general if they were illegal.
Yes, hardened criminals will find a way to get guns. But what about the 16 year old kid who is maybe moderately troubled, who happens to get his hand on a gun, and who in adolescent anger - maybe after having too much to drink - uses it one night? I personally don't think that every single one of these kids who pulls out a gun is a super-hardened criminal. Most of them probably aren't model citizens either. But that doesn't mean that bullet won't hit a model citizen. And that doesn't mean that some of these kids may not straighten out later ...
GG: To be clear, unless it is attached to a cop, any handgun is, for all practical purposes, "illegal" in NYC. That is where the law is today.
ReplyDeleteI've got to react to the sentiment expressed in your last paragraph. I think the "'hardened criminal' versus 'troubled kid'" dichotomy is quite counterproductive -- either way, it blinds us to reality. The reality is that we're all imperfect human beings, and public policy needs to take that into account. But we can't adopt an approach that collectively absolves individuals of any personal responsibility -- at least not without doing far greater damage to society.
Sometimes I think the cultural politics of "teen guns" in NYC is like a funhouse mirror / alternate reality version of the cultural politics of "teen sex" in the heartland. We've attached such a degree of taboo and fetishism to the very idea of guns, that we effectively ensure that any "16 year old kid who happens to get his hand on a gun" will in fact have no idea how it works, how to handle it, or how to respect it (i.e., as a powerful tool, rather than an exciting totem).
If we were serious about reducing these risks, we would teach firearm safety and handling in the public schools. Demystify the whole thing, impart an understanding of what guns can and cannot do, what the real risks are, etc. Stop pretending that we are not harming kids by allowing their only exposure to come in the form of Hollywood / music industry glorification on the one hand, or news media hype and moral panic on the other. None of that gives them anything resembling a constructive framework. While we're at it, we could also teach them about nonviolent conflict resolution, self esteem, good citizenship, and maybe even some math.
Of course, firearm education in Manhattan public schools is about as likely as bible belt homeschoolers signing up en masse for public school sex ed -- though perhaps we here will more readily recognize the benefit of condom instruction, etc. in reducing real-world risks.
All of this is a secondary point, meant to address the "what about the 16 year old kid..." question. That's an emotional appeal that intersects with a number of issues that I think can and should be constructively addressed. But the remedy proposed (i.e., "making guns illegal") will do little more than increase the street price of the product. And again, it's worth bearing in mind that as long as NYC remains part of the U.S., guns can't get any more "illegal" than they already are.
What the de facto illegality does do is ensure that the street price will remain high, and that the flow of underground trafficking will continue to make its way up I-95, day after day.
Because of the way we have configured both our laws and our cultural standards in NYC, we have basically ensured that it is both easier, on a practical level, and more likely, in societal terms, for an unstable, irresponsible teenager to get his hands on a gun than for a responsible, law-abiding adult to do so.
One final point on the comparison between drugs and guns: the respective incentive structures actually operate very differently depending on the extent of prohibition. While there is an economic benefit to being "the only game in town" if you're trading in drugs, the users don't really care how many -- or how few -- other people are getting high. If anything, social pressures will start to cut into a practice that seems to be getting less popular.
ReplyDeleteIllegal guns are another matter. Their power increases in direct proportion to the extent to which a population is otherwise disarmed. Mass shooters everywhere commonly search out places where people are expected to be disarmed (schools, churches, etc.). In NYC, where the average citizen cannot be armed, a criminal with a gun (or "a kid" seduced by the feeling of potency) will have a tremendous advantage over nearly the entire population. This power becomes even greater as NYPD numbers get cut back, or as the police are pressured to exercise greater restraint in their use of force. To the extent that the number of guns on the street were somehow reduced, the marginal coercive power (and thus street price) of any single illegal gun would be significantly magnified. This keeps the equilibrium quantity well above zero.
Yes, but as Sanou's mum pointed out, guns being illegal in NYC makes little difference if they can be easily bought a couple hundred miles away. You don't have to cross borders to get into NYC. If handguns were illegal across the U.S.,I have little doubt there would be fewer in the NYC. It's just that we don't have border control and customers to get into NYC.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not sure mass shootings are more common in places that are armed than not armed. It just happens that most of the population is not armed, so a higher percentage of shootings are going to happen in places where people are not armed. (It's like the whole "most accidents happend within 10 miles of home" - that's not because it's more dangerous to drive close to home, it's because you spend more time close to home). I actually think a disproportionate number of shootings happen in places where people are armed - like what happened on Saturday night in Harlem. It's just that a shooting in a school makes national news and a shooting at an inner-city bbq does not. Really, how many Columbines are there each year compared to shootings in inner cities? It's not even close.
I don't think we are absolving people of responsibility by making handguns illegal. We're still not condoning the behavior. And yes, for the record, I generally do not trust high school kids to operate handguns (dad taking his son deer hunting the backwoods is NOT the same thing).
It IS different than teaching them about alcohol or sex - the latter is a basic human impulse or behavior that 99.9% of people engage in as adults (I hope), and the former is something that is served in every restaurant and at social occasions in many many cultures, and that most people will also be exposed to whether or not they chose to partake. It's simply not a fair comparison ... I don't think most American need to be prepared to be in a shootout at some point in their lives.
So I guess I still disagree - I do think the guy who runs a $500k/year drug business is still going to get a gun. But the 14 year old kid on the corner? Yes, a really well-adjusted 14-year old kid probably wouldn't pull the trigger. But saying we should 'fix' the kid rather than control guns is easier said then done. We could try to educate people that stealing is wrong too, but I'm still going to lock my doors ...
"If handguns were illegal across the U.S." << This will literally never happen. Hence, my "as long as NYC remains part of the U.S." qualifier.
ReplyDeleteIf the U.S. dissolves, stopping arms smuggling at the new 'international' border will still be a huge challenge, as we see currently with trafficking in narcotics (as well as in arms, and in persons). And it would also remain a problem in the imaginary "guns illegal across the U.S." scenario.
In economic terms, illegal guns are a 'good' for which there is significant structural demand. Price elasticity of demand at that level is very low. It is literally impossible to use the measures you are proposing (i.e., supply side disruptions) to significantly reduce the quantity and prevalence of illegal guns beyond a certain point -- the effect will simply be to increase the price, which in turn puts positive pressure on supply until the equilibrium quantity is reached. I think we have already reached that point in NYC.
The only way to actually reduce the prevalence of guns (illegal or otherwise) is to reduce the *demand* for them, which points us to a much more general set of societal challenges.
I raised the issue of mass shootings only to suggest that we frame the matter differently. The problem that we actually care about is violence and harm done to persons. We all agree on that. Where we start to get into trouble is with two common assumptions: 1) that reducing the number of guns will reduce the amount of gun violence; and 2) that making guns "illegal" will a) reduce the number of guns, and b) reduce the amount of gun violence.
I agree with you on #1 -- if we want to reduce gun violence, we need to somehow reduce a) the prevalence of violence in society, b) the number of guns, or c) both. However, I think both parts of assumption #2 are incorrect, and actually make matters worse. Whereas reducing demand for guns is the only way to effectively reduce their number, making them illegal will, if anything, tend to *increase* demand. Whether a gun is "illegal" or "legal," the enforcement of supply side restrictions will increase its worth, both in terms of its resale price and its effective value as an implement of coercion and criminal action.
CBR -
ReplyDeleteYou are obviously intelligent and are using theoretical micro-economics arguments to prove your point, but are overlooking the fact that even basic microeconomics models only apply when there are no entry barriers, are infinite buyers and sellers, perfect information, etc. None of these models apply to something illegal (and enforced as such) with a limited buyer set.
Your argument, I think, is basically that by reducing the number of guns, you raise the street price - I agree with that. Then your argument is that by raising the street price, you increase supply as it's more attractive to supply guns (which is true in the short term)- and over time the supply will simply increase, and the price will drop and a new "equilibrium" will be reached. Yes, a new equilbrium will reached - but the equilbrium will be at a lower supply and a higher price than if guns were legal, simply because of the incremental difficulty in finding the supply (illegal trafficking) and generating the demand (harder to find where to get them) will be lower.
The exmaple lies in history itself - there is virtually nothing that is more common when it is legal than illegal: drugs, alcohol, etc. Prohibition, as I said earlier, did decrease alcohol consumption. It just had other consequences.
For guns, the example lies in Europe and Canada, which have much less violent crime. And those who say those countries do not have the social problems we do are fooling themselves.
You are right we need to decrease peoples' propensity towards violence, but we live in an imperfect world, and this is practically very difficult. There will always be criminals in any society. As I said before, locking your door doesn't make robbers not exist, but it's a lot easier than trying to reform every person out there.
I do not agree that having fewer guns will increase criminals' power. In NYC, where it is illegal to have a gun, only "criminals" (and cops) should have guns anyway (but I believe if guns were illegal across the U.S. a lot fewer "criminals" would have guns in NYC than currently).
I personally *do* think that it is possible to get Americans to support a universal handgun ban (which would not apply to hunting rifles and the like) ... I think this is a matter of educating people.
GG: It looks like the second half of my comment above got delayed / eaten by the approval process.
ReplyDeleteI am not claiming that the quantity of guns in an "illegal" market (like NYC's current one) will not be be lower than otherwise -- on this we agree. It's just that we've already reached that equilibrium, and you're suggesting we can push past it with additional supply side pressure (from a country-wide ban).
Both as a matter of constitutional law and as a matter of national politics, I don't believe anything approaching a nationwide ban on handguns is within the realm of possibility. In this we disagree. If anything, we're moving in the other direction (see recent SCOTUS rulings).
You point to the negative consequences of Prohibition, notwithstanding its success in somewhat reducing consumption overall. I think we get a similar set of negative consequences with firearm prohibition -- namely, we have reordered the allocation of guns in society such that the people who have them are "criminal" or otherwise irresponsible persons. This has real consequences, and I think one of them is an increase in the violent use of such weapons. Among a largely disarmed populace, violent persons are more likely to act with a measure of impunity -- and are commensurately more likely to act.
As I tried to suggest in my missing comment, the "door locking" analogy actually lines up more closely with "arming yourself" than with "trying to reform every person out there."
As for comparisons to Canada and Europe, I wonder to what extent a statistical analysis might show a more meaningful relationship between our respective levels of socioeconomic disparity and economic security and our rates of violent crime, versus treating the prevalence of guns as the independent variable...