has an excellent refutation of each of the arguments made.
Still he is right to point out that no one is twisting his arm, he seems to reflexively shield the police at every opportunity. Of course the fact that so many of them live in his district and the FOP endorsed his candidacy must be a coincidence.
Dowd's position ignores the troubled history of the Pittsburgh Police. Indeed the fact that he holds a doctorate in history makes his willingness to ignore the past particularly galling. Federal courts have already felt the need to step in and better manage this police department through the use of the now expired consent decree, so the idea that there is no need to scrutinize management is already out of step with past precedent.
But its odd that he should cite management as the issue since this bill does nothing to challenge the right to manage the police. All it does is require that any time a person is detained and searched this interaction be recorded and reported to the public once a year. At bottom it is a data collection bill. In fact, if he is confident that management is getting it right he should welcome increased transparency since it would highlight the good police work that he thinks is being done.
But, Dowd has a history of putting obstacles in the way of transparency on this issue. In Sept of 2009 he called for an investigation into Public Safety during the G-20. A committee was formed with him at the head but then, surprisingly, never produced the required report! Dowd claims that doing an investigation into what happened during the G-20 might help those who filed a law-suit alleging wide spread abuse. This is the very definition of selling out! He refuses to conduct the investigation that council ordered him to do on the grounds that the investigation might successfully uncover wrong doing on the part of the city and the police and so result in a payout.
Further his position now shows a remarkable inconsistency. If police management was so sacrosanct why was he willing to investigate it two years ago? What would that report be for if not to produce legislation to better manage the police?
The fact is that Dowd depends on the police in his district for re-election. He appears unwilling to take on positions that might risk that support.
Recent Comments
http://3murkyrivers.blogspot.com/2011/07/police-accountability.html
has an excellent refutation of each of the arguments made.
Still he is right to point out that no one is twisting his arm, he seems to reflexively shield the police at every opportunity. Of course the fact that so many of them live in his district and the FOP endorsed his candidacy must be a coincidence.
Dowd's position ignores the troubled history of the Pittsburgh Police. Indeed the fact that he holds a doctorate in history makes his willingness to ignore the past particularly galling. Federal courts have already felt the need to step in and better manage this police department through the use of the now expired consent decree, so the idea that there is no need to scrutinize management is already out of step with past precedent.
But its odd that he should cite management as the issue since this bill does nothing to challenge the right to manage the police. All it does is require that any time a person is detained and searched this interaction be recorded and reported to the public once a year. At bottom it is a data collection bill. In fact, if he is confident that management is getting it right he should welcome increased transparency since it would highlight the good police work that he thinks is being done.
But, Dowd has a history of putting obstacles in the way of transparency on this issue. In Sept of 2009 he called for an investigation into Public Safety during the G-20. A committee was formed with him at the head but then, surprisingly, never produced the required report! Dowd claims that doing an investigation into what happened during the G-20 might help those who filed a law-suit alleging wide spread abuse. This is the very definition of selling out! He refuses to conduct the investigation that council ordered him to do on the grounds that the investigation might successfully uncover wrong doing on the part of the city and the police and so result in a payout.
Further his position now shows a remarkable inconsistency. If police management was so sacrosanct why was he willing to investigate it two years ago? What would that report be for if not to produce legislation to better manage the police?
The fact is that Dowd depends on the police in his district for re-election. He appears unwilling to take on positions that might risk that support.