When asking around, I heard these three candidates are some potential good bike-friendly options:
Let's use this thread to discuss, bring in articles, quotations, and proof of bike-savviness. Cool?
I agree police accountability is in the on the table for a bike advocacy discussion. But folks can't agree on which actions they should take, or where they should stand down. Motorists lament that the police are too lax on cyclists as seemed to be implied during the mayoral debates, and obviously a good many folks in threads here feel the same about motorists' bad behavior. Some wish the police would treat everyone in Garfield Park the way they do in Streeterviile, while others see this differently.
I'll confess I can't determine if the majority of people in the city really know how they want to CPD to behave, or if they merely want different results.
There are folks all over the city with doorbell footage of package thieves, and can't figure out why the police aren't doing a stakeout from a van the next day to catch these criminals. Meanwhile, some cops are trying to gauge whether they will get arrested for arresting somebody, and who the boss of their boss really is.
They live in interesting times.
Good points but I dont know that it's a zero sum game. I think the police have been on a "working strike" in their own little protest of increased calls for accountability. Which ironically tends to prove their own lack of accountability. If I took a working strike at my job I wouldn't last there long.
I have heard that as well V W, although to hear the CPD rank and file tell it, in addition to the strike-esque behaviors, they've been admonished to not do the job they thought/say/claim they should or the way they should do it due to a few bad actors in their corps, so some of the police imply they have been avoid confrontations that might otherwise bring them attention, paperwork and additional "training" as they put it using finger air quotes. I'm not mentioning this to agree or disagree with their views, but to circle it back to cycling, the implications if true are that we're likely to see less not more CPD interventions with bad guys in traffic and otherwise.
Yeah I've heard all of that. I think it all boils down to "accountability is hard". But we need the political will to hold CPD to a higher standard. A higher standard is not unachievable, theres just been a lack of real political will to get it done. Which goes back to the police board structure and the inherent flaws with it- history has shown that you cant trust the police to police themselves. I think the proposals to add real teeth to a civilian oversight board is the best solution that has been proposed. Only one candidate has proposed it, which is why the police community is likely going to vote for the other candidate (Lori).
From the WTTW debate this week:
"Lightfoot also cited her work as head of Chicago’s Police Board, saying officers were disciplined only 35 percent of the time when she started but the number grew to 73 percent by the time she was gone."
“I have worked tirelessly on police reform and accountability,” Lightfoot said. “I don’t think there’s anyone in the city who’s taken on a tougher assignment and tougher time than I have.”
Lightfoot served as president of the disciplinary board for less than three years, and during that time a total of 47 discharge cases were either heard by the panel or resolved before a hearing was held. In the comparable time period before Lightfoot took over, the board dealt with 63 discharge cases.
The hard count of officers fired increased incrementally from 19 during the comparable period before Lightfoot to 21 during her time as president. In percentage terms, however, that translated into a big jump because the board heard fewer cases than in the past.
To be clear, the lower number of cases that reached the board during Lightfoot’s time was beyond her control. After allegations of officer misconduct have been made and vetted by one of several investigative bodies, it’s up to the police department’s superintendent to recommend cases to the board. But the fact that these variables play such a large role in the percentage increase Lightfoot touted suggests it’s less a yardstick of her effectiveness as a disciplinarian and more of a math problem.
Samuel Walker, a professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and an expert on police accountability, told us so many factors affect police discipline data that it’s problematic to focus on any one when evaluating the performance of a department or those who oversee it.
"It’s a statistical swamp," he said.
Lightfoot’s tweet said that under her watch, the percentage of police board hearings that resulted in an officer being fired increased from 37 percent to 72 percent and that the share of discharge cases that ended because the cops involved decided to resign rather than face the board doubled from 15 percent to 30 percent.
Those figures check out.
It’s worth noting, however, that the total number of discharge cases the board reviews is so small that just a minor increase in officer firings by the board translated into a huge increase in the share of cases that ended in dismissals.
Lightfoot’s claim itself is accurate, but it doesn’t do much to reinforce the self-portrait she is drawing on the campaign trail of a reformer who improved police accountability.
We rate Lightfoot’s claim Mostly True.
To Lori's credit she does have a robust platform and is proposing a lot of structural changes to further police accountability. I also like that she's not running away from any of the criticisms and has put some point for point responses on her website. Litigators are typically good at arguing and shes been showing those skills.
OK VW ! Welcome aboard ! "Bring in the Light!"
On the other hand, I've also heard the case be made that Lori's rhetoric has not matched her conduct.
Here's a quote from another attorney who is also good at arguing- Brendan Schiller:
To any of my friends that care about criminal justice issues please DO NOT VOTE FOR LORI LIGHTFOOT. She is probably the second worst option out of the 14 on those issues.
Lightfoot was a federal prosecutor from 1996 to 2002, and in that short tenure managed to get reprimanded by a federal court of appeals for “professional misconduct” that resulted in the wrongful deportation of a defendant. The federal appeals court took the rare step of issuing a formal notice of disciplinary proceeding against Lightfoot in the form of a rule to show cause for Lightfoot’s “conduct unbecoming a member of the bar.” The case is Lindstrom v. Graber, 203 F3d 470 (7th Cir. 2000). With issues such as Chicago’s status as a sanctuary city and the use of the inaccuracy riddled gang database being central to this election, Lightfoot disqualified herself by engaging in misconduct in federal court in order to get someone deported.
After her brief and troubled career at the Department of Justice, Lightfoot was hired by Mayor Richard M. Daley to head the Office of Professional Standards—the notoriously ineffective police misconduct department. Under Lightfoot’s tenure, reviews of claims of misconduct by notorious detectives Jon Burge and Rey Guevara were regularly found unfounded. In fact, OPS under Lightfoot was “widely viewed as a mechanism for protecting troubled officers” according to a 2010 Chicago Reader article. During her tenure 100 percent of all police involved shootings were found to be justified. OPS was so ineffective and corrupt it was eventually shuttered and replaced by the Independent Police Review Authority in 2007.
In 2009, while in private practice Lightfoot headed the defense team of Chicago Police Officer Paul Powers who was caught on video tape drunken and off-duty beating civilians in front of Jefferson Tap. Lightfoot’s private practice from the mid 2000s until 2013 consisted largely of defending accused police officers. For instance, Lightfoot was on the defense team that lost the case of Christina Eilman, who was arrested at Midway Airport during a mental health crises, and then was released without assistance, abducted, sexually assaulted and thrown off a 7-story floor window.
After earning a living defending police misconduct, Lightfoot was tapped by Rahm Emmanuel in 2015 to head the Chicago Police Board. Lightfoot consistently protected police involved in misconduct while on the police board. For instance, after IPRA recommended that Chicago Police Officer Dante Servin be fired for murdering 22-year-old Rekia Boyd, Lightfoot and the police board decided to allow Servin to resign so that he could keep his pension. During the hearing, Lightfoot notoriously disrespectfed Boyd’s family.
In a 2016 Police Board hearing Lightfoot chastised the families of Ronald Johnson, Rekia Boyd and Bettie Jones (all victims of police shootings) because Lightfoot thought the families were being too emotional. Lightfoot even threatened to have the families physically removed from the meeting it they did not stop being so emotional.
There are candidates that have an actual history of being progressive on criminal justice reform issues. Lightfoot is not one of those candidates. Please do not vote for her.
? I'm sensing a lot of intolerance of differing opinions here. Which is what I agreed with in Cooper's "echo chamber" point he made in the other thread. It would be nice if we could discuss the pros and cons of the different candidates without jumping to showing disdain for the persons making the arguments, or accusing them of bad faith. I think theres valid criticisms and strengths of both candidates and I wouldn't be so intolerant of the discussion itself.
Edited to add: this was in response to Tom's post which he deleted.
ok I'm back . . .
Yes, I posted, 'enough of your 'conclusory retorts'! in jest, I apologize, sorry VW. please do elaborate , do not misunderstand, I value all opinions here
It's 'happy friday!' gottta get back . . .
Ok I appreciate that. Theres been a lot of posts in this thread that are the verbal equivalent of eye rolls. Theres also been some good substantive discussion. I'm hoping for more of the latter. Happy Friday.