It would seem that the Capital City of the First State is grasping at straws not to become the next Wilmington in its latest attempt to fight a growing crime problem. It has been announced, the Dover Police intend to have police cadets armed with Tasers patrolling the Downtown business sector along Loockerman St..
While this sounds like a good idea of having more eyes and feet on the streets, to stem the problem of loiterers and panhandlers blocking the entrances to local businesses, it could actually lead to larger problems for the city.
Dover has already lost one law suit brought against it for use of excessive force by its police department. Putting cadets on the streets with Tasers and pepper spray could easily lead to others.
The Chief of Police, Paul Bernat has stated that these cadets will go through an extensive screening of both physical and psychological capabilities. They will also be trained for “several weeks”.
The ACLU of Delaware has already expressed its concerns that these young, inexperienced cadets, some young enough not to be able to purchase alcohol, will not have the experience to be able to deal with conflict, and being armed with Tasers, which have been known to be lethal when not used properly, could lead to circumstances such as we have seen in Ferguson and New York City.
Chief Bernat has stated that the use of the cadets will be limited to the business sector following complaints and concerns of the local business owners about the amount of petty crime in and around their businesses. Chief Barnet has said that Dover Police cannot task officers to deal with this type of petty crime, when the City of Dover is facing a growing level of more serious crimes such as shootings and armed robbery.
Anyone who knows anything about Dover, I grew up there by the way, knows that the business sector on Loockerman St. is in close proximity to the city’s highest crime area as well, in the area on and around New St., Kirkwood St. and Queen St.. Growing up around Dover I know that Kirkwood St. was known as an open-air drug market, and I doubt that it has changed at all.
So this begs another question. If the City of Dover knows that these streets are where the problem is emanating from, if they know that the problems that are rampant on these troubled streets is now spreading outward and causing issues on other streets, then why is the response to simply place armed guards at the borders of these areas?
I am sorry, but this sounds like the law makers for the City of Dover, and their Police Chief are simply interested in protecting the more affluent sectors of the city, and to isolate the crime to the poorer areas. In other words, to hide the dirt under the carpet.
It seems to me that if, and I use the word “IF” loosely because they do know, that these streets are where the crime is concentrated, then would it not make more sense to stem the flow at its source?
Instead of placing barely trained armed cadets on foot-patrol to shoo the petty criminals back onto the acceptable streets to commit their crimes, in order to protect the businesses, would it not serve the entire city to hire and train more police officers, and to have them patrol these high crime areas? There are people who live on these streets that are prisoners within their own communities, because for far too many years, for as long as I can remember, the City of Dover has turned a blind eye towards these communities and allowed the crime to go on unchecked.
But now that it has infiltrated an area that the City deems unacceptable, suddenly they are willing to do something. However that something in my view is the wrong thing and will lead to more issues for the City.
How much time, and how many resources will be expended before the City Fathers realize that this is not working? Will they wait until the first law suit is brought against the city?
I would suggest that the City of Dover act now by hiring fully trained and experienced police officers, not only to patrol the business sectors, but to proactively patrol and clean up the long-standing areas within the city where this crime has been allowed to grow and fester for decades simply because it was unseen by the majority of its citizens. In the past it was acceptable because everyone knew to just stay away from those streets, but now the problem, like problems always do when ignored, has spread.
The citizens of these troubled streets, and the citizens of the entire city, should call on their law makers to finally act in a way that does more than to protect one street from the crime issue, but which would make the city itself safer.
“…young, inexperienced cadets,…. …. could lead to circumstances such as we have seen in Ferguson and New York City.”
The police in Ferguson and New York City were veteran police officers, not young and inexperienced.
“The citizens of these troubled streets, and the citizens of the entire city, should call on their law makers to finally act in a way that does more than to protect one street from the crime issue, but which would make the city itself safer.”
Maybe we should stop telling “[t]he citizens of these troubled streets”, what they should do, instead of asking them what they think.
Delacrat, let me help you with some reading comprehension. You seem to have a problem understanding. That may be due to the fact you seem to cherry pick things out of context.
You quote what was written as this, ““…young, inexperienced cadets,…. …. could lead to circumstances such as we have seen in Ferguson and New York City.”
The paragraph you chopped up actually said, “The ACLU of Delaware has already expressed its concerns that these young, inexperienced cadets, some young enough not to be able to purchase alcohol, will not have the experience to be able to deal with conflict, and being armed with Tasers, which have been known to be lethal when not used properly, could lead to circumstances such as we have seen in Ferguson and New York City.”
Now if you were not so concerned with your own agenda you would see that the ACLU of Delaware is concerned of “ANY” incident that could lead to circumstances such as we have seen in Ferguson and New York City. They, being the ACLU, believe that the inexperienced cadets make that more likely.
You then show your lack of comprehension when you say, “Maybe we should stop telling “[t]he citizens of these troubled streets”, what they should do, instead of asking them what they think.” , in response to this statement, “The citizens of these troubled streets, and the citizens of the entire city, should call on their law makers to finally act in a way that does more than to protect one street from the crime issue, but which would make the city itself safer.”
How is it that you don’t get that, “should call on their law makers”, means to inform their lawmakers on their wishes?
I know it may be hard for you to get past old habits, but your comment added nothing here. So are you in favor of the action Dover Police has proposed, or not? Try talking without picking the fight.
“So are you in favor of the action Dover Police has proposed, or not? “ – Frank
I (like you) don’t live or work in ” the Downtown business sector along Loockerman St..” or ” where the problem is emanating from,” or near Dover at all. So it’s not for me (or you) to say whether police cadets should be patrolling Dover streets. However, I would not want that on my street and I suspect it’s a safe bet the people living “where the problem is emanating from” don’t want that either. But I would not presume to say whether the people who live “where the problem is emanating from” would agree with us, (or more to the point, Chief of Police, Paul Bernat) on what they do want or what they should do.
WOW! Well Delacrat I do have family and friends who live and work in Dover, and as a citizen of the state I also have a vested interest in what happens in its capital city. You seem unable or unwilling to make a commitment , could that be because you are unwilling or unable to stand behind your views?
To say because you don’t live there you can’t have an opinion is a cop out.