Armed Citizen Patrol In New Haven

[nate392]

Well it's about time someone stood up to crime here, good for them.

http://www.nhregister.com/site/news....d=590581&rfi=6
Residents carrying weapons on patrols (CT)Residents carrying weapons on patrols
William Kaempffer, Register Staff
06/12/2007
Email to a friendPrinter-friendly
-NEW HAVEN — Tired of what they describe as lip service and hollow promises from the city and Police Department, members of an Orthodox Jewish community and other activists from the Edgewood neighborhood started armed patrols of their own streets Monday night.


"We're not vigilantes. We're not going out looking for trouble. We have to protect what's ours," said Gary Lynes, of Irving Street, who has a pistol permit and will carry his weapon on patrol. So will Rabbi Dov Greer and his brother, Eliezer, both sons of prominent developer Rabbi Daniel Greer.




"It's a very reluctant step. It's an unfortunate step, but we have appealed and appealed and appealed. We have met and met and met," said Rabbi Daniel Greer, who runs the Gan School at 765 Elm St. and nonprofits that in the last two decades have rehabilitated about 40 houses in the area.

It was clear Monday the armed citizen patrols were designed to send an unmistakable message of frustration to City Hall and the mayor. The Greers have appealed to police Chief Francisco Ortiz Jr. for years for increased patrols and walking beats. Every mugging or robbery, Eliezer Greer said, generates a few calls from the city and a cosmetic, and short-lived, increase in police presence.

"Meeting after meeting with the chief and the mayor have accomplished nothing," said Hank Campbell, a Democratic co-chairman for the 24th Ward. "So if you have to bear arms, the Constitution gives us this right. We have to protect what's ours."

Daniel Greer called for Ortiz's ouster, saying he is the Donald Rumsfeld of Mayor John DeStefano Jr.'s administration.

"It's clear the man is not competent," said the elder Greer. "He's a very sweet guy. ... I'd like to have drinks with him. He just can't run a department."

It was an attack Sunday on Dov Greer outside his Elm Street home that triggered the call to action. The younger man wasn't seriously hurt, but the episode appeared to be the tipping point for the Greers.

Through his spokeswoman, DeStefano expressed regret over the attack and said the incident prompted the department to review deployments for that neighborhood. Cops were walking beats at the time of Sunday's incident and Dov Greer chatted with two beat officers not long before the attack, the mayor's office said. The Greers' solution, however, could have disastrous consequences.

"Individuals who carry weapons with the intent of enforcing what they find to be appropriate or inappropriate behavior in their neighborhood is a recipe for disaster," DeStefano said.

He also reaffirmed his "complete confidence" in Ortiz, his command staff, the district manager for the neighborhood and the department as a whole.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[TonyW]

This is real close to the edge. I realize that they need to be safe in their neighborhood and not give in to the goblins. But purposely going on "armed patrols" sure sounds like they are looking for trouble. What happens if one of the citizens ends up pulling a weapon or heaven forbid shooting someone while on one of these patrols? They could be on very shaky legal ground. Having a gun for home protection or CCW is one thing, patroling armed is another IMO.

[Cupcake]

I think the point is not to look for someone to shoot. The point is to patrol and if a violent crime is seen, then intervene. I see what your saying about shaky legal ground, but I think if they follow the letter of the law, they'd be ok. Being armed on patrol only makes sense, so they don't have to shout "STOP, or I'll call 911" Although ideally they could patrol in pairs, so one could be on the phone right away while the other provides protection. Hopefully they have the training and sense they need to do this safely.

[ShadeAngel]

This is real close to the edge. I realize that they need to be safe in their neighborhood and not give in to the goblins. But purposely going on "armed patrols" sure sounds like they are looking for trouble. What happens if one of the citizens ends up pulling a weapon or heaven forbid shooting someone while on one of these patrols? They could be on very shaky legal ground. Having a gun for home protection or CCW is one thing, patroling armed is another IMO.

I have to disagree, if the weapon is used in the defense of their lives, or another's life its the same thing.

I go for a walk almost every night after dinner and cover the better part of my neighborhood. I am always armed. Does that mean I am on patrol?

[rocky]

If the attacked person talked w/ PD patrol earlier, it sounds like a bad neighborhood. How much PD presence does a neighborhood expect. PD cannot be everywhere , perhaps they should encourage citizens to personally carry , rather than armed patrols.

[Deacon51]

"Individuals who carry weapons with the intent of enforcing what they find to be appropriate or inappropriate behavior in their neighborhood is a recipe for disaster," DeStefano said.

I completely agree with this statement. But we all know that is not way they are carrying arms. They are walking the streets in order to maintain control. Citizens on the streets will send the drug dealers and bad elements away just by there presence. The one that try and defend there corner, citizens on patrol can call 911. There is no need for and confrontation, and I think it's great. But, there's no way in hell I would be caught walking the streets at 4am unarmed, even in a group.

[teagle]

I didn't notice in the article anywhere, do you know if they are carrying concealed or openly? "Armed patrols" almost sounds like they are carrying openly.

[armoredman]

Our token loony tune in AZ congress, Sinema, actually proposed a bill that would make "patrolling with a firearm" illegal, and brand it as an act of domestic terrorism. This was aimedat the Minutemen, but would have made it illegal to walk with a CCW with your child on Halloween, etc. It went south quick.
I salute thier bravery, but without knowing the laws in that location/state, and the level of training/expertise of the participants, I'd say this could go extremely well, or a horrible nightmare.

[kentuckycarry]

This is real close to the edge. I realize that they need to be safe in their neighborhood and not give in to the goblins. But purposely going on "armed patrols" sure sounds like they are looking for trouble. What happens if one of the citizens ends up pulling a weapon or heaven forbid shooting someone while on one of these patrols? They could be on very shaky legal ground. Having a gun for home protection or CCW is one thing, patroling armed is another IMO.

I agree. We carry to protect ourself and our family. We're not "vigilanties". If a shooting occured, can a lawyer say " This guy carried a gun and was out looking for trouble". A neighborhood watch is one thing, but going out armed could put our reputation on the line.

[Rob99VMI04]

They did it during Katrina What makes this any differn't?

[CopperKnight]

Sounds like they are doing what they need to be doing. I don't know more than the article states, but it must have gotten bad to cause people to start "armed patrols".

What happens if one of the citizens ends up pulling a weapon or heaven forbid shooting someone while on one of these patrols? They could be on very shaky legal ground. Having a gun for home protection or CCW is one thing, patroling armed is another IMO.

I'm not sure it is a different thing. It is a matter of self protection and I don't think we should prejudge them and think that they would pull a weapon or shoot someone unless it was necessary to protect someone. We have to give these people the same level of respect that any of us would expect if we are just out and about and carrying our weapon.

I didn't notice in the article anywhere, do you know if they are carrying concealed or openly? "Armed patrols" almost sounds like they are carrying openly.

I appears that "armed patrols" is the reporters verbiage. I wouldn't trust any reporter or paper to accurately cover anything, so I'm taking what is in the article with a grain of salt (or half the shaker) and wondering what information they aren't reporting that would add to the story.

I would hope for them that just the report in the paper that there are armed people on the street would work in their favor.

[SCW]

I'd say the fact that is was in the newspaper and the word getting around has already made it a success, even if a single show never hits the pavement. Any two or three guys walking down the road could be a patrol.....and criminals don't like those odds.

Kudos to them for accepting that safety and security is a personal problem, body bags and paperwork is for the cops.

[SIXTO]

I say good for them, but they are walking a very fine line. They are begging for legal trouble should they act, but I cant fault them for trying.

[BIGSAM]

Well I remember the days of my father being an auxilary cop unarmed. There are always citizens ready to stand up. What we need to do is support them and guide them rather than take two steps back and just see what happens. Regardless, it's a good thing.
My .02. Sam.

[Captain Crunch]

There's a big difference between a neighborhood watch program and a vigilante mob.

This is a tragedy waiting to happen.

Anybody remember the Guardian Angels?