Civilian Complaint Review Board

[itsme]

Let's talk the truth.  The meeting at the park was for members of that neighborhood.  The majority of the individuals who attended were not even registered voters.  Their opinion was that their views are not addressed and even if they were voters nothing could come of it.  The flyers were distributed only in that neighborhood.  As for supporting the losers of the past campagin.  Some did some did not.  The issue is beyond something political.  To simplify it to that is ridiculous.  In fact, a wife of one of the persons running for election against the present administration was asked to leave the meeting for that reason.

Let's talk about the facts not something you think happened at that meeting.  Clearly, if this was a political agenda, this issue would have stopped after the election.  If the opponents of the current administration had won, they would have to address the same issues.   In fact, I invite them to address the issue now.

Again, I invite the losers, the winners and any residents to come out to the park and take your own survey.  This is not only an issue addressed here on the pages of this forum.  It is a topic that has been brought across the pulpits of the black churches by its ministers. 

The new mayor and council does represent the entire community.  No one is challenging that.  I myself wish them well and intend to continue to do my part in volunterism.  While I do not belong to HAPADA or any of the appointed counsels, there are some organizers of groups supporting this civilian review board who do belong to those various boards.  I work with various fraternal, social and non-profit organizations who promote the well-being of children and adults in this town and will continue to do that no matter who is in office.  Those organizations have instituted and/or sponsored recreational teams, scholarships, employment seminars, drug awareness and prevention groups among other things.

[devil]

Hamburgler hit it on the head. The losers are the ones complaining. The residents are happy with the way things are. Look at the vote. The losers just can' accept the notion that they lost. Excuse me, THEY GOT CRUSHED.

They can't complain about nepotism anymore unless Joe Zisa is related to Mayor Townes. Perhaps someone should ask the mayor in case there is something we do not know.

Therefore they might as well complain about the police. The drug dealers must love that.

[hamburglar]

Although my last post was not directed to anyone in particular, only to the topic, I want to answer itsme. I commend you on your commitment to our city. It is volunteers like you that are the strength of our city and make it the great community that it is. I assume that your attendance at the Carver Park meeting was for the right reasons. But it seems that you're unaware of what really happened that night. According to the newspaper report, the only reason that 2 of the politicians left was because the police chief requested it. Look on this homepage under News Articles. "Chief's demand prompted 2 to leave meeting" May 19, 2005. The so-called "Concerned Citizens" condemned that request as a "misuse of power". Deborah Keeling-Geddis claimed that residents have not been allowed to file complaints but the article offered no specifics. Keeling-Geddis is a former losing candidate who supported this year's losers and is apparently a spokesperson for these "Concerned Citizens". Clearly, the group is political in nature and simply cannot accept the fact that they were rejected so convincingly by Hackensack voters. I say to you itsme, thank you for what you do for our community and keep on doing it. I say to the "Concerned Citizens", shame on you for trying to divide our community with your baseless attacks on our Finest and accept your electoral thrashing graciously. In every election, there are winners and losers. And in every election, you happen to be the LOSERS.

[Editor]

Related prior story: Chief's demand prompted 2 to leave meeting

[itsme]

I am a member of the Concerned Citizens Organization.  Deborah Keeling-Geddis came to about 2 meetings but none in the last 4 months.  The group has only been in existence for approximately 5 months.  She is certainly not a spokesperson for the group.  

You are right, the police chief did request that one individual leave.  The other left because she felt the request was unfair and that the meeting should not continue.  Despite that, it was decided by the President and members of the group that this was an important issue that concerned the neighborhood and was not a political issue and since the police chief had agreed to meet with us, and we had his attention and attendance, it should go on despite those two individuals who felt it should not.  The meeting was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and when it became unruly, those individuals were advised that this was a meeting to discuss concerns and not one in which disrespectful comments would be allowed.    I am involved because I believe that these issues should be addressed in a manner that is beneficial to all.  I am involved not to cause a divide in this community.  I also believe that the community policing programs have relieved some of these issues and that those programs should continue.  I am involved because I believe that the civilian complaint review board would help to relieve the distrust that many in that neighborhood have for some police officers.  I believe that all drug dealers and offenders of the law should be dealt with in accordance with the law and that those who do not involve themselves in unlawful activities should be treated with respect.  I stand by my statement that I have no political agenda and the group has no political agenda.  I cannot persuade those who believe otherwise and feel that I do not have to persuade them.  Maybe your staunch attitude and accusations indicate that you have a political agenda.  Again, I invite you to visit Carver Park and speak to the people then tell me what you think and not what you heard.  However, I do find it strange that you can quote the Record when most of your comments indicate that the Record does not deal fairly and accurately with Hackensack.

[hamburglar]

itsme, you spend a lot of time insisting that your motives are honorable. You don't need to. It is obvious from your comments that you care about Hackensack and want to help make it a better place for all of us. However, we do disagree about the motives of the group and its organizers. According to the May 19th article, participants said the meeting was productive. It would seem logical to build on that meeting with continued dialogue. Instead, according to a June 8, 2005 column by Lawrence Aaron, "Community seeks to improve dialogue with police", the leaders of your group held another meeting to discuss "Hackensack horror stories". The press was invited, but according to Mr. Aaron, the police chief was not. Maybe the headline should have been "Community seeks to improve dialogue with the press." We also disagree about Deborah Keeling-Geddis. You said that she hadn't attended a meeting in 4 months, yet according to the article, the Carver Park meeting was only 2 months ago. And whether or not she has been designated as any type of official spokesperson, she is recognized by the press as speaking on behalf of the group. I also want to say that although you usually present your thoughts in a very objective manner, I think you were out of line with your comment about my attitude and supposed political agenda. It is that kind of personal attack that probably got you in trouble with your Karma points in the past.

[Editor]

Related prior story:  Community seeks to improve dialogue with police

[average Joe]

running the risk of being accused of being"condescending" i think the discussion regarding a police review board and police relationships with the minority communities in this forum has been extremely insightful by most paricipants-
there are however some troubling points
1 did anybody ask the city atty ,or any other atty if such a board is legal?broad statements such as the" council can do anything in the interest of the city not contrary to the law" do not address the problem as highlighted by the article the editor posted about Teanecks lack of success-do you really think that Teaneck collectively is so "dumb" as to not provide their board with subpoena power if they legally could have?
i am not convinced that this is legal-cos if it isnt we re really chasing our own tails-however well meaning
2 to suggest that there is not a SIGNIFICANT element of local politics by the same old group of malcontents which has infiltrated this "movement" is to ignore the obvious-those who pay attention ,know better.
which is a shame,really, because legitimate areas of inquiry and discussion  get coopted and tainted
but like dennis miller says "hey, i could be wrong"

[devil]

I believe that itsme does have the best interest of hackensack at heart. I do, however, question the motives of others like the Dunns. If I am not mistaken Mrs dunn was the one that was asked to leave. Her being there right before an election clearly was political. I can't picture her being a regular at Carver park.

The Chief is obviously trying to address any complaints as they come up. The rank and file in the police department must know that the Chief is giving this issue his full attention.

Give him a chance to take care of this as the leading law inforcement officer in our town.

I believe that  this issue is being brought up by people like Larry Riley and the Dunns because they see a possible election in the future and want to get the community riled up (no pun intended).

Perhaps more attention should be given to [someone who allegedly] tried to run a police officer down. Police brutality in reverse. [Click here for Record article]. [Sentence modified by Editor.]

[itsme]

Touche' Hamburglar.  You got me on that one.  Personal attacks are not warranted and I hope my overzealousness can be forgiven. 

The Carver Park meeting took place on May 17, 2005 a week after the municipal election but was scheduled for that date prior to the election.  The June forum was a forum similar to the one held in Englewood.  That forum was in the planning before the Englewood forum but individuals involved in both helped to get the Englewood Forum off earlier.  In any event, the forum was for parents and young people.  It's purpose was to make our youth aware of their personal responsibility.  While the meeting did veer off of that subject, one police officer from Teaneck, born and raised in Hackensack, did stress that point.  I attended the meeting with my young son.  Discussion involved how things can get escalated simply by the way you respond to a police stop.  Do not be confrontational.  Yelling and screaming serves no purpose other than to blow the situation out of proportion.  Stay away from those who you know are troublemakers.  If you feel that you have been treated unfairly by a police officer, take note of his name, badge# or license number and then file a complaint.  This forum was scheduled not to point a finger at the police but to make sure our youth know what their responsibility is when a police officer approaches them.   This issue is a two way street.  As any parent knows, our children are not always right (eventhough we would like to believe so).  Likewise, a few of our police officers are not always right in their actions.  Checks and balances.

I disagree with Devil's opinion of Larry Riley.  The Dunns do not belong to this organization.

As for Average Joe, your points are well taken even if I don't agree with most of them. 

[ericmartindale]

mD1qpx  zzbibdgeqcgu, eabskisfulms, [link=http://wzyzxfxzrgij.com/]wzyzxfxzrgij[/link], http://eslahtbodvyt.com/

[irish eyes]

WOW the only thing i can think of is a bad meds day!!! this is the most TOXIC post ever....where is the reasoning behind your post....in other words if i called for a town meeting to strap you to a spaceship and propel you into outer space....my concerns should be taken seriously by the powers that be.....[Personal attack deleted by Editor]

[Anthony]

Are the personal attacks necessary??? 

You guys (or girls) are taking this discussion to a new low. 

First of all, the election is OVER!!!  Secondly, it's irrelevant who was at the Carver Park meeting or who Joan Dunn is.  It should be obvious that there seems to be a problem with some police officers and the black community.  Let's fix that.  If it means a Review Board, let's do it.  If it means more meetings, let's do it.  Whatever it takes, let's get this done. 

[Editor]

Knock it off with the personal attacks.

I don't have strong feelings about this topic one way or another, but how could we ever have a Civilian Complaint Review Board if people can't be civil?

[average Joe]

editor here is my problem with your deletions-i read eric martindales post both pre and post your handiwork-what you deleted as a personal attack on Dunn,female-was info that i think is fair game-excuse me but as treasurer of all the campaigns attacking our school system-she has thrust herself into the role of a public figure...shes fair game-and before people listen to her opinions they ought to know all about her and her nihilistic beliefs-thats what the first amendment is about ,isnt it?
now as to erics thoughts on a civilian review board...downside eric? try this-cops are responsible for their actions under the law-if they break it -they can be prosecuted-convicted-sent to jail
please tell me what you think a panel of "citizens" is going to accomplish?
i have been posing this question to all engaged in this discussion-is such a board legal?
noone responded so i called a lawyer friend i know and asked her to take a look for me-she says there was a case in new jersey about an attempt to create such a board in newark some years ago-the court ruled that the municipality COULD NOT GIVE THE PROPOSED BOARD THE POWER OF SUBPOENA-and therefore the ordinance was no good-
complaints about our police dept? here are some places to go
1 chief of police
2city manager
3city council
4bergen co prosecutor
5atty general of nj
6 us atty
this public service announcement was brought to you courtesy of average joe