What does that mean to you? If a police officer has reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed, there are legal options at their disposal to deal with the matter. A "stop and frisk policy" separate from established law, as I suspect you recommend, would likely be unnecessary and problematic.

David,
That is not what I recommend.
It means to me that if someone is acting in a suspicious manner BEFORE a crime is committed. That Police could/would "Stop and Frisk" and check for warrants...
It would be used as tool to prevent crime.

Tom,

What you describe is called reasonable suspicion. It's a legal term and grounds for what is called a stop question and frisk. If someone is behaving in a suspicious manner, the police have a right to stop and question that person. Should that persons responses and/or appearance elevate the police officers suspicions, a frisk would then be warranted. You cannot under any constitutionally legitimate stop and frisk policy, simply stop someone and check them for warrants. It would depend on a whole host of factors that include but are not limited to time of day, conditions, hours of operation, and yes, even how they are dressed. Those tools already exist and are already at the legal disposal of the police. The notion that the police need a free hand to search whomever they want, whenever they want, is at best misguided.

wohopeful:

Yours or anyone else's assertions to the contrary, crimes of all types were of significantly greater number 15 years ago and certainly no less heinous than those that occur today.

And yet again, Mayor Parisi fired nobody but, polcemen were laid off (and others demoted) after their collective bargaining unit failed to agree to any concession that would have prevented either from happening.

john anthony prignano:

The UCRs for West Orange do include domestic violence incident and there were 280 of them in 1997, down to 157 in 2011.

They are not, however, included in the Crime Index Totals that are specifically tracked by the FBI.

Clearly, a domestic violence incident that has escalated into an aggravated assault or even murder is recorded and tracked as such.

Ok, nearly half of the reported crime, and maybe bias crimes are simply not the issue they were in 1997 when some folks believed it was acceptable behavior. Keep in mind you suggested domestic violence incidents weren't included in the statistics, when they clearly are. Was it your intent to mislead? You suggestion that domestic violence incidents weren't included in the 2011 FBI/UCR's, is absurd. If this is your best, then you don't have much of an argument.

David Peart Thank you ! This is exactly why I challenged Englert .He excluded 2 categories of crimes that were reported in 1997. As you so brilliantly state, "Keep in mind you suggested domestic violence weren't{wasn't} included in the statistics, when they clearly were .Was it you{r} intent to mislead? Your suggestion that domestic violence incidents weren't included in the 2011 FBI/UCR'S{ plural,not possessive} is absurd" When I challenged Englert's crime - reduction percentage, he then included the domestic violence and bias crime numbers.He definitely had access to them prior to my challenge.I don't know if he initially intended to mislead people, but it does make one wonder. If I may be so bold, I don't think we can learn anything by speculating on any change in how bias crimes might have been "regarded" in 1997 and how they may be regarded today. Also, I must respectfully disagree with you if you believe 40% is "nearly half.". But again,thank you for supporting my position, which I am certain is correct. .

john anthony prignano:

While tracked, the FBI's UCR do not inlcude domestic violence and bias crimes in its Crime Index Totals for various and sundry reasons they can explain.

Tom:

In 1997, there were 59 robberies; in 2011 there were 43,

Aggravated assaults went from 54 (1997) down to 30 (2011); burglaries from 359 to 199; larcenies from 661 to 523; motor vehicle thefts from 551 to 77.

Anyone feeling less safe than they did 15 years ago has no factual basis for it.

We certainly do NOT have more crime, just the swifter and more widespread reporting of the crime that does happen due to the Internet.

First, it should read DOES not include. or UCRs. I have a serious question.Why aren't very serious crimes like luring and and terroristic threats listed? Thefts are reported. Do the powers - that - be think that in the scheme of things,a theft is a more serious crime than a luring and a terroristic threat ? .

Tom:

The single salient point being made here is that you are willing to disregard statistical data compiled in concert with both the public (that reports crime) and the police, who either respond to those reports or promulgate their own through their own independent action.

The point being (and notwithstanding the verifications provide by voice/video recordings and written a reports) that public-public interplay creates an automatic system of checks and balances. Has there been any suggestion from anyone that a crime they reported has not been addressed by the WOPD and that documentation reflecting the action takens isn't on file and available?

Not that I've heard of.

Again, I'll be happy to provide a copy of the UCR (1997-2011) if you'll provide the means of getting it to you. Until you take the time to review it, it's rather pointless to suggest some unprofessional, independent and very subjective merchant survey will/should change anyone's opinion on the matter.

"Why not talk to the people? Talk to police officers..."

There's really not a whole hell of a lot of need to as the UCRs are a summary of the real life experience of both.

What is it that you don't grasp about that?

I insinuate nothing. You're the one rejecting the objective, documented evidence that crime is down in favor of your unsubstantiated claim that the merchants believe differently. What does ignoring reality in favor of innuendo make you? I don't need to talk to the police, or your anonymous merchants, because I have eyes, ears and the professional experience to know when someone is blowing smoke up my shirt. I have for years spoken to merchants I've patronized along that road, and the complaints I've heard have nothing to do with what you're selling here.

If these merchants you claim to have interviewed and concluded this consensus exists, believe that they are less safe, it should be very easy for you to make that point here, as you claim you've been privy to their complaints. Instead, you seem to believe you can silence any verifiable argument to the contrary by placing that burden on those whose opinions challenge your assertions.

"Why not go out and talk to the people?"

What people? You've identified none.

"Talk to the police officers..."

What makes you so presumptuous as to assume that I don't?

Tom:

The statistics (in this case, the UCRs) are an organized summary of factual data compiled from real life experience and involving hundreds of people and the professionals who respond to the relevent incidents.

That is far more compelling than an informal and subjective survey conducted by any one of us independently.

Whereas I do speak to people throughout town, you haven't viewed the data I've been offering, yet choose to dismiss it without having done so.

That's hardly reaying on scientific method which remains the best way to analyze anything and reach some conclusion or solution.

We are talking about crime and whether or not there is more or less of it...and that amounts to classifying and counting it...or, in a nutshell, compiling statistics.

People are hearing about more crime than ever before because of the Internet but, that certainly doesn't mean there's more of it because there simply isn't.

Tom:

If you believe we "got off topic," it was your doing by asking the following:

"What are the statistics on armed robberies? Only armed robbery..."

The point still remains that you initial premise ("It has become unsafe to walk the streets of West Orange.") is simply wrong as all crime has been generally in decline for the past 15 years; violent crime in particular.

And yet again, I'll be happy to provide you with the UCR soreadsheet if you provide me with an e-mail address.

Thats said, nobody is suggesting that anyone should be tolerant of any crime, let alone violent crime yet, we are all better off knowing and dealing with the reality of a situation and neither embelishing it nor minimizing it.

Police action is governed by the need for probable cause, whether it be to enter a residence, stop a motor vehicle and/or take someone into custody (even temporarily) to "frisk" them. The fact there are reasonable restraints on law enforcement served to protect each of us and our Constitutional rights.

There is absolutely nothing happening in West Orange with such frequency that the kind of martial law you are suggesting is even remotely necessary,

Tom:

We don't need to institute anything there is no compelling need for and a portion of the "stop and frisk" policy in NYC (specifically related to trespassing outside residential buildings) has been deemed unconstitutional by a federal court judge.

Given probable cause, our police already have the ability to detain and even search someone when necessary.

Alan Sanders:

It's a given that in order for police to serve as a deterent to crime they must be in enough proximity to an actor that he/she curtails their criminal impulses as a result.

Surely, there are insufficient police in any jurisdiction, anywhere, to provide that kind of absolute security and West Orange is no exception.

While I believe the WOPD is already providing additional resources along our eastern border, it will take some time to assess how effective that effort has been as comparative statistics will need to be compiled and compared.

The Township is also moving forward with the installation of a camera system along the Main Street corrido, which will certainly enhance police capabilities and to supress criminal activity as its presence becomes known.