gaithersblog.net

From the City’s website. I expect that this remains unindicative of a trend.

Saturday, June 16, 2007
Armed Robbery
On 06/16/07, at 4:57 p.m., police responded for a report of an armed robbery that occurred in the 400 block of West Side Drive. The victim was walking when he was surrounded by five suspects. He was struck in the back and began to struggle with one of the suspects who pulled a gun from his waistband. The victim was able to get away when unrelated individuals started yelling for the suspects to stop. Investigation is ongoing.

Suspect #1 - Hispanic male, 5′ 06″, 175 lbs, 26 yrs of age, brown short curly hair slicked back, wearing blue shorts, blue t-shirt.
Suspect #2 - Hispanic male, 6′ 00″, 140 lbs, black short hair, wearing a blue t-shirt with “world” design on it and tan cargo pants.
Suspect #3 - Hispanic male, 6′ 00″, 150-160 lbs.
Suspect #4 - Hispanic male, wearing a white shirt.
Suspect #5 - Hispanic male, wearing a white shirt

On 06/16/07, at 2:50 p.m., police responded to the unit block of N Summit Drive for the report of a robbery. The victim was in the field between Gaithersburg Elementary School and Gaithersburg Middle School when he was approached by the suspect, who put a gun in the victim’s chest and stole his wallet. The victim then chased the suspect to the unit block of N Summit Drive. Investigation is ongoing.

Suspect #1 - Hispanic male, wearing a white t-shirt, blue jeans and armed with a handgun.

On 06/16/07, at 6:50 p.m., police responded to the 500 block of Summit Hall Road for the report of an attempted armed robbery. The victim advised she was followed by the suspect from the bus stop at W Deer Park Road and Route 355. The suspect approached the victim, shoved a knife into her stomach and demanded her purse. She stated that she had no money and he sexually assaulted her. He then apologized and walked away.

Suspect - Black male, 18-22 yrs of age, thin, 5′ 08″ - 6′ 00″, dark complexion, wearing a black baseball hat, white short sleeve t-shirt, black backpack with padded shoulders worn over both shoulders, black sweatpants, and dark colored shoes.

---

Friday, June 15, 2007
Sexual Assault
On 06/15/2007 at 2:30 pm victim was in unit block of West Diamond Avenue when suspect approached, displayed a knife and exposed himself. He sexually assaulted victim before fleeing scene on foot. Investigation to continue.

Suspect: Black male, approximately 18 years old, wearing white t-shirt, dark blue shorts and baseball hat

Significant Events
On 06/15/2007 at approximately 11:00 pm a vehicle struck a residence in the 500 block of Midsummer Drive and fled the scene. Driver and vehicle located. Investigation to continue.

I’ll try to update my map & incident counts later this evening.

Back in January, I linked to a Post story about the growing frustration over the dozens of day laborers congregating at the Home Depot on Rhode Island Avenue in the District. In Sunday’s Washington Post, there was another story about this situation, which does not appear to have been resolved.

In As Plan for D.C. Day-Laborer Center Idles, Anger Over Workers Grows, Post Staff Writer Yolanda Woodlee (who also wrote the January story) writes:

On one side of the barrier wall at the Home Depot in Northeast Washington, dozens of day laborers were sitting yesterday on a grassy hill, jumping up to beg for work every time a pickup truck approached.

On the other side were the residents who live in the modest working-class community in Ward 5. They are upset about the presence of the laborers, some saying the workers urinate on the wall, litter their streets or sleep under their porches.

I’ll let y’all read the bulk of the article on the Post’s website, but I will call attention to one particular quote:

George Escobar, of the D.C. Office on Latino Affairs, said the meetings have been productive, although he’d like to see more dialogue with the businesses. The officials had hoped to place portable toilets at the site, but the businesses rejected that.

“We’re trying to build bridges between two different communities, but it’s difficult when someone has private property,” Escobar said. “Every week, there seems to be breakthroughs, but then the next week you find there are still hurdles.”

Yeah, private property — obviously that’s the problem.

Two stories that I’ve mentioned before have been in the news again. First, Mamaroneck, NY. Last December, I wrote about a Federal Judge’s ruling against the town of Mamaroneck in a lawsuit brought by a half-dozen anonymous day laborers. At the time, Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the two parties to work out a settlement. This past week, after months of negotiations, that settlement was finally reached. Quoting Fernanda Santos in the New York Times:

Under the settlement, Mamaroneck will pay $550,000 in fees to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, bringing the total cost of the litigation to more than $1.2 million. In addition, the village agreed not to assign officers to patrol places where day laborers assemble, except to respond to complaints, and to post signs on nearby streets for a year directing workers and contractors to the church site.

Also,

Trustees accepted a court-mandated settlement forbidding police officers from asking such workers about their immigration status.

As part of the outcome of this case, an actual, indoor day laborer center is being provided — previously the laborers hung out along the street near a park.

This ruling is, to understate what I’ve seen, quite unappreciated by many who are opposed to illegal immigration. Judicial Watch, for example, characterized the situation like this:

A New York town will pay six illegal day laborers $550,000 and forbid its police department from checking suspects’ immigration status to settle a discrimination lawsuit that claims the men were harassed because they are Hispanic.

The case stems from a much-needed police crackdown on disruptive and violent loitering in a public park in Mamaroneck, a town of about 20,000 residents located some two dozen miles from New York City. Multiple complaints of hundreds of drunken men fighting, littering, urinating and defecating at the park’s makeshift day laborer hiring site led to police to shut it down.

Most of the comments posted on that page are filled with anger over the ruling and the settlement.

But there is one essential element to all of this that I don’t think can be ignored. To the extent that the facts laid out in Judge McMahon’s ruling (page 1 here) are correct, the town of Mamaroneck just went too far in its efforts to control or shut down the assembly of laborers. Quoting an article by Candice Ferrette in Sunday’s Journal-News:

Now that the case is nearly settled - with the village adopting an agreement prohibiting local police officers from asking the laborers’ immigration status, or patrolling the area where they gather - there’s more talk on how to manage large groups of men on public streets without sparking a legal battle.

“This was an important decision by a federal judge,” said Bennett L. Gershman, professor of constitutional law at Pace Law School. “The facts are critical. I don’t know that other communities would be as blatant and obvious about their discrimination, but we’re probably going to see a lot more of this type of litigation in the future if they are.”

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon’s 72-page decision, handed down in November, found the village had harassed day laborers by closing their former hiring site and increasing police patrols in the area where they gathered.

Testimony from one day laborer, who said a police officer stared at him with his hand on his gun, helped build their case, as did a comment made by a local official comparing the day laborers to locusts. The village, Gershman said, wouldn’t have stood a chance on an appeal.

My personal opinion is that the entire episode has been unfortunate and frustrating for just about everyone. I’m certainly unhappy about the extent to which the legal status of immigrants has come to mean almost nothing in this country. But at the same time, given the history of court rulings on these issues I don’t think that anyone should be surprised that the Judge would look on immigration status as largely irrelevant to this case — and if you take away the immigration status issue, all you’re left with is the approach that the Mamaroneck authorities took to deal with what may well have been disruptive and illegal activities by the day laborers. Then, when I read through the court ruling, even taking it with a grain of salt, I find it difficult to accept the authorities’ behavior — which was quite aggressive — as proper. And to tell the truth, I don’t think I’d find it proper even taking the immigration status into account.