Stopping the violence: One councilmember’s thoughts

| Crime | Safety | West Seattle politics

The Seattle City Council and King County Council both took final budget votes today (city news release here, county news release here); no last-minute drama – that was all worked out last week. Many of those councilmembers also send out newsletters, and one of them, Seattle City Councilmember Tim Burgess (left), followed up his budget note with his thoughts on what should be done to help stop the youth violence that flared in a particularly ugly, and deadly, way this past weekend – in several incidents including the Southcenter shooting. We wanted to share what he has to say – his voice is particularly loud in this matter, as he chairs the council’s Public Safety Committee:

The 2009 budget the Council passed today includes revisions to the Mayor’s Youth Violence Initiative – adding police officers to select public schools,encouraging more police intervention efforts against gangs, increasing illegal gun interdiction efforts, and adding case management services for frequent offenders. The budget also continues funding for additional police officers, part of a multi-year effort to increase the size of the police force.

Here are some immediate steps that can save lives and reduce violence in our city.

Guns are readily available to juveniles, and they are using them to kill! This problem of illegal guns must be addressed. It is a regional problem that demands a regional and state solution. More assertive law enforcement is needed that targets gun dealers who sell illegally to persons not qualified to possess firearms, including juveniles, and legal buyers who transfer or illegally sell their weapons.

Increased police focus on known gang-involved offenders is necessary to stop the killings. Focused police attention and enforcement actions work extremely well – witness the huge drop in auto thefts in Seattle when officers targeted the top 20 auto thieves. Similar strategies should be employed against individuals involved in violent gang activities. Appropriate and entirely legal police action must be taken against the relatively few persons who are abetting and committing violence among our children. Our police officers need to focus their efforts on the most active and violent multiple offenders. The police know who most of these individuals are. And when the police act, it is imperative that City officials, from the Mayor to Council members, back them up.

Returning police officers to select middle schools and high schools is another proven and effective tactic to encourage the sharing of information and to steer kids away from gang involvement. Seattle assigned police officers to our schools for many years, but withdrew them several years ago due to budget constraints. Let’s quickly get them back in our schools. The Seattle Public School District should help pay for these officers,which is the norm around the country.

Gun violence is both a public safety and a public health problem and we should treat it as such. Other cities have successfully addressed gun violence by adopting public health strategies to raise awareness, provide alternatives, and change the public’s perception. While we take immediate law enforcement steps, let us also adopt a long-term public health orientation to this issue.

The Council and the Mayor are united in a desire to protect our children, stop the violence, and stem the influence of gangs. But this problem is deeply rooted in the community. It has many causes, and it won’t be solved over night. Every citizen in every corner of Seattle is affected when one of our children is killed by gun violence. Let’s work together to make it stop!

Burgess has a blog at timburgess.com, and also shared this there.

Shawn November 24, 2008 (7:03 pm)

Pfft, just a bunch of political hot air because the incidents are still fresh. Where was all this talk during all the other mall shootings in previous years, or when that maniac shot up the ravers on Capitol Hill?

Gun violence has happened before and it will happen again, and it’s not a “regional” problem, it’s the by-product of living in a nation with a second amendment.

Furthermore he’s naive if he thinks kids are getting guns from gun dealers. They’re getting them on the streets.

WSB November 24, 2008 (7:34 pm)

Re: “previous years,” Burgess has been on the council for less than a year (he was first elected in November 2007 and took office in January 2008).
http://www.seattle.gov/council/burgess/bio.htm

JanS November 24, 2008 (11:36 pm)

So, Shawn…since you don’t like what Mr. Burgess has to say, what are your solutions, because believe it or not, these shootings affect all of us, including you. It looks to me that we have to start somewhere…perhaps making the ammunition for these guns a bit harder to come by. I’m not a gun owner, I believe in a certain amount of gun control, as is my right (I know there are those who don’t feel the same way)…but I do know that you have to have ammunition, bullets, in order to kill some one with a gun. The second amendment addresses the arms..does it mention ammo? Just a thought.

So, again, I ask…what would you do, if you could do something?

KT November 25, 2008 (8:38 am)

One of the few Seattle city leaders to talk about the issue. I respect that.

Oliver November 25, 2008 (9:44 am)

Anyone know which schools are considered the “select public schools”?

Shawn November 25, 2008 (12:20 pm)

Re: WSB, I didn’t say talk from Burgess specifically – one politician’s hot air is as valid as the next. If any other politicians spouted similar rhetoric in previous years it evaporated quickly and nothing came of it. Likewise in 6 months when everyone has forgotten about these latest shootings no one will remember that nothing came of what Burgess has said either.

Shawn November 25, 2008 (12:36 pm)

Re: JanS – I didn’t say anything about the shootings not affecting anyone so I’m not sure where you’re getting that from… letting your emotions get the better of you I suppose. Putting restrictions on ammunition is just as naive as what Burgess said. These kids aren’t getting guns OR ammunition from places where it would matter. They are getting it from the streets.

The second amendment is archaic and obsolete; if the founding fathers could see that the rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined, they would do away with the second amendment. Every DAY more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. Compare that with an average of 10 a YEAR in Japan.

If politicians REALLY cared about kids shooting each other up in malls they would start taking steps towards doing away with the second amendment and joining the rest of the rational world.

Ken Davis November 25, 2008 (10:37 pm)

The second amendment is fairly clear on the rights to bear, buy and sell arms (which will include bullets if a serious challenge ever makes it to court)

The first amendment is also fairly clear that writers for tv have the right to substitute gun play for plot in what passes for drama.

I suspect since the majority of people, young and old, in Seattle and elsewhere, function at a pre-literate (or is that post literate ?) level, the latter has more effect than the former.

I get Timmy’s newsletter and if posing and pandering were Olympic sports, I would bet on him to medal. I see no indication that there is any right he would not trade for the illusion of safety, not any fear he would not exaggerate to generate votes.

Focused gang units exist and could benefit from steady funding and support. Adding to the authoritarian culture and rigid social engineering already taught in local high schools, would not enhance the education of our children.

The participants involved in the recent incidents appeared to have already been removed to the “second chance” school tiers.

Shawn November 25, 2008 (11:15 pm)

Strong words from someone who has zero control over so many extraneous commas.

Luke Noury November 26, 2008 (6:28 pm)

Shawn, the second amendment is as archaic and as obsolete as the first amendment. Without freedom of expression, these gangmembers would have no way to differentiate themselves. Therefore, I recommend that we eliminate all amendments that could possibly be construed to potentially be dangerous. Freedom and security are mutually exclusive objectives. And as attributed to Ben Franklin “Anyone who is willing to sacrifice freedom for security, deserves neither.” Interesting words from someone you believe would eliminate the second amendment.

Sorry, comment time is over.