More about my legal case against the City of New York and Bratton's testimony to the Council, from Lana Lee:
But he has not learned, according to Artyom Matusov, former New York City Council policy analyst who worked mostly under former Council Speaker Christine Quinn.
"All they've done is stopped calling it stop-and-frisk, and stopped filling out paperwork. Now they call it broken windows," said Matusov. "I was known for being good with data analysis, so at one point, [Quinn] asked me to do an analysis on stop-and-frisk using NYPD statistics."
Matusov raised questions after seeing some of the data presented at a September city council hearing on NYPD training held in light of Eric Garner's death, where commissioner Bratton made opening remarks calling the NYPD a "model of restraint," and said that the department did not use force. The commissioner also claimed that only 1.9 percent of arrests in 2014 had "reportable" uses of force.
Concerned about what he perceived to be a lie to the council, Matusov reached out through the media the next day, providing his own data analysis contradicting Bratton's testimony, and asking the commissioner to define force. NYPD Deputy Chief Kim Royster responded that force was defined as "use of a firearm, to the use of the baton, the use of O.C. Spray and the use of hands-on physical force beyond what is necessary to effect an arrest."
Matusov then came out in a radio interview challenging the commissioner to answer a more simple question: yes or no -- does Eric Garner count towards that 1.9 percent?
"If he does, then they're admitting that something criminal happened," said Matusov. "He explained to us what that 1.9 percent was -- none of which was used in this instance -- so all it can be is excessive force to make an arrest, which they have not acknowledged happened even though the city medical examiner ruled it a homicide. If he doesn't, then Bratton would be admitting that he didn't include a killing in his statistic about force."
'Free' Speech
By the end of that week, the legislative director told Matusov that they no longer needed his services. Matusov is now suing for the council for firing him without cause.
"It's a first amendment case," said Matusov. "He went into a public hearing. Anyone could have said what I said. All the data I was using was public, stop and frisk data was public, his charts were public -- so what procedure do I have to follow to call out public information?"
Nicholas Sr, who testified at the hearing, noted,
People from the press don't be asking the right questions. They were throwing little rabbit punches at this guy. Only one person asked about the broken windows theory targeting the poor minority, dancers in the subway, stuff like that. Bratton was saying it brings down the crime rate. After the council finished questioning him, everyone left, including the media. We testified to two council people and no media.
Matusov clarifies that on his W-2, it says he works for the city. "If I worked in the private sector, it would not violate my First Amendment right, the way that the law is being implemented and interpreted now," said Matusov. The government can't send police after us for going to a political rally, but a private corporation can fire us for it -- for engaging in anything, for tweeting. Can we really say that's freedom of speech, freedom of assembly?"
Deflected Responsibility
When Matusov texted his friend Wiley Norvell, one of Mayor de Blasio's deputy press secretaries, concerned that the commissioner could also be lying to the mayor, he was disappointed with the curt response -- "ignorance is bliss." When citizens file complaints against the NYPD to its oversight board, they often receive a similarly dismissive reaction.
https://vine.co/v/M3A9b3ehni0
Vid 4 second highlights Vine
http://suzannahbtroy.blogspot.com/2014/05/dr-andrew-fagelman-delita-hooks_24.html?m=1