More stories

  • in

    In Tense Election Year, Public Officials Face Climate of Intimidation

    Colorado and Maine, which blocked former President Donald J. Trump from the ballot, have grappled with the harassment of officials.The caller had tipped off the authorities in Maine on Friday night: He told them that he had broken into the home of Shenna Bellows, the state’s top election official, a Democrat who one night earlier had disqualified former President Donald J. Trump from the primary ballot because of his actions during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.No one was home when officers arrived, according to Maine State Police, who labeled the false report as a “swatting” attempt, one intended to draw a heavily armed law enforcement response.In the days since, more bogus calls and threats have rolled in across the country. On Wednesday, state capitol buildings in Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi and Montana were evacuated or placed on lockdown after the authorities said they had received bomb threats that they described as false and nonspecific. The F.B.I. said it had no information to suggest any threats were credible.The incidents intensified a climate of intimidation and the harassment of public officials, including those responsible for overseeing ballot access and voting. Since 2020, election officials have confronted rising threats and difficult working conditions, aggravated by rampant conspiracy theories about fraud. The episodes suggested 2024 would be another heated election year.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • in

    Los Angeles D.A. Gascón Is Running for Re-election in a Very Different Climate

    George Gascón is running for re-election in a very different climate, where concerns about crime have overtaken demands for equity and accountability.Three years ago, George Gascón rode a wave of collective outrage following the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis to become district attorney of Los Angeles by promising to make the criminal justice system fairer and, most crucially, to rein in the police.Now, to win re-election and stay in office, Mr. Gascón will need to tap into a different type of emotion: fear — in particular a perception that Los Angeles is less safe and that his policies as district attorney have made it so, an argument advanced by many of his challengers but largely unsupported by data. “I think that this race now for 2024 has gone back to, for a lot of people, law and order, lock ’em up,” Mr. Gascón said in an interview. Mr. Gascón’s victory in 2020 was one of the most consequential electoral outcomes from the movement for social justice and police accountability galvanized by Mr. Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer. And for the national movement that in recent years has helped elect progressive prosecutors in jurisdictions across the country, the victory in Los Angeles was momentous: The county has the nation’s largest prosecution office, the largest jail system and a long history of police abuses.But Mr. Gascón, 69, is running for re-election in a very different political climate. Demands for equity and accountability in policing and prosecution have been overtaken by concerns about what to do about crime — the question that has dominated the district’s attorney’s race in Los Angeles. “I think that this race now for 2024 has gone back to, for a lot of people, law and order, lock ‘em up,” Mr. Gascón said in an interview. Jenna Schoenefeld for The New York TimesThe 11 candidates challenging Mr. Gascón include judges, attorneys in his own office and former federal prosecutors, nearly all to varying degrees running to the right of Mr. Gascón.“Yes, crime is up,” Jonathan McKinney, a prosecutor in Mr. Gascón’s office who is among the challengers, told the crowd at a debate this fall hosted by the Santa Monica Democratic Club. “That’s why you’re all here tonight.” The first round of the election is in March, and if no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote — unlikely given the low numbers each candidate is currently polling at — the top two candidates will face each other in November.Even as Mr. Gascón’s opponents paint a picture of out-of-control crime, the data indicates that Los Angeles, like much of the country, is becoming safer in crucial categories of violent crime, such as murder, as the social and economic disruptions of pandemic recede. In the city of Los Angeles, which accounts for about 40 percent of the population of Los Angeles County, most violent crimes are down substantially compared to 2021, Mr. Gascón’s first year in office. Murder, often a proxy for people’s wider views on crime, is down about 18 percent, while rape is down close to 19 percent. But property crimes, including burglary and car theft, have risen, the only crime tracked by the F.B.I. that has gone up in 2023.Back in 2020, progressives like Mr. Gascón often tried to use data to persuade voters concerned about crime that their feelings didn’t always match reality.This time, he is taking a different approach.“We can talk to people about data, and that doesn’t really resonate,” he said. “So I gave up on talking about data. I’ll throw it in there to sprinkle, but I immediately try to connect with people on a human level. Acknowledging their feelings, because their feelings are real.”Three years ago, Mr. Gascón rode a wave of outrage following the murder of George Floyd to become district attorney by promising to make the criminal justice system fairer.Bryan Denton for The New York TimesMr. Gascón is facing opposition not only from candidates to the right of him, accusing him of making Los Angeles less safe and failing to take a tough stance on crime, but also from liberal-minded voters who are either worried about crime or have become disenchanted by his policies. Growing up in Los Angeles, Mauricio Caamal says he was routinely harassed by the police. He was also a victim of crime when he was 4 years old, and his father was robbed and murdered in downtown L.A.When 2020 came around, and the nation convulsed with protests over the murder of Mr. Floyd, Mr. Caamal was drawn to the streets over a police killing closer to home: A sheriff’s deputy in Los Angeles shot Andres Guardado, an 18-year-old security guard, five times in the back, killing him. Mr. Caamal, 32, embraced the calls to defund the police, and supported Mr. Gascón. Mr. Gascón first rose to prominence as an assistant police chief in Los Angeles in the mid-2000s. More than a decade later, after serving as the police chief in San Francisco and then winning two terms as that city’s district attorney, he returned to Los Angeles to run for district attorney there. In office, Mr. Gascón has pursued dozens of cases against police officers, a rarity under his predecessor. But earlier this year, after a long investigation, he declined to bring charges against the deputy in Mr. Guardado’s case, determining there was “insufficient evidence” to support charges.“I think that, on its own, should be enough for me not to vote for him again,” Mr. Caamal said.Mr. Gascón beat back an early effort to recall him from office, which was supported by some prosecutors who work for him, after his opponents failed to secure enough signatures to force a new election. That allowed him to avoid the fate of his counterpart in San Francisco, Chesa Boudin, who was recalled last year amid an acrimonious debate in that city about property crimes and visible squalor in the streets.At a meeting of the San Fernando Valley Young Democrats, Mr. Gascón, right, talks with Walter García, a candidate for the California State Assembly,Jenna Schoenefeld for The New York TimesTo win another term, Mr. Gascón says he must hone his message to connect reforms with public safety by arguing, for instance, that second chances and more lenient sentences reduce recidivism and improve safety over the long haul.“You cannot really have sustainable public safety if you don’t address the inequities in the system,” he said. He added, “So it’s a much more nuanced campaign in the sense that we have to, even to get to the same place, we have to go through a process of explaining a lot more” the connection between reform and public safety.“I feel less safe since he’s been there,” said Karim Bailey, 42, a middle-school teacher in South Los Angeles whose classroom discussions often center on neighborhood crime and policing. He has had his car’s catalytic converter stolen twice.Mr. Bailey said he couldn’t recall which candidate he voted for in 2020 but that he would not be supporting Mr. Gascón this time.“A lot of the cases that I’ve seen that have involved him, it just seems like he puts the interest of the criminal over the interest of the general public,” he said.In 2020, Maria-Isabel Rutledge knocked on doors for Mr. Gascón’s campaign. She is supporting him again this time around, arguing that he needs more time to carry out reforms she believes are necessary to make the system fairer.Ms. Rutledge, 70, is a retired teacher’s assistant and lives in South Central Los Angeles, the epicenter of the uprising in 1992 after the acquittal of several police officers in the beating of Rodney King.“I know that, if he continues in the same trajectory, that he’s going, hopefully, to be able to make change,” she said of Mr. Gascón. “It’s difficult and challenging to reform the dated institutionally racist system,” she said. “The system of racism is very, very embedded in the United States, but we have to keep going in the right direction, we have to keep chipping at it a little bit at a time.” More

  • in

    Trump Pushes Pro-Police Agenda, With a Big Exception: His Criminal Cases

    Long a loud supporter of the police, Donald Trump is floating new protections for them. At the same time, he is raging against law enforcement officials who have brought felony charges against him.Former President Donald J. Trump has long spoken admiringly of police officers who use aggressive force on the job. For years, he has pointed to his unwavering support for local law enforcement, presenting himself as a “law and order” candidate who would help the police tackle violent crime.But now, as Mr. Trump campaigns again for the White House, he has added a new promise to his speeches on the trail: to “indemnify” police officers and protect them from the financial consequences of lawsuits accusing them of misconduct.“We are going to indemnify them, so they don’t lose their wife, their family, their pension and their job,” he said during a speech this month in New York.Legal experts say Mr. Trump’s proposal — which he first raised in an interview in October and has floated five times this month — would have little effect and would largely enforce the status quo. Police officers in most jurisdictions are already protected from being held financially responsible for potential wrongdoing. They also benefit from a legal doctrine that can shield officers accused of misconduct from lawsuits seeking damages.Since entering politics, Mr. Trump has often pledged his allegiance to the police as a way to attack Democrats, accusing them of being more concerned about progressive ideas than public safety. For decades, he has batted down calls for police reform, arguing that such changes hinder officers from using aggressive crime-fighting tactics.His promise to indemnify officers also reveals a contradiction at the heart of his current campaign. Even as he proclaims his steadfast support for rank-and-file officers, he has been raging against federal and state law enforcement officials who have led the four criminal cases against him, resulting in 91 felony charges.Two Capitol Police officers who were injured during the riot on Jan. 6, 2021, have sued him, accusing him of inciting violence, and Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled this week that there was enough evidence that he engaged in insurrection to disqualify him from holding office again.Those realities have not stopped Mr. Trump from courting the police, meeting with law enforcement groups on the trail and posing with officers who are part of his motorcade. He and his aides often post photos and videos of the interactions on social media.Supporters of Mr. Trump at an event in Edinburg, Texas, last month honoring service members who were working on the border over the Thanksgiving holiday.Meridith Kohut for The New York TimesDuring a speech on Sunday in Nevada, he proudly told the crowd that he “shook so many hands of policemen” before arriving. Later, when he promised to indemnify officers, he called them out: “All those policemen that were shaking my hand back there, you better be listening.”Mr. Trump frequently criticizes Democrats as too critical of law enforcement. He conjures up images of big cities as lawless and unsafe, laying the blame on liberal politicians whose calls for police reform, he says, have deterred officers from carrying out their duties. The police, he has argued in recent speeches, are being “destroyed by the radical left.”“They’re afraid to do anything,” Mr. Trump said recently. “They’re forced to avoid any conflict, they’re forced to let a lot of bad people do what they want to do, because they’re under a threat of losing their pension, losing their house, losing their families.”But legal scholars who have studied the issue say that police officers are already largely shielded from personal financial consequences when it comes to lawsuits brought against them.“The idea that officers need indemnification is frankly absurd,” said Alexander A. Reinert, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. “Because they already have it.”Indemnification, in a legal context, refers to a process by which one party agrees to cover the liability of another party, essentially agreeing to pay for any wrongdoing by the second party.In the case of policing, many state and local governments have laws in which they agree to indemnify police officers for lawsuits. In other cases, police unions obtain indemnification agreements as part of their bargaining.Joanna Schwartz, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, published a study in 2014 looking at lawsuits against the police in 81 jurisdictions over six years. She found that 99.98 percent of the money paid to plaintiffs in these cases came from local governments or their insurance companies — not from the officers themselves.“Officers virtually never pay anything in settlements or judgments entered against them,” Ms. Schwartz said in an interview.Mr. Trump, as is often the case, has been vague about the specifics of his plan, making it difficult to know whether such a move would be feasible, though experts say that enacting it might require legislation from Congress rather than an executive order.In Nevada on Sunday, Mr. Trump said the government would pay the police “for their costs, for their lawyers.” Earlier this year, he said he would protect states and cities from being sued, a remark that suggested a broad expansion of existing legal protections for police officers accused of violating constitutional rights.Under a legal doctrine known as qualified immunity, someone who accuses the police of using excessive force or discriminating against them must not only show that misconduct occurred, but also generally be able to cite a closely similar previous case in which officers were held responsible.Critics say that qualified immunity offers blanket protections that prevent officers from being held accountable. Policing groups say these protections are necessary to keep officers from being so worried about personal liability that they fail to do their jobs.Mr. Trump has long expressed staunch support for qualified immunity for police officers, particularly during his 2020 re-election bid, when the nation was racked with protests after the murder of George Floyd. Several major police unions endorsed him during that campaign.A rally for Mr. Trump in Latrobe, Pa., during his re-election bid in 2020, when protests over George Floyd’s murder made policing a front-and-center political issue. Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesIn 1989, well before he entered the political arena, Mr. Trump bought advertising in New York claiming that concern over civil liberties had hampered the police and led to a rise in crime.In a newspaper ad, he wrote of being young and watching “two young bullies” harass a waitress in a diner. “Two cops rushed in, lifted up the thugs and threw them out the door, warning them never to cause trouble again,” he wrote. In 2017, when Mr. Trump was president, he urged the police not to be “too nice,” telling them not to protect the heads of people suspected of being gang members when putting them into squad cars. Law enforcement authorities across the country criticized those remarks.In 2020, as protests rocked Minneapolis, Mr. Trump called the demonstrators “thugs” on social media and wrote, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” The post was criticized for encouraging violence against protesters. Mr. Trump later said he meant to convey that looting generally led to violence, an interpretation that ignored the phrase’s racist history.As the protests spread across the country, he threatened to send the military to cities and states if he believed their leaders were failing to maintain order.This year, at a gathering of Republicans in California, Mr. Trump said he thought shoplifters should be shot on their way out of stores. “If you rob a store, you can fully expect to be shot as you are leaving that store,” he said, to which the crowd responded with uproarious applause.Then, after calling for the extrajudicial shootings of petty criminals, Mr. Trump returned to a familiar message.“You know, our law enforcement is great,” he said. “But they’re not allowed to do anything.”Kitty Bennett More

  • in

    Defining Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism

    More from our inbox:Just Keeping Trump From the White House Won’t Save DemocracyPolicies on Curbing Drug AddictionLights Dim Off BroadwayAsia’s Disappearing SeaPartidarios de Israel en Los Ángeles, el mes pasadoLauren Justice para The New York TimesTo the Editor: Re “Is Anti-Zionism Antisemitism, by Definition?” (front page, Dec. 12):What is Zionism? To me, being a Zionist in 2023 means that I accept the right and the necessity of the survival of the Jewish people and the existence of a Jewish state that ensures their survival.Anything that undermines or threatens Israel’s survival also undermines or threatens the existence of the Jewish people and is, ipso facto, antisemitic.Philip B. BergerTorontoTo the Editor:I am a Jew by culture and ancestry, albeit a secular one. I abhor contemporary violence by both Hamas and Israel. Historically, however, I have found that in recent years, Israel’s aggressive behavior has been the more objectionable, and Israel seems more determined to demoralize and destroy the Gaza population than to surgically remove Hamas.In the 1950s, when I was a young child and Israel a struggling young state, I paid small sums to buy leaves that I pasted on a picture of a tree until I had bought enough for a tree to be planted in Israel in honor of my grandmother. My father bought Israel bonds — hardly the best monetary investment — in my name and those of my siblings. In the late 1960s and early ’70s, when I had my own children and when Israel had become an expansionist power, I asked him to stop.Although a Jew, I am emphatically not a Zionist, and I resent and fear the conflation of the two.Mark CohenPlattsburgh, N.Y.The writer is distinguished emeritus professor of anthropology at the State University of New York.To the Editor:Jonathan Weisman describes radically different interpretations of Zionism as, alternately, a movement ensuring Jewish sovereignty and safety, or an oppressive colonialism. What is often lost in the debate is the historic diversity among many Zionisms (plural), which continue to struggle with one another for primacy today.One version of Zionism is expansionist, deeply nationalistic and largely unconcerned about the human rights of non-Jews, while another version on the Zionist spectrum is profoundly humanist at its core and envisions an equitable coexistence between Jews and Palestinians.Supporting a Zionism that promotes pluralism and shared society is the only vision for a better future for these two peoples whose fates are intertwined.Andrew VogelNewton, Mass.The writer is the senior rabbi at Temple Sinai in Brookline, Mass.Just Keeping Trump From the White House Won’t Save Democracy Mark Peterson/Redux, for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “The Resolute Liz Cheney,” by Katherine Miller (Opinion, Dec. 10):While I appreciate former Representative Liz Cheney’s relentless opposition to Donald Trump because of the danger he poses to the nation, keeping him out of the White House won’t alone save democracy. We also desperately need to stop Ms. Cheney’s fellow Republicans from undermining elections in their pursuit of permanent political power.Republicans have used extreme means to draw House districts in their favor and refused to join Democrats to stop those gerrymanders even though they deprive voters of fair representation and promote polarization by increasing the number of safe seats.Almost all Republicans voted against restoring provisions of the Voting Rights Act that would help assure protection against racial discrimination. They opposed measures to enact basic ballot access standards, instead allowing states to impose restrictive rules and locate polling places to make it harder for groups they don’t favor to vote.And they refused to support bills to stop the pernicious influence of big donors, opposing even basic disclosure rules to stop secret “dark” money from warping our political priorities.Standing up to Mr. Trump does little good if we allow Republicans to destroy our democracy by other means. Voters need to elect people to protect free and fair elections before Republicans succeed in rigging them in their favor. Otherwise, we will have rule by a party instead of rule by the people, and our experiment in self-governance will be at an end.Daniel A. SimonNew York Policies on Curbing Drug AddictionPolice respond to a man who died of a suspected overdose in downtown Portland in July.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesTo the Editor: Re “Rethinking Drug Policies in an Ailing Portland” (front page, Dec. 12):As a law enforcement veteran, I believe that the police have an important role in supporting community safety. But policymakers can’t keep relying on the police as a Band-Aid to every problem. We cannot arrest our way out of addiction. And increasing criminalization to solve public drug use, as some suggest in the article, won’t work.I worked and supervised police narcotics and gang units. Eventually, I saw that the laws I was charged with enforcing didn’t make my neighbors safer. No matter how much we ramped up enforcement or how many people we arrested, it didn’t stop the flow of drugs into our community or prevent people from dying.For over 50 years, the United States has prioritized criminalization as a response to drug use, yet stronger drugs like fentanyl have emerged, and our country is facing a health crisis with record-setting overdose deaths.To make any progress toward curbing addiction, we need to increase access to the addiction services and support people need: treatment, overdose prevention centers, outreach teams to connect people to care, and housing. More criminalization is a false promise of change.Diane M. GoldsteinLas VegasThe writer, a retired police lieutenant, is the executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership.Lights Dim Off BroadwaySignature Theater, an important Off Broadway institution, had no shows this fall.Sara Krulwich/The New York TimesTo the Editor: Re “Off Broadway, Vital to Theater Scene, Struggles” (front page, Dec. 8):It saddens me to read about the struggles and closures of our city’s intimate theaters. These are the institutions that nurture new work. Losing them darkens our future.During this crisis, I hope artistic directors will remember that it doesn’t have to cost a fortune to put on a play. Even a bare-bones staging gives us something Netflix never can: a story shared by strangers in person in real time.Rob AckermanNew YorkThe author is a playwright.Asia’s Disappearing SeaRusting boats in the sand in Muynak, Uzbekistan. Muynak was once a thriving port on the Aral Sea but is now a desert town since the sea disappeared.Carolyn Drake/MagnumTo the Editor: Re “A Giant Inland Sea Is Now a Desert, and a Warning for Humanity,” by Jacob Dreyer (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Nov. 28), about the shrinking Aral Sea in Uzbekistan:Together, we — an archaeologist, a geographer and a historian — have extensive experience in the Aral Sea region. We take exception to Mr. Dreyer’s description of this place as resembling “hell.” Rather than stereotyping the region as a wasteland that people should flee from (Mr. Dreyer stresses his desire to leave the region as quickly as possible), we must recognize the meaning and value that the Aral Sea and its environs still hold for its residents today, and we should center those residents’ desired futures.We also need to consider the Aral Sea region a vital knowledge zone. As we confront shrinking bodies of water in many other regions around the globe, we can learn from the perseverance of Aral Sea residents. If we listen, what lessons can we learn from them as we prepare for future ecological disasters?Elizabeth BriteKate ShieldsSarah CameronDr. Brite is a clinical associate professor at Purdue University, Dr. Shields is an assistant professor at Rhodes College, and Dr. Cameron is an associate professor at the University of Maryland, College Park. More

  • in

    Quinn Mitchell, Known for His Pointed Questions of Candidates, Ejected From GOP Event

    Quinn Mitchell, an aspiring journalist from New Hampshire, was escorted out of a G.O.P. candidate summit on Friday, though he was later allowed to return.It was the type of tough question a Republican presidential candidate might get on a Sunday morning talk show, only the person asking it was 15: Quinn Mitchell wanted to know if Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida believed that former President Donald J. Trump had violated the peaceful transfer of power on Jan. 6, 2021.Video of the uncomfortable exchange at a June 27 town hall in Hollis, N.H., for Mr. DeSantis, who dodged the question, ricocheted online. So did the pair’s next encounter at a July 4 parade in Merrimack, N.H., where a video showed Quinn, an aspiring journalist, being shooed away by a handler for the Florida governor.But the teenager said he was not prepared for what happened on Friday, when he was briefly ejected by police officers from the First in the Nation Leadership Summit, a candidate showcase organized by the New Hampshire Republican Party. The two-day event in Nashua, N.H., featured Mr. DeSantis and most of the G.O.P. field, but not Mr. Trump.“They said, ‘We know who you are,’” Quinn, who has his own political blog and podcast, said in a phone interview on Saturday from his home in Walpole, N.H., referring to the organizers of the summit.Quinn, who received a guest credential for the summit from the state’s G.O.P., said a person associated with the event had told him that he had a history of being disruptive and had accused him of being a tracker, a type of political operative who records rival candidates.The next thing he knew, Quinn said, he was being led to a private room and was then ushered out of the Sheraton Nashua hotel by local police officers. His ejection was first reported by The Boston Globe.Jimmy Thompson, a spokesman for the New Hampshire Republican Party, said in a text message on Saturday that the teen’s removal had been a mistake.“During the course of the two-day event, an overzealous volunteer mistakenly made the decision to have Quinn removed from the event, thinking he was a Democrat tracker,” Mr. Thompson wrote. “Once the incident came to our staff’s attention, NHGOP let him back into the event, where he was free to enjoy the rest of the summit.”Quinn met Vivek Ramaswamy at a Republican event in Newport, N.H., last month. Mr. DeSantis isn’t the only candidate who has faced his direct questions.Sophie Park for The New York TimesA spokesman for the DeSantis campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Saturday.A public information officer for the Nashua Police Department also did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Saturday.According to his website, Quinn has attended more than 80 presidential campaign events since he was 10, taking advantage of New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status in the nominating process to pose questions to candidates.He said he wanted to hear former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey speak on Friday, along with the businessman Perry Johnson, a long-shot candidate.At a town hall featuring Mr. Christie in April, Quinn had asked another pointed question: Would Hillary Clinton have been better than Mr. Trump as president?Mr. Christie, the former president’s loudest critic in the G.O.P. field, answered that he still would have chosen Mr. Trump in the 2016 election, describing the contest as “the biggest hold-your-nose-and-vote choice” the American people ever had.About two months later, it was Mr. DeSantis’s turn to field a question from Quinn, this one about Mr. Trump’s actions on Jan. 6.“Are you in high school? said Mr. DeSantis, who has faced criticism as a candidate for not being fluid when interacting with voters and journalists, a dynamic that has made for some awkward exchanges on the campaign trail.The Florida governor pivoted, arguing that if the 2024 election focused on “relitigating things that happened two, three years ago, we’re going to lose.”Quinn said that it did not seem like a coincidence that he was kicked out of the event on Friday before Mr. DeSantis’s remarks, which he had planned to skip.“They know the story between me and DeSantis,” he said.By the time he was allowed to return to the event, Quinn said he was able to catch Mr. DeSantis’s remarks. But when the governor opened it up for a question, Quinn left.“OK, one quick question, what do you got?” Mr. DeSantis asked an audience member.Nicholas Nehamas More

  • in

    Will Patrick Hendry Change the New York City Police Union?

    Patrick Hendry, a reserved, behind-the-scenes power, is succeeding fiery Patrick Lynch, who ran the Police Benevolent Association at top volume.Patrick Hendry, the new head of New York City’s police officers’ union, has much in common with his predecessor: Their mothers are from Ireland. They grew up in Queens, the sons of union men. And they believe a police union must defend officers, even those accused of wrongdoing.Mr. Hendry and Patrick J. Lynch, the former president of the Police Benevolent Association, say officers must make split-second decisions that carry uniquely high stakes for union members, for the city and within the 50,500-employee Police Department — the nation’s largest.For nearly a quarter century, the booming voice of Mr. Lynch, who stepped down June 30, made the union a key player in New York politics. He was a take-it-or-leave-it megaphone for 21,000 active members. He battled Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani over wage freezes; accused Mayor Bill de Blasio after the assassination of two officers of stirring up anti-police sentiment; and led the union when it endorsed Donald J. Trump for president in 2020.Now Mr. Hendry, 51, who is untested as a public figure, must decide whether he will deviate from that path. He says that his plans are straightforward: Get more officers longer shifts in exchange for more days off, fend off watchdogs who he says seek to discipline officers over minor complaints and build on the diverse team he has assembled to serve a younger, majority-minority force.He also wants to retain officers being wooed by other law enforcement agencies offering more money and less big-city stress. Thanks to a union contract signed in April, officers starting next year will earn about $56,000 annually in their first year and just over $65,000 by their fifth year — far lower than elsewhere in the country.“Our members are still leaving. We are understaffed and overworked. We made progress on the contract, but we still believe we’re underpaid,” Mr. Hendry said during a recent interview at Police Benevolent Association headquarters in Lower Manhattan. “We are the biggest force in the country, and we should be paid the highest in the country.”Mr. Hendry himself is expected to earn about $218,000 annually, half from his police salary and half from the union; union leaders are excused from city work in order to perform union business full time.He was quick to take up his ceremonial duties. On Wednesday, he went to the northeast side of Central Park where, in 1986, a 15-year-old boy shot Detective Steven McDonald. In 2019, the detective, who had forgiven the boy who left him paralyzed, died from his injuries.Mr. Hendry gave a brief speech before a small group gathered there, 37 years to the day of the shooting. “Everyone here has a Steven McDonald story,” he said. “Those stories made us better police officers, made us better people.” After he finished, he embraced Detective McDonald’s widow and son.The timing of Mr. Hendry’s ascension coincides with a turning point for the Police Department. Edward Caban was named acting commissioner this month after the abrupt resignation of Keechant Sewell. Ms. Sewell, Mr. Lynch and the city negotiated a long-awaited contract that gives officers’ better pay and schedule flexibility, work that Mr. Hendry wants to continue with Mr. Caban, who is the son of a transit cop from the Bronx.The leadership of the Police Department is in flux, with Keechant Seewell stepping down as commissioner and Edward Caban, right, appointed on an acting basis.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesMr. Hendry, the son of a carpenter and waitress who immigrated from Ireland, grew up in Queens Village, the youngest of four children. He was an Eagle Scout and an altar boy at a Roman Catholic parish before he joined the department in 1993 at age 21. Nine years later, while working at the 103rd Precinct in Queens, he became a union delegate.Back then, Mr. Lynch was a new leader who quickly made the Police Benevolent Association a powerful voice in the city and on the national stage.Mr. Lynch gave voice to police officers’ anger following a two-year wage freeze during the Giuliani administration, with officers protesting from precincts to the State Capitol. The union made an unsuccessful appeal of a 2013 ruling that ended the department’s use of stop-and-frisk — a police tactic defended by mayor Michael R. Bloomberg that unfairly targeted Black and brown men.In 2014, after Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who was incensed over killings by the police, shot two officers dead, Mr. Lynch cast blame on Mr. de Blasio. At Woodhull Hospital in Queens that night, Mr. Lynch said, “There’s blood on many hands” and added: “That blood on the hands starts on the steps of City Hall, in the office of the mayor.” Days later, at the funeral of one of the slain officers, police officers turned their backs on the mayor as he spoke.Six years later, Mr. Lynch was again at war with Mr. de Blasio as racial-justice protests and calls to defund the police swept the country. The union endorsed Mr. Trump, putting Mr. Lynch in the national spotlight.Mr. Lynch appeared to have a better rapport with Mayor Eric Adams, a former officer who agreed to the more generous contract, and who has said he sees the police as an extension of himself.Patrick Lynch was a regular participant in New York’s public discourse, delivering his contributions at high volume.Sasha Maslov for The New York TimesMr. Lynch, 59, did not want to try for a new five-year term because he would have reached the mandatory retirement age for a police officer before the term ended. When he announced he would not seek re-election, Jumaane Williams, the city’s public advocate, said in a phone interview that his departure was long overdue, calling him the “most obstructive voice to having a real conversation around public safety.”“I don’t think he was ever interested in doing anything that was about addressing accountability and transparency in policing,” he said.“You have to speak up for your members, be it working conditions, pay, protection against undue discipline,” he added. “But he spoke for them as loud as possible, even when they were wrong.”Mr. Hendry has already made moves that reflect the modern makeup of the department, whose uniformed work force is now 58 percent nonwhite. He has selected two women of color to be among the union’s top six leaders. One, Betty Carradero, who is Latina, will be the union secretary; the other, Lethimyle Cleveland, who is Black and Vietnamese, will be the first openly gay board member. Although most of the organization’s 369 delegates are white, 40 percent are now people of color.“I’ve put a team together that truly reflects our members,” Mr. Hendry said.Still, changes in leadership might make little difference in the public perception of a Police Department with a history of high-profile killings of Black and brown New Yorkers, said Lee Adler, a labor studies professor at Cornell University and an expert in law enforcement unions.When federal prosecutors declined to charge an officer who fatally shot Ramarley Graham, an unarmed Black teenager, in the bathroom of his Bronx home in 2012, Mr. Lynch said there was a “scourge of guns and drugs in the community” and that the officer’s “good faith effort to combat those ills brought us to this tragedy.” After the firing of the officer whose chokehold led to Eric Garner’s death in 2014, Mr. Lynch said his members should “proceed with the utmost caution in this new reality, in which they may be deemed ‘reckless’ just for doing their job.”Union leaders have been driven “to defend, explain and rationalize” bad actors, Professor Adler said. “They may have private moments where their conscience rings as clear as a bell. But those thoughts don’t become part of their own operating systems from which they make decisions — even if it’s real, and even if it’s powerful, and even if it seems right.”To that, Mr. Lynch asks: If Mr. Hendry and the union do not stand behind police officers, whose every move is subject to intense scrutiny by the Police Department, politicians and the public, who will?“Sometimes the other side is just wrong, and someone has to tell them. It’s not always comfortable, but that’s the job,” Mr. Lynch said.“How you get there may vary with time. It may vary with the issue.” And, Mr. Lynch added: “It may vary with the person in charge.” More

  • in

    Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s Former Leader, Is Arrested in Financial Inquiry

    The arrest of Ms. Sturgeon, who resigned as leader of the Scottish National Party in February, follows that of her husband, previously the party’s chief executive, and of its former treasurer.Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s former first minister, was arrested on Sunday by police officers investigating the finances of the Scottish National Party, which dominates the country’s politics and which she led until her unexpected resignation in February.The news deepens the crisis engulfing the S.N.P., which campaigns for Scottish independence, following the earlier arrests of Ms. Sturgeon’s husband, Peter Murrell, the party’s former chief executive, and then of Colin Beattie, its former treasurer.Both men were released without being charged after questioning, but the latest development is a dramatic fall from grace for Ms. Sturgeon, a popular politician who served as Scotland’s first minister for more than eight years until she announced her resignation.That decision took the political world by surprise and prompted a divisive race to succeed her that was ultimately won by Humza Yousaf, previously Scotland’s health secretary.However, Mr. Yousaf’s efforts to establish himself as Scotland’s new first minister have been overshadowed by the extraordinary drama after the recent escalation of the police investigation into the S.N.P.’s finances.In line with normal British protocol, Ms. Sturgeon was not named in a statement from Police Scotland, which said that “a 52-year-old woman” had on Sunday “been arrested as a suspect in connection with the continuing investigation into the funding and finances of the Scottish National Party,” adding that she was “in custody and is being questioned” by detectives. The BBC and other British news outlets identified the arrested woman as Ms. Sturgeon.Police Scotland’s inquiry, code-named Operation Branchform, began in 2021 and was reported to have followed complaints about the handling of around 600,000 pounds, or nearly $750,000, in donations raised to campaign for a second vote on Scottish independence. (A first referendum on the question was held in 2014, with Scots voting by 55 percent to 45 percent against independence.)The authorities are thought to be looking into whether money intended to fight for another vote on independence was diverted for a different purpose, and to be investigating why Mr. Murrell made a loan to the party.Mr. Murrell, who has been married to Ms. Sturgeon since 2010, held the post of chief executive from 1999 until March, when he resigned after accepting blame for misleading statements from the party about the size of its dues-paying membership. Mr. Beattie resigned after his arrest.After Mr. Murrell’s arrest, the British media reported that the police had seized a luxury motor home parked outside his mother’s house. Mr. Yousaf confirmed to reporters that the party had bought the vehicle — to use as a mobile office for campaigns, officials told local news outlets — but said that he only learned about the purchase after he became leader.At the time of her resignation, Ms. Sturgeon explained her decision by saying she was exhausted and had become too polarizing a figure in Scottish politics to persuade wavering voters to support independence.Some critics have since come to doubt that explanation but, when asked by the BBC in April if the police investigation of Mr. Murrell had prompted Ms. Sturgeon’s resignation, Mr. Yousaf replied: “No, I believe Nicola Sturgeon absolutely that she had taken the party as further forward as she possibly could.” More

  • in

    Biden’s Age, and His Achievements

    More from our inbox:The PGA-LIV Golf MergerSelf-Policing in Brooklyn Sarah Silbiger for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Spry Diplomat With a Stiff Gait: Aging Leader’s Complex Reality” (front page, June 4):Joe Biden on a bad day is better than 99 percent of Americans on a good one. He adroitly defeated the greatest human threat to U.S. democracy since Benedict Arnold, spearheaded a largely successful first-term legislative agenda, managed to avoid World War III with the Russians while materially supporting Ukraine’s war effort, and has kept an increasingly hegemonic China at bay.President Biden just oversaw the first truly bipartisan legislative effort in years, thus averting a world economic meltdown. He is a good and decent man who has spent the majority of his life in public service and has weathered an inordinate number of personal tragedies with a grace and dignity few could muster.While he has lost a step or two over the decades, in the crucible of real life where facts matter and outcomes are measurable, he burns as incandescently bright as any president before him.If the measure of the man is his gait, speech and memory for trivialities, then we are lost. Otherwise, let his achievements and character speak to his fitness to serve again as our president.Lawson BernsteinNew YorkTo the Editor:As an octogenarian myself who still works some and speaks in public, I know that my memory is not what it used to be, and I believe that it is crazy for President Biden to insist on asking for another term as president.At minimum, a new running mate needs to be found who is more electable on his or her own than the current vice president. For example, the governor of Michigan or the senator from Minnesota, and there are others who leap to mind. In any event, Mr. Biden should at least name someone as his running mate who could win the presidency on his or her own.Democratic leaders should speak up at this point on this issue before it’s too late.Isebill V. GruhnSanta Cruz, Calif.The writer is emerita professor of politics at the University of California Santa Cruz.To the Editor:I was an executive in several high-profile organizations and had two published novels. I am also a loyal Democrat.That was then.Now, I am 85. I am healthy and active, but I also note the minor aches and pains of old age, forgetfulness and lack of focus. I’m slower in gait, hearing and reacting.I do not worry about the regular presidential work President Biden will continue to confront. I am concerned about the emergency moment with which he may be faced. Can we really afford to take a chance that at his age, Mr. Biden can reasonably react perfectly to a crisis that may be both unexpected and disastrous?There may be no second chance!Sheila LevinNew YorkTo the Editor:While questions about President Biden’s age should not be automatically dismissed, I am far more concerned about the cognitive functions of a candidate who has spoken of Revolutionary War airports and Andrew Jackson’s Civil War presidency.I question the acuity of a candidate who thinks Frederick Douglass is still alive and suggests that ingesting bleach may be an efficacious way to treat certain serious illnesses. Additionally, declaring that it takes 10 or 15 tries to flush an average toilet suggests deficient mental capabilities.I find it even more alarming, though, that this same candidate regularly praises Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping and brags about receiving “love letters” from Kim Jong-un, but lacks respect for Volodymyr Zelensky. Given a choice between the two, I shall vote for an octogenarian President Biden.Steven FantinaPhillipsburg, N.J.To the Editor:Re “President Tripped and Fell During Air Force Graduation” (news article, June 2):I was present at this year’s Air Force Academy graduation. I ask anyone to contemplate standing onstage midday delivering a 30-minute graduation speech, followed by standing onstage another 90 minutes saluting 921 times, each salute followed by a verbal greeting and a firm handshake from an energized 20-something cadet. That is an impressive feat of stamina for a person of any age, let alone an octogenarian.The media’s focus on the nine-second “fall” video completely distorts the reality of the event as perceived by those in attendance, who were present with President Biden during those hours of midday sun, who were actually impressed with the remarkable stamina he demonstrated.The president’s fall was due to a regrettable onstage tripping hazard, a dark sandbag placed on an equally dark floor, intended to stabilize a teleprompter, but unfortunately placed right on the path Mr. Biden was directed to traverse.Both as a physician and an Air Force Academy graduate with some experience saluting, I posit that a person could not accomplish 921 salutes and 921 handshakes without considerable arm and shoulder pain. Yet Mr. Biden did not complain or boast of this feat, as he made it his priority to personally address every graduating cadet. Mr. President, for your remarkable performance at this graduation, I salute you.Stanley SaulnyAustin, TexasThe writer is the father of a member of this year’s Air Force Academy graduating class.To the Editor:Re “11 Skeptical Biden Voters on His Re-election Bid” (“America in Focus” series, Opinion, June 4):It was so dismaying to read the responses of this group. I too have some misgivings about President Biden’s age, but no misgivings about his competence, even when I disagree with him.Mr. Biden’s style is what undercuts the perception of his strength. He’s not flashy. He’s not putting on a show. He’s not a great speaker. He doesn’t have charisma.But he has stood firm with Volodymyr Zelensky and united NATO. He got infrastructure legislation through. He took the first baby steps on negotiating drug prices with Medicare. He kept most of us afloat during a terrible pandemic. He tried to address the problem of the high cost of college.I’ll vote for him gladly. Do I worry about his age? Yes. But I’ll take my chances anytime with him over any of the MAGA party candidates.P.S.: I got much better than what I was expecting when I voted for Joe in the last election.Nancy GersonSouth Dennis, Mass.The PGA-LIV Golf MergerProfessional golfers on both the PGA and LIV tours are unlikely to see changes in their schedules this year.Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Golf Gets Jolt as Rival Tours Form Alliance” (front page, June 7):When you sell your soul to the devil, you end up with a match made in hell. Dirty Saudi money wins; principle loses.This is an unfortunate huge double bogey for American golf enthusiasts who have admired the decency and integrity of the golfers who have eschewed preposterous payouts in favor of respecting the tradition of the game and the PGA Tour.In any situation where the Saudis and their favorite former president gloat, and the head of the PGA Tour abruptly changes course where billions are involved, you know it’s time to watch curling instead of golf.Ed LaFreniereGig Harbor, Wash.To the Editor:At first, I was just irritated beyond belief with the golfers who bent over and stuffed their back pockets with money from a bunch of murderers and misogynists. Now that the PGA Tour has married those people, I can just ignore professional golf for the rest of my life.David M. BehrmanHoustonSelf-Policing in Brooklyn Amir Hamja for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “How One Neighborhood in Brooklyn Policed Itself for Five Days” (front page, June 4):Self-policing is a spectacularly bad idea. Despite the failings of many professional police officers, in Brooklyn and elsewhere, they have two things that civilians do not: a core of training and discipline, and recognizable authority. Without these two elements, self-policing is the equivalent of one person trying to stop a fight between two other people.Though the list of things that could go wrong in that scenario is limitless, it definitely includes the injury or death of all three principals, as well as a threat to onlookers.We are all looking for a path to more disciplined, more compassionate and more accountable policing. This is not the way.Bart BravermanIndio, Calif. More