When news of last weekend's assault of Republican campaign fundraiser Allee Bautsch and her boyfriend broke on Monday, police logs detailing crimes and complaints reported in the French Quarter that night did not list the attack on the pair.
That's because the April 9 incident was first labeled a medical call, which meant no police report needed to be written. Indeed, according to the initial report released Friday by New Orleans police, it wasn't until Monday that a detective was assigned to investigate the incident -- in which Bautsch broke her leg and her boyfriend, Joseph Brown, broke his jaw.
Monday was also the day news reports and blogs began chattering about the attack, sometimes laden with the juicy possibility the attackers were anti-Republican protesters.
The initial incident report does not resolve the question of whether Bautsch and Brown were attacked by protesters, who had picketed the restaurant they were in earlier that night.
But the sequence of the NOPD's response to an attack that left Bautsch with a broken leg and Brown with a fractured jaw and nose, raises questions about why the department didn't deal with the incident as an assault from the get-go. Subsequent police statements and reports about the incident note that officers did respond to the scene, calling an ambulance to take Bautsch and Brown to the hospital.
NOPD spokesman Bob Young said the explanation is simple: The responding officer didn't know the extent of the couple's injuries. That officer knew the couple needed help and was told that Brown had been in a fight, but concentrated on getting them medical assistance, he said.
If the officer had known how badly they were hurt, the case would have been reclassified immediately as some kind of battery, Young said.
That would have allowed police to begin their investigation more quickly -- for example, rounding up potential witnesses at the scene on a night when the area was crowded with French Quarter Fest revelers.
Police realized the seriousness of the pair's injuries the next day, when Baustch called and said her purse was missing, Young said. An officer went to the hospital to take a report on the missing purse and learned both Bautsch, 25, and Brown, 29, had suffered significant injuries, he said.
That officer notified a supervisor, who assigned Sgt. Nicholas Gernon to the case, Young said. Gernon wrote in his initial incident report that he was assigned the case at about 4:30 p.m. on Monday.
Peter Scharf, a criminologist with Tulane University, said the incident is just one case, but merits further review to see if it is an example of so-called downgrading -- or classifying a crime as minor so that it isn't counted in crime statistics.
"Was it sound judgment, getting it right after the dust settles, or was it another case of trying to fix something?" Scharf asked.
Police documents showing the list of crimes in the French Quarter each weekend are typically sprinkled with the signal numbers that indicate beatings: "35" for simple battery, or "103F" for a fight, often with addresses near watering holes on Bourbon Street. In all such cases, officers write reports.
Young noted that the likely alternative assessment of the officer on scene -- if he hadn't concluded it was merely a medical call -- would have been to categorize the incident as a fight. Fights are not included in "uniform crime reports," or the tally of serious crime, such as assaults, that are released publicly by the department each quarter and given to the FBI.
After his initial investigation, Gernon concluded that both Brown and Bautsch were victims of second-degree battery, which would fit the FBI's definition of an assault that should be reported to the public. The detective, along with 8th District Lt. Eddie Selby, interviewed Brown on Monday evening at Oschner Hospital. They did not immediately interview Bautsch because she was on pain medication.
One question not resolved by the report is whether Bautsch and Brown were victims of a political attack, the source of substantial media speculation this week. The pair had been attending a Republican fundraiser at Brennan's Restaurant on Royal Street in the French Quarter, which was picketed by protesters, who also heckled attendees of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in the Central Business District earlier that day.
The report states that by 9:30 p.m. that night, the protesters learned that the high-profile politicians in attendance had left, prompting many of them to leave. Bautsch and Brown left the restaurant about an hour later, walking toward St. Louis Street, according to the report.
As the couple walked away, Brown recalled hearing people yell slurs at them, such as "little blonde bitch" and "you're a f--king faggot." Brown and Bautsch turned onto St. Louis Street. At this point, they told police, somebody pushed Brown into the gate of the Louisiana Supreme Court, he said. The man got on top of Brown and "began to attack him," the report stated. Bautsch was either pushed or fell to the ground.
Bautsch immediately realized something was seriously wrong with her leg, calling out "Oh my God, my leg is broken," the report states. At that point, the attackers -- numbering between three and five men, according to Brown -- took off toward Royal Street.
The report notes that Brown, who acknowledged drinking some cocktails before the incident, could not say whether his attackers had been protesters. "It should be noted that other than making reference to the victims being nicely dressed, along with other observations about their physical appearance, Mr. Brown did not hear them make any other comments," the report stated.
Brown could provide a description of one suspect: a man in his late 20s, 6 feet, 1 inch tall with a thin build. This man, who Brown said looked "dirty" but not homeless, was described as having a beard and dark-red hair in a ponytail. He wore a light-colored t-shirt and dark pants.
Bautsch's purse was not stolen in the attack and was used by her as a pillow as they waited for an ambulance, Brown said. Brown went to look for the purse after paramedics put Bautsch in the ambulance, but it was no longer on the ground, he said.
Posted 4/17/2010 10:29 pm
ncumbent John McCain now earns just 47% support to challenger J.D. Hayworth’s 42% in Arizona’s hotly contested Republican Senate Primary race, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely primary voters.
McCain has been losing ground since January when he picked up 53% of the potential GOP Primary vote and Hayworth had only 31% support. Last month, the longtime senator and 2008 GOP presidential candidate earned 48% of the vote, while 41% of likely primary voters supported his challenger.
Just two percent (2%) now prefer some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) are undecided.
Any incumbent who is earning less than 50% of the vote at this stage of the campaign is considered vulnerable. Arizona Republicans will pick their candidate in an August 24 primary. Businessman Rodney Glassman has now formally announced as a Democratic Senate candidate, and Rasmussen Reports will release its first numbers matching him against the two Republicans later today.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
Hayworth, a former congressman and conservative talk radio host, has been attacking McCain from the right and courting Tea Party voters who nationally are unhappy with incumbents from both parties. McCain has countered with endorsements from a number of prominent Republicans, including most significantly his 2008 running mate, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who recently attended a pro-McCain rally in the state.
Eighty-six percent (86%) of GOP Primary voters in Arizona think the recently-passed national health care bill should be repealed, with 78% who strongly favor repeal. Fifty percent (50%) of those who strongly favor repeal support Hayworth; 41% of those voters support McCain.
Eighty percent (80%) of primary voters say their own views on the major issues of the day are closer to the views of the average Tea Party member than to those of President Obama. Forty-two percent (42%) of those voters back McCain, while 49% support Hayworth. Among the 10% of primary voters who say their views are closer to the president's, McCain earns 68% of the vote, Hayworth 16%.
Hayworth has been especially critical of McCain’s leading role in the failed comprehensive immigration reform effort in 2006 and 2007, saying it was mainly intended to give amnesty to illegal immigrants, a charge his opponent has denied.
Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republican Primary voters in the state say gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers. Only 11% think legalization is more important. Ninety-one percent (91%) say a candidate’s position on immigration is at least somewhat important to how they will vote, with 67% who say it is very important.
McCain is viewed very favorably by 31% of likely primary voters and very unfavorably by only nine percent (9%).
Twenty-four percent (24%) have a very favorable view of Hayworth, while 18% view him very unfavorably.
While both candidates are well-known among likely primary voters, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with strong opinions more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers at this point in a campaign.
The Rasmussen Media Meter below shows McCain receiving more positive media coverage over the past week than Hayworth. The Media Meter is updated on a daily basis.
Eighty-six percent (86%) of likely GOP Primary voters say the health care bill will be bad for the country. Just seven percent (7%) think it will have a good impact.
Only 14% support the provision in the plan that requires every American to buy or obtain health insurance, with seven percent (7%) who strongly favor it. Eighty-two percent (82%) oppose the requirement, including 70% who strongly oppose it.
Eighty percent (80%) say Arizona should join the other states that are suing to stop the health care plan, challenging the constitutionality of that requirement.
Only 14% approve of the job President Obama is doing, while 86% disapprove. This includes nine percent (9%) who strongly approve and 76% who strongly disapprove.
Posted 4/17/2010 10:32 pm
The Justice Department filed a lawsuit on Friday against John Jay College of Criminal Justice, alleging that the school engaged in a pattern of job discrimination against noncitizens who were authorized to work.
The lawsuit, considered the department’s first in years to crack down on immigration-related discrimination against noncitizens, says the college violated provisions of immigration law by demanding extra work authorization from at least 103 individuals since 2007, rather than accepting the work-eligibility documents required of citizens, like a Social Security card and a driver’s license.
The suit seeks civil penalties of $1,100 for each individual and unspecified measures to overcome the effects of discrimination. It also seeks compensation for each person affected, including the woman who set off the investigation when she complained in 2008 to the Justice Department’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. She called the special counsel after she was fired from her job as a part-time computer lab assistant at the college, which is part of the City University of New York.
Christine Godek, a spokeswoman for the college, said John Jay had agreed “in principle” with the Justice Department to settle the case and fully compensate the woman who complained.
“We will be instituting a comprehensive training program to prevent any recurrence,” she said. “We reaffirm our commitment to providing employment opportunities to immigrants who are authorized to work in this country.”
While the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for policing employers who hire unauthorized workers, the Justice Department is committed to enforcing provisions of the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act that prohibit employers from imposing different employment eligibility verification standards on noncitizens than on citizens, said Alejandro Miyar, a spokesman for the department.
Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the department’s Civil Rights Division, said in a statement: “Every individual who is authorized to work in this country has the right to know they will be free from discrimination as they look for a job, and that they will be on the same playing field as every other applicant or worker.”
According to the complaint, the computer lab assistant, who began working for John Jay in 2004, provided her driver’s license and Social Security card, which was unrestricted, to verify that she was eligible for employment. But John Jay required that she also produce a green card, and fired her when she did not.
“I was crying, angry,” the woman, now 57, said in a telephone interview on Friday, asking that her name be withheld for fear of retaliation. “But I did not want to give them so much trouble.”
“They are not bad,” added the woman, who said that she arrived from Korea on a student visa almost 30 years ago and that her green card application was pending while she worked at John Jay. “I think they were just poorly trained.”
Posted 4/17/2010 10:58 pm
WASHINGTON, April 15 (Reuters) - A long-awaited compromise bill to reduce U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming will be unveiled by a group of senators on April 26, sources said on Thursday.
The legislative language to be sketched out in 11 days, according to government and environmental sources, is being drafted by Democratic Senator John Kerry, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and independent Senator Joseph Lieberman.
Backers of the environmental bill hope the unveiling will pave the way for the full Senate to debate and pass a measure in June or July if the compromise attracts enough support from a group of moderate Republicans and Democrats.
Republican Senator Judd Gregg told Reuters he was "committed to getting something that addresses our energy needs in a constructive and comprehensive way." He added he did not know yet whether he would support the bill being developed.
President Barack Obama has made climate change one of his top priorities and took steps recently to show Republicans he was serious, including expanding federal aid for building nuclear power facilities and allowing more domestic offshore oil drilling -- initiatives to be included in the Senate compromise.
The White House is also eager to show the rest of the world the United States is ready to take a leadership role on global warming, including to help kick-start stalled international efforts to tackle the problem.
Despite vocal climate change skeptics in the United States, leading scientific groups have been hoping the United States, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases after China, would take action.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported on Thursday the world's combined land and ocean surface temperatures in March were the hottest on record.
Once the senators formally sketch out their bill, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid will decide the next steps in a year crowded with competing legislative priorities and congressional elections in November.
The bill could face stiff opposition from lawmakers in states with economies heavily dependent on oil and coal.
Lou Hayden, a policy expert at the American Petroleum Institute, said his group would not support the bill unless it went through an economic analysis by the Energy Information Administration, an independent arm of the Energy Department.
The bill is already slated to be analyzed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office, which could take more than a month.
BILL MIGHT END STATE/REGIONAL CARBON TRADE PROGRAMS
Kerry, Lieberman and Graham have been working for months on a global warming compromise significantly different from a measure passed last year by the House of Representatives and a bill approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. It also takes many elements from those bills.
Like the House-passed bill and Obama administration policy, it would set a target of 17 percent reductions in smokestack emissions of carbon dioxide by 2020, from 2005 levels.
Point Carbon, an energy markets consulting service, estimated the anticipated Senate bill would result in U.S. gasoline prices rising an average of 27 cents a gallon from 2013 to 2020. The bill is expected to contain a fee on motor fuels.
On Wednesday, a Senate source told Reuters the legislation would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide emissions. It would also end state and regional carbon-trading programs, such as the one several Northeastern states participate in, to be replaced by a national carbon reduction policy. [N14150360]
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, with 10 participating states from Vermont to Maryland, has raised over $582 million for state efficiency and climate programs, said Environment Northeast, a Boston research group.
Peter Shattuck, a carbon markets policy analyst there, said shutting the program could create concerns among the states over lost revenues.
A group of nine senators, mostly from Midwestern manufacturing states, urged Kerry, Graham and Lieberman in a letter on Thursday to take into account jobs in their states.
Posted 4/17/2010 11:00 pm
Three Senate Republicans are in the spotlight as possible votes for a Wall Street reform bill.
Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Judd Gregg (N.H.) are all seen as gettable votes by Democrats, who plan to bring their financial overhaul legislation to the floor next week.
Collins has declined to sign a letter circulated by GOP leaders that would commit Republicans to voting against the legislation prepared by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.).
Corker, a Banking panel member who worked with Dodd on the financial overhaul legislation, was disappointed when Dodd ended their talks and introduced a bill on his own. Still, Corker has said he believes some differences between Republicans and Democrats on the legislation could be bridged.
Gregg, the retiring chairman of the Budget Committee who nearly joined the Obama administration last year as Commerce secretary, has criticized Democrats this week for not trying to conclude work on Wall Street reform in a bipartisan manner. He’s also faulted a rush to the floor on the bill.
But Gregg has predicted the legislation will pass and rejected some GOP criticism of the legislation this week as over-the-top.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), an influential member of the Banking panel, on Friday floated the names of the three Republicans as the most likely GOP votes for financial reform.
“I hope that, among the Republicans, there are some people who want to support consumers and the American public,” Reed said during an appearance on MSNBC.
“We've had some consideration and cooperation by people like Judd Gregg, Bob Corker, Susan Collins, and there are others. And I just hope we have those votes.”
None of the three Republicans are up for reelection in 2010.
Democrats are likely to need more than one Republican to join them on the financial overhaul.
Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), one of the upper chamber’s most conservative Democrats, has withheld support for the legislation because of concerns over new regulations it would place on insurance companies.
Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) also have reportedly held back from endorsing the legislation.
Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) said Thursday he is not certain Democrats would have all 59 votes in their conference for a motion to proceed to the bill.
Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) has led the charge against the financial bill, calling it legislation that perpetuates government bailouts of financial institutions.
Dodd filed his bill with the full Senate on Thursday evening, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has signaled his intention to bring it to the floor next week.
Reid's timeline sets up a key procedural vote on a motion to proceed that might be seen as a test for Republicans, staking out which — if any — GOP senators are willing to break ranks.
Democrats appear to be daring Republicans to vote against the bill in a belief that public opinion will punish lawmakers seen as protecting big banks.
Reed stepped up the rhetorical pressure on his colleagues on Friday, characterizing the choice in that vote as siding with the middle class or with Wall Street interests.
“I think, frankly, this vote is going to be very telling,” Reed said. “Those who vote against moving forward to debate this bill ... are saying we support the big banks right now, which are making a huge amount of money.”
thread.
