HANDS-OFF HYNES When police opened fire on Abner Louima, a stationary target just a few feet away, they managed to hit him with just 19 of 43 shots. So inaccurate were the shooters that bullets began ricocheting every which way, causing the police to think someone was firing back at them. Yet now we are told that an officer in Bensonhurst, while trying to jump out of the way of a car, accidentally fired a single shot that happened to hit the driver in the back, killing him. That was the conclusion of an investigation by Brooklyn District Attorney Joe Hynes of the January 2 incident on 86th Street and Bay Parkway in which suspected car thief John Lagattuta, 35, died. So the officer, John Brennan of the 60th Precinct, will not be prosecuted.

Not many people are going to feel sorry for Lagattuta, a crack addict who put the public and police at risk in a hapless attempt to escape. Yet his death was clearly a mistake, an error in judgment by an officer under extreme duress. It was the kind of mistake for which a jury would not likely convict a cop, which is probably why Hynes won't pursue it.

But Hynes didn't call it a mistake. He called it an accident. "If Officer Brennan was attempting to get out of the way of John Lagattuta's vehicle, how did he get to the point where he was able to shoot Mr. Lagattuta in the back?" asked the Lagattuta family's attorney, Ron Kuby, in The New York Times. "Any rational person has to doubt that account of what transpired."

Here is that account, from a Hynes press release: Brennan, in uniform and in a marked police vehicle, attempted to apprehend Lagattuta, who was driving a stolen mini-van. Lagattuta led Brennan and other officers on a chase through Bensonhurst, going through traffic lights, hitting other cars, driving on sidewalks, and nearly striking several civilians before he was forced to stop in heavy traffic on 86th Street and Bay Parkway.

The release continued, "With Brennan and other police officers surrounding him and ordering him out of his vehicle, Lagattuta drove directly at the officers in an attempt to evade capture. It was while Officer Brennan was struggling to avoid being struck by Lagattuta's vehicle that his gun accidentally discharged one shot, hitting the suspect in the back. Lagattuta was pronounced dead that evening at Victory Memorial Hospital."

The syntax here is noteworthy. The five-year veteran did not accidentally fire his gun. Rather, Hynes wrote, "his gun accidentally discharged." But guns do not fire by themselves, a point Kuby would likely make to the jury If the victim's family's expected wrongful-death lawsuit goes to trial. (The family has filed a notice of claim and has a year to bring suit.) "It's not by accident that the officer's finger was on the trigger. It may not have been by accident that the officer's gun was pointed at Mr. Lagattuta," said Kuby's associate, Daniel Perez. He added that Hynes's account differs from the one given right after the shooting by Police Commissioner

Ray Kelly, who said Brennan's gun discharged when he tried to break Lagattuta's window with it. "It sounds like the Police Department has withdrawn that original story and replaced it with a different story," said Perez. Hynes's press release also failed to mention that Lagattuta was handcuffed in the ambulance that took him to the hospital, and medics couldn't treat him properly. But the cops couldn't get the handcuffs off because the key had been left at the scene of the shooting.

Perez didn't seem surprised at the outcome of the D.A.'s investigation. Asked if politics sometimes plays a role when a D.A. probes a police shooting, Perez said, "Always." He explained, "D.A.'s are elected officials and there's always been a fundamental tension between D.A.'s offices and police in police shooting cases. "Most of the time they're on the same team and have common interests. When the potential defendant becomes a police officer, their common interests become opposing interests." He added, "It's been my experience that police officers are less than forthcoming in those situations, and it puts the D.A.'s office in the difficult position of having to ferret out the truth from unwilling police officers."

That's why Hynes should have had a grand jury investigate the case, said Perez. Apparently that did not happen, though we can't be certain because Hynes declined to comment beyond what was in his written statement. In fact, we don't even know if Hynes's people interviewed any civilian witnesses, though there must have been some because the incident occurred on a busy corner at rush hour. "When a D.A. releases the result of an investigation without bothering to share how he got that result …it merely raises more questions," Perez said. "It doesn't foster tremendous confidence in the result."

Kuby and Hynes aren't exactly drinking buddies. Kuby was the attorney who helped Brooklynites Anthony Faison and Charles Shepard get out of prison after 12 years for a murder they didn't commit, a fact which didn't stop Hynes from prosecuting them. In that case, a crackhead testified that Faison shot a cab driver from outside the cab, which Hynes believed even though the driver's door was locked and his window was not broken.

In fact, Hynes's entire case rested on the crackhead, who later admitted she lied to get the $1,000 reward, which she split with the man who hatched the plot, Nicky Roper. Roper was angry because Faison had turned him down for a construction job. Hynes defended the convictions even after a private investigator found the real killer, who eventually confessed. But we digress.

YASSKY DUSTS OFF UNIFORM LAW City Councilman David Yassky dusted off an old law barring cops from moonlighting in uniform and proposed to change it. The councilman would like to see off-duty officers wearing their uniforms when working security details for nightclubs and bars.

At first glance, that makes sense, because a uniformed cop deters crime much better than a bouncer in plain clothes. The problem is, the public assumes an officer in uniform is on duty. What would happen if a woman approached a uniformed cop outside a bar and asked him to chase down the mugger who'd just robbed her? "Sorry, ma'am, I'm working for this bar tonight," wouldn't be the answer she expected.

And what if an off-duty, uniformed cop beat up a nightclub patron while working as a bouncer? Could the NYPD get sued?

DAVIS PRESSES THE ISSUE Leave it to City Councilman James Davis to hold a press event to announce that he's holding a press event. That was not a misprint. Davis indeed held a press conference on April 17 to tell us he would march across the Brooklyn Bridge 10 days hence to protest the proposed closing of eight fire houses. Of course, his press release did not say "eight" fire houses. It just said "fire houses," as if all fire houses were being closed. "Fire stations and fire prevention work are critical to the safety and security of New York City," Davis said in his release. "I will be joined by elected officials, community leaders and residents on Sunday, April 27 to send a message to the mayor that closing our fire houses is not acceptable."

Of course, proposing to close even one fire house would result in protests. But what if the eight fire houses in question had never existed? Would anyone be protesting to demand they be built? If not, we should not object to their closing, either. Just a thought.

One more note: Davis voted against the property tax increase, saying it was too high. But now he wants to spend money to perpetuate the existence of eight fire houses. He also wanted to keep every token booth open, even though they weren't going to sell any more tokens. We're still waiting for the press release saying where this money would come from, if not taxes. Wait, let us guess: from a new commuter tax!

By the way, two days before his press conference on fire houses, Davis held a press conference at the corner where Yankel Rosenbaum was stabbed in 1991. The purpose of the press event, despite its emotionally charged location, was to call for "calm" in light of the pending retrial of defendant Lemrick Nelson. Make no mistake, we like Councilman Davis. He challenges authority, doesn't pull many punches, and puts his cell phone number on his press releases. But that does not exempt him from the occasional ranting of an irascible political columnist.

JUDGE HOPEFULS BEGIN THEIR DANCE The annual courtship of Democratic leaders by lawyers vying to become judges is under way. The leading actors this year are three contenders for a Brooklyn-wide Civil Court seat: Shawndya Simpson, Dawn Jiminez, and Theresa Ciccotto. The names Linda Atlas and April Neubauer have also come up, but we hear they're thinking of running next year.

Support from district leaders is considered important because, unlike most people, they take an interest in judicial races and can tap into the resources that help win them. However, insiders play less of a role in Brooklyn Civil Court races, which are decided by Democratic primary voters, than in Supreme Court races, which have no primary. Of greater import in little-known Civil Court races are the names and sexes of the candidates.

Our crude analysis of the county-wide race, which is the same analysis most voters will use on September 9, is this: Looking at the names, there are three women of different ethnicities to choose from. Simpson is black, Jiminez is Latina, and Ciccotto is Italian-American. Based on that, who wins? The results of past races give us a clue, but not an answer.

Last year Brooklynites picked a Latina (Margarita Lopez Torres) and a black (Dolores Thomas) over two Jews. But that doesn't mean Simpson and Jiminez have an edge. First, Simpson is more obviously black than Thomas by virtue of her first name, Shawndya. So she could get all of the black votes Thomas got but not as many white ones.

Similarly, Jiminez could get all the Hispanic votes Lopez Torres got but far fewer from other groups. Why? Lopez Torres got terrific publicity from a public battle with Assemblymen Clarence Norman and Vito Lopez, a circumstance Jiminez can't repeat.

Simpson will attempt to reap the rewards of being the chosen candidate of Norman and his Democratic Party machinery (at least, we hear Norman's behind her) without suffering from the association, as Marcia Sikowitz and Karen Yellen did in 2002.

Last year, running against the machine helped Lopez Torres and Thomas win endorsements from The New York Times, Daily News, and reform Democratic clubs. We know this much: it's a big race for Norman. His candidates have lost countywide Civil Court races two years running. Two years could be called a fluke, but three would make a pattern.

THE MINIMUM THEY CAN DO State Senators Seymour Lachman and Kevin Parker aren't letting the powerlessness of being in the Senate's minority party deter them from speaking up on the important issue of the minimum wage. But the manner in which they spoke up was a bit curious.

The two senators issued separate but identical press releases exposing their Republican colleagues for not taking action. A grade-school teacher would have pulled them aside for a lecture about doing individual work, but in politics you can get away with this sort of thing. It turned out that Senate Minority Leader David Paterson's office wrote the release and allowed Senate Democrats to make it their own.

Here's what it said: The minimum wage is still an absurdly low $5.15 an hour, meaning full-time workers earn just $10,712 per year. And these aren't teenagers: 70 percent of minimum-wage earners are adults, 45 percent work full-time, and 40 percent are their households' sole wage earners.

We concur that $5.15 an hour isn't enough to survive in New York. With the cost of living so much higher here than in the nation's backwater towns, it makes sense for the state to have a higher minimum wage than the federal government sets.

But Senate Republicans are having none of it. They know their campaign contributions come from business, not from minimum-wage workers. By contrast, Lachman represents a good number of minimum-wage workers in Coney Island and Sunset Park, and Parker in Borough Park, Flatbush, and East Flatbush.

Borough Politics Archive

2002
April 14 column.
April 7 column.
March 31 column.
March 24 column.
March 10 column.
March 3 column.
February 24 column.
February 17 column.
February 10 column.
February 3 column.
January 27 column.
January 20 column.
January 13 column.
January 6 column.

2002
December 30 column.
December 23 column.
December 16 column.
December 9 column.
December 2 column.
Novemer 25 column.
Novemer 18 column.
November 11 column.
November 4 column.
October 28 column.
October 21 column.
October 14 column.
October 7 column.
September 30 column.
September 23 column.
September 16 column.
September 9 column.
September 2 column.
August 26 column.
August 19 column.
August 12 column.
August 5 column.
July 29 column.
July 22 column.
July 8 column.
July 1 column.
June 17 column.
June 10 column.
June 3 column.
May 27 column.
May 20 column.
May 13 column.
May 6 column.
April 29 column.
April 22 column.
April 15 column.
April 8 column.
April 1 column.
March 25 column.
March 18 column.
March 11 column.
March 4 column.
February 25 column.
February 18 column.
February 11 column.
February 4 column.
January 28 column.
January 21 column.
January 7 column.

2001
December 10 column.
December 3 column.
November 19 column.
November 12 column.
November 5 column.
October 22 column.
October 1 column.
September 6 column.
September 4 column.
August 30 column.
July 23 column.
July 2 column.
June 25 column.
June 11 column.
May 28 column.
May 21 column.
May 14 column.
May 7 column.
April 30 column.
April 23 column.
April 9 column.
April 2 column.
March 26 column.
March 19 column.
March 12 column.
March 5 column.
February 26 column.
February 19 column.
February 12 column.
February 5 column.
January 29 column.
January 22 column.
January 15 column.
January 8 column.
January 1 column.

2000
December 25 column.
December 18 column.
December 11 column.
December 4 column.
November 27 column.
November 20 column.
November 13 column.
November 6 column.
October 30 column.
October 23 column.
October 16 column.
October 9 column.
October 2 column.
September 25 column.
September 18 column.
September 11 column.
September 4 column.
August 28 column.
August 21 column.
August 7 column.
July 31 column.
July 24 column.
July 17 column.
July 10 column.
June 26 column.
June 19 column.
June 12 column.
May 15 column.
May 8 column.
April 24 column.
April 10 column.
March 13 column.
March 7 column.
February 21 column.
February 14 column.
February 7 column.
January 31 column.
January 24 column.
January 17 column.

1999
December 16 column.
December 9 column.
December 2 column.
November 25 column.
November 18 column.
November 11 column.
November 4 column.