[MUSIC - Marden Hill: Hijack]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Mayor Adams held his weekly Tuesday news conference yesterday. He led with the city beaches opening this past weekend and the use of drones in support of the lifeguards, also job growth in the city, and the closure of 200 illegal smoke shops. He took questions from reporters, which is what you're supposed to do at a news conference, including from our own Liz Kim, the WNYC and Gothamist reporter who covers the mayor.

She joins us now like she does most Wednesdays after these Tuesday press Q&As with excerpts and analysis and to take your calls. Hi, Liz. Happy Wednesday.

Elizabeth Kim: Happy Wednesday, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: It's Wednesday already. That's what happens when you have a Monday holiday. Like, poof, it's Wednesday. I think we should start with a tough one. You and I have talked about it before. The mayor has been reluctant to talk about it, he finally did in some detail; the police response to people having a crisis with mental illness. In particular, the case recently of Win Rozario.

I'll play your question and his response in a moment, but first, there was yet another police shooting of a disturbed man in Brooklyn this past weekend. Can you tell us briefly what happened there?

Elizabeth Kim: Sure. On early Sunday morning, a man who was wielding two knives, according to police, knocked on the window of a police car. What ensued was, according to police, the police tased him. That did not completely disarm him. Then what happened was that he was fatally shot by the police officers. We're yet to see the body cam footage. Again, this is all according to police, but the description of the man at the press conference was that he seemed to be experiencing some kind of mental health crisis.

Yet, again, this is about two months since the Win Rozario killing. We have yet another incident in which police had to respond to someone who appeared to be in some kind of mental distress and they used force. What ultimately happened is that the person died.

Brian Lehrer: This came up repeatedly during yesterday's news conference. Listeners, we're going to play Liz's question to the mayor on this topic, and then we'll hear part of the mayor's response.

Elizabeth Kim: I want to ask you about this issue of how police respond to an emotionally disturbed person. A few weeks ago, you brought up Eleanor Bumpurs, the 1984 case, and you spoke about how that upset you hearing how the NYPD handled it and you were critical of it. I'm wondering, in the wake of Win Rozario and now this Brooklyn man, how far do you think the PD has come in handling such cases?

Brian Lehrer: How far have they come in his opinion? Here's part of the mayor's response to Liz. This is about a minute long.

Mayor Adams: The challenge of responding to those who are dealing with severe mental health illness, Eleanor Bumpurs' situation was dealing with an eviction that really escalated to the point where I think it was Officer Sullivan that discharged a round that took her life. She was shot, I believe, in the chest at the time. The police department has continuously evolved to use other methods, bringing in those who are mental health professionals and continuing to expand on what it's doing.

We always want more to do. We want to see what other municipalities are doing. I cannot highlight enough the uncertainty of what you're walking into when you get that call. The volume of calls that police officers get is just mind-boggling. When you get there, training is crucial. You want your training to kick in. You don't have the luxury of saying, "Let's hit rewind." That's just not the reality.

Brian Lehrer: The mayor, yesterday. Toward the end of that quote, Liz, where he says, "When you get there, training is crucial. You want your training to kick in," what is current police training when it comes to responding to those kinds of situations?

Elizabeth Kim: This is a question that I continually like to put to the mayor because I think the mayor, having been a police officer and also positioning himself as the expert on public safety, should be able to answer a question like this with a lot of specificity. That's to be very specific. The question that I wanted him to answer is, since 1984 and the death of Eleanor Bumpurs, what exactly are the policy prescriptions that have been introduced and are they sufficient?

I think looking at what the mayor has said, both yesterday and also in previous weeks, what we can take from what he said is that they're essentially three things. They are now using tasers or essentially stun guns. He also mentions that police are trained to do some dialogue to de-escalate the situation. Third, we do have programs where mental health professionals are dispatched.

The caveat there is those programs have generally been small. They cover a very small swath of the city, even when the number of 311 calls involving a mental health crisis have risen. Also, there's only a small number of calls that are eligible for these kinds of programs, like depending on what is the content of the call. That is essentially what the city has done from 1984 on. Like I said, I think the mayor should be able to answer that question with more detail like, "This is exactly what we have done."

I think he always leaves this kind of room that there's room for improvement, but he's yet to say what he would like to see. Where is the room for improvement? Is it more training? Are there different devices that they want police to use? Are stun guns effective is one question, I think, especially since stun guns were both used both this weekend in the Brooklyn incident and also in the Win Rozario case. Both times the stun gun did disable the person momentarily, but it didn't result in police not resorting to the use of their fatal weapons.

Brian Lehrer: In that answer, he referenced looking at what other municipalities are doing. Do you know if other cities have the same issue or if there are some best practices that might be coming from other cities that New York City could apply?

Elizabeth Kim: Well, this idea of dispatching mental health professionals, either accompanying police officers or even in lieu of police officers, is not new and it's not unique to New York. The question for New York though, given the size of this, the size of our police department and the size of our city is-- we are typically on the forefront of leading policy and setting the paradigm for the rest of the country.

I think, of course, there are ideas that we can borrow from other municipalities, but I think the opportunity here and the question here is how should-- I think Mayor Adams has an opportunity to lead in this arena.

Brian Lehrer: You would think, right? As the mayor of the biggest city in the country and as a former police officer.

Elizabeth Kim: Correct. Also, the size of the budget, it's much more different. The kind of investment he can put into training or a special program, you just can't compare it to a smaller city in the US.

Brian Lehrer: Next topic, the increasingly adversarial relationship between the mayor and the City Council. For example, listeners, in case you haven't heard this yet, the mayor has created what's called a charter revision commission which is a group that would propose rule changes to how city government is run or structured. He was asked a few times yesterday what exactly they were supposed to be revising. Here was his brief response.

Mayor Adams: I think the commission is going to go over the topics that they feel are appropriate and they'll make a determination what's going to be on there.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. That was brief. Seven seconds. Liz, explain how this process works. Are these commissions usually formed to look at revising something specific and does this have something to do with the City Council often being so critical recently, especially of Mayor Adams?

Elizabeth Kim: The last time that there was a charter review commission, Mayor de Blasio did it with the intention of wanting to reform campaign finance rules. Yes, the mayor often can lay out a specific agenda. In this case, the mayor did not specify that there was something-- He did not say, "This is exactly what I want this commission to do." He basically said, like the seven-second clip that you played, "I want them to look at everything."

The timing of the commission was very curious because he announced that he would form this commission basically a day after the news broke that the City Council speaker, Adrienne Adams, wanted to introduce a bill that would give the council power to approve 21 commissioner-level appointments. These are appointments that the mayor currently has sole discretion over. Because it would change the balance of power at City Hall, it requires a ballot initiative.

Now, what can stop that ballot initiative? Guess what? It's a charter review commission. The timing is very curious. Now, the mayor has denied that the speaker's bill has anything to do with him forming this commission at this time, but that's also why he was pressed several times. "What exactly was it that prompted you to start this commission?" I'll let listeners decide. His answer was fairly broad. He just felt that it's always a good time to look at the charter and he said he had planned it going back to April.

Brian Lehrer: Here's 20 seconds of that answer.

Mayor Adams: In response to wrestling power away from anyone, other mayors have put in place a commission. I respect the role of the council and I respect the role of the City Hall. It's a great institution balance of power, and I look forward to continuing that. They have a role and I have a role.

Brian Lehrer: Yes, and in fairness, even though he didn't specify that change, that proposed change that you were describing a minute ago, Liz, that's coming from City Council, that's a big deal, right? The federal government, just to give listeners some background here and a point of comparison, when the president appoints most cabinet members, the Senate has to approve those cabinet members and the same thing with judges.

Supposedly, it's supposed to be a more or less proforma thing, advice and consent, they say at the federal level, giving the president his chosen nominees for the most part, but every once in a while, and increasingly in the modern era, there are ideological battles over appointees, nominees who sometimes don't get confirmed. Well, we don't really have that at the city level. The mayor more or less gets to appoint his commissioners so giving City Council, which might be politically different from whoever the mayor is at any moment in time, approval over who the commissioners are.

That's a big deal. Whether or not you support the idea, you could understand why the mayor would try to prevent it.

Elizabeth Kim: Exactly, Brian. It is a very big deal. This is essentially changing the institution. The speaker has said that this was something that she was always interested even before she became speaker, but the timing of this bill is also curious on her part too. The mayor is facing historically low polling. He's under a federal investigation for his campaign fundraising. He's facing the possibility of two potential primary challengers. This bill is coming at a time when the mayor is weak.

To think about if it does ever reach voters, how would they decide on an issue like this? It's a very interesting proposition. The council speaker has said that she wanted to introduce the conversation, and today, they're having a hearing about it. It's going to be an interesting conversation. We've already heard some opinions. The Citizens Union, which is a good government group, has said that they support scrutinizing the speaker's list. They specifically said that they think that making the police commissioner a position that comes under council approval would be a good idea.

Now, that's not one of the ones that the speaker has proposed. She's proposed a list that includes sanitation, transportation, health. Those are just a few examples of these very, very, very key agencies, I think, that shape the daily lives of New Yorkers.

Brian Lehrer: With our [unintelligible 00:15:16] Eric Adams reporter, Elizabeth Kim, who joins us most Wednesdays after the mayor's Tuesday news conferences. Listeners, any reaction or questions based on what we've been discussing? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Why did Speaker Adams leave police commissioner off that list? That's usually considered, I think, the most consequential appointment and often the most ideologically disputed one.

I did note that the mayor yesterday reinforced that he's a fan of Chief of Patrol John Chell, who we've talked about before in a few recent segments, and he came on the show recently. He's so polarizing and seen as kind of a culture war figure, but the mayor referred to him as having authentic New York attitude. I could just imagine if Chief Chell was up for police commissioner, how that would go over at City Council, but they are not proposing to give themselves authority over that role. Why not?

Elizabeth Kim: Well, at her press conference last week, Speaker Adrienne Adams said that this was the start of a conversation, and she suggested that the list could, in fact, broaden. I think that this was just an opening that let's start this conversation and let's begin with these 21 appointments. By itself, the bill is very, very bold. It's a very, very bold proposition to try to tip the balance of power in this way.

I think she's doing it by starting with a list of let's talk about this list. I think she's not opposed, per se, to the conversation, widening and broadening to other key appointments like the police commissioner.

Brian Lehrer: By the way, on the police shootings of people in the midst of mental disturbances that we started with and that was the main topic of yesterday's news conference, a couple of people are writing in to ask versions of the same question. A listener writes, "Does the NYPD response to such situations include shoot to wound, especially when a person facing crisis is unarmed?"

Another one similar, "Why do the police shoot and kill? Why not shoot to wound? When did shoot to kill become normalized?" I think I know what police officials tend to say in response to that question, but have you done any reporting on that? Do you know if that's come up?

Elizabeth Kim: I don't know, Brian. What I would say that the mayor has repeatedly underscored is that these situations tend to be incredibly chaotic and very high pressure for the officers, but then again, this is where the training should kick in. I know in the case like Eleanor Bumpurs', police were grappling with her at the time when-- She had a knife in her hand, and they were grappling with her.

I don't know whether there is that protocol that we can shoot just to wound a person. That I'm unclear of, but I don't think that police are intentionally ever trying to kill someone. I think in that moment, as the mayor has repeatedly described, there's a lot of uncertainty that that's happening, and I think a lot of anxiety and fear on both parties.

Brian Lehrer: Yes, I think what-- We may have a police officer or former police officer calling in to try to answer that question. We'll get him screened and see if he's actually a police officer or somebody with that background. I think what they usually say is, there's no such thing as shoot to wound. You can't so specifically aim for somebody's leg, let's say, to make them fall down and think that because you're not going to be shooting at all, they would say, unless you or somebody is at the imminent risk of death or serious injury, you don't have the luxury of trying to be so fine.

Let's take John in Rockville Centre, retired police officer, he says. John, you're on WNYC. Thanks for calling.

John: Hello.

Brian Lehrer: Hello. You're going to answer that question about shoot to wound?

John: Hello? Brian?

Brian Lehrer: Yes, can you hear me? Can you hear me?

John: Yes, I can hear you.

Brian Lehrer: There you go. Now we got you. Can you inform on shoot to wound versus shoot to kill?

John: Yes. Like I said, I was on the police for almost 34 years, and I was the captain and the president of the captain's union. The training that we receive, and you got to remember that the deadly physical force training, shooting, is given twice every year. Everybody has to qualify twice a year. Basically, shootings aren't-- This isn't the Wild West. In the Western, you see the guy, he shoots the gun out of his hand.

That doesn't happen in real life. Average shooting takes 3 to 5 seconds, happens within 7 feet, and the hit ratio for police officers is about 24%, and for the people shooting at the police is about 15%. It gives you an idea of how quickly it happens, the short distance that's in between, and how it's not easy to even hit the target to begin with.

Brian Lehrer: In the case of--

John: Officers are trained to hit center mass.

Brian Lehrer: Hit the mass. Hit the torso.

John: Officers are trained to hit center mass because it's the biggest area that you can hit.

Brian Lehrer: In the case of, say, Win Rozario, who was armed, they say, with scissors, I don't know if he was right at the point of stabbing an officer with scissors, maybe some of that is in dispute, but had scissors and was in a mental health crisis, they couldn't-- I understand you're saying they can't shoot the scissors out of his hand like they shot the gun out of the hand in the old Westerns, but they couldn't try to shoot him in the leg? They would never try to do that? Make him fall down?

John: Like I said, the training is all center mass, and it's to stop the threat. Then scissors, by the way, any stabbing instrument, it can kill you just as easily as a bullet can kill you, especially if it hits vital organs.

Brian Lehrer: John, thank you for your call. I appreciate it. I appreciate your insight. Liz, whether people support the policy or not, there's the policy.

Elizabeth Kim: Right.

Brian Lehrer: Before you go, you recently reported on a fundraiser that the mayor held in December for his legal defense fund because he's facing these investigations, but the people attending had been told it was a gathering to talk housing. Really?

Elizabeth Kim: The expectations were different. I heard that it was billed as an event to talk about housing, which is a very critical issue for New York City, is the building of more housing. There's a 1% vacancy rate, and the mayor has repeatedly talked about this. This was one of his priorities going into Albany this season. I also heard from people who did concede that they expected that there would be some ask for his campaign, but they were quite taken aback that the event, one, it was very strange.

The mayor had brought along with him what seemed to be an entourage of men who were described as hyping the mayor. They were cheerleaders for the mayor, but there was very little substantive discussion of policy, including housing. The mayor basically just then launched into a pitch for help paying his legal bills. At the end of the event, there were two women who showed up, and they were there to collect the checks.

It was quite an unusual event, even by New York City political standards, which there are weird events, but this one, I was told, was very strange. It's a window into how the mayor is raising money for his legal bills, which are substantive in the wake of this federal investigation. So far, he's raised about $1.3 million, but there are strict rules around how he can raise money for this fund.

He can't take money from people doing business with the city or people who have contracts, and there's also a $5,000 limit per donor. You can imagine that the mayor is under a lot of pressure to raise money. This is a window that gives you a glimpse into how he's doing it, that he's willing to do it with really a very small group. There were only around a dozen people at this event.

Brian Lehrer: Just a quick follow-up, and then we're out of time. Did the disparity between what the event was theoretically for and what it turned out to be for alienate some of the members of that small group? Is that how this came to light? Because, of course, they weren't forced to give donations.

There was the pitch that you were describing the mayor made and the people who were there to collect the checks, but if they think, "I thought we were here to talk about housing. Instead, he's raising money for his legal bills," did he alienate that group that he was trying to woo?

Elizabeth Kim: Arguably, yes, because you can tell-- I looked afterward at the disclosures, and there were only two donations that I could find that were tied to this event, and it totaled around $2,500. The other takeaway that I received from people who were there was it was a disappointment, especially for the person who was there who expected to hear the mayor talk about housing.

This was something that he said was an issue of importance both to himself, but he said other people there that evening also were very supportive and interested in the city's housing policy and its agenda and how the mayor plans to achieve more housing growth. It can be viewed as a lost opportunity for the mayor to gain important supporters.

Brian Lehrer: WNYC and Gothamist City Hall reporter, Elizabeth Kim. Probably talk to you next Wednesday after the mayor's next Tuesday news conference.

Elizabeth Kim: You bet, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Thanks, Liz.

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.