In a radical shift in strategy, the mayor said Tuesday night he has ordered an aggressive police crackdown on exuberant Brazilian soccer fans who have celebrated World Cup wins in recent weeks with parades through the center of the city.
The police response for the next game, scheduled for Saturday afternoon, will be the most aggressive the city has seen since the soccer tournament began June 9.
It comes as a Danbury police officer was nearly struck Tuesday as he directed traffic at a Main Street crosswalk. The driver of the car involved in the incident was among 16 people cited by police that day.
Most tickets were for infractions such as driving without a seat belt and for passengers hanging out of cars. Twelve cars involved in Tuesday's parade were towed, police said.
In announcing the heightened response, Mayor Mark Boughton said the city will use overtime to pay extra officers.
"The behavior is not going to be tolerated," Boughton said. "We are going to discourage people from disrupting the normal course of business on Main Street."
The city's Common Council is considering a measure that would make illegal the sort of parades that have created gridlock several times this month.
This year is the first time Danbury has been forced to confront the Cup-related parades, and the shifting strategies announced Tuesday night are a signal the police department is struggling to punish participants without having the legal authority to criminalize the parades themselves.
Until the Council acts on the measure, the new no-tolerance police effort is a temporary move to stem soccer celebrations that have gotten out of control, Boughton said.
You seeing the big picture here?
The World Cup happens every four years and it's not like these celebrations didn't happen four (or eight) years ago. Also, people (i.e. Mrs. Mitchell, Lynn Waller) have complained about the celebrations and made their concerns known to the Common Council four years ago and at the May 2nd Common Council meeting...the very same meeting when the parade permit ordinance was conveniently introduced in advance of the World Cup tournament. Now, one would think that the celebrations happening today would come to no surprise to the police department or city hall since at least two local political junkies talked about it at the May 2nd meeting, right?
Mayor Boughton and the Common Council knew that the parades were going to happen and yesterday's comment from the mayor was as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. It's no coincidence that this ordinance proposal was introduced in May as the outrage from the public over the celebrations would assist in getting this ordinance pass in the Council. In other words, the celebrations, and the outrage from the people, were predictable which is exactly why the proposal was introduced back in May (as opposed to any other time).
This whole "parade permit" thing was all well-thought out by the mayor and supporters of the bill and I’ll explore this in greater detail later.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
