[Guest post by DRJ]
In an amazing coincidence, Oakland city officials and police union leaders are returning to the bargaining table following a recent police threat to refuse to respond to 44 crimes (including grand theft, burglary, car wrecks, identity theft and vandalism) if the city implemented its plan to reduce the police force by 10%.
— DRJ
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
Powered by WordPress.
mmm, the threat is not half as serious after the macdonald case. the people of oakland now have half a chance of taking care of themselves.
but then again, this highlights exactly why we need the macdonald case. the state should never have the monopoly on the use of force if only because monopolies inevitably abuse their market position.
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e) — 7/13/2010 @ 12:01 pmThey should be fired… with a grace option for those who opt out of the union policy… then axe the rest.
The line for college educated qualified applicants at 3/4 the pay and 1/2 the benefits would be across the Bay Bridge in the current job market
SteveG (ce5f07) — 7/13/2010 @ 12:08 pmThey should be more than fired. They should wind up behind bars.
The police have an obligation, if they want to wear a badge and gun, to do their job. I agree that cutting their forces is extremely wrong and I hope they find a more sane way to protest the decision.
Public employees should not be permitted to unionize and hold us hostage.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/13/2010 @ 12:11 pmThe Oakland PD ought to be fired en-masse, then bring in National Guard and CHiPs to police Oakland. Rules of engagement for NG is to Shoot Looters and anyone who points a weapon at the NG.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 7/13/2010 @ 12:15 pmAW…Cities in CA are not permitted to pass their own gun-control agenda as the State has pre-empted this area of law, and permits all those who can pass the standard background check
AD - RtR/OS! (9f28e2) — 7/13/2010 @ 12:16 pm(No Felonies, No Violent Misdemeanors, No Mental Illness Judgements/Commitments, No Drug Dependencies, Citizenship/Legal Residency, No Restraining Orders),
and possesses a Handgun Safety Certificate
(HSC – for purchasing a handgun, which is attained by getting a score of 23/30 on a rudimentary knowledge test of T/F, multiple-guess questions),
and a ten-day waiting period while they run the background check
(this is the same background check that is conducted under the Insta-Check system, but CA has had a “cooling down” period since the 1920’s, and doesn’t seem amenable to eliminating it, though we did get it reduced from 20-days in the 1990’s to the current 10-days with the institution of first call-in, and then computer on-line, initiation of the check)
to purchase handguns, and/or long guns.
AD
i bet alot of those rules will go bye-bye post macdonald.
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e) — 7/13/2010 @ 12:17 pmAW has the best reaction: own a gun and rely on yourself for security.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/13/2010 @ 12:18 pmRules…
btw, most of these are Federal rules on the ATF 4473 form…
The felony rule will stay as it is pretty much engraved in stone by SCOTUS;
Now, the violent mis rule (thanks to Sen Lautenberg) could well be overturned by SCOTUS, as it is one of the few non-felonies that can deprive someone of a “fundamental” right;
Mental status/drugs will probably stay;
Citizenship/legal residency is not something I think will change;
Restraining orders, on the other hand, are so open to abuse (I know of a case here in SoCal where a man had a TRO filed against him, and the first he knew about it was the police knocking on his door to gather-up his firearms) that something will have to be done about it.
There are so many other things in CA law that can be attacked now that the 2nd is a Fundamental Right of the People:
The Not Unsafe Gun List, which restricts the availability for sale of handguns to CA residents;
The AW Ban, which is a total joke as it restricts the availability of semi-automatic rifles (+ some pistols and shotguns) strictly due to the cosmetic features of those weapons;
The High-Capacity magazine ban, which is and isn’t a ban in that hi-caps that were in your possession prior to the ban are still legal to possess, it’s just that you can’t buy, or sell, them – or bring them in from another state (seems like an automatic Commerce Clause violation);
Then there is the requirement that all dealers in CA purchasing guns from a supplier anywhere in the country have their purchases pre-approved by the CA DoJ Firearms Bureau to ensure compliance with many of the above laws.
I could go on, but it gets boring, and also my BP starts to respond.
AD - RtR/OS! (9f28e2) — 7/13/2010 @ 12:38 pmIt’s too late to avoid some impact from this. Criminals will notice the news and not notice whatever retraction is coming. Oakland is going to get worse now.
Democrats really suck at administration. Cutting cops is the most tired way of keeping spending high. They know they weren’t really going to cut cops… they just wanted to keep the non essential crap spending and cut something essential for the show of it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/13/2010 @ 12:43 pmbtw, I would also add that police unions should be absolutely banned as well as strikes.
The police do get treated badly, as do most of the grunts in the field. Teachers, firefighters, cops, they get paid shit, and it’s a national embarrassment.
But our founders would have a different name for the police: a standing army. And you might remember a story from the founding where our army hadn’t been paid for months. And they were talking about going to the continental congress and occupying the building until they got their money. Washington came to the meeting where this was being contemplated to try to put a stop to it. He had a lot of pretty words to say, but witnesses say that he won them over when he took out his glasses and said “Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country.” Something in the way it was said created an outpouring of affection that stopped this borderline coup in its tracks and established in this young republic the primacy of civilian control of the military (as did Washington’s strict rule of never wearing a military uniform in office, except when he actually took to the field to put down the whiskey rebellion).
Its okay to have a standing army in the form of the police. Its necessary, even. But we and they must remember that we the people are in charge and not them.
Which all circles back to my macdonald comments above.
By the way, you can hear a version of that Washington story here: http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/washington.htm
I can’t say 100% it is reliable, but it lines up from what I remember of the story. But we all know to be leery of anything on the web. Of course Americans have gone completely overboard in their worship of Washington, but once you separate out all the “cherry tree” myth-making bullshit, he was a really impressive person, and I would say our second best president. Some say he was just revered because he was first. But he was great precisely because he was first. He could have been a dictator, or at least set us on a more royalist path. Instead, he was a president.
Really off topic, but worth sharing. Washington’s decision to retire after two terms is one of the most misunderstood decisions in history. Americans took it to mean that he thought two terms were enough, so much so that no president was elected to a third term until FDR, and then once he broke that rule they changed the constitution so no one else could do it. But the actual reason was this. Washington knew he would not live through a third term, and he felt it was really important that the second president be elected. He was afraid that if he died in office, and Adams became president by default, that the vice presidency would devolve into a sort of elected “pricneship” where presidents would serve until they die and then their veeps would serve until they died, and so on.
Also if memory serves, Washington was the only founder who owned slaves and successfully freed them. a few others tried, but failed because upon their deaths their debts were so severe that the slaves were sort of “repo’ed” to pay for them. and yeah, repo’ing a slave is a pretty f—ed up concept.
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e) — 7/13/2010 @ 12:49 pmA friend of mine from southern California asked me where he should go to grab a dinner and a drink after an A’s game. I told him SF or Berkeley. Oakland has absolutely nothing going for it. Very sad.
Pat (5823e1) — 7/13/2010 @ 12:49 pmThe inland empire isn’t too bad. San Diego is great.
Southern California would be the best place in the world if it were populated by Texans and ran by conservatives. But there are some great people out there who can’t bring themselves to leave that are just because of horrible government.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/13/2010 @ 12:56 pmare=area
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/13/2010 @ 12:56 pm…and the Mayor of Oakland is:
Ronald “Red” Dellums!
AD - RtR/OS! (9f28e2) — 7/13/2010 @ 1:01 pmFrom what I’ve read, Oakland needs more cops not less. It’s a hellhole.
Not that the police should refuse to do their job but, as an example, while a police officer is doing paper on a car accident somebody is getting robbed the next block over.
There are different philosophies of policing and the one I think Oakland needs is “watchman”. Maximum presence, maximum visibility on the street. “Service”, taking cats down off trees, and “enforcement”, writing a ticket, seem like luxuries for a better-off city to me.
nk (db4a41) — 7/13/2010 @ 1:13 pmThey can’t stop writing the tickets…
AD - RtR/OS! (9f28e2) — 7/13/2010 @ 1:16 pmthey desperately need the money.
the current Oakland situation is a campaign ad for Jerry Moonbeam Brown, as he was mayor there up until he became AG (iirc)…. the current mess has his fingerprints and slobber all over it.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 7/13/2010 @ 1:19 pmThat seems pretty reasonable, nk.
But it’s important that police respond to car accidents and burglaries.
And it’s none of the damn police union’s business anyway. That’s on the leadership of the department to prioritize serious emergencies and presence over less important things like minor tickets. Which I would bet they already have done long ago.
A better off city doesn’t have a union that announces a strike against certain enforcement against crimes like burglary. I don’t think it takes Nostradamus to see that Oakland will now suffer more burglaries until the union gets its protection money. This is extortion, and the union should be in prison. Any cop who refuses to answer a call from his superiors to respond to a wreck or a burglary should also wind up in a prison cell.
If the laws don’t already accommodate this, then California needs some legislation. And with cops like this, perhaps more cops like this isn’t the solution to Oakland’s problems.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/13/2010 @ 1:19 pmThis is the same mentality of all of the Unions supporting the Democrat majority in the Legislature in Sacramento…
AD - RtR/OS! (9f28e2) — 7/13/2010 @ 1:27 pmGood luck on changing anything without turning-out a whole bunch of legisleaches.
The city council should have called their bluff. And then publicized the crap out of it.
NavyspyII (df615d) — 7/13/2010 @ 1:55 pmThe feds should definitely prosecute this extortion. If Oakland had to call in the national guard that would be better than giving into this thuggery.
eaglewingz08 (39833d) — 7/13/2010 @ 2:02 pmComment by NavyspyII — 7/13/2010 @ 1:55 pm
You’re assuming that anyone in Oakland pays more attention to city governance than they do to “Dancing With the Stars”, or “American Idol”.
AD - RtR/OS! (9f28e2) — 7/13/2010 @ 2:26 pmNo problem, the work force reduction will now be 15%. In addition, any call for which you willfully refuse to respond that results in injury to the victim will result in your immediate dismissal, immediate loss of benefits, and you will be considered an accessory to said crime. You will also be considered to have put the safety general population deliberatly and willfully in jeopardy. Further employment will take this into consideration. Finally all of you folks whom have signed on to and accept this action can bite me, because the next contract won’t be with you. And they say that there is no honor among thieves, that applies to enforcement as well.
Edward Lunny (ca0e48) — 7/13/2010 @ 3:08 pmThe Romans would have known what to do. Decimate them.
Look up what “decimate” actually means.
Technomad (e2c0f2) — 7/13/2010 @ 3:09 pmFrom reading the linked article, it was the Chief that said that they would not be responding to certain calls. The calls listed were not high priority calls and there was mention of making reports online which would give the citizen the “magic” report number insurance companies insist on.
Back in the 70’s L.A.P.D. had telephonic report units that would take certain misdemeanor, no suspect crime reports and even some felony reports (stolen vehicle reports come immediately to mind).
As is always the case with something like this, there would probably be exceptions, likely having to do with how much loss there was in the crime, possible hate crimes and personal injuries. I believe, but cannot say for sure, that the police would still respond to injury traffic accidents, which is the only type of traffic accidents that a lot of agencies now respond to.
Labcatcher (a040a4) — 7/13/2010 @ 3:27 pm“The calls listed were not high priority calls”
burglary, car wrecks…
And of course, labcatcher is leaving out what the chief is refusing to answer these emergencies over.
His union wants pension cash. They have ridiculously generous pensions and will not protect the people if they are brought to reality.
That’s breach, in my opinion, and everyone currently threatening this should simply lose 100% of their pension and pay a severe fine in addition to spending at least a year in prison.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/13/2010 @ 3:35 pmDustin,
I didn’t “leave out” anything factual that I know of. Please don’t assign motives to me based on what you believe the reason for what some other person does.
Chiefs of Police and Unions are generally on opposite sides of the fence and anyone above the rank of Lt is not a union member. If that is different in Oakland I stand corrected. I don’t know if Oakland is PERS or not, but even if they are not, his pension is already vested and I repeat, he is not on the Union side.
What I read was that the Union was willing to have the members make their 9% contribution to PERS, which the City is currently paying and the city needed more than that.
What the Chief was saying is that if you take away X number of Officers, these are the type of things that I will no longer be able to respond to. It sure sounded to me like he didn’t like the idea much, but this was what he was going to have to do. Would it come to that? Who knows, there were a lot of plans in the 70’s that dealt with manpower usage if Prop 13 (Jarvis) passed.
My guess is that he will also end up disbanding a lot of specialized units, Juvenile, Community Relations, Vice, etc. and those folks will go back into uniform and on the Street.
Labcatcher (a040a4) — 7/13/2010 @ 4:00 pmlab, I mean no disrespect, but it is the unions insisting they won’t fight SERIOUS crime if they lose their pensions.
You note their chief delivered the extortion message. You’re right. And that does make a point.
But it’s still deeply wrong.
Let’s get these creeps in prison where they belong. They aren’t police officers and are a disgrace to the concept.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/13/2010 @ 4:06 pmI would hazard a guess that the listed criminal offenses represent 75 – 80 % of the workload of the Oakland PD. Maybe Dunphy would weigh in on that.
Assuming so, what are the OTHER 90 % of the officers going to be doing? That, if the headcount is reduced by 10 %, why do they have to stop doing 75 % of the work.
Just plain extortion. I assume the fire fighters are going to let 75 % of the buildings burn if they get a similar 10 % cutback.
The greedy useless unions just don’t get it. How about a California ballot initiative to forbid government workers from unionizing? Remember, until Jerry Brown, the state workers were not unionized. We can all see how THAT worked out.
GaryS (8351a3) — 7/13/2010 @ 4:19 pmDoes anyone here know of a victim of home burglary?
Any cop who says they won’t respond to that needs to have that badge ripped right off their shirt.
I think it’s a great idea to lay them off if this is the kind of cop they have. They are paying for crap, or the union isn’t really representing the wishes of cops. I know a lot of police officers, and I think it’s the latter. This chief doesn’t represent the officers, who, of course, want to be paid as well as they can be, but would never refuse to help a burglary victim or someone who was just in a wrecked car.
It’s just insane. And those few cops who want to relive Robocop 2 against the wishes of the real police should be charged with extortion if possible. This is extreme corrosion of the public’s trust.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/13/2010 @ 4:20 pmDustin,
The Union said no such thing. According to the article, the union offered to have the Officers make the 9% contribution to their pension themselves. That would seem to imply that the city is currently making that payment. The City is saying need more than that.
The union has no say in what the Department policy is regarding what calls get dispatched. That decision is a management decision.
I am sorry you believe the message was extortionist in nature, that speaks pretty poorly of the Chief. That would not only mean that he is abandoning his position of being a “City” man, but that he is actively lobbying for the Union. That is not his job at all. I believe you may be shooting the messenger in this case. In your defense, that list does make for good press and the Chief really doesn’t want to lose Officers so he listed a bunch of nothing stuff.
Dustin, could you list what serious crimes are on that list? From what I saw, they were all cold crimes (No suspects on scene) and most of them were property crimes. I don’t believe that the Chief would not respond to in progress crimes or crimes involving physical injuries (domestic violence, ADW, Robbery Etc).
Labcatcher (a040a4) — 7/13/2010 @ 4:34 pmLabcatcher,
Are you saying burglary isn’t serious?
I hope you aren’t a police officer.
Yes or no, please.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/13/2010 @ 4:38 pmWell Dustin @ 29,
I can safely say that I know several thousand victims of burglary, both Residential and Business, what’s your question? Where are you getting that Cops are saying they won’t respond, or won’t help victims, was there a second article that came out?
Why don’t you get it, that the Union is not saying that the Officers won’t respond? The Chief is saying it and what he is saying is that he won’t have the manpower to respond to non-violent crimes, having to use them for the in-progress stuff with actual danger.
Labcatcher (a040a4) — 7/13/2010 @ 4:43 pmOh, and is extortion a serious crime?
‘Cause someone needs to lock that chief up for it today.
You don’t seem to have a solid grasp on this situation, in my opinion. You are actively denying the central claim here, that the unionized cops, under the chief aren’t threatening to avoid much of their job, while you admit it’s not the chief’s place to do this on the union’s behalf.
It’s not that confusing to me. We can play games with what the chief is trying to do, what their should be paid, and if they should strike (that’s what this amounts to) by not responding to serious crimes like those listed repeatedly.
I don’t really give a crap about that game. It’s not up to the police to say what laws should be enforced anyway. They should simply do the best they can enforcing the laws with the people they have. No department can reply to every call instantly… all of them will use their people to respond to emergencies before investigating serious crimes that are over with. I am not going to pretend that’s what this is about, because it’s not.
Cops making these threats are corrosive to the public’s trust in their police departments. This chief must go.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/13/2010 @ 4:44 pmDustin @ 31,
You know what; I have been a truck driver, a longshoreman, a Security Director at a Casino and I was a cop, for 30 years. Having done all those jobs, Police work is the one that I enjoyed the most, but for the life of me I was never able to, and still can’t, figure out how it is that everyone knows how to do the job so much better than than those of us on the street.
I don’t answer questions with a yes or no unless you want to tell me yes or no, “do you still torture puppies and kittens?”.
A cold Burglary is a felony (serious). Burglary is a property crime (not so serious). Reported burglaries are 99% of the time, cold reports (not a high priority). An in progress burglary is still a property crime but a horse of a much different color(high priority). Burglars need a multitude of convictions to get to prison.
Domestic violence is crime against a person and is either a Misdemeanor or a Felony (both are serious and both are high priority calls). Robbery is also a crime against person (serious and high priority, even if the suspect is gone). Both of those crimes will give you a direct pass to Jail/prison.
Keeping what I just informed you of in mind, you answer your question, is a cold burglary a serious crime?
Labcatcher (a040a4) — 7/13/2010 @ 5:01 pmDustin @ 33,
Please re-read the article and quote where the Officers have said anything. The closest thing I can see that you could possibly claim the Officers have said is when the Union negotiators have offered 9% of every Officers salary to avoid layoffs.
This is silly. You’re accusing the Chief of extortion when there is no extortion. He is the bearer of bad news. I am no fan of Police administrations (and as an aside, Dunphy is spot on with his LAPD commentary), but the City is taking away X amount of Officers, so the Chief is saying, If you do that, I can no longer do this. How is that extortion?
What is it you think the Chief is trying to do? Do you really think he gives a damn how much the Officers make or how much they take home? He is an administrator, his job is to run the Department the best way he can. He is faced with continuing to do what he can to keep the citizenry as safe as he can with fewer people and he is making decisions based on how best to do that. You should be glad that he is speaking out this way, it’s likely not too good for his job security.
Most Chiefs of Police don’t have any part in contract negotiations for the obvious reasons and I suspect this one doesn’t either.
Labcatcher (a040a4) — 7/13/2010 @ 5:20 pmI’d like to raise a tangential question without hijacking the thread away from Patterico’s topic of choice:
Could this threat to reduce the police force by 10% be an example of the “firemen first” ploy, in which government officials frighten voters into accepting a tax increase by claiming that the only way to reduce expenses is to reduce essential services? (In other words, to lay off firemen or police, close libraries, etc, instead of laying off far-less-needed members of the ever-more bloated bureaucracy?)
pst314 (dbf8fd) — 7/13/2010 @ 5:36 pmSo the police are good but the police union is bad.
JEA (2c3a8c) — 7/13/2010 @ 6:18 pmJEA, who said that? How did you get there from either the articles or comments?
Labcatcher (a040a4) — 7/13/2010 @ 6:20 pmdisbanding a lot of specialized units
Well, if they start with the SWAT unit, Radley will be happy, as will a lot of others.
AD - RtR/OS! (9f28e2) — 7/13/2010 @ 6:20 pmpst314…
AD - RtR/OS! (9f28e2) — 7/13/2010 @ 6:25 pmIt’s the Washington Monument ploy…
threaten to close the most popular attractions, and to shut down public safety, unless the
prollstaxpayers come up with the additional money because the powers-that-be have make every last possible cut (pause here to allow readers to ROTFLMAO) at the administrative level possible…now, where’s that bridge I need to sell?…if the city implemented its plan to reduce the police force by 10%.
Looks like it went through.
Blacque Jacques Shellacque (cf2f34) — 7/13/2010 @ 7:55 pmlab,
You’re refusing to answer my very simple question, and then taking the pedantic route of asking your own. If you are here in good faith, please answer my simple question.
While I agree that the chief is one major part of the problem, the real problem is this smoke and mirrors game. Like it or not, criminals in Oakland are getting the idea that some crimes won’t be enforced. This is going to have a major impact on that city, making life much harder for all cops that if these comments had never been made.
To answer your question, who made any threat about not enforcing laws
DRJ gave us the link. You claimed to read it, so I’m not sure why you’re pretending I need to get my facts straight when it’s pretty obvious I also read it. I sometimes am not very clear, so maybe this is my fault. I hope I’ve cleared it up for you.
This is extortion. You can deny it or play games with accountability, but you seem to be pretty clear that it’s wrong, based on your tenor towards the man who said it.
Every cop who abides by this directive, at any level, should be arrested. Oakland is about to get a whole lot worse.
You asked who said ‘police good, union bad’. I say that. Cops must not have unions. Teachers must not have unions. Firefighters must not have unions. Soldiers don’t and shouldn’t unionize.
Automobile workers don’t really need them anymore, either, to be honest, but that’s besides the point. What these cops (and don’t pretend it’s just one) have done is extremely corrosive to their mission. I have tremendous respect and faith in the average police officer who I know would take a dim view of this threat and anyone not willing to admit this is a threat.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/13/2010 @ 8:08 pmThe employees of the Oakland police department probably are — in terms of integrity and ideology — not too different from their counterparts in the mind-bogglingly venal and greedy police departments of Mexico.
Mark (411533) — 7/13/2010 @ 8:08 pmDustin,
If you are referring to your demand for a yes or no answer to whether Burglary is a serious crime, sorry but it’s not a yes or no type question. I laid out my reasoning how it stacks up as a crime and left it to you to make the decision on how serious it is in comparison to other crimes. If you consider that pendantic, sorry but you don’t seem to realize how much more serious things there are to do other than take reports that can be done electronically.
You agreed that the chief was part of the problem, as if I said that he was. I did not and he is not. I said that he was the bearer of bad news and that you were shooting the messenger. You also claimed that he was an extortionist for saying what he did. I asked how what he said was extortion and haven’t answered that. What has he to gain, where is his personal profit? What has he said that could possibly lead you to believe it to be extortion?
You say I asked you who said anything about not enforcing laws and you copied Bates statement about what the department would not respond to. Obviously you believe that only reports made in the field are investigated. That is just not how it works. Since we were talking about burgs, let me explain how that works. The Officer goes out, takes the report, essentially writing (by hand)down what the victims have to say, looks at the Point of Entry after the victim shows them where it is, then if there is a possibility for prints, calls for print tech. 1.5 hours of time if there isn’t a lot of property taken and the victims have the serial numbers or receipts handy. Then he sends the report to the Burglary Dicks who may or may not follow up on it, depending on what the victims had to say. What the chief is proposing is that the victim go online and fill out the forms themselves, answering questions on the form and listing the property themselves. The completed forms will then go to the Burglary dicks for follow up as needed. If that was also pendantic, sorry about that but you don’t seem to know what goes on. And yes, I have worked where computer reports were taken for most of the crimes listed, including vandalism, thefts of all types and essentially any crime where the suspect is not known.
Auto accidents(t/c or t/a in short): non injury accidents in most agencies are an exchange of information only (lacking extenuating circumstances i.e. school bus, transit bus involvement). What that means is an Officer shows up and gives the parties a piece of paper and pencils and has them write down their information on it and give it to the other party.
Identity theft, same as burgs, fill the form out and send it to the Detectives or tie up a patrol Officer writing down what the victim says who then sends it on to a detective.
You said what these cops (plural) have done, then exhort me not to pretend it’s just one, is extremely corrosive to their mission. A couple of things here,
1) I Have no need to pretend anything to you, I am sincerely trying to help you understand how little you know about police departments,
2) where are seeing that there is more than one officer deciding which calls get dispatched? Do you know how that works? victims calls dispatch or call line or whatever Oakland calls there dispatch center, the person on the phone listens to what they have to say, figure out what is needed, who is available, and how important the call is compared to whatever else is going on. The call is then put out on the air. Officers don’t know about it until they get the call, so again, what other cops are you referring to? The chief is the one who decides the best way to use the assets the city gives him.
I wish Police/fire/deputy d/a’s didn’t need unions, but they do. Most of us don’t like the creatures unions support, but without the union the cities do take advantage. When I first came on the job, it was the Police and Fire union and I made $400.00 every two weeks. I was much better off (financially) working the docks.
Finally if the Article had been entitled something other than POLICE THREATS, perhaps something like, “Chief warns of dire consequences of lay offs”, you might not have gotten so wrought up. Probably wouldn’t have gotten a lot of reads though. I also noticed and probably should have mentioned earlier while being pendantic, that one of the usual requirements for computer or online reporting is that there are no known suspects.
Labcatcher (a040a4) — 7/13/2010 @ 9:32 pmMark,
Pat (366dd8) — 7/13/2010 @ 9:48 pmThe employees of Oakland PD are hard working guys who do their best to protect a city that does not appreciate them. While I am not a fan of public employee unions, I feel the police need a union. Police face an ton of liability and malicious prosecution and they need to pool their resources to protect themselves. That said, this is the wrong time to cry poor – especially in a city like Oakland that needs every cop it can get. And it should be noted (as a few commenters have done here) that it was the OPD Chief that decided to tell that world that the police would not respond to certain calls.
“you might not have gotten so wrought up”
Not me, my friend. I sincerely want this chief in a jail cell tonight.
“I wish Police/fire/deputy d/a’s didn’t need unions, but they do. Most of us don’t like the creatures unions support, but without the union the cities do take advantage.”
No, they don’t. They need good leadership, but unionized, we see this kind of threat-strike. These are absolutely essential services and people who threaten to remove them for any reason should wind up in a concrete cell.
Thanks so much for your service, at any rate.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/13/2010 @ 10:08 pmAlso, I took home about $800 my first month working for the Army. Didn’t complain.
They Army is overpaid, btw, with no union. Not overpaid compared to the priceless devotion and what these men and women deserve, but from the standpoint of a sustainable force with a budget.
A lot like many police departments.
This kind of lawless policy in Oakland, even if it’s a complete fiction, is in the heads of newly inspired burglars. I hope it doesn’t wind up getting someone killed.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/13/2010 @ 10:11 pmChanneling Biden’s intellect, I have three words which will go a long way toward fixing Oakland’s police problem: Right to Work state.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/13/2010 @ 11:29 pmIn an amazing coincidence, Oakland city officials and police union leaders are returning to the bargaining table following a recent police threat to refuse to respond to 44 crimes (including grand theft, burglary, car wrecks, identity theft and vandalism) if the city implemented its plan to reduce the police force by 10%.
What’s the difference, they barley respond now. For a PD that can boast a city with the third highest crime rate in the nation, maybe they should reconsider their “threat.”
(Link is pdf.)
Pons Asinorum (7bcd43) — 7/13/2010 @ 11:39 pmYour Oakland PD: threatening to not respond to the crimes to which they already were not responding.
Icy Texan (4a2bd8) — 7/14/2010 @ 12:31 amUnion are for forcing those horrible corporate types from taking advantage of their workers.
They should never have been allowed in the public sector. Reagan took some heat, but it seems that one hella bunch of ATC folks are working at other professions today.
Here is you job description, failure or refusal to perform these duties subjects you to immediate termination! That is not rocket science, like most police work, sign it, do your job, you will have one. Don’t, you may go away!
Besides would anybody in Oakland actually notice if they did not show up?
RTF (6e4708) — 7/14/2010 @ 1:32 amDustin,
Wasn’t ignoring you, just got up.
You are obviously young and we are talking on completely different levels. So you took home 800 bucks in your first month in the army? To me that would have been a fortune, no room or board and $800.00, wow. I made $99.00 a month, I didn’t complain either, it was the way it was.
You state categorically that Police don’t need unions, that instead they need good leadership. Do you recall that I explained to you that those in the rank of Captain and above are not in the unions? Who do you suppose keeps attorney’s on retainer to represent the Officers when they are sued by people that don’t like the results of police action? it sure ain’t the City, they have attorneys whose purpose is to protect the City. When I joined LAPD, one of the first orders of business at the academy, even before being sworn in, was that we were given a waiver form to sign. What we were waiving was our pension rights if we left the job prior to having 20 years on the job. In other words it took 20 years to vest in the pension. I left the job 10 years later and lost all my pension contributions. Several years later, the union, now separated from the Fire Dept union, fought that and won.
Dustin, you say you want the Chief in Jail, presumably for his plans to not respond to low priority calls and his extortion. You still haven’t explained how his plans are extortion, what illegal acts he is going to perform or how he would gain. You still haven’t told anyone how you would handle the problem, just saying that what the Chief is doing is criminal and should be prosecuted.
I can’t see any point in further responses to you; you are a complainer without a viable solution. Worse than that, when lengthy explanations are offered to enlighten you on how things work, you call them pendantic and ignore the reality. You ask trap questions and demand an answer and are affronted when you don’t get the yes or no response you need to jam it to the responder. You want the Chief arrested and jailed for doing his job and I can’t seem to convince you that not responding to these non dangerous type calls does not mean the Dept. will not be prosecuting those crimes. Your mind is made up, damn the facts.
One final thought, NOBODY likes what is happening, the Chief the city council (or their negotiators) the union, the rank and file, nobody.
Labcatcher (a040a4) — 7/14/2010 @ 5:01 amThe real problem is that Oakland is a very poor city, in many respects a slum, I think. You don’t see things like this in Chicago, LA, or even San Francisco, where the cities have a decent tax base and find the revenue to pay for basic services and more.
nk (db4a41) — 7/14/2010 @ 5:47 amOakland is not a *very poor* city but one cursed with decades of Progressive city government that refuses to act responsibly. They have money but choose to spend it poorly. I think the Police chief was irresponsible to be that specific but his message was clear: cut the number of policeman, which is a done deal this morning, and the police department will be compromised in their ability to do their job. If anything, Oakland needs more officers. They never have enough manpower to respond immediately to every call so this is a matter of priorities. Which would you rather have an officer responding to, a cold burglary or an in progress crime? Those are the choices they will be faced with.
But the city council and the mayor (where is he in all this, btw? See what happens when you elect people with no managerial experience to positions where they actually have to run things?) refuse to cut their pet social programs. The mayor won’t even cut his staff or his salary as he had promised. Look at the social programs they’re keeping and tell me they’re more important than police officers. The government’s response every year is to call for more taxes and special levies to raise even more money that they can then use to expand their reach in a vicious circle.
Oakland has huge problems, the school system is a mess, tolerance for anti-social behavior by certain protected groups is too high, but it is not by and large a hell hole or a slum. The bad areas are bad but are also pretty easy to avoid and most people have little or no reason to be there, except for those unfortunate enough to live there, of course. But how many cities don’t have that? The WSJ and NYT have both published recent features on the dining scene here which is better than Berkeley’s and not far behind SF which is double the size (per capita, it’s arguably better). But I’m glad people think there’s nothing here. That many fewer bodies taking up space.
Grant (6438ac) — 7/14/2010 @ 12:04 pm“cut the number of policeman, which is a done deal this morning, and the police department will be compromised in their ability to do their job. ”
You’re right, of course.
But consider this: now Oakland has fewer officers AND more burglaries because of this insane announcement that practically begs the desperate to burglarize their neighborhoods.
And it corrodes the faith in the police.
It’s taking a mistake and compounding it by betraying the concept of a police officer.
I do agree with nk that this city is poor. they may be able to afford more police officers, but that’s not all this is about. A city needs opportunities. That’s why these places with opportunity crushing government, be they Detroit or Afghanistan for so many years under the Taliban, are extremely difficult to turn around.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/14/2010 @ 12:18 pmRight to Work law will fix that problem. Crush the public union, which is destroying state and local budgets with its irrational pension plans. Crush what’s left of the private union in the process.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/14/2010 @ 12:23 pmOakland takes in over $400 million in revenues. Is that poor? I don’t know how that compares to other similarly sized cities (population around 400,000). Unfortunately, the government wants to spend $20 million more than it collects. And the bureaucracy is so entrenched and the progressive rot so deep that instead of working to find a solution, everyone is jealously guarding their turf and wanting the cuts to come from somewhere else.
I’ve already said I wish the chief hadn’t been so specific, but common sense suggests that the criminals would have figured that out on their own. But again, I ask you, would you rather have the police responding in person to a cold or a hot crime? Crimes in progress are given priority. I’m not happy about it but I don’t think it’s as big of a deal as some are suggesting.
Grant (6438ac) — 7/14/2010 @ 12:37 pmIt’s just a lie to claim this is the issue.
Since, ya know, this is common sense policing and was long before this criminal chief committed extortion. He was making a point that law enforcement would be compromised if he didn’t get what he wanted.
I’m glad we agree he’s wrong.
No one is saying cops should ignore ‘hot’ murders so they can write a parking ticket. That’s a silly defense of this situation.
It’s too late to fix the damage. Unions will ‘go there’ when they have control over essential services. Sure, they are smart enough to do it in ways that can be defended with word games. So what?
It used to be illegal to unionize cops. And, oh jeez… it looks like crime was a lot lower back then when thug unions couldn’t corrupt the mission of a police department. What a mysterious phenomena!
The line has been crossed here. This is the core reason why unions should be outlawed in the public sector.
Also, burglary is a serious crime. Even after the criminal has left the scene. A police officer is absolutely obligated to help a victim of that crime in his jurisdiction. There’s no wiggle room here of any kind. Put it on your list and get to it when you are done with the other priorities, of course. That was never in dispute and the people pretending this is the dispute need to get their heads right.
All this talk about liberals protecting their turf is accurate but irrelevant.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/14/2010 @ 12:52 pmI mean, for God’s sake, we’re talking about a police officer in Oakland. These people are supposed to be tough and absolutely devoted. If they aren’t, they are obviously in the wrong job.
You’re always going to be undermanned, dealing with liberal nonsense, racial nonsense, crazy riots. I’m sorry it is this way. Your chief and unions just made it harder and I suspect more officers will die in the next 12 months than the last. This is not a game and it’s not OK for politics about the damn budget to result in discussions of which crimes no longer get enforcement. As far as the public is concerned, every crime will get attention as best as the police is able. Period.
Anything less is way out of line. And as California plunges into the abyss, this kind of attitude is going to compound the problem. Budget cuts are coming. your pensions are not safe. You will be taking a pay cut and driving an older cruiser. I wish that wasn’t the case, but the hard reality is that if you’re going to quit enforcing some serious laws over these political realities, Oakland and other places like it are not going to make it.
Mission failed.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/14/2010 @ 1:00 pmYou’re missing the point that the problem is more the reduction in force than whatever rhetoric the chief spouted during the negotiations. The cold burglaries were not going to be responded to once the officers were fired. You’re also mistakingly conflating responded to in person by an officer with enforced.
And again, the Chief was just making public what will happen anyway. That’s the real consequence of the layoffs. That the public, including criminals, now knows about it really doesn’t matter all that much except that maybe now people will pressure the council members to reconsider their budgetary priorities.
I think your emotional anti-union animus is getting the better of your reason. Police unions are responsible for the rise in crime? Seriously? Correlation does not equal causation and I don’t know the year unionization occurred nor the percent rise in crime but I’d bet that there were many other socio-economic factors in play. My off the top of my head guess is that it coincides with a lot of social engineering, The Great Society programs among other things, which would have more explanatory power than unionization.
Grant (6438ac) — 7/14/2010 @ 1:15 pmDustin @ 59
But again, I ask you, would you rather have the police responding in person to a cold or a hot crime? Crimes in progress are given priority. I’m not happy about it but I don’t think it’s as big of a deal as some are suggesting.
It’s just a lie to claim this is the issue.
Jeez you never give up do you? Do you have some reason to call Grant a liar other than he doesn’t agree with you? We spent hours yesterday going back and forth about how the changes would not mean that the crimes would not be prosecuted, that there was only going to be a different way to report those crimes.
It used to be illegal to unionize cops. And, oh jeez… it looks like crime was a lot lower back then when thug unions couldn’t corrupt the mission of a police department. What a mysterious phenomena!
When was it illegal to unionize the police? How long ago was that? It wasn’t in my lifetime, LAPD had a union all the way back to the 20’s. How did it suddenly become legal? Could it be that you mean it is/was illegal for them to strike?
Also, burglary is a serious crime. Even after the criminal has left the scene. A police officer is absolutely obligated to help a victim of that crime in his jurisdiction. There’s no wiggle room here of any kind. Put it on your list and get to it when you are done with the other priorities, of course. That was never in dispute and the people pretending this is the dispute need to get their heads right.
You are really stuck on this thing aren’t you? Now there’s no rush to get there. Do you realize that it may be days later before there is time for a unit to show up at the victims home or business to take a report that the victim could have had filed a lot sooner? I have been on report calls that were 2 days old and we just never got the chance to get to. If there is follow up to be done, how is the Burg dick getting the info later rather than sooner a better thing?
Labcatcher (a040a4) — 7/14/2010 @ 2:24 pmWhat we were waiving was our pension rights if we left the job prior to having 20 years on the job. In other words it took 20 years to vest in the pension. I left the job 10 years later and lost all my pension contributions. Several years later, the union, now separated from the Fire Dept union, fought that and won.
Right to Work law will fix that problem. Crush the public union, which is destroying state and local budgets with its irrational pension plans. Crush what’s left of the private union in the process.
Comment by John Hitchcock — 7/14/2010 @ 12:23 pm
John, I am not a fan of unions myself, believing that they have far too much power and influence. The problem is that without them, employers run roughshod over the employees. At least with Law enforcement unions there are no strikes.
Can we only blame the Unions for irrational pension plans? After all those plans were adopted during negotiations, so both sides had to agree to them. Both sides are to blame for whatever results from those negotiations the public entity did not have to agree to them.
Labcatcher (a040a4) — 7/14/2010 @ 2:33 pmPeople in Oakland need to hit rock bottom and solve their own problems using internal means.
“F*** the police” will turn into “where’s the police?” and then they can hash out how much Oakland can pay for the level of service it requires… and in this economy they should find college educated takers of new jobs at much lower pay and benefit scales
I realize police unions don’t “strike” but they don’t mind threatening work slowdowns and denial of services.
SteveG (ce5f07) — 7/14/2010 @ 5:37 pmnk, there is nothing “decent” about the tax base in Chicago.
Icy Texan (c6cfbb) — 7/14/2010 @ 6:52 pmGrant, I think they are both problems.
I think it’s wrong, to put it mildly, to point to one to excuse the other. You know damn well I haven’t missed your point. I said it in my first comment in this thread. Oakland should have a strong police force and cutting it is a trick and a mistake. This is not an excuse for the behavior that has compounded the problem and demonstrated clearly why unions for police are the wrong way. It’s something fundamental.
And I hope to hell I’m wrong, but this kind of thing can easily get out of hand as burglars and home invaders are inspired by the political actions of a police department that IS SWORN to stay out of politics (see my quote above about their mission).
It’s a tall order, I realize to demand officers be above this. Those that can’t shouldn’t be police officers.
Best wishes.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/14/2010 @ 8:02 pmRe: Oakland being poor — they have some of the most valuable real estate in the Bay Area along with a dedicated International Airport (top 30 US), a dedicated Seaport (top 5 US and 20th in the world), two neighboring international airports, four neighboring seaports, a professional football team and stadium, a professional baseball team and different stadium, rail/subway transit system that connects San Francisco and San Jose, Jack London Square, University of California — Berkley, etc.
No, the city has every advantage in terms of infrastructure, location, and resources, but with ludicrous election choices they have squandered what should have been the one of the most prosperous regions in the country.
Most notable was the election of Jerry Brown as mayor; the city of Oakland absolutely spiraled downward and went from 22nd to the 8th most dangerous city by the end of his tenure (1999 to 2006).
Now of course, it is fourth in the nation and has this ridiculous plan to cut the police force (cuz, you know, there is no waste anywhere else in the city), followed by an unforgivable threat by police chief Batts to break his Oath and dishonor himself and then force his entire department to do the same.
The incompetency of the City leadership is self-evident in just these two actions alone — (a) cutting the PD and (b) not firing the police chief on the spot (he’s still there as unbelievable as that sounds).
The city has no one else but itself to blame.
Pons Asinorum (7bcd43) — 7/15/2010 @ 11:35 amWell said, Pons.
Detroit could have been the capital of the modern world if you looked at the advantages it had 50-60 years ago. Oakland, if run like Houston, would be a perfect place to do business. It’s poor, but by squandering its great advantages.
Anyway, I think you’ve got it right. Give Oakland a better chance by hiring a chief who will loudly repudiate this idea, whether the chief was accurate or not, deunionize the department, and of course give them more police officers.
They won’t do it, which is why Oakland is about to have a very hard year.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/15/2010 @ 11:40 amDustin, you identified a perfect equation:
Detroit (as is) = Oakland (as is becoming).
Pons Asinorum (7bcd43) — 7/15/2010 @ 11:43 amYou’d be less hysterical if you realized the difference between response and enforcement. He never said those crimes would not be investigated or enforced. I really don’t understand why it’s so difficult to comprehend that fewer officers means changes in how things are responded to. I would have preferred he didn’t delineate it quite that clearly, but doesn’t the public have the right to know the consequences of the city council’s actions?
Grant (6438ac) — 7/15/2010 @ 1:58 pm@Grant:
You’d be less idiotic if you realized what he said and stopped focusing on what he did not say (he did not say what the cube root is of 1,245,976 either, so what).
There are all kinds of solutions that work without increasing the size of police forces: volunteer groups, neighborhood watch programs, corporate outreach projects, sheriff volunteers and reserves, harsher penalties on repeat offenders, all kinds of stuff…
Or he could have presented cost-cutting measures that would save jobs of his police force…
Or he could combine the two…
But he did not. Instead, your favorite — he threaten the citizenry that he would abdicate his duties because he is too stupid to figure out any other response.
Apparently you and him have a lot in common.
Pons Asinorum (7bcd43) — 7/15/2010 @ 2:33 pm@ Pons,
Nice attack there. You must have really studied this issue deeply to go after Grant that way.
Most of those alternatives that you are suggesting are pretty common and are already in place. Do you know for a fact that they aren’t? Check their website. I don’t know what Sheriff volunteers would do for a police department although they do help the county, and harsher penalties are not something the Police Chief has any say in, that’s up to the courts.
Of course those crimes are going to be investigated and when possible enforced, I don’t know if he told press that or not, if he did it might have interfered with the sensationalism of the story and not made it into print. You and Dustin are taking a story in the paper and assuming that it is fair, accurate and complete. That’s a bit ironic considering this websites history and reason for existence. And Grant is the idiot. Love it.
I suspect the reason that Grant and I are saying that they will be investigated is from seeing this happen in many other agencies. They enhance computerized reporting, have the victims write down what happened instead of telling the Officer what happened and having him write it down, send out the volunteers to take non-suspect reports, mandate desk reports for things like non-injury traffic collisions (CHP too) and generally make do with less. They will still respond to crimes of any type with a suspect at the scene.
Oh, BTW it’s not a force, it’s a Department of the City of Oakland. Only in the paper and in the movies is it a police force.
@ Grant,
Ya gotta respect the chief’s telling it like it is though, not good for his job security but ballsy.
Labcatcher (b1ac83) — 7/15/2010 @ 4:47 pm@ Labcatcher
Re your ignorance: Just because you don’t think it is possible or because it may already be implemented in an unknown manner is meaningless. Do your own research. However, I do agree with your statement that you don’t know a lot of things.
Re this website: As for your additional unsupported assertions involving this website and its readers/posters, your strawman fallacy is showing (not sure if you understand what that means; you may think that was a clever tactic but such tactics do not reflect well on your ability to reason — it’s a bad thing). To paint me in bigoted terms, try using a time-honored leftist method of shouting “racist!” That way you don’t have to address any of the facts I linked and for a bonus, you do not even have to post an argument.
Re your buddy Grant: If you also believe that you can mind-read and therefore argue on behalf of what Batts did not say, that’s, well, idiotic. (To Grant’s credit, he appears to have abandoned that lunacy, but we get a new adherent — Labcatcher!)
Re your suspicions on what you and Grant are saying: Uh-huh — tell you what, take your time, think it through carefully, purge it of those pesky fallacy-thingies, maybe consider speaking for just yourself, and get back to us.
Re force vs Department: it is a force, not a Force. It is a Department, not a department. C’mon, you can figure it out, look carefully at the capitalization and then refer to a grammar book…you can do it (unless you think you can mind-read, then don’t worry about it).
Re Batt’s wisdom at publicly stating which crimes he will not respond:
** pure genius! alert**.
Real “ballsy” and great for the citizenry he swore to protect and serve, lots of thugs gonna appreciate that statement too. Hey, maybe some of the thugs will think that since the police are out-manned, they ought to postpone committing the types of crimes Batt’s will not respond to, until the budget crisis is resolved. You know, since most street gangs are so community-minded and all.
** pure genius! alert over **
Pons Asinorum (7bcd43) — 7/15/2010 @ 5:45 pmI just want to add that I don’t think I’m all that representative of the readership here.
And I don’t really like getting into discussions with people who refuse to answer basic questions or nail down some kind of structure to a debate. I makes me suspect we can’t ever really get anywhere in a discussion.
I’m a simpler person who sees at least some blacks and whites to life.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/15/2010 @ 6:20 pmOK Pons,
I don’t believe I said anything was impossible. As to doing the research myself, I did it two days ago, right after I read the article. I thought you might want to see it yourself. It seemed odd to me that they weren’t already taking online reports, but it turns out that they are. The website already has provisions for some reports; there are computerized forms on their website for a limited number of crimes, the site has different phone numbers listed for various call types. Among other things the site explains how people can join the reserves. (FYI Reserves volunteer time and ride around with an Officer in a learning capacity until they reach level 1 (of 3), at which time they are obligated to donate a certain number of hours per month and after those hours are met, they work as paid employees, although without accruing benefits of any type. It used to be a good path to full employment, but from what I am hearing it’s pretty hard to get people to commit to the time anymore. I didn’t find the volunteers on the site and now I am thinking that they may be under community relations, most agencies have them under different names (S.T.A.R.S, S.I.R.S Etc). Check it out for yourself, Oaklandpd.com
What I said I didn’t know, was what Sheriff’s volunteers who are Civilians with a County Agency, could possibly do for Oakland P.D. a Department of the City of Oakland. Absent a situation calling for mutual aid, that just doesn’t happen.
re; website: The website reference was to the original purpose of this site, which as far as I know was to point out the errors and bias of the Los Angeles Times (look the right side of the Patterico’s Pontifications title bar on the top of the page, now check the picture of the newspaper called the Los Angeles Dog Trainer). I made no mention of readers/posters other than you and Dustin who just can’t seem to believe that there is nothing sinister in what the Chief said or what his plans are. The reference to this website was made to highlight the irony of you taking a newspaper article at face value. Do you really think that the reporter got all of what was said and got it correct? If so, you haven’t been around many reporters. Please show me where I implied bigotry of any type.
Why are you jumping me with the word wisdom? I didn’t say that, I said that it was ballsy and not good for his job security. It takes guts to let your masters (CIty Council, Public) know the bad things that can happen when they make bad choices. I never implied that it was a wise thing for him to say.
Actually police force is something we get in trouble for doing, but your use of it was in reference to the Police Department
(that would save jobs of his police force…) so I just thought you should know what it’s actually called.
No mind reading needed here Pons, it is simply something that has happened to other agencies in the past and as I said several times up thread, they all seem to go the same way. Cut specialty units, cut response to non-emergency calls, streamline reporting and do the best you can with the tools you have. Been there, done that. Pretty much what that Grant guy said.
Criminals going to go on a crime spree? OK, sure.
I missed one thing; what fallacies? I don’t know what you are referring to.
Labcatcher (b1ac83) — 7/15/2010 @ 9:26 pmYou are correct about your strawman — you did not attribute it to the readership of the blog or its posters — my bad and I apologize.
You did however set me up as a strawman by falsely attributing to me an interpretation of a media story and then demonstrating how such an interpretation was wrong. You did the same to Justin, but he is more than capable of pointing this out if he wishes.
—
Labcatcher, if you want to beleive that Mr. Batts’ solution is the only one available to him, or that all alternatives have been utterly exhausted and maxed-out and this is the best he can come up with, be my guest.
If you want to beleive that you can intelligently argue what Batts’ did not say, have fun.
If you want to beleive that Batts’ use of the public stage was “ballsy” rather than disgraceful and stupid, fine — have at it.
In a perverse way, it is fascinating to listen to your defenses and “justifications” for Batts’s example of such deplorable leadership.
Carry-on Mr. Labcatcher…
—
When an irresistible force meets an immovable object: Annihilation.
When an indefensible action meets a liberal position: Love embrace.
Pons Asinorum (7bcd43) — 7/15/2010 @ 10:45 pmOops, should read:
When an irresistible force meets an immovable object: Annihilation.
When an indefensible action meets a liberal position: Love embrace…and then Annihilation.
Night all–
Pons Asinorum (7bcd43) — 7/15/2010 @ 10:50 pmOh brother, for someone throwing the word fallacy around, you seem to be oblivious to your own. Your insults would be a lot more effective if there were some actual substance behind them.
I said above that it was a pissing contest between the city council and the police department to try to get more money from the tax payers. I also said that I wish he hadn’t done that and I disagreed with his decision to delineate those crimes. But I guess you can read my mind so you know that despite what I wrote, that’s my “favorite” option.
But that doesn’t mean the crimes will not be investigated and the laws not enforced. If all he were really doing was, in your words, trying to extort money from the tax payers, why didn’t he just say that? It’s not my fault that’s beyond your comprehension, but then twisting what people say into what they didn’t seems to be your favorite tactic. That and name-calling is all you got, really.
And to provide something other than popcorn entertainment, here’s confirmation that it really is just a shakedown:
http://cafehayek.com/2010/07/the-greek-part-of-oakland.html
They are writing two ballot measures for November, one of which will impose an additional $360 parcel tax expected to raise $50 million which is far in excess ($35 million) of what it would take to re-hire the 80 officers ($15 million). They’re going to use the layoffs to scare people into funding all the excessive programs too. Since it’s a parcel tax and most people aren’t homeowners, it just might pass though the two-thirds majority requirement might work the way it was designed to. God help us if it ever gets repealed.
Grant (6438ac) — 7/16/2010 @ 2:00 amGood lord Pons,
I notice that in your rant you didn’t tell me how I implied you were bigoted or what you are calling fallacies.
There is no strawman. You are arguing what the Chief said was terrible and that he is completely wrong in what he is doing or has said. It was apparent to me that you took the article at face value, which I found to be ironic.
I don’t know if the solutions the Chief came up with are the only ones available to him or not. I do however know that other agencies faced with the same problems have used those types of solutions. I also found that most of the suggestions you made for meeting the problems which are commonplace in police work are already part of the Oakland PD. You didn’t even bother to check. What uncommon solutions have you to offer?
Talk about setting up strawmen! Nobody is arguing what Batts did not say. What I have said is that what he said is going to happen, is what has happened in other agencies faced with budget and staffing problems. As noted by Grant, it does not mean there will be no investigation and/or prosecution of those listed offenses, it just means there is a different way of initializing the investigation.
You might want to re-read both my comments and Grants. Neither one of us said or implied what the Chief said was a smart thing to say. I said it was ballsy. He is not involved in the negotiations, or if he is, it would be for the city side. He is not part of the union.
As to Batts leadership? I don’t see this as being indicative of his leadership at all, but if it is, I am sure that being honest will go a long way with the Officers of his Department.
Labcatcher (b1ac83) — 7/16/2010 @ 5:17 amHa ha, never said that, Grant. I beleive that is what he is trying to do and is another reason I so detest his statement.
Quite funny, given your first statement, but no, it is my least favorite tactic.
(uh, I did provide some citations and logical points, no really…).
Ha ha, you started it…I actually used your phraseology exactly, but instead of using your word hysterical, I chose idiotic. Thought you’d be flattered. Here:
“You’d be less hysterical if you realized…”
“You’d be less idiotic if you realized…”
Tell you what, how about we both stop calling each other names — sound cool?
Cool.
I hurt your feelings and I apologize.
—
Interesting Grant; your taxpayer shakedown analysis is correct IMHO. If you think Batts was wrong for doing that then good for you. If not, then we disagree.
The world goes on…
Pons Asinorum (7bcd43) — 7/16/2010 @ 9:10 amYour strawman is false, but your defense and subsequent denial of it is really funny.
I am not surprised.
Honesty with his fellow officers ought to be a given and not in doubt. He is suppose to work for the people of Oakland. There are better solutions than stipulating or inferring that certain police duties will not be carried out. Not seeing any quality leadership, but okay we disagree.
—
Mr. Batts was not smart and perhaps we can agree on that point.
Pons Asinorum (7bcd43) — 7/16/2010 @ 9:21 amOK Pons, It would only be a strawman if I made something up with no reason to support it. I have to believe that you are taking the article at face value, otherwise what are you basing all your arguments on? It’s not like you told us about any checking into what the Department does. If my responses are only funny, then they should be easy enough to refute. Do it.
I am totally confused; in your mind who is he supposed to be the leader of, if not the Department he was put in charge of?
I agree, honesty with his Officers should be a given. Unfortunately that is not always the case. I take it you have read some of the articles written by Jack Dunphy which should give you some idea of that.
He did not stipulate or infer that certain police duties would not be carried out. He said that officers would not be responding to certain calls. Report calls. Simple damn report calls. Time consuming report calls that entail Officers writing down what the victim says instead of the Victim writing it down themselves. The way things are done is changing and it may be for the better.
I am still waiting for you to tell me how I implied you were bigoted. I would still like to know what fallacies I wrote about.
Labcatcher (b1ac83) — 7/16/2010 @ 11:15 amYou did not Labcatcher, I misread your original statement as I mentioned previously (and apologized).
You made several assertions without supporting them, you offered without proof that several solutions I mentioned would not work, that they have already been implemented but failed to account to what degree and what results, failed to account for implementing such solutions on a larger scale, you stated that the Chief of Police was powerless to implement policy — but failed to take the stronger point that he could advocate for it, you failed to prove the press report was invalid despite mentioning it. You feigned surprise that a crime spree could happen without acknowledging it could (actually my point was it is already happening, cutting back officers now is not a good idea — that part is not your fault, I did not explicitly state it). There is other minor stuff, at least one uncorrected misstatement about police enforcing crime…but mostly:
Your textbook strawman that you constructed. You assumed that I beleive every word of the press — then attacked me for this falsehood.
Reread your comment at #72. If you still do understand, I cannot help you any further, nor do I have any interest in debating these points with you. You either get it or you don’t.
No, you don’t have to believe it, you choose to do so.
The solutions are based on ideas that have worked for other cities.
The stats are based on the sources I linked.
The incompetent leadership and dishonorable conduct of Mr. Batts is largely based on this:
I live in San Jose and travel to Oakland often. People near and dear to me who live in Oakland are scared — Batts made it worse, at a time when the people needed their Chief of Police to act as a leader, he sets up the shakedown. It did not help.
Pons Asinorum (7bcd43) — 7/16/2010 @ 12:36 pmOK, I said that that one (not several) of the things you mentioned doesn’t work that way, not that it wouldn’t. It was the idea of using sheriff volunteers to do city work. That takes a call for mutual aid, mutual aid is for emergencies not day to day operations.
I told you which of your suggestions were already in play, I told you how I found that out and this was all in response to you being offended that I suggested that you check the Oakland PD web page and somewhat brusquely was told to do my own research. I have no idea, and made no claim to their efficiency or if there are plans to expand them, in fact I wouldn’t have any idea of where to get that info. I did suggest that there would probably be changes to the online reporting to allow for more different types of reports to be done that way, but that was a guess only.
You got it backward, I said that the Chief sets the policies for the department and I said that in response to the statements that any officers that failed to respond to the calls should be jailed or fired or whatever you were advocating, and in fact in an earlier post explained how calls get dispatched.
Re: strawman First you say I assumed something, then at the end you call it a falsehood. Which is it, are you calling me a liar? Here’s how I see it, I came to a conclusion based on your arguments. I have no way of knowing if the press report is complete and accurate or not (I think probably not, but that’s me and the press). You were making your case as if it were and I found it to be ironic on this particular website (LA dog trainer) and said that. If you didn’t believe the press report to be accurate and complete, what were your arguments based on? If you re-read it I think you might see that.
Crime Spree surprise. Here I thought what you said was that the Chief’s statements would give the criminals a sense that they could go out and commit crimes with less fear of capture. I feigned no surprise, I found your thinking that street crooks actually plan things out and would step up their criminal activity showed a huge lack of knowledge about them and said so. As to cutting back Officers, I agree, it is rarely a good idea; what is a good idea is flooding high crime areas with marked vehicles. The TEAM 28 project did exactly that and was highly successful.
I won’t argue the the leadership of Chief Batts, but in my opinion he leads the Department not the City or the citizens, that would fall to the elected officials who are laying off the Officers. Perhaps if he were elected he would not have said what was going to happen and lied to the press and the public ( I bet there was more said by him than what was reported, probably a fuller explanation of what was going to happen. Sound likely to you?).
I don’t blame you for not wanting to debate this any further, you really don’t have any knowledge of police work or what has happened in other agencies in similar circumstances.
If it helps your scared friends tell the them the truth; what this means is if they get burglarized, or are the victim of one of the listed crimes, they may have to fill out the boxes on the reports on their own. They may not get some cop sitting with them taking down what they say. Also tell them if someone tries to get in in the middle of the night the cops will be there with lights on, and guns drawn.
I hope you can calm down a bit and quit with the name calling. Have a nice night.
Labcatcher (b1ac83) — 7/16/2010 @ 9:29 pmHaha, now that is an awesome rant!
Keep up the good work and rant on to your hearts content. Have fun.
Pons Asinorum (7bcd43) — 7/16/2010 @ 10:12 pmSo, the Oakland Police won’t respond to crimes or enforce the law… What’s different?
Joe (7d7ae2) — 9/13/2010 @ 4:49 pm