Earlier last week, Oakland’s chief of police directed a thinly veiled threat to the public regarding the layoffs of 80 police officers from the Oakland Police Department. The police union recently asked for a guarantee of no layoffs for three years. City Council refused. City Council President Jane Brunner said, “We wish we could offer them a three-year no layoff protection. We just can’t financially. It would be irresponsible of us.”
In response, Chief Anthony Batts listed 44 situations officers will stop responding to if the layoffs continue as planned (see full story here).
It does not appear that a full list of these 44 situations has been released yet. Only a partial list is currently available. For a department that alleges to protect and serve the public, it is interesting to note the situations currently listed by Batts include a variety of crimes against property and people, and involve situations where people are actually harmed. None of the currently listed situations include victimless crimes, or “vice” crimes such as underage drinking, marijuana possession, prostitution, gambling, jay walking and other traffic offenses. The partial list includes the following:
- Burglary
- Theft
- Embezzlement
- Grand theft
- Grand theft: dog
- Identity theft
- Dumping waste or offensive matter
- Passing fictitious check
- Obtaining money by false voucher
- Fraudulent use of access cards
- Stolen license plate
- Embezzlement by employee
- Extortion
- Attempted extortion
- False personification of another
To view more potentially ignored crimes, read here.
While the police department could easily come up with 44 victimless crimes they could choose to ignore in the event of layoffs (prostitution, gambling, underage drinking, jaywalking, speeding, rolling stop signs, disorderly conduct, possession of marijuana, possession of other controlled substances, sale of controlled substances, smoking in public, drinking in public, urinating in public, an endless number of parking violations, loitering, etc.), they have chosen to ignore many property crimes, thefts and other crimes that actually harm people directly, such as burglary, theft and grand theft.
Further, self-help in these matters is discouraged. In February, Oakland’s City Council made it more difficult for ordinary citizens to own guns. In addition, it is very telling that Batts made this announcement at all. An agency truly committed to the protection of people would not announce to the public, and indeed the criminals-at-large, that certain crimes will now be ignored by the police.
As such, this can only be viewed as the act of extortion that it is. ”We have informed the criminals and they are coming for you. Give us the funding, or you can fend for yourselves – oh wait, but you really can’t because we have a complete monopoly over law enforcement.”
This is not surprising, coming from an organization that coerces funds through taxes and has almost a complete monopoly over security. This can easily be explained. While police departments and the government continue to rake in plenty of revenue from ticketing people for minor or harmless actions, burglary and other actual crimes take more effort and are probably less lucrative.
In addition, continuing to enforce drug violations allows police departments to continue to steal people’s property and sell it for profit with civil forfeiture laws. If police have probable cause to suspect that a car, or some other valuable piece of property is connected to drug crime, they can seize it and keep it for themselves, even if the owner is completely innocent. This means that if your car is taken or borrowed for the purpose of a drug crime, it can be permanently seized and sold for profit by the government, even if you had nothing to do with the crime. More about civil forfeiture here.
This NBC article mentioned that most of the 80 officers who would be laid off were on the streets of Oakland when the Johannes Mehserle conviction caused riots recently. NBC may have added this bit to garner sympathy for officers, but this is ludicrous.
Oakland PD had to send out Oakland PD to stop riots because BART police killed an innocent man. Wow, now there’s a reason to be thankful for police. They kill innocent people and then their comrades help clean up the mess and make us feel beholden for it. Here’s a brilliant idea – don’t get trigger happy, or “negligently” mistake your taser for a gun, kill an innocent man, and people won’t get mad.
In these hard economic times, the police only think of themselves, their pay and their jobs. And you can’t blame them, because they are human.
While Batt’s use of threats is completely heinous and unacceptable, which human being isn’t concerned for their own well-being, their paycheck and their career? Herein lies the problem with leaving security to the government. The problem is not that police are self-interested; indeed, everyone is self-interested, as they should be.
But when a group of self-interested people have a politically cemented monopoly, guaranteed funding and no check on their power, accountability will diminish and the public will suffer. The problem is police have complete control. They have access to our funds through taxpayer money, and as a monopoly, they can decide which crimes to go after, and which ones not to. The lack of competition provides little or no incentive for them to provide good service, or listen to customer complaints because we have little ability, as individuals, to fire them or take away funding.
We are left at the mercy of monopolistic police departments that apparently can shoot innocent people or demand more money with various threats.
For years, the Oakland Police Department has been understaffed an overworked. Even so, these officers made concessions to forgo raises that they deserve. Now, because the asked for job security for the officers that were hired before March 21, 2009, the day that four of Oakland’s finest gave their lives protecting and serving the Oakland citizens, 80 of these officers were laid-off. These officers are casualties of poor city management.
Reportedly, Oakland’s elected officials have managed to permit the city budget to be run into the ground, by allowing long-term abuse and mismanagement of city funds and irresponsible “management” of city funds and ineptitude.
Chief Batts is correct in electing to triage and have Oakland police officers respond to only the most serious of crimes and emergencies. Expecting Chief Batts and his officers to adequately provide optimum services for the City of Oakland with the current number of Oakland police officers is not only unreasonable; it is like expecting him to dig a ditch with a teaspoon.
All the complainers and critics of OPD should have complained loudly when it became news that Oakland’s City Administrator Deborah Edgerly was mismanaging the city funds and the mayor was doing nothing.
This July 14, 2010, Oakland laid-off some of the best, brightest and most dedicated young officers in the country. They signed on to risk their lives to serve the citizens of Oakland. Now, it is time for Oakland citizens to focus on getting these OPD officers back. After all, I understand that it cost Oakland taxpayers approximately $150,000 to train each one of these officers.
Thank you OPD
Rational citizen – you did not address any of the valid points in my article. If they don’t have funds, why not stop enforcing victimless crimes? Why announce to all the criminals in public that they will no longer be punishing THEFTS, BURGLARIES, GRAND THEFT AUTO, etc.?
It is unfortunate Oakland’s city council did a poor job of running the budget and spent irresponsibly – so let me get your idea straight, because they spent irresponsibly, the police department should continue to get to spend irresponsibly, and tax payers should bear the brunt of the cost?
Police officers, generally speaking, are some of the more highly paid professions in society. They risk their lives needlessly because part of their job entails engaging in violent oppression of people through punishing victimless crimes and engaging in dangerous drug busts. This is no one’s fault but their own. Their jobs are also far safer than various other professions, such as that of logger, construction worker, miller, merchant marine, miner, and a host of other jobs, which also do not pay nearly as well as that of a police officer.
If someone told me I was going to get paid to go beat people up, write them stupid tickets, bust down their doors for marijuana, harass them for breaking curfew, drinking in public or other stupid shit, and I gladly signed up for this, I would expect that once in a while, things would go awry and I would get shot at or face retaliation. And it would be no one’s fault but my own.
Blanketly thanking OPD is about as rational thanking all the Democrats because one Democrat helped your grandmother walk across the street. It makes no sense. Police may have the capacity to do good, but it is not rational to blindly think only of the good they may have done in the past when the chief of police is blatantly extorting the public, and commanding that their demands be met, under the threat of letting property crime run rampant.
If you should ever find yourself face-to-face with a robber, burglar or violent criminal, do not call the police.
In fact, my residence has been burglarized twice. Guess what the police did? Nothing. However, I could recount to you an impressive list of ways police have fined and harassed me personally and treated me like a criminal for engaging in the terrible offense of jaywalking.
At any rate, what is important is the big picture. My agenda has to do with justice. The police system is one fraught with corruption, lack of accountability, and irresponsible spending.
You haven’t addressed any of my points. If the officers lack funding, maybe they should stop punishing and harassing civilians for engaging in victimless crimes. If the officers are so noble, why is the police union, and the chief of police, announcing to criminals everywhere that they will no longer respond to property crime reports?
Rational Citizen, I just lost most of your second comment. I intended to quote part of it in my own comment, but for some reason I edited your comment instead. I’m not sure if it’s possible to get it back. I sincerely apologize.
Rational Citizen says:
July 21, 2010 at 7:29 am
“If you should ever find yourself face-to-face with a robber, burglar or violent criminal, do not call the police.”
If you “find yourself face to face with a………..burglar…………” He is no longer a burglar, he is either an armed robber or a strong arm robber. But since I live in a place where I am not denied my right to armed self defense my call to the police would be to come clean up the carcass.
In any of the 3 situations you mention, calling the police will be next to worthless, at best they will make a report, at worst they will be drawing a chalk line around you.
To Rational Citizen:
You are anything but! If these policemen are all really so selfless and honourable than they would have agreed to contribute 9% of their (large) yearly saleries to their (huge) pensions so they could avoid the layoffs that have now made it impossible for them to serve the people of Oakland efficiently.
City Administrators and Mayors have a reputation for being corrupt… but that does not negate the above. The police force is very corrupt as well, and now we get to witness how greedy they are as well.
JusticeMotivated, you should read the news more carefully. Last year OPD made concessions, when they agreed to a salary raise freeze and, during the recent negotiations, they agreed to pay 9 percent of their salary toward their retirement. Learn to read more carefully. In addition, Oakland police officers risk their lives daily policing one of the most dangerous cities in America with an understaffed department. This time, the OPOA made a reasonable request for no lay-offs for three years for officers hired before March 21, 2009. Oakland’s City Council responded to this request by laying-off 80 Oakland police officers and threatening to lay-off approximately 120 in the near future.
It sounds like your criticism is motivated by a hidden agenda. If OPOA had gone into this recent negotiation agreeing that officers would work for no salary, you probably would be complaining about the color of OPD officer’s uniforms and requesting that they not carry guns. Maybe you are one of those critics who would like to eliminate the Oakland Police Department, allowing violent criminals to take over Oakland.
You and your fellow critic are welcome to do night patrol in Oakland.
Oakland police officers do an extraordinary job with very little support.
I, as a former (and convicted) marijuana trafficker, have had large sums of money taken from me from LEOs at all levels.
It usually goes something like this… They find a large sum of money in my vehicle after they make their dog trigger on my vehicle. They ask me how much it is… I say (for example) $50,000. They give me a receipt for my seized money and write on it “Subject claims amount is $50,000.” They take it back to wherever they take it. I file a $5,000 bond with a lawyer to get my money back (after the lawyer takes his 1/3) and he talks with the court and lo and behold, once the money gets to the evidence locker it turns out that the actual amount is $30,000. Keep in mind that I counted out the $50,000 4 or 5 times in a hotel room an hour before I was stopped.
So anyway, that sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME and all over the country. Including Oakland. And I’m pretty sure that they view it as part of their compensation package.
Cops make tons of loot (yeah, loot. because that’s what it is) and so don’t expect us to all sob that the fair citizens are not paying you enough.
jnickpuglia, you, a drug dealer and career criminal have lots of creditability (NOT).
Police are like any profession (doctors, social workers, chefs, waiters, contractors, teachers, lawyers, judges, reporters, etc.), in that you have those that do their job with integrity and those who bring little or no integrity to their jobs.
You are in no position to judge anyone.
Actually, I am pretty sure that if the police rob you of $20,000, you are most certainly in a position to judge them. Are you saying that if you broke some laws, you deserve to be robbed by police? So police are basically robbers/gang members who have the force of the law to back up their actions?
They are upholding the law and busting terrible evil drug dealers (sarcasm) but rob the drug dealers and profit it off them? Wtf is that? Even if I thought drug dealers were bad, I’d have to admit that makes the police much, much worse. Saying that you are busting drugs and protecting society from drug dealers on one hand, but then secretly robbing the drug dealers to pad your salary is the biggest, hypocritical crock of shit I have heard of.
In addition, it is actually very important and enlightening to hear from people who actually interact with police to hear how police behave and treat people. They are the people who know most accurately how police behave. Just because Nick was a drug dealer, does not mean the police did not steal from him. The two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, his experience is telling of how police operate. Police are punish people for engaging in victimless sale of drugs, but they will steal from drug dealers and directly benefit from drug money. This is hypocrisy and corruption at its worse.
Jenn- Like so many other critics, you obviously have an agenda that relates to why YOU dislike police or OPD, and it has nothing to do with equal justice or keeping law-abiding citizens safe. You are hiding behind the Oakland Police and City Council negotiations and recent police lay-offs. Perhaps you or one of your friends had a bad experience with a police officers and it left you bitter and angry.
It is ignorant to generalize about police officers. Law enforcement officers, like members of all professions, politicians, doctors, lawyers, reporters, teachers, etc, can be inept, racist, sexist and lack integrity.
Furthermore, criminal drug dealers have no creditability. Like other predators, they are a part of many societal problems, and they foster no solutions to societal problems.
You are wrong to generalize about drug dealers. Do you know any? Some are kind people, loyal people, people with great perspective and a sense of justice, unlike yourself. Perhaps you are the one who should not judge. Like there are many types of police officers, there are many types of drug dealers. There may be ones that kill or steal, but there are ones that are simply involved in a voluntary transaction with a willing and informed party who wants to purchase their product.
Which actually means that many drug dealers are better than police. Because while there are also police who kill and steal, they don’t get punished for it (e.g. Mehserle, civil forfeiture). Further, almost no interaction with a police officer is voluntary. Unless you are bored and walk up to a cop to chit chat, no interaction with a cop is voluntary. You do it because you have to. You do it because otherwise they will fine you, rob you, frame you, or arrest you. You slow down from 70mph to 65 mph because you don’t want to get a $300 fine. You pay their salary because you don’t them announcing further to criminals that criminals are now free to do as they please in terms of theft. You don’t protest your arrest because otherwise they will shoot you in the back (e.g.Mr. Oscar Grant).
My agenda is justice. I hide behind nothing. I see daily occurrences of police abuse, and do not turn a blind eye. Oakland PD is no different. They have threatened the public. They have announced publicly, to all criminals, that they will no longer be enforcing various property crimes. This is disgusting and base. You are right – I am bitter and angry. Not because I had a terrible experience, but because I see terrible things happening to innocent people who did absolutely nothing to deserve it. To see my fellow human beings treated in such a way offends and hurts me deeply. If you are not bitter and angry at the various police abuses, or the threats from Oakland PD, you are either ignorant, or evil.
I have not engaged in sweeping generalization as you have. I have merely said that threatening people is bad, using violence and force is bad, and that a system that runs on coerced tax money, internal investigations, and lack of competition is bad. Since when is criticism of violence and communism having a biased “agenda” ?
You’re the one who indeed is making unjustified generalizations. You know nothing about drug dealers, yet blanketly decry them as “not credible.” You have evidence of threats from police staring you in the face, and you some how think these people are wonderful. Really? So negotiations went bad, therefore they have a right to threaten the public? Give me one good reason why my “generalization” that lack of competition, use of violence, and using threats in negotiations is wrong, as applied to Oakland PD. Give me one good reason how the system of coerced funding and absolutely no competition, fosters accountability, when applied to Oakland PD.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/07/13/18653773.php
A white male attorney defrauded hundreds of clients. He collected up-front fees of thousands of dollars and failed to perform the work or return the fees. Although the state bar has received hundreds of complaints about this attorney for collecting advance fees to perform work he had not intentions performing and failed to perform, the state bar has done nothing. This attorney is still practicing his fraud with the blessing of the state bar.
Do you think this lawyer’s behavior is reflective of how most lawyers conduct business?
Do you think all white male lawyers should be judged by this lawyer’s criminal behavior?
Where in my article did I say all police must be judged by the actions of one? And in fact, I do agree that this attorney example is great one. Because I agree with you that the state bar has royally screwed up, just as police departments royally screw up. They both protect their own from time to time, and do not serve the customer, because they are monopolistic governmental entities whose power is uncontrolled.
There is only one state bar. If they screw you, there’s nothing you can do about it. There is no competition, thus, less accountability, and less incentive for change or improvement. This was exactly my point with the police.
This lawyer’s outcome is reflective of the system, and how it is frequently not accountable. The system absolutely should be judged by the lawyer’s criminal behavior. Same with police. The system, which repeatedly fails to punish police for their behavior, clearly lacks accountability. While people may are argue there are merely a few “bad apples” the truth is, that like the state bar, with police departments, the good apples cover up for, and protect the bad ones. Thus, the problem cannot merely be written off as a minor one.
My only differentiation would be that police department entities are slightly worse than state bar organizations because I don’t really recall the last time I saw a lawyer taser or shoot someone.
I’m not sure of the significance of mentioning it was a white male attorney, but maybe you meant it to point out that as an Asian female attorney who had nothing to do with his crimes, it would be unfair for me to be generalized or lumped in with him.
Certainly, it would be unfair to punish me for his crimes. But I do recognized many people have legitimate complaints about lawyers. I understand that many lawyers throw people in jail for bad reasons, or screw their clients. I am not personally offended when people say they hate lawyers, the judicial system, or rant about how they have been harmed by lawyers.
I certainly don’t whine about how I busted my ass for 3 years to uphold the laws of this nation, and help the judicial system, and wah wah wah, why aren’t people more grateful, and all you people complaining about lawyers must just be angry and bitter for stupid reasons, I am so great, so if you criticize lawyers, you must have some unjustified hidden agenda, and if you don’t like the judicial system and the lawyers who made your laws, then you can get out!
Jenn- Citizens have the option to not pay the tax.
Criminal drug dealing is not a victimless crime. Have you seen the death and destruction directly and indirectly related to drug dealing? Tell this to the young children removed by CPS because their drug dealing and/or addicted parents have neglected them or otherwise placed them at risk. Tell this to the children sold for sex so their parents could buy drugs. Tell this to the loved ones of those dealers shot up and murdered by someone who wanted their stash of marijuana or money from the drug sales, or the innocent victims caught in the crossfire. I could go on, but I believe it would be like preaching to and empty pew.
Do not try to feed me your story about criminal drug dealers who only commit “victimless crimes.” I have been face-to-face with the victims of your “victimless crimes.”
Well, this is a different discussion altogether. But the reason there are so many addicts, overdose deaths, and crime related with drugs is because it is illegal. Heroin in its pure form is far less addictive than the heroin on the streets. Many addictive qualities are not due to the drug itself, but due to the things the drugs are cut with. Crack and meth, some of the most dangerous drugs, may not even have been invented, or at least would be far less prevalent, if cocaine were legal.Drugs are more dangerous because they are illegal. People cut drugs with dangerous substances because they are illegal. Gang crime is rampant because drugs are illegal, and there is a black market. The actual act of taking a drug is a victimless crime. Otherwise, why not ban cigarettes, alcohol and coffee while you’re at it? I don’t see you talking about the evil coffee growers, tobacco growers and alcohol brewers that are causing deaths or addiction. This is not because alcohol is safer than marijuana. It’s because it’s legal, there is no black market, no gang crime for alcohol, and no dangerous brewing of alcohol in people’s basements.
Citizens do not have the option not to pay taxes. Last I understood, you go to jail for tax evasion. Regardless, police still have a monopoly on law enforcement. Even if I did not have to pay taxes, I am not allowed to form my own law enforcement agency that I believe serves the public better. I am not allowed to form a private law enforcement agency and tell them, if you use excessive force, I will fire you; if you threaten the people who pay your salaries, I will fire you. It is this lack of competition, through a politically cemented monopoly, that decreases police department incentives to better themselves, to respond to public needs, and to ensure customer service. This same lack of competition, and the guaranteed funding through taxes, causes lack of accountability. These are the same reasons communism does not work. Communism does not work because the government owns everything, pays for everything, determines everything, and there is no incentive for the individual to compete or work harder, under the threat of losing their job, or being out-done by another business. This is what the police departments are like, on a smaller scale. The government owns it all, pays for it all, and competition will not weed out the bad officers, will not drive consumer satisfaction, and officers have no threat from competition that they will be driven out of business.
@”Rational” Citizen – And therein lies the problem. Though you probably think that you’re the most un-American, anti-voluntary interaction person around; you’re really not. Juries are loaded with people like you. The bad guy cops know it and the good guy voluntary interactionists know it.
And so the bad guy cops take advantage of it and use that knowledge to extort money, jewelry and everything else from their employers.
jnickpuglia-You have a choice to continue smoking and selling your weed and committing your “victimless crimes.”
If you make poor choices, you have not reason to complain about the consequences.
Jenn-You have a choice to vote against certain taxes, to move to not buy a home, to move to another country, to become a police officer and work to fosters whatever changes you believe to be necessary. Many people do not believe the crimes you classify “victimless crimes” are victimless, and these citizens appreciate the police presence. These citizens also recognize the need for force in dealing with criminals with a partiality to violence. These citizens also respect the fact that police officers have a right to go home to their families at the end of their shift.
@ “Rational” Citizen – Indeed I do have a choice, and so I go the moral route and “commit” voluntary interaction.
And I’m not complaining about the consequences for the choices I have made. I am complaining about cops who complain about not receiving a larger cut from extorted funds when, in fact, they make out like literal bandits from preying on their weaker (in the eyes of the “justice system”) employers.
And that’s what Jenn is doing… Effecting change through raising awareness of the thuggery of those who hide behind their thin blue line.
jnickpuglia – You are no innocent bystander. You are a criminal and complainer.
Obviously, you are not a victim of institutional racism, sexism or classism. You have choices that surpass those who struggle to live within the rules of a racially stratified society that routinely ignores the human rights of citizens based on their skin color, skin shade, ethnicity, gender and class. You ignore that there are groups that benefit from the legacy of race, class and gender discrimination in a white supremacist society. White males/females and preferred “model minorities” benefit from the institutional racism.
I support OPD, because OPD protects and serves citizens in areas that are targeted and victimized most often by violent crimes, as well as those living in the hills.
Anarchists do noting but exploit the community. They are not in touch with their own racism and sexism, and do not care about the people most impacted by all crime, including the white-collar crime that fosters institutional racism.
I support OPD and all the officers.
I SUPPORT OPD.
@ “Rational” Citizen — Well, we’re all occasionally criminals in the ludicrous, “malum prohibitum” sense. Ever seen the bookshelves in a lawyer’s office? A lot of stuff in there…
And, as you seem to be *very* good at… You are still missing the point.
What model minorities benefit from institutionalized racism? If you’re talking about Asians, you’re wrong. Affirmative action, a form of institutionalized racism, screws Asians more than white people.
You’re contention that if you made the choice, you can’t complain about the consequences does not make sense in many contexts. So did Jews who got beaten because they did not wear their gold stars in Nazi Germany did not have any right to complain because they made poor choices by breaking the law? Obviously not, because wrong is wrong. And if you really want to adhere rigidly to this idea, police should stop complaining because they knew exactly what they signed up for.
As for the “choice” to pay taxes – hmm, funny, so you’re telling me if I had voted I wouldn’t have to pay taxes right now? Oh that’s right, my vote is meaningless. A single person almost never makes a different in elections.
Cops that do not follow the laws in which they “enforce” are just thugs with a badge and a gun.
The majority of the local cops where I live, break traffic laws daily. They turn on their lights to pass red traffic lights and as soon as they have passed, turn them off. Emergency situation my ass. They make illegal turns all the time and do not even to bother to signal when changing lanes.
But when a citizen does the same, they get stopped?
All government is corrupt. Including the police. Until police start adhering to the laws that they enforce, my view will not change.
@RationalCitizen – cop.