See no evil. Hear no evil. But, hey, send us an online report.

Suffer These Crimes in Oakland? Don’t Call the Cops

[Oakland, CA Police] Chief Anthony Batts listed exactly 44 situations that his officers will no longer respond to and they include grand theft, burglary, car wrecks, identity theft and vandalism. He says if you live and Oakland and one of the above happens to you, you need to let police know on-line.

Other crimes where Oakland Police are saying “don’t call us, we’ll call you” include:

  • possession of forged notes [I think that means counterfeit currency]
  • pass fictitious check
  • obtain money by false voucher
  • fraudulent use of access cards

And two items that just had to be on the list of crimes to which Oakland Police will not respond:

  • extortion
  • attempted extortion

That last makes eminent sense, since it would be unseemly for Oakland police to suppress attempted extortion, when they are collaborating with the City government to practice it. 

So, to all the Progressives out there who natter incessantly, “Well, do those small government tea party fools want to go without police protection?”: You’re trumped. When the taxpayer suffers significant economic reverses, police and fire protection are among the first services to be threatened by the adminocrat/union axis:

The sticking point in negotiations appears to be job security. The city council asked OPD officers to pay nine percent of their salary toward their pensions, which would save the city about $7.8 million toward a multi-million dollar deficit. The police union agreed, as long as the city could promise no layoffs for three years.

What do you bet those are ‘defined benefit’ and not ‘defined contribution’ pensions? I’ll give even odds that the pensions, as currently constituted, pay 75% of highest (or last) salary and do so for life after 30 years service.  I’ll bet the retirees also have high-quality health insurance coverage, and that it costs them little to nothing.


Oakland residents can hope that they will not experience any of the recent unrest going forward, because:

Most of the officers who will be affected by the layoffs were on the streets of Oakland when Johannes Mehserle’s involuntary manslaughter conviction caused riots last Thursday.

And they won’t be next time because they couldn’t get 3 year employment guarantees.  Oh well, if they didn’t get such guarantees in exchange for contributing a piddling amount to pensions compared to private sector employees, in order to obtain superb benefits unavailable to private sector employees, then I guess they’ll just have to find happiness in not being on the streets during the next riot.

Locally, there is a parallel:  Ingham County is threatening to withdraw rural police patrols unless rural residents vote to pay more taxes specifically for the Ingham County Sheriff’s Department. County Comissioners seem to be saying, “The contract is up, and we are raising our prices for policing, for rural residents only.”  There has been no cogent explanation of how this essential service came to be on the chopping block compared to other services “offered” by the County.  There’s been no suggestion of an across the board cut in spending, for example.  That suggestion failed to materialize even while part-time employees of the County Road Commission continue to have Cadillac health insurance benefits and a few County employees recently received 20% raises.  Match that in the private sector.

I wonder just what what part of “County” the Ingham County Commissioners fail to grasp? What is the point of the Ingham County Sheriff’s Department if it does not patrol the County, and where is my tax cut when the County ceases to provide services for which I contracted? 

Apparently, my savings are in the Commissioners concession to forgo raising my taxes if I give up the service.  I don’t like their attitude, so the question of replacing the ICSD in toto should be on our ballot.  Ingham County can submit a bid.

When local governments ante up on the protection racket, it increasingly seems you’d be better off on your own.

Police states

Police and courts in Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are conspiring to prohibit videotaping of police officers publicly performing their official duties. The intent is to stop citizens from documenting official police behavior under any and all circumstances.

It is incompatible with a free society for police officers to even expect privacy in the conduct of their official duties while on public property, much less to have courts explicitly grant that privilege. It is an outrage that simply recording the public conduct of public officials can attract a felony charge. All that is equally true for private property when the person doing the recording has permission to be there.

It is common for corporations to insist that their employees can have no expectation of privacy while using company equipment, for example, to send email. Some public officials in Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland seem to have forgotten by whom they are employed.

One must wonder how much jail time these states would have given to those who videotaped the beating of Rodney King.