Yes, Oakland is STILL F-ing Dangerous (or, Thank Goodness for McDonald v. City of Chicago?)
A while back I wrote a post entitled "Oakland is F-ing Dangerous." I was responding to what I felt was a disingenuous and rather slimy column by the Oakland Tribune's editorial board, which was in turn responding to a Boalt Hall administrator's claim that Oakland may be a few things other than "vibrant" and "thriving." Not everyone agreed with me; in the comments I was accused of being privileged and of being insensitive and of making unfair generalizations about an entire city.
Well, I'm sticking to my guns:1 Oakland is f-ing dangerous. Sure, the people most at risk of violence are undoubtedly from the poor, the Footlocker employees, and the Korean grocery store owners. But starting this month I think it is safe to say that things just got a whole lot worse for everyone. Why? The SF Chronicle is reporting that after laying off 80 police officers, the Oakland police department will no longer be able respond to, or investigate, nonviolent crimes.2 "Nonviolent crimes" include, among other things:
- Theft
- Vandalism
- Vehicle burglary
- Residential burglary
- Identity theft
- Restraining order violations
- Court order violations
- Runaways
In other words, the City of Oakland now takes home burglary exactly as seriously as the City of Berkeley takes pot smoking on Telegraph Avenue. Arguably that has been Oakland's policy for quite some time, but now it is official: if you call the police because your ex-husband is violating his restraining order, you will be directed to fill out an online form. Ditto a report of a home burglary, or vehicle theft. Or for that matter, theft of your computer: report that online, too.
To put it a third way, if you are interested in violating a restraining order, robbing a home, or stealing a car, go to Oakland. It's open season.
______________________
1 Figuratively, or literally?
2 Note that to learn about this new official policy, an Oakland resident must cross the bay and read San Francisco's newspaper. The Oakland Tribune hasn't a blip about this new policy change, probably because it calls into question the city's "vibrance."
posted by Patrick Bageant at 11:17 AM
24 Comments:
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I saw a story about this in the oakland tribune print addition a few days back.
Also, it really doesn't seem like front page news that the police won't write down my property theft crime and then not investigate instead of coming to me at my home and writing it down for me and then not investigate it. Its not like Oakland has all of a sudden said categorically that they are not going to investigate any nonviolent-crimes, they just won't commit resources they don't have to investigating crimes that are unlikely to be solved. Im pretty sure that is the policy in any police department.
Don't get me wrong, Oakland needs police and more resources, but its not as if I feel any less safe in oakland today than I did yesterday (which, FWIW, is only a little less safe than I felt living in Chicago, a recent murder capitol of the US I hear).
So, I hung out in Fruitvale last night, and there was a big party going on at this bar nextdoor. When I showed up, the cops were trying to break it up by driving slowly up and down the street saying "time to go home, folks." My liberal sensibilities were offended by this, as I couldn't imagine what it would be like to live in an area where the police harass you, apparently without provocation, whenever you stay out past midnight.
About a half an hour after I had this indignant reaction, I heard the unmistakable POP POP POP POP of gunfire being exchanged. Everyone was running away from the party, and those of us in the house next door had to hide in a room away from the windows. No one actually got shot (to my knowledge), but we came outside later to find ten or twelve shell casings in two different locations (meaning people were actually shooting AT each other).
The cops came by, but as soon as they realized no one had actually been shot, they moved on.
So yes, as much as I want to disagree with you, Oakland is fucking dangerous.
Then again, almost this exact same thing happened a year or so ago outside the Gaia Arts center in Berkeley. That time, I was coming out of a movie theater and, along with a few hundred other people, had to run back in to hide until the shots stopped. Hey, maybe it's me?
The cops leaving last night might have something to do with the 15 minute gun battle police were engaged in on the 580, which is still shutdown by Harrison street and the grand lake ave. exit this morning.
I wonder if this was violent enough for Oakland police to respond, or if the CHP had to be called after an online report?
http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_15541598
http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=94477
Nice a Boatlie has been nominated to the 7th Circuit..nice to get some judges outside of the 9th.
Then again, almost this exact same thing happened a year or so ago outside the Gaia Arts center in Berkeley. That time, I was coming out of a movie theater and, along with a few hundred other people, had to run back in to hide until the shots stopped. Hey, maybe it's me?
He hates these cans! Stay away from the cans!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/19/BAJJ1EGJ04.DTL&tsp=1
I agree with you, Patrick.
But wait! There is more! Click now and you can get two, that's right, TWO, officer involved roadside shootings in the span of 24 hours!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/19/BAJJ1EGJOU.DTL
On Sunday, my wife and I decided to check out a few Oakland neighborhoods. We are trying to decide where to live next year (I'll be working in SF). We got diverted off 580 by CHP due to the gun battle and bomb scare. Yes, on our way to decide whether to live in Oakland or not.
I've lived in Oakland for over two years and never felt directly unsafe or threatened. Meanwhile, I spent a few days in LA recently and was both followed home creepily and heard gunshots (separate occasions). This was in a trendy part of LA too. I guess that means LA is f-ing dangerous and the entire city should be completely written off.
9:27, the notorious Los Angeles criminal mastermind Lindsey Lohan is now behind bars. You're more than welcome to travel from the safety and comfort of Oakland to war-torn Los Angeles once again.
9:27 here.
Thanks for the info, Armen. I do feel safer now.
Also, just one nitpicky (but important) note: the guy who shot at the cops on 580 is from Groveland, which is a tiny little mountain town right next to Yosemite. He was driving west on 580 toward.. Berkeley? Marin? He started shooting at cops after he happened to be pulled over on a part of the freeway that happened to be in Oakland. I dont' think that gets to count in the "Oakland is dangerous" column.
Maybe not, but I think all of these do:
http://www.sfgate.com/maps/oaklandhomicides/
But no, Oakland is really safe.
did anyone see this?
http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_15559695
I've lived in Oakland for over two years and never felt directly unsafe or threatened. Meanwhile, I spent a few days in LA recently and was both followed home creepily and heard gunshots (separate occasions). This was in a trendy part of LA too. I guess that means LA is f-ing dangerous and the entire city should be completely written off.
Both you and Patrick posit that LA and Oakland, respectively, are dangerous. Your basis: anecdotes that may or may not indicate criminal behavior. Patrick's evidence: homicide statistics, Oakland's decision to stop investigating "nonviolent" crimes, and multiple gunbattles occuring over the same weekend.
I think you've got to put a little more on the table before you can make your sarcastic little point.
Reactionary BS from N&B as usual.
Parts of Oakland are quite dangerous. Many parts are not. If you compare LA's most dangerous neighborhood with Oakland's, LA has a higher number of murders. Unsure about the pop. density of Compton compared to the dangerous parts of Oakland.
Parts of Oakland ARE vibrant and thriving. Patrick, you are acting as if you're privileged and you are making generalizations about an entire city. It is unfortunate that OPD has had to make cuts. Why didn't you focus on that aspect instead of using it to proclaim: OAKLAND IS DANGEROUS! BEWARE! Why not use your voice to ask for more police/fire services and suggest ways to fix the problem instead of simply pronouncing it "open season" in Oakland?
If 9:43 wasn't meant to be an ironic caricature of the far far left, we'd have to invent one.
3:20- Ad hominem fail.
9:43,
Amazing how you can be so condescendingly anti-generlization, but begin with this kickoff: "Reactionary BS from N&B as usual."
Whether an asshole, idiot, ironic caricature of the far left, or all three, I'm sure of one thing. People like you disgust me.
Boohoo 5:52. Read the blog, it's reactionary. I'm sure I "disgust you." Now go kiss some more ass.
The first definition of reactionary on Google is "extreme conservative."
That's Nuts & Boalts? Huh?
The problem with what we might define as 7:19's "radical preening" is that it descends into gibberish based on his or her own definitions. If a center-left blog is "extremely conservative," what is a slightly more centrist outlet, like the New Republic? Super-duper extremely conservative? Reactionary plus five?
I guess that makes Susan Collins a reactionary....what....cubed? And Lindsay Graham is a double-secret probationary reactionary extremist times a bazillion?
I shudder to think how many adjectives 7:19 would need to adequately capture the politics of Glenn Beck.
One of the funniest things anyone wrote about the Lebron announcement on ESPN -- after he spoke just utter drivel for ten minutes -- was that Lebron "doesn't seem to understand that words have meanings."
The same goes for 7:19. Which is OK, I guess. But if you don't have a $100 million Nike contract in your back pocket, can I ask how the fuck you got into, or continue to not flunk out of, law school?
Reactionary: of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, esp. extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.
The positions on this blog are frequently reactionary. Using reading comprehension, one would observe that in this definition "found on google" that the definition includes any person or thought "marked by reaction" and then goes on to emphasize that the definition applies especially strongly to the extreme right. Patrick's post, by definition, is reactionary. It has nothing proactive to say and is just the same boring center-right drivel about how "dangerous" someplace is.
1. Arguing that some parts of Oakland are less dangerous than others doesn't refute the statement that Oakland is dangerous overall. And the whole point of Susan Bluss's article was that the violence and crime throughout Oakland is relentless, even if you live near Piedmont Avenue or another of Oakland's "safer" areas.
2. When N&B is accused of being reactionary, it's usually in the context of some ossified, knee-jerk liberal reactionaryism itself. "Oh dear! Pointing out that Oakland has a crime and violence problem besmears Oakland's vibrancy and diversity! I must deny, deny, deny at all costs!"
Post a Comment
<< Home