• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

CRIMINAL'S DELIGHT: OAKLAND [CA] COPS WON'T RESPOND TO 'MINOR' CRIMES. H/T Drudge

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loca...s-in-Oakland-Dont-Call-the-Cops-98266509.html

Excerpt said:
news local-beat
Suffer These Crimes in Oakland? Don't Call the Cops
Dozens of layoffs effective at midnight, barring last minute deal
By LORI PREUITT and KRIS SANCHEZ
Updated 6:28 AM PDT, Tue, Jul 13, 2010

Print Share

Oakland's police chief is making some dire claims about what his force will and will not respond to if planned layoffs happen tonight at midnight.

Chief Anthony Batts listed exactly 44 situations that his officers no longer respond to and they include grand theft, burglary, vehicle collision, 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.

Here's a partial list:

* burglary
* theft
* embezzlement
* grand theft
* grand theft:dog
* identity theft
* false information to peace officer
* required to register as sex or arson offender
* dump waste or offensive matter
* discard appliance with lock
* loud music
* possess forged notes
* pass fictitious check
* obtain money by false voucher
* fraudulent use of access cards
* stolen license plate
* embezzlement by an employee (over $ 400)
* extortion
* attempted extortion
* false personification of other
* injure telephone/ power line
* interfere with power line
* unauthorized cable tv connection
* vandalism
* administer/expose poison to another's
Click to expand...
 
S

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
Pretty sure he doesn't have the option of responding or not. It's his damn job. He is lawfully required to investigate a crime after it has occurred. I absolutely hate when people use scare tactics like this.
 
Deanimator

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
simmonsjoe said:
Pretty sure he doesn't have the option of responding or not. It's his damn job. He is lawfully required to investigate a crime after it has occurred. I absolutely hate when people use scare tactics like this.
Click to expand...
Subject to conditions of his employment, he could be fired, if anybody with the power cared.

Other than that, he's completely immune.

Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.

Oakland is just one more part of a mass of irrefutable evidence that if you're not willing and able to protect YOURSELF, you're simply not going to get protected AT ALL.
 
AZkopper

AZkopper

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
675
Location
Prescott, Arizona, USA
This is just posturinig on both sides. The fact that the chief is giving a 'list' of calls they won't respond to shows he is trying to scare people in to siding with him against the city.
 
S

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
Pay Attention.

Deanimator said:
Subject to conditions of his employment, he could be fired, if anybody with the power cared.

Other than that, he's completely immune.

Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.

Oakland is just one more part of a mass of irrefutable evidence that if you're not willing and able to protect YOURSELF, you're simply not going to get protected AT ALL.
Click to expand...
We aren't talking about protecting individuals. They DO HAVE A LEGAL DUTY TO INVESTIGATE A CRIME AFTER IT HAS OCCURRED.

Lets stay on topic.
 
Last edited:
XD-GEM

XD-GEM

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
722
Location
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
simmonsjoe said:
Wow your thick. Pay attention. We aren't talking about protecting individuals. They DO HAVE A LEGAL DUTY TO INVESTIGAVTE A CRIME AFTER IT HAS OCCURRED.

STAY ON TOPIC.
Click to expand...

True, but apparently the chief has some leeway in deciding HOW to investigate, and it doesn't have to make sense. Like the old vaudville joke:

What you doin' on the roof?

Looking for a quarter I lost.

Where did you lose it?

In the basement.

Why are you looking for it on the roof?

The light's better.
 
S

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
XD-GEM said:
True, but apparently the chief has some leeway in deciding HOW to investigate, and it doesn't have to make sense. Like the old vaudville joke:

What you doin' on the roof?

Looking for a quarter I lost.

Where did you lose it?

In the basement.

Why are you looking for it on the roof?

The light's better.
Click to expand...
Interesting concept... I guess he could choose to do his job so poorly he 'in effect' isn't doing it.

That reeks so bad if true. It is very childish, not something you expect from a Sheriff.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top