Oakland NAACP: "Failed Leadership, Including the Movement to Defund the Police, our District Attorney's

unwillingness to charge and prosecute people who murder and commit life threatening serious crimes, and the proliferation of anti-police rhetoric have created a heyday for Oakland criminals."

"If there are no consequences for committing crime in Oakland, crime will continue to soar." "We are 500 police officers short of the number that experts say Oakland needs. Our 911 system does not work. Residents now know that help will not come when danger confronts them. Worse, criminals know that too."

"There is nothing compassionate or progressive about allowing criminal behavior to fester and rob Oakland residents of their basic rights to public safety. It is not racist or unkind to want to be safe from crime. No one should live in fear in our city."

That is from what appears to be an authentic copy of the letter (which is signed by Oakland NAACP President Cynthia Adams and Bishop Bob Jackson of the Acts Full Gospel Church) as reproduced in a Tweet by former Oakland City Councilman Loren Taylor (who had narrowly lost the Mayoral race last year):

CBS News (Andrea Nakano) reports that a spokesperson at the office of the Oakland DA, Pamela Price, responded with this statement:

We are disappointed that a great African-American pastor and a great African-American organization would take a false narrative on such an important matter. We would expect more from Bishop Bob Jackson and the Oakland Chapter of the NAACP.

Comments

[Bored Lawyer]

Clearly a white supremacist organization.

[Don Nico]

Try being serious.
The Oakland DA should try that also.
I'm very glad that we are out of there, besides no longer living directly on an earthquake fault in a fire zone.

[Bored Lawyer]

sardonic -- disdainfully or skeptically humorous; derisively mocking

[Eugene Volokh]

Oddly, apparently etymologically connected with Sardinia.

[Caphon]

Laconic, sardonic.. someone should make a list!

[bernard11]

Isn't laconic connected with Sparta?

[I Callahan]

Remember when the Minneapolis councilwoman suggested that anyone who thought there should be no rioting was speaking from a place of “privilege”? That was seriously stupid.

So the comparison was apropos. And maybe you should also be more serious.

[ChrisC]

De-fund the police is the most unpopular political idea in the history of the world. Leftists figured if they could jam that down people's throats, anything was possible.

[Ed Grinberg]

jam that down people’s throats

https://www.startribune.com/some-on-minneapolis-city-council-want-to-skip-voters-to-create-department-of-public-safety/600145335/

[MikeFr]

You forgot letting "women" with full make equipment who "used to be" men use women's locker rooms with our daughters.

[Randal]

I suppose you prefer the new men with their newly hairy bods and brand new monster schlongs to be in the locker-rooms with your daughter.

Gross.

[Jerry B.]

When the NAACP says it’s time to put Black people in jail, it’s time to put Black people in jail.

[Bored Lawyer]

Actually, they want criminals put in jail.

Call me old fashioned. But my notion of equality is you enforce the law against people based on their actions, and if those actions violate the criminal code. Regardless of race.

[Bwaaah]

Yes, that's what I heard too. But I wouldn't call it "old fashioned." I'd call it "reasonable."

[Social Justice is neither]

But in Democrat Newspeak that is racist and anyone saying such is a white supremacist colonizer (not that any of that has meaning in the real world anymore).

[Ed Grinberg]

Sorry, pal, but, according to the woke doctrine, you're just a narrowminded reactionary impeding progress:

One of the slides describes a person who "struggle[s] to differentiate between equity and equality" and how this person believes "fair is equal."

The Fairness-Seeker: “Equal is Fair.”
Resistance from the Fairness-Seeker frequently reveals itself in the struggle to differentiate between equity and equality. They hold tightly to rules, policies, and procedures with little interest in flexibility, even when an inequity has been identified; redistribution of access and resources is difficult for them to understand.They believe fair means equal. Because the Fairness-Seeker idealizes equality it may be especially challenging for them to believe in systemic racism; a common refrain from white people engaging in this type of resistance is, “but I grew up poor!” A lack of experience with racial inequities makes them naive even if their intentions are good– the upside is they can become ardent equity supporters if you can redirect their definition of fairness from equal to equity.

Facilitation Strategies
Explicitly teach the difference between equality and equity as this may be a new concept or new vocabulary for them. One way to do this is to
Give an example scenario, policy, or practice in which most people would agree that equal is not fair and actually has unfair impacts based on people’s identities or circumstances.
Ask the group to share examples of scenarios, policies, or practices where equal is actually unfair.
Dilute the Fairness-Seeker’s voice with other voices in the room; asking others to explain equity (versus equality) or telling stories where equal was not fair can be especially poignant for the Fairness-Seeker

source: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/fairfax-trained-teachers-disregard-objections-equity-grading

[Sarcastr0]

The woke doctrine!

[Dr. Ed 2]

This will get interesting if Gavin Newsom replaces Biden as the Dem's candidate. I don't know what Trump as POTUS could do without Newsom's support, but there has got to be some way that the POTUS could bypass the Governor if the Mayor wanted help and cops.

[Magister]

Well, the federal goverment could sell or give the police departments a few tanks, HIMARS, laser guided missiles and some Claymore mines. What could go wrong?

[DewbieDewbieDoo]

"... and some Claymore mines. What could go wrong?"

They ignore the legend reading:

THIS SIDE OUT

[DonP]

Would it be rude to point out that the citizens of Oakland (insert any Deep Blue City here) are pretty much getting exactly what they voted for when they checked the "D" box for the past decade oir more?

[Sarcastr0]

Nah it’d be bullshit. Just the usual law and order attacks with a bit of victim blaming and collective punishment because the right is more spiteful these days than the last time this nonsense went around.

[bevis the lumberjack]

How is “the right” even involved in this? Are you saying that the government of Oakland is the right or the NAACP? Put the bogeyman back in the closet and talk about what is actually happening.

He only missed by a smidge. Cities with mainstreamish Ds in charge are muddling along. Cities with progressives in charge are collapsing. They’ve fucked up San Francisco worse than Oakland, but at least they got that slaver Abraham Lincoln’s name taken off a school.

There are no fingerprints of the right here at all.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Yes he's saying it's the right's fault that the voters of Oakland got exactly what the ballot harvesters voted for.

[Don Nico]

S_O,
It is precisely what my neighbors voted for time and time again. You call it bullshit from your bubble. But you do not live in Oaktown and you should squelch your political BS.

[Sarcastr0]

Your neighbors voted for crime? Huh, seems weird. Or maybe they voted for something you're sure brings crime and they disagree. That makes more sense.

you do not live in Oaktown and you should squelch your political BS.
I've lived in Cali; I know Oakland's longstanding reputation well before today.
Populist tough on crime bullshit sounds the same the country over. Because it's not about policies or local issues, it's just another national partisan cudgel.

[Ed Grinberg]

When you vote for people who promise to go easy on criminals, "defund the police," etc. -- you're most definitely "vot[ing] for crime." (Whether you're deluded or ill-intentioned makes little practical difference.)

[Kazinski]

What's the right got to do with anything in Oakland?

I have to say I have spent a fair amount of time in Oakland, in fact I was born there. But Oakland is totally on Oakland, unless you want to blame Jerry Brown who was somewhat of a carpetbagger moving to Oakland to be Mayor, after 8 years of that was CA AG for 8 years, then Governor again for 8.

And now Oakland is worse off than it ever was. I'm not really blaming him, but he certainly didn't help at all.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Citizens of Oakland, like in practically any major city, want stricter gun control, but they can't have it.

[I Callahan]

Which would do absolutely nothing in Oakland’s case, since California has some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the first place. And that’s not working.

Can we put this tired old shibboleth to bed already?

[Dan Schiavetta]

You must know that state gun restrictions are practically useless, since it’s so easy to transport them across state lines. Meaningful gun control can only be federal.

Yet you said this anyway.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You must know that people that are inclined to shoot people aren’t going to be deterred by a law telling them that they can’t have a gun. Yet you said this anyway.

[Randal]

They will be deterred by the lack of availability and/or cost of guns. They’ll also be deterred by being charged with gun crimes.

How are you this stupid? It's like saying "might as well make murder legal, murderers are gonna murder either way!"

[I Callahan]

No, they won’t. They’ll form their own illegal market for guns and bring them into the country. The southern border is wide open - it’d be a cakewalk and that would keep the prices low.

[Sarcastr0]

So this is literally the 'might as well make murder legal' argument Randal said bevis was making. Did you just step on the exact same rake?

[bevis the lumberjack]

No, it’s the “it won’t have any impact”argument. I mean, a lot of these shootings are related to drug transactions. Maybe we should make selling drug transactions illegal too so as to discourage more shootings. Should work, right?

There’s also an “oh, that pesky second amendment” argument as well.

Nobody is talking about making murder legal, but you know that and decided to make a specious argument anyway because you don’t have a sensible one.

[Randal]

But we did make drug transactions illegal, and it definitely had an impact. Making things illegal always has an impact. Why do you think guns are like the one place where illegality would have no impact? It's literally insane.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I was being sarcastic. After 50 years of drug war the amount of drugs on the street is as high as it ever was. I don’t know how you say it worked.

[Randal]

I didn’t say it “worked.” I said it had an impact. Obviously, making things illegal doesn’t make them go away entirely.

You said that making guns illegal “won't have any impact” which is retarded.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What impact? A whole bunch of dead guys. A whole bunch of black guys in prison.

No impact at all on drug usage or drug activity. Well, not no impact. It made it very lucrative.

Gun bans, assuming you can even do one consistent with the 2A (which is really unlikely) won’t have an impact either.

[Randal]

No impact at all on drug usage or drug activity.

That's just a straight lie that you made up.

I agree with you that it's a bad policy on the whole -- illegal drugs and illegal guns. But it's just dumb to say that there's no impact. There's a lot of impact. It's just not worth the downsides.

[I Callahan]

Yes, I did. Just like cocaine, fentanyl, etc. If there’s a market for it, laws on the books aren’t going to stop criminals from getting guns.

[Sarcastr0]

Laws are well demonstrated to deter behavior, actually. Maybe not completely, but they sure do have an effect.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Prohibition and the drug laws certainly had that impact, didn’t they?

[Randal]

Alcohol consumption dropped in half-ish during prohibition.

And I don't know if you live somewhere that has legalized marijuana, but use went very noticably up, especially among grandparents! All the retirees are constantly stoned now.

So yeah, like drug laws and prohibition.

[Toranth]

Oh, is that why gun crime rates are the same everywhere in the country? Every urban are alike, every rural area the same...

Or, since that is trivially false, maybe it's something else. Even before the fact that you can't actually buy out-of-state guns without a local FFL.

And since you're showing off your gun control knowledge, you must know about the federal data on criminal's sources for guns, right? Want to tell us how many criminals obtained their guns legally?

[bevis the lumberjack]

If the rules change I’m sure criminals won’t adapt to keep doing what they’re doing, right?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If that were so obvious and true, why do all these bkue states waste their time passing so many laws?

[Bwaaah]

Yeah. That's why crime is surging in Oakland, and so many cities around the country. It's the guns.

(Just keep talking.)

[I Callahan]

Yup. There were lots of guns 30 years ago, yet not as much gun crime. I wonder how these people square that.

[Don Nico]

What they want is more police, more criminals apprehended and a DA who gets up off his ass and prosecutes.

[Ed Grinberg]

You mean like severe (even draconian!) punishment of ineligible persons carrying guns, and persons who commit crimes using guns? No? I didn't think so. How strange...

[Kazinski]

Now we come back to what progressives really think: Black People can't be trusted with guns.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Watching this discussion, knowing the rest of the world has strict gun control and a lot less gun violence, has been strange.

[Harvey Mosley]

California has the strictest gun control in the nation. Oakland's crime is some of the worst in the nation. If gun control was the answer that wouldn't be the case.

[Michael P]

Does Pamela Price really have no more substantive response than that? Is she too busy letting criminals run free to respond to criticism?

[TangoDelta]

Oakland simply got the government it voted for. Hopefully they can fix it with a recall as it seems they already have 30% of the signatures needed to force a recall.

Then again, it's unlikely given the registrar looks to be equally as incompetent (complicit?) as the DA.

[SomeGuy 2]

It's really the non-criminals in crime-infested areas that suffer the most from politicians being soft on crime. It's relatively privileged people who dislike justice because it's inconvenient for criminals. I hope Oakland gets the change it needs. It's going to mean a lot of predators living out the rest of their days in cages.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol eat shit Democrats

[Ed Grinberg]

I know this is a horrible sentiment. But I can't help but share it to some extent. I do not understand how people can vote in and continually reelect soft-on-crime politicians / judges / prosecutors. You live there. You can see the results. What the hell is wrong with you?!

[SomeGuy 2]

Keep in mind that the criminals who were never prosecuted get to vote too. A soft on crime prosecutor automatically starts a few points ahead because he monopolizes the habitual criminal vote, because of course they're delighted to vote themselves leniency-- in a criminal infested city, an anti-crime prosecutor therefore has to do really well with the non-habitual criminal population to win.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Some people are idealistic enough that they believe it’s possible to pursue a policy of putting criminals behind bars *and* to include criminal cops among those going to prison under such a policy.

Holding both ideas in your head isn't contradictory; it just means you can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Ed Grinberg]

criminal cops

Derek Chauvin did nothing wrong. He was trying to do his job, i.e., "putting criminals behind bars." Any force he used against criminal Mr. Floyd was necessitated by Mr. Floyd's resistance to lawful arrest.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I said "criminal cops" and you mention Chauvin?

It seems you're making the connection, not I.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And people wonder why there are Blacks supporting Trump.

His message is simple - you voted Democrat for 60 years, and look what it's gotten you...

[Sarcastr0]

there are Blacks supporting Trump
He says that a lot, but his support is not notably higher than other GOP candidates.
Hard to see the idea that blacks might think they're in better hands with the party of low black IQ, the Confederacy, slavery being a net benefit, those feral predators getting what's coming to them...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

. . . The party of the Volokh Conspiracy . . .

[Ed Grinberg]

I suggest you reread the letter. They explicitly want "those feral predators [to] get[] what’s coming to them." And I doubt they're Republicans. (But who knows, maybe given enough time watching the bodies pile up, they'll reconsider their party affiliation...)

[Kazinski]

Here is one Black man who makes a lot of sense in laying out a case for voting for Trump:
https://twitter.com/Yolo304741/status/1685474755804053504?t=Fq8KHGU2Hxvpys2xrLQkiQ&s=19

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing says legit like a twitter account of the form name-bunchanumbers.

[DewbieDewbieDoo]

"Nothing says legit like a..."

Nothing says "I'm not going to listen to information I don't like" like issuing nothing more than an ad hominem reply.

[Mitch]

Slavery being a "net benefit"? Citation, please.

[Sarcastr0]

Slavery brought them from Africa, which I am assured is a shithole. Matt Walsh has made that argument. Just do a search for 'should be grateful for slavery' and you get a whole bunch.

[bernard11]

you voted Democrat for 60 years, and look what it’s gotten you…

Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act.

What is the GOP offering?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Now you’re doing what the idiots do when they say thst Democrats are the party of slavery. Try to focus on this century. Today’s Democrats are not your grandparents Democrats.

[Ed Grinberg]

Yeah, they can now eat at Woolworth's lunch counter . . . assuming someone doesn't rob (and, for good measure, shoot) them on the way to lunch.

[Kazinski]

Both the Civil Rights Act of 64 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 got more support from Republicans that it did from Democrats.

In fact Robert Byrd led a 72 day filibuster against the Civil Rights Act, joined by Al Gore Sr. Republicans voted for it 27-6.

Republican Senators voted for the Voting Rights Act 30-2.

So no, I'd say it's completely false to credit Democrats for either Act, it was a bipartisan effort of Northern Senators, there was only one GOP Senator at the time, and the opposition was overwhelmingly Democratic.

[Kazinski]

One Southern GOP Senator that is.

And while we are on the subject it was Democratic President, Woodrow Wilson, that re-segregated the Civil Service, and reversed the progress that two Republicans, Teddy Roosevelt and William Taft made in opening up the civil service to Blacks.

[Sarcastr0]

Nixon would have never.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Imagine a whole state transmogrifying into one big Detroit.

That’s what a generation of Democrat rule gets you. The only chance of hope for CA now is that the leadership is still mostly White.

[Ed Grinberg]

The only chance of hope for CA now is that the leadership is still mostly White.

According to Dennis Prager, it's rich white people, not poor black people, who want to "defund the police," etc.

[Kazinski]

Hah, Malcolm X explained years ago why California being run by White Liberals totally screws over Blacks:
"The White liberal is the worst enemy to America and the worst enemy to the Black man. Let me first explain what I mean by this White liberal. In America there’s no such thing as Democrats and Republicans anymore. That’s antiquated. In America you have liberals and conservatives. This is what the American political structure boils down to among Whites. ... Now the White liberals aren’t White people who are for independence, who are liberal, who are moral, who are ethical in their thinking, they are just a faction of White people who are jockeying for power the same as the White conservatives are a faction of White people who are jockeying for power. Now they are fighting each other for booty, for power, for prestige and the one who is the football in the game is the Negro. Twenty million Black people in this country are a political football, a political pawn an economic football, an economic pawn, a social football, a social pawn."

[Sarcastr0]

Is your vision of America Malcom X's vision of America? Weird thing for you to quote as truth.

Or are you just throwing racial shit at the wall to deflect from where all the open racists are these days?

[Toranth]

Do you ever have an argument other than accusing people of being racist?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today is Black Crime Day at the Volokh Conspiracy.

The other day was Transgender Day.

The day before that was Racial Slurs Day.

Tomorrow may be Muslim Day, or Drag Queen Day, or perhaps Racial Slurs Day again.

#Predictable

[Ed Grinberg]

We are disappointed that a great African-American pastor and a great African-American organization would take a false narrative on such an important matter. We would expect more from Bishop Bob Jackson and the Oakland Chapter of the NAACP.

Well, at least they didn't accuse them of racism!