This is how the San Francisco Chronicle attempts to influence public opinion by confusing the public: In an article this morning on an attempted rape and robbery in Oakland, the reporter refers to “debate over whether to increase policing or focus on restoring lapsed community programs…in majority non-white areas.”
Is the reporter’s implication that, if the City Council defunds OPD and transfers the money to shadowy “community programs,” the victim of the attempted rape and robbery would have been safe? That’s nonsense, of course, because common sense tells us that increasing the number of police, including foot patrols, detectives and technical personnel, would have a real impact on the level of crime in Oakland.
So let us dispose of the myth that hiring more cops will not reduce crime, which the anti-police crowd trots out all the time.
We get angry comments from readers who are upset by our demand to increase OPD’s budget. In Chief Armstrong’s estimation, which we agree with, Oakland needs between 1,100 and 1,200 sworn police officers to effectively protect a city of our population, geographic spread and crime level. The current number of officers at OPD was 765, last I checked.
Yet every time we ask for an increase in the number of cops, somebody writes in to complain. Here’s the latest example:
“More police will NOT stop crime. Maybe if they were all under cover not in uniform that might work. Police CANNOT stop crime. They can ONLY arrest those that commit crimes after the fact…Police forces all across America are losing officers. So in that vain [sic] FORGET about 1200 officers. Let alone 800 in Oakland.”
Lots to unpack here. First and most obvious is that no one ever said that “More police will stop crime.” That’s like saying that more firefighters will stop fires. What we are saying is that more police will diminish and help to fight crime. There will obviously continue to be crime, even if Oakland had 1,500 cops, because there will always be badly brought-up sociopaths who like breaking the law. So the commenter is correct, police cannot stop crime. But that is not an excuse for not hiring more cops.
Let’s apply a little logic here. Thought experiment: If Oakland had zero cops, crime would obviously explode, and our city would be unlivable. Nobody would dare to walk the streets; everyone and every store and home would be a target. I would hope we can agree on this simple premise.
On the other hand, if Oakland had 100,000 cops, undoubtedly the level of crime would drop dramatically. That should be obvious to any rational person. At the same time, we’re not going to ever have 100,000 cops. If you analyze this correctly, you’ll realize that the more cops Oakland has, the fewer crimes will be committed.
(Of course, we also need tougher D.A.s and judges, but that’s a whole different discussion.)
It’s also true, as the commenter notes, that police forces across the country are losing officers. But let’s ask ourselves why. From my experience in Oakland, there are a couple of reasons. First, cops are constantly attacked—by the media, by unscrupulous ambulance-chasing lawyers, by the crazies on the City Council, by scoundrels like Cat Brooks, and, sadly, often by the very people they’re trying to protect, who so frequently spit at them and give them the finger. All this is in addition to the inherent dangers of being a cop in a crime-ridden place like Oakland. Our cops are often prevented from doing their jobs for fear of being sued or fired or both. They feel that management doesn’t have their backs. Oakland is a hard place to be a cop.
But we can repair these challenges to being a cop. We can replace the cop haters on the City Council, starting with Fife, Kaplan, Thao and Bas. We can elect a Mayor—not Thao!—who will actually defend the police instead of sitting placidly in her office. We can tell people like Cat Brooks to go to hell, and whenever a John Burris shows up to sue a cop, we can say, “See in in court.” We fought back against the insidious Negotiated Security Agreement so that its end finally is in sight, and if Orrick doesn’t call off his dogs by next year, we can tell him to go to hell, too. We can develop a culture within the city of Oakland that respects cops. These things are what normal cities do, and we can begin to normalize Oakland this November when we cast our ballots for sanity.
As for the precise number of cops OPD needs, Seneca Scott has called for 900. That should be our minimum aspiration. When your house is on fire, you don’t negotiate the price of a water hose; you pay whatever is required and worry about the bill later.
So, to the anti-cop commenter, I say, with all due respect, stop with the lectures. You’re just shouting propaganda through your keyboard, and not advancing any solid facts to advance your cause. Oakland needs a lot more cops, and we’re going to get them, because the people finally realize the truth, thank God!
Steve Heimoff