U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-25-2017, 05:51 PM
 
1,489 posts, read 1,638,754 times
Reputation: 3222

Advertisements

Oakland’s newest ‘travesty’: Ex-cons overseeing cops

Quote:
The city of Oakland, California, is encouraging former convicts to apply for positions on the city’s new police oversight commission.

A notice posted on the city’s website advertising the open commission slots reads: “Must be an Oakland resident. Must be at least 18 years old. Formerly incarcerated individuals encouraged to apply.”

What’s more, the voter-approved measure that created the commission prohibits current and former Oakland police officers, as well as police union employees, from serving.
Ok let me get this straight, its ok to ban police officers, police union members and former police officers because they may be unfairly pro-police.

But they are not worried that ex-cons on the committee will be unfairly anti-police? In what loony toons world does this make sense?? I can completely understand them banning pro-police groups because of unfair positive sentiments; but then you have to have the same ban for the groups that have unfair negative sentiments.

Also, another article states that they will not even do background checks on anyone who applies because it would "discourage people with criminals records from applying." I thought that was the point of background checks. These checks ensure that someone with an extensive/serious criminal history does not get into an important position of power. But this rule also makes sense since this is happening in California. They would prefer to have a convicted serial rapist on the police oversight committee over a retired police officer.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-26-2017, 07:23 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
16,323 posts, read 18,273,689 times
Reputation: 14510
I guess for devil's advocate sake you're just balancing the one with the other. We already know OPD is biased, that it is incapable of regulating itself, and that Oakland is likewise incapable of overseeing OPD. I mean, you're talking about a police department that by its own in action condones officers passing around underage prostitutes and a city that has full knowledge of that practice and who figures that's just the boys being boys taking turns with underage prostitutes and not anything to rock the boat over.

So you take OPD/City of Oakland that it's acceptable behavior to rape underage girls on one hand (or are just so incompetent that when they know it's going on, which they did, don't have a mechanism for dealing with it in any way) and balance that out with the felons. Then somewhere you find the middle ground between the wolves that rape children and the felons.

Good lucking sorting out the mess that is Oakland and OPD. None of this ever really would have been public knowledge outside the City and OPD had one of the police officers not committed suicide so it's kind of shocking to most people that there's years of paper trail of officers passing around the underage prostitute and that the city knew about it and didn't lift a finger. It's not a few rogue officers on the sly. The city and OPD knew about it. It's not hard to imagine what other depravity OPD gets up to if it's okay to use your position of authority to get free sex with underage prostitutes.

Last edited by Malloric; 06-26-2017 at 07:32 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2017, 10:14 PM
 
785 posts, read 450,853 times
Reputation: 2068
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffon652 View Post
Oakland’s newest ‘travesty’: Ex-cons overseeing cops

Ok let me get this straight, its ok to ban police officers, police union members and former police officers because they may be unfairly pro-police.

But they are not worried that ex-cons on the committee will be unfairly anti-police? In what loony toons world does this make sense?? I can completely understand them banning pro-police groups because of unfair positive sentiments; but then you have to have the same ban for the groups that have unfair negative sentiments.

Also, another article states that they will not even do background checks on anyone who applies because it would "discourage people with criminals records from applying." I thought that was the point of background checks. These checks ensure that someone with an extensive/serious criminal history does not get into an important position of power. But this rule also makes sense since this is happening in California. They would prefer to have a convicted serial rapist on the police oversight committee over a retired police officer.
Hey man, if that's what the people of Oakland want, I say let them have it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 12:05 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
 
n/a posts
What, exactly, is the problem? Anyone on there has to be selected by a committee or the mayor and then be confirmed by the city council.

And why would there be cops on the police oversight committee? The whole point is to have something independent. The internal investigation system will still be in place.

If you're going to stuff the oversight committee with police officers, then what is the point? There's already a committee comprised of police officers.

This measure got something like 83% of the vote, mostly because reality and World Net Daily are, as usual, quite far apart from each other.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 04:21 AM
 
Location: Long Neck , DE
4,903 posts, read 3,428,893 times
Reputation: 8048
If it is an Oversite Commitee with no real power. Why not. But I do think both sides should be heard.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,045 posts, read 11,672,152 times
Reputation: 15769
Quote:
Originally Posted by longneckone View Post
If it is an Oversite Commitee with no real power. Why not. But I do think both sides should be heard.
Agreed. Oversight committees are government's classic response, along with delay, delay, delay.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 10:26 AM
 
2,276 posts, read 1,027,041 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffon652 View Post
Oakland’s newest ‘travesty’: Ex-cons overseeing cops

Ok let me get this straight, its ok to ban police officers, police union members and former police officers because they may be unfairly pro-police.

But they are not worried that ex-cons on the committee will be unfairly anti-police? In what loony toons world does this make sense?? I can completely understand them banning pro-police groups because of unfair positive sentiments; but then you have to have the same ban for the groups that have unfair negative sentiments.

Also, another article states that they will not even do background checks on anyone who applies because it would "discourage people with criminals records from applying." I thought that was the point of background checks. These checks ensure that someone with an extensive/serious criminal history does not get into an important position of power. But this rule also makes sense since this is happening in California. They would prefer to have a convicted serial rapist on the police oversight committee over a retired police officer.
If cops, retired or not are allowed to serve on the police oversight committee the whole thing becomes nothing more than a sick joke. A big part of the reason a police oversight committee is needed is that the current system of allowing cops to oversee themselves leads to systemic abuse and coverups. A cop is pretty much the last person to trust to conduct a fair and impartial investigation into the actions of another cop.

Maybe cops and their supporters should ask themselves why more than 80% of the voters in this area believe that ex-cons and felons are more trustworthy then the police.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 10:27 AM
 
Location: State of Transition
87,821 posts, read 81,562,175 times
Reputation: 91628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
I guess for devil's advocate sake you're just balancing the one with the other. We already know OPD is biased, that it is incapable of regulating itself, and that Oakland is likewise incapable of overseeing OPD. I mean, you're talking about a police department that by its own in action condones officers passing around underage prostitutes and a city that has full knowledge of that practice and who figures that's just the boys being boys taking turns with underage prostitutes and not anything to rock the boat over.
.
And you don't think that ex-cons wouldn't be happy to allow that to continue, for a, um..."small fee"? Or to take a cut of the action themselves? Ex-cons who are having trouble getting back into the workforce, and generating a steady income for themselves?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2017, 05:44 PM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
13,332 posts, read 7,103,541 times
Reputation: 10881
Let me throw out this point of view in that do we say "Now that you have served your sentence, we invite you to become one of the community again." .

OR

Do we hold the attitude of "Once a convict, always a convict! We will never have you back in society and will punish you to the end of your days.".
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2017, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
28,095 posts, read 32,269,432 times
Reputation: 28189
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffon652 View Post
Oakland’s newest ‘travesty’: Ex-cons overseeing cops

Ok let me get this straight, its ok to ban police officers, police union members and former police officers because they may be unfairly pro-police.

But they are not worried that ex-cons on the committee will be unfairly anti-police? In what loony toons world does this make sense?? I can completely understand them banning pro-police groups because of unfair positive sentiments; but then you have to have the same ban for the groups that have unfair negative sentiments.

Also, another article states that they will not even do background checks on anyone who applies because it would "discourage people with criminals records from applying." I thought that was the point of background checks. These checks ensure that someone with an extensive/serious criminal history does not get into an important position of power. But this rule also makes sense since this is happening in California. They would prefer to have a convicted serial rapist on the police oversight committee over a retired police officer.
If you are an ex-con that means you served your time and paid your debt to society. Why should you keep getting punished over and over again. You should be able to be a full fledge citizen of society.

Considering so many people end up being falsely charged, coerced into taking plea deals and are endlessly harassed by police officers - they'd offer a unique perspective on the oversight committee.

You should read up on the roots of OPD - in the 50s they recruited white southerns (who were generally racist) to deal with the influx of black people. And this irreparably shaped the culture of the force. It is about time to fix it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top