Alright. This is where I stop bitching about the evenhahdedness of Oakland Locals' coverage. This, above, is a real news piece, and it's pretty damned accurate.

I've long held that Mike Siegel and company have been putting too much effort into the politics of this issue, and not enough into being good lawyers.  It looks like that's where this is continuing to go.

Watch the Judge. I think it's worth reporting if he gets frustrated with the professionalism of either side.

People are quick to judge It would be great if both sides of this story were read. This article mentions that Javier was charged with firearms for this so called shed. these charges were dropped obviously it was not his house he cannot control what is in someone else's house nor was he in there when they found these things. He was not convicted to this. I dont understand why people have sucj a hard time giving someone else a second chance, after all i dont know anyone in this world who is close to perfect do you? If these people are really tring to better themselves im all for it. Alot of people have not seen the police brutality going on I for one have. 

Esmerelda, i understand that this is an emotional issue for many people. However, the article didnt state that Javier was convicted of the offense. It also mentioned his complaints about the Gang Task Force operating beyond what they are legally allowed to do, when conducting searches. There was no mention in court of any other police brutality incidents involving Javier.

in general, when reporting on courtroom issues, reporters rely on court testimony. i dont have access to case files, as the prosecution and defense do. also, it is up to the defense attorneys to make sure the "other side" of the story is heard.

in any event, the facts are that in 2008, a convicted felon on parole was found by police in the vicinity of a drugs and weapons cache in gang territory. it's not up to you or me, but to the judge to decide whether the subsequent fact that Javier has stayed out of trouble in the three years since is sufficient proof that he is not a current gang member and should not be included in the injunction.

as for a second chance, i believe there is an Opt-Out option in the gang injunctions--named individuals can petition to be removed if they are no longer associated. Unfortunately, the link to this on the City Attorney's website is broken, and i couldn't find any other specific information as to how this process actually works.

finally, i would just like to add that there are larger political and social issues at play here -- which don't fall under a strict legal purview and may be outside of what the court can or cannot rule on. These issues need to be debated in the appropriate forum, such as the City Council. Voicing your first-hand experiences with police brutality there would probably be more effective than commenting on a website.

This is crazy... since the area has been targeted I don't feel safe going to my mother house...

It come more from the offices then the actuall people that live there., I grow up in that area and it was never like that... what people don't understand is that who ever is doing all this mess comes from the yougster...

The OPD should only do what they are suppose to do., it is not in their job discription to go and harrass other they are one that are suppose to put the example., there is lot with that i don't agree... If they did their job i'm pretty sure they wouldn't be moked...

@Carmen,

There is no reason to think you're going to be targetted, there is a clear procedure in place and anyone who tells you that random civilians will be harassed as part of this policy is just plain lying to you.

@Eric, 

I suggest contacting Alex Katz and telling him there's a broken link. Last time I did that, he fixed it quite quickly. And guess what? The broken link I pointed out was to one defense document. I'm interested in seeing Russo's office be transparent about both sides, and they are too.

One other thing: the word "Snitch". Reporting organized criminal activity isn't snitching, it's citizenship. It is, however, entirely understandable that the witness was intimidated and fearful for his life if he cooperated with the prosecutor and provided information on others who should be part of the injunction.

That's forgivable. Not snitching out of some sort of anti-authority principle is unforgivable, especially when you're not snitching about people who hurt other people.

Max, what's your deal? who made you an expert in racial profiling? you're not a reporter, sociologist, criminologist, member of a civil rights or law enforcement organization, and you dont work for the city attorney or a think tank specializing in such topics. and, you don't live in the Fruitvale and AFAIK dont have any relatives who do. so why are you even offering any advice to someone in that neighborhood? Do you just like seeing your comments in print? Why not just start your own blog and do all your ranting there, instead of posting on every Oakland news website you can find?

what you don't seem to get from Carmen's comments is that there is a valid perception among residents of that neighborhood that the gang injunctions have placed the community under a cloud of fear and apprehension which spreads far beyond the individuals named. This is what is often referred to as collateral damage.

@Carmen and Esmerelda: I take these community concerns very seriously, but i also have an obligation, when reporting on courtroom proceedings, to present a fair and balanced view of what transpired in and around the courtroom, which means giving both proponents and opponents of the injunctions their say.

As i hinted earlier, the legal apparatus of the criminal justice system is not designed to address restorative justice issues. in this case, it does seem to be punishing people for past transgressions to some extent, or even the transgressions of their relatives, which is guilt by association. Whether its possible to address the gang issue without law enforcement tactics like the Gang Task Force and the injunctions, as Mr. Katz suggests it's not, is an entirely different issue. The court cannot determine whether gang injunctions are effective crime-prevention measures or a waste of money; that's a City Council issue.

I do think it's only right to hear from all sides in the matter, whether i personally agree with their views or not, but apart from the city attorney, some members of OPD, and random reactionaries like Mr. Allstadt, there seems to be a lot more opposition to the injunctions than support coming from community groups-- mainly because of concerns about profiling and civil rights transgressions.

OTOH, there is gang activity in the Fruitvale, and it is a problem for non-gang members. but is declaring a 450-block "safety zone" an effective solution? or will that just result in moving crime to another area and increased collateral damage for non-gang members? AFAIK, there are no studies which indicate the former, and several which suggest the latter result is more likely.

if i wanted to get technical about it, i'd mention that only 18 per cent of OPD officers actually live in Oakland, and that groups like East Side Arts Alliance and the Oakland Education Association have much more vested interest in the Fruitvale community then OPD. This is something which eventually needs to be addressed. In a perfect world, the police would be part of the community they serve, and not seen as agents of oppression.

also, Max, i don't need a lecture from you on the meaning of the word "snitch." One could easily argue that your comments are harmful to people of color in general and Latinos in the Fruitvale in particular, since you don't believe that these gang injunctions can possibly result in increased harassment of civilians not named as gang members.

if you insist on making your views known, please think of ways you can advance the discussion beyond what's already out there.

Suppression and intervention is the only way to improve communities and outcomes. Gang activity terrorizes a community. It prevents people from enjoying life to the fullest. As evidence, I point you to the young man who did not want "to snitch." To report criminal activity in one's community is a civic minded thing to do but if reporting a crime or criminals places one in the crosshairs of gang member retribution, then one is living in fear.

This gang injunction targets specified individuals. While I understand that individuals may know of people who have been subject to racial profiling based on broad gang injunction, I ask people to take note how the limited scope of the injunction differs from the broad and sweeping injuctions of the past. Whereas it the past, people may not have had recourse against the police in case of racial profiling, the fact that this GI specifies certain individuals then no one else should need to worry. The fact that this GI names specific individuals should be all the evidence one needs to support a racial profiling claim if you are unlawfully detained by the police under the GI. Either you are X or you aren't X. If you aren't X and the police stop you then bring suit.

As to the large covered area, most gangs operate within a territory. Apparently, this gang operates in a wider territory than most.

Suppression by itself is not going to work. For gang members making and honest effort to get out, we must be able to offer them an opportunity to change their lives. Intervention.

Their is no point in calling police oppressors. And I think their are many valid reasons for why police do not live in the community and they are the same for any other working man - maybe they need to care for a relative, maybe their spouse works in the south bay, maybe it closer to support and/or child care services. It is disturbing that so many people jump on the percentage of OPD living in Oakland and think that it is some form of hate of Oakland. Some people who become officers do it because they want to make a difference in the community and it is time that Oakland residents start to acknowledge this fact. (Note: underage prostitution sweeps are done for the purpose of locking up girls, the officers want to get them the help they need and fry the pimps; it is reasonable to think that they want to save young boys from being statistics) 

monica, you raise some good points which do indeed advance the discussion.

it's a bit troublesome, however, that almost half of the individuals named in the injunctions are, by the city attorney's office's own definition, not current gang members since they have not had any arrests in over two years. the implication of this is that past association with gangs can never be erased, from a law-enforcement perspective. what makes this even more troublesome is that many youngsters engage in gang activity as teenagers and some eventually grow out of it. yet the injunction specifically only targets adults -- who may not actually be the ones responsible for any terrorizing of the community which does occur.

it is true that there were 38 gang-related shootings in the FV last year[Edit: actually, this # refers to the number of Nortenos involved in shootings in 2010, either as targets or shooters; less than half of these actually occurred in the FV, according to OPD]. but there's simply no proof that the injunction will reduce violent crime. most arrests are for narcotics possession/sales, which are non-violent crimes (though they can be linked to violence). i dont condone selling crack cocaine or black tar heroin, but marijuana in and of itself does not harm the community--if that was true, than Oaksterdam should be under an injunction and Richard Lee should be named as a gang leader.

i did note with interest the OPD's recent narcotics seizure and arrest of a major heroin dealer who happened to be Latino. In this case, OPD got the bad guy without needing a gang injunction to do it, and an injunction wouldn't have affected the outcome, since the arrest occured far outside the proposed FV safety zone, on 81st Ave.

and, despite the city attorney's office's intentions to limit profiling and have a different type of injunction than those done in the 90s in southern california--which turned communities into martial law zones--there's a very real difference between stating something on paper and how it is applied on the streets. the Gang Task Force do not wear suits.

for one thing, despite what Mr. Katz says, you cannot completely separate profiling from the concept of a gang injunction. in and of itself it represents bias-based policing. and there are racial implications inherent. for instance, none of the individuals named in the NSO or FV injunctions are white.

so, this might be a "better" injunction than those in the past, but it's far from perfect, if such a thing exists.

i also think we need to look at how we define gang activity--the law enforcement definition is a group of 3 or more engaged in criminal activity. theoretically, three people jaywalking in the downtown would fit this criteria, but probably wouldnt be in any danger of being arrested. yet three Latino males loitering in the FV would certainly be targets for profiling. it's also generally already a parole condition that one cannot associate with known gang members, without risking revocation.

Another troublesome aspect is defining Nortenos as a gang and not a culture. identifying as a Norteno doesnt necessarily indicate active gang membership--it just means you live north of Bakersfield and are of Mexican descent. And, by identifying suspected Nortenos, you are also labeling their family members as gang-related (literally). Plus, there's also the issue of whether getting Nortenos off the streets would just mean that Surenos and Border Brothers would move into the same spots, which could result in more jockeying for position over drug turf, resulting in a rise in violent crime--affecting not only gang members but innocent residents caught in the crossfire.

the point i was making about police is that part of the problem is their lack of tangible connection to the community. that should be obvious at this point.

i also think you make a broad generalization about people's reasons for joining the police which is factually-incorrect, overly-simplistic, and altogether altruistic on a number of levels. the biggest reason people join OPD is the money--policing is a dangerous occupation, so the starting pay is pretty high compared to other jobs.

granted, some officers do care about the community; others don't. more would probably care if they lived where they worked.

and, there are those who are innately drawn to crime or the power that comes with being an authority figure--which can lead to corruption. Ex-OPD officer and current fugitive Francisco Vasquez comes to mind here. In addition to harming the community through physical abuse, he cost the city 10.5 million dollars in a civil lawsuit payout. That's a fact.

I favor gang injunctions but if the named individual can make a strong case for not being included then I think the person should be removed from the list. I think this is where intervention needs to occur. What you don't want is someone who is trying to get out of the life associating with people he knows are still in the life. Sure, you may be sipping gin and juice with your homie in the clubhouse but it demonstrates a huge lack of judgment and responsible decision making.

I think people are trying to roll the gang injunction into the easter bunny, jesus christ, martin luther king jr and gandhi when all it is intended to do is enjoin known gang members from terrorizing a community. Now it could be that the gang in its own perverse way kept gun violence down because rivals avoided the neighborhood for fear of striking a gang member and becoming subject to gang retribution. I think you will find that a failure to replace gang with positive influences may lead to other gangs capturing territory. So we must act to do positive activities at the same time we suppress the gang violence. The only thing that really tells us if the gang injunction was good is if the named individuals stop their criminal activities.

Note that not all of the people named in the North Oakland GI are black and brown. Gang injunctions are somewhat a matter of both who livs in and frequent designated community. Not all the people in the NO GI were even from Oakland.

I think you are being overly simplistic in your reason for joining OPD. It can't just be the pay or more people would be rushing to join. A corner boy stands on the street sling dope for a few shillings runs the same risk of getting shot as a cop on the job. If the risk is the same, a reasonable person would much rather earn dollars than pennies.

It is hard to say if more would care about the city if the lived here. In the mid 90s there was a large east coast city that went on a local hiring binge and found themselves with a police force that was nothing more than a bully. I think there is a portion that has to do with the make-up of the person.

I agree with Max re: well written, balanced, reporting by Mr. Arnold. Appreciated, and not what I'd expected given the noted slant of his previous work.

But, as an active member of the community in the NO GI, I can tell you there is far more support for the GI than Mr. Arnold is suggesting in this Comments section. I am well known in the community and have spoken to many of my neighbors concerning the GI and other public safety issues. Yes, there is a racial divide, due, IMHO, to honor and an understanding of historical injustice, but when you truly question people ---eye to eye--- they want peace. PEACE. It should be so simple.

So, I ask Mr. Arnold.

1. What are the White gangs operating on NO and FV?

What do they trade? Where are their hangouts? Who are the members you'd include in these GIs?

(I can tell you our NO hang outs are Klippers and Dorseys, although Dorseys is not friendly to the GI contingent currently. I could mention some specific residential addresses,  but I know not everyone in those homes are guilty of gang activity.)

2. Have you interviewed any OPD? Any POs who've worked on the GI? Any men of color?

I have spoken to a number of OPD (Black and Hispanic, no Whites, yet.) and they are all in support of the GI. Both Black and Latino officer seem very clear in the belief that the individuals targeted are "conducting business" in the neighborhoods and therefore the easiest way to kill the crime is to target their income.

In addition, they believe the GI will serve as a lesson to the younger gang members as those violating GI "rules" will serve additional time. I was shocked at the consistent optimism these OPD members openly communicated regarding the younger gang members. They truly believe these GI will save lives, in more ways than one.

3. Fruitvale.  What a great place to live! If GI are implemented I have great hopes for those in the neighborhood as I know many good, hardworking families that want PEACE and safety to return to their neighborhoods.

ITN

DP

Eric,

Way to take my compliment. Yeesh.

As for what I said about there being no reason to fear that this will turn into a situation where police randomly harrass people because of their race, I stand by that. The reason I feel the need to say so is pretty straightforward: there is a lot of unfounded alarmist rhetoric out there. 

Did you ask Alex Katz to fix that link? 

actually, max, i found the info elsewhere--it's in the public safety committee report.

and it appears you are referring to a comment you made on another thread about another article. maybe you got confused, what with posting on multiple threads on OL and also engaging in a long-running troll-baiting battle with Bob Gammon over at the Express' website, where he used the words 'paranoid' and 'crazy talk' in reference to your theories about John Russo. LOL..

for the record, i'm ok with you complimenting my reportage. thanks, max, that's real swell of you.

i do think your positions on some of these issues are problematic, for reasons i have expressed elsewhere. i also don't feel that you are qualified to comment on racial profiling, so if you don't mind, let's leave that to the policy experts and the people who are actually at risk here.

Troll?  Hardly. Bob and I have an ongoing interaction in which we debate Oakland issues on and off the record. If I was trolling, he wouldn't be engaging me in civil discussion.  As for paranoia, is it possible that I have information you don't have about the cultivation issue?

Next: How am I less qualified to analyze the injunction than Barry Krisberg?  

I read the court documents, and the report. Krisberg testified in court that he himself hadn't read the documents.

A judge declared him unqualified to testify as an expert witness because of this. Yet you think he's qualified, presumably because he's saying things you want to hear.

As for "people who are actually at risk", I'm sorry, but you'll consider the opinion of Krisberg, who isn't at risk. You'll consider the opinion of Betty Olson Jones, who isn't at risk, and who is certainly not an expert on the issue. 

So, how exactly am I less qualified to have an opinion? It appears that you will accept the opinion of less informed people who aren't in danger of being racially profiled, as long they agree with you.  That is not appropriate behavior for a journalist. It just isn't.  

Eric,

You would be a lot easy to take if you weren't so condescending and dismissive. Not everyone agrees with your positions and you do not speak for all black people. You certainly do not speak for this black female. I said some of the same things as Max except what he implied, I made explicit.

My brothers have shared stories about not being able to hail a cab and the woman double clutch her person when she was presumably in a safer area than the busy street she just left. I have an uncle who had a tendency to be in the wrong place in the wrong time. At one point the neighborhood officers would take him back to my grandparents but then he became an adult. (This is why I believe that cops want to do what is best for the child. They did not have to talk to my grandparents, but they did. This was 50 yrs ago.) I have an aunt who married an officer.

I understand that people have had bad experiences, but part of life is learning from mistakes in the past. I know I said this before but we need to note how this GI differs from past GIs and hold our leaders accountable if they act outside of its constraints. What we can ill afford to do is lose yet another generation of young men to senseless street violence. I would encourage you to open your mind to new ideas.

PS: Because the only voices you hear disagree with the GI does not mean that a majority of people disagree with it. Most of my friends have at least two degrees but I can tell you right now that a majority of the people over the age of 25 in this country do not not hold one degree, let alone two. The company we keep is a bad way to determine what is true.

PPS: For what it is worth, I also thought you gave a balanced account.  

Monica, thanks for such good points. Heat of the debate is fun, but I agree we all want to respect one another.,,and enjoy the discussion. Part of why I fund the GI discussion so compelling is there is no right answer--it's SO complex.

Max, you can't be serious.

Barry Krisberg is an expert criminologist and professor at Boalt Law School who advises the US DOJ on gang issues. His analysis of the effectiveness of gang injunctions is completely on point, but as the judge noted, that's a policy issue and not a legal one which can be undertaken by the court. I agree with Krisberg on many of his policy points, and yet, i think Freedman made an appropriate call in this case.

Betty Olson Jones is a teacher who works in the Fruitvale, and interacts with Latino youth on a daily basis.Teachers are a big part of the fabric of any community, especially ones who come into contact with the people most affected by any proposed injunction. It's interesting that you would attempt to discredit someone like that, especially since she wasnt even named in this article.

Max, do you live or work in a gang injunction zone? Do you have any expert credentials, such as a criminology, sociology, or law degree? What expressly qualifies you to tell someone closely connected to one of the defendents, who has already experienced what she characterized as police "brutality" first-hand, that there is no reason to worry about increased harassment by OPD?

Max, i've sorry to have to tell you this, but there are appproximately 10.5 million reasons--that's the dollar amount paid out in the Riders case--why you're wrong.

Opionated? Perhaps. But in Oakland, we call that "real talk."

where are you from, again?

And, technically speaking, i'm not commenting on the record as a journalist here, but more as a citizen and taxpayer of Oakland who wants to see less sufferring in the communities which are hurting the most.

Anyone can comment on an internet board, and for that reason, you're entitled to your rants, certainly. but if you don't mind, i would rather hear from someone who has a credible opinion on this matter on either side and/or has an actual connection to this issue. BTW, i dont always agree with everything Alex Katz has to say, but I accept his opinion, because it represents a credible point of view, that of a governing board of the city, vested with legal authority.

Monica, can you please show me where i claimed to speak for "all black people"?  I wouldnt describe myself as close-minded, so it is interesting that you do -- especially since you say my account was "balanced" which certainly doesn't imply narrow--mindedness.

Rather than have you tell me what i think, i'll tell you myself: i haven't taken a personal position on GIs--yet. I've actually learned a lot about this issue from studying the case, as well as being in court and hearing both sides--and, like i've repeated many times, there are valid arguments on either side. I would like more statistical evidence that GIs are effective in actually reducing crime, rather than just moving it to other areas. But i also feel that restorative justice has to begin in the community, not the criminal justice system.

Obviously, Monica, your experiences and mine are different. And, yet, i do feel you have contributed to this discussion, even if you do sometimes veer off-topic and  make obvious points, i.e. "we can ill afford to lose another generation of young men to senseless street violence."

How many times has that been said about Oakland in the last 30 years?

And yet, we dont put injunctions in the area known as "the killing fields," or direct increased police resources there--instead we spend 430k on an area with single-digit homicide numbers.

Mayor Quan is being portrayed as soft on crime because she has questioned the cost-effectiveness of the GIs and said they produce mixed results--which is true. Yet she was behind the ordinance which gave Oakland its highest numbers of police officers ever, and, as she told me herself just yesterday, she is committed to keeping 300 officers on the streets at all times (which means shifting some of them from desk jobs) as well as beat policing--which will do more to improve the community's perception of OPD than any injunction.

If we are going to hold civic leaders, police, or our youth accountable as you say, it starts with squaring ourselves solidly around the facts and looking past our pre-conceived opinions.

Eric,

Anyone who lives in the community has a stake in these policies. It should not matter if one lives in the hills, West Oakland, Rockridge or East Oakland, we all have an interest in ensuring that we have a safe and livable city. What I find troubling is your is how quick you are to dismiss Max's input and your use of language. You seem a bit passive aggressive at times. You want to be right and will not stop until others agree with you. This doesn't come across in the article as much as it does in your comments. (As for speaking for all black people, I see you have edited the language where you talked about the majority of people don't support the GI. Your tone implied agreement.) 

Is it really necessary to thank Max on one hand and on the other say that is mighty swell of you. In my head, I have a completely different idea of what you wanted to say. Or was it really necessary to say of my own comment, "you are stating the obvious" and thank you for advancing the discussion. I think Max's input as well as everyone else's was good. Of the 400K people in Oakland a handful are regularly engaged in political activity. Sometimes our conversations may carry us to different points and we should not be afraid to engage in them because these are opportunities to learn. (For example, to go back to Vallejo, I don't think your analysis is entirely correct but I did look for facts.)

I have a friend who lives inside the NO GI zone. He has bullets holes in his house. His support for the GI is unquestioned. It has brought some peace o his neighborhood. You simply can not look at the cost of the GI one needs to evaluate other factors to determine if it cost were worth it. There is a known quantifiable benefit maybe fewer gunshot victims and associated costs but there is also an unknown benefit. In business school, the finance professors ask a question what is the present value of happiness and how would you calculate it. I would say that being able to live in one's home without fear of gunshot has a value. The reduced stress results in fewer sick days, keeps healthcare cost low, allows someone to work longer, increases life expectancy etc...

I believe OPD just did a post implementation analysis of the NO GI. The question I have is what were the stated objectives of the GI. It really is not enough to say crime was down by x%. You need to have measurable goals. Before I say prior GIs were ineffective, I would want to know if they had measurable goals and were plans in place to achieve those goals. If you did not meet your goals what lessons were learned that can be applied this time - always be learning.

Sidebar: Riders was an expensive learning lesson but truth is most modern day police department had already implemented procedures that came out of riders.  

Sidebar: Riders was an expensive learning lesson but truth is most modern day police department had already implemented procedures that came out of riders. 

sorry, but that's not true.

if that was accurate, there would have been zero civil liability settlements from any "modern-day police department" since 2003.

more to the point, OPD would be in full compliance with this: http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/notable/Riders.html

statistically speaking, gunshots happen more frequently in non-GI zones, btw. for instance, there are blocks in East Oakland which have more killings than FV and NO put together.

i'm not saying that some if not most residents and/or business owners dont feel safer in GI zones--which is the point of having them in the first place--just that they take up a lot of resources--OPD and the City Attorney's office account for 45% of the city's budget--and tend not to do anything to slow violent crime in the city's worst hotspots, while moving crime to other areas, i.e. South Berkeley (where, coincidentally, increased drug activity won't show up on OPD crime statistics. didnt you see The Wire, season 3?). so the question of prioritizing city resources is a pertinent one.

I thought most PDs made these changes in the 90s. Maybe I am remembering the incidents that gave rise.

Yes crime moves, but as I wrote earlier what is the objective and what is the PD doing to meet the objective. If the objective is to reduce by 75% the amount of X crime in the defined zone, and crime drops but the the criminals engage in illegal activities in other areas, then one could say we won the battle but lost the war. If the goal is to reduce the criminal activity and gang initiation started by named individuals and the criminal activity of the named individuals dropped by 100% then you won the war - Intervention. Idle hands need positive activities.

I can make a compelling case why gun violence is higher outside of the GI than inside. Given your love for The Wire, I am sure you are familiar with their cooperation agreements which reduced violence. I could also refer you to Freakonomics. Recruiting foot soldiers is costly, paying foot soldiers to stand in the line of gun fire is expensive, gun fights between gangs invites retaliation so from an economic perspective gangs are better off not shooting rival gangs.

OPD and the city attorney were going to consume X% of the budget without GI. One can make the case that the cost to implement the GI is operational not incremental. OPD still needs to perform investigative work and the CI is still obligated to perform as counsel for OPD.

monica, you may need to do some more research. the formation of a gangs and guns investigative task force was a primary reason behind the 27% drop overall in violent crime in oakland in 2009. since the injunctions, violent crime is up in NSO. the task force is the reason for the 200-ounce black tar heroin bust last week, not the proposed injunction. doesnt it make sense--if a reduction in violent crime is the goal-- to focus resources on the biggest criminals and the worst hotspots? quan had to slash 40m from the city budget this year, so 430k is about 1% of that--which isnt insignificant considering the 45% chunk police and legal services soak up. the city only has one budget. so allocation of resources is crucial. with gang injunctions in place, if you still end up with 100+ murders, most of them in East Oakland, have you achieved a reduction in violent crime?

Eric,

Since you claim to have not made up your mind, I will assume you are playing devil's advocate. It is not this or that. It is this and that. The GI is but one tool. It does not stop the police from performing their other duties. Thus, because the police arrested individuals outside of the zone does not mean that the GI is either ineffective or meritless.

I have not looked at the violent crime stats in some time but I seem to recall that rape and assualt numbers were off the chart. As bad as the murder rate is, it is not the worst in the country. I am going to go back to what ITN said, if you can keep the young boys from joining the gang this is a huge benefit. Mayor Quan is adamant about healthy children living in safe neighborhoods obtaining a quality education keeping them out of gangs is a start. One of the boys I worked with in after school program attended for the 1st 2 years, but in that 3rd year he got caught up in the gang life and no one could reach him. So, if the gang injunction makes the gang life less attractive, then I am all for it.

I believe the cost of the gang injunction comes from the OPD and the atty's operating budget. From what I read, most of the investigative work associated with the gang injunction is work that would have been performed anyway. Thus, you do not really save anything by not doing it.

Monica, I love your wisdom here, thnks! ITN, Eric and Max, this is a great discusson.

Eric,

Again, Krisberg testified in court that he hadn't read the Oakland injunction documents. He said he read about the injunction in the Bay Citizen. That admission reduces his credibility to zero. What kind of professor and expert witness doesn't even bother to read the documents related to a case he's testifying in?  It's transparent that he was lending his voice to an ideological argument that does not address the individual facts of this particular case. It's also inexcusably lazy.

As for Olson Jones, if she had integrity, she would have reached out to people like John Russo and Alex Katz, who you describe as legitimate sources of information, before she allowed a vote to proceed on the injunction issue. She did nothing of the sort. She heard from one side, the side she has friends on. That isn't the way a legitimate consideration of an issue happens.  It just isn't.

Now you're using coded language, describing me as someone who wouldn't be affected by racial profiling, and therefore somehow you think my opinion is less valid.  Am I incorrect to extrapolate that what you essentially mean is that I'm white so my opinion is irrelevant?  

Again, I've read the court papers, I've followed this issue closely for months, and I live in a high crime area of West Oakland where gang violence affects my daily life and the life of my neighbors.  

Your attempts to de-legitimize my previous arguments by attacking my identity and by implying that I'm unfamiliar with the issues at hand are preposterous, unprofessional and insulting.

Back to facts:

Oakland's injunction affects individuals, not whole classes of people. That's actually part of the reason our injunction in more expensive. It costs more to respect the civil rights of the accused, and Russo and Batts were willing to invest their budgets in that cost.  In Southern California, City Attorneys don't name individuals, they name the whole gang. They don't compile evidence against individuals and give those individuals an opportunity to contest the evidence in court. Oakland does. They don't require that individual members be served before being enjoined. Oakland does. That's why it's expensive.

I believe the cost of the gang injunction comes from the OPD and the atty's operating budget. From what I read, most of the investigative work associated with the gang injunction is work that would have been performed anyway. Thus, you do not really save anything by not doing it.

monica, i appreciate your continued interest in this discussion. however, let me say that in the case of your above statement, that's entirely debatable. you dont give examples or list statistical evidence or financial numbers to back up your assertion, but i can tell you it's not necessarily work that "would have been done anyway"--if that were the case, there would be no need for an injunction in the first place, since it would be entirely redundant.

if the city had no budget crisis and unlimited resources to pay for police and community services, it would be a different story. which leads us to the 760k question: do gang injunctions address the perception of public safety more than they actually effect reductions in violent crime?

the larger issue here is that pursuing injunctions in areas which have comparatively lower levels of violent crime takes resources away from other areas, such as violent crime reduction in the city's worst hotspots.

not to downplay the 38 norteno-related shootings last year, but many of them happened outside the safety zone. and, using injunctions to curtail drug activity--most of it for marijuana sales--in NSO and FV--does nothing to stop violent crime in Deep East Oakland, where by far the majority of this type of crime occurs.

in 2009, there was less than a 50% clearance rate on Oakland homicides, and despite the OPD having identified a suspect in 85% of the unsolved cases, investigators did not have evidence needed to charge those suspects. so it's worth considering whether allocating a portion of the 430k spent on the NSO injunction on pursuing these cases where a suspect was identified could have resulted in arrests, which would have taken the shooters off the streets, and made the communities most affected by violent crime safer.

the Gang and Guns prevention task force, formed in 2009, has proven effective in reducing violent crime, as well as making large-scale narcotics arrests, in the hotspot areas, but is underfunded. the injunctions actually take resources away from this unit, as well as from the legal apparatus needed to pursue convictions of the worst criminal offenders. there are people walking around out there which OPD has identified as suspects in several shootings. yet the injunctions are targeting people, in some cases, with no arrests in two or more years and/or no felony convictions for violent crime. So it's worth a hard look at the numbers and the stats before arriving at any conclusion.

i agree that prevention is just as important as supression, and sadly, your example of a kid who became unreachable is common. however, i'm not sure gang injunctions completely address this issue. also they create other issues, such as the civil liberties concerns associated with having a curfew--which affects more than just the targeted gang members--and the notion of having an entire community fall within the quote-unquote "safety zone." also, minors are exempt from injunctions, so any kid who joins a gang at age 15 has three years before they can even be included in an injunction. that's a concern, because shooters have been as young as 13.

i dont presume to have all the answers here, but i do think we at least have to look beyond superficial analyses or knee-jerk reactions--this goes for both sides, btw.

you say, "So, if the gang injunction makes the gang life less attractive, then I am all for it."

that's a big if, since it hasn't been implemented yet in the FV, so it's too early to tell how it will affect that particular community. the proposed injunction does create hassles, legal, financial, and otherwise, for anyone unlucky enough to have been identified as a gang member in their youth. but in doing so, the injunctions punish those who are actually trying to get on the right track in their adult life.

in the case of Javier Quintero, he is less than a year from completing his parole, has steady employment, and no arrests since 2008. by the City Attorney's criteria, he's eligible for being included in the opt-out list. So he was already on the right track before the injunctions were announced. In the case of Abel Manzo, he also has a clean record over the last seven years, has a job, and is a homeowner in the FV community. So why is he being targeted? because "his brother is a big-time gangster," according to prosecutors. that sounds an awful lot like guilt by association.

If 17 of the 40 alleged nortenos qualify for the opt-out clause at this time, as defense attorneys contend, does it make sense that they were included in the injunctions, in the first place? or is that a needless waste of resources which could have been better spent elsewhere?

so if the injunctions err on the side of overstatement, that's perhaps not the best use of city resources. then there's also the issue of declaring an area more than 100 times what the supreme court has deemed constitutional an injunction zone.

in my case, it's not just about playing devil's advocate,  but attempting to serve the public interest, by analyzing the economic and human cost of these injunctions in real terms as they relate to the overall crime stats. i don't think policy issues should be debated in court, but i do think policy questions are worth debating in such a controversial subject, in which there is no inherently "wrong" or "right" position.

at the very least, i dont think we can just accept either side's rhetoric at face value.

max, the one area where i agree with you is that Krisberg should have been better-prepared to testify on this specific case. however, saying that his lack of research invalidates by what all accounts has been a brilliant academic career,or somehow makes him less of an expert on gang issues is, quite frankly, preposterous. he's quite possibly the singularly-most credible person in the entire country to speak on the effectiveness of gang injunctions, what they do do, and what they don't do, etc. to say he has "zero" credibility mistakes the difference between credibility and relevance, which any legal expert could have pointed out to you.

however, and i've said this before, Krisberg's expertise lies in policy issues, which are not issues which can be taken up by a court attempting to determine whether there is enough evidence of public nuisance by alleged Nortenos to move forward with the proposed injunctions as a civil proceeding (which, it should be noted, have a lower standard of evidentiary proof than criminal proceedings). it does appear to be an odd defense strategy, and one which appears to have backfired to some extent. but even the judge went out of his way on several occasions to uphold Krisberg's credibility, which is unimpeachable by any standard.

as for you, you've referred to yourself as a "volunteer political activist." unfortunately, your politics have frequently offended people of color and foes of gentrification. you've been very outspoken about being an advocate of GIs. you also have a habit of being confrontational and taunting journalists who you don't agree with--to the extent of attempting to dictate the scope of editorial coverage.

However, it's unclear, what expertise, if any, you have on these issues. It is fair to say that a) you're not an expert criminologist and law professor who has worked with numerous California cities and the US DOJ on gang issues; b) you're not a teacher who works in the Fruitvale; c) you are not a law enforcement officer or member of the city attorney's legal team; and, d) you're not a journalist who has done extensive research, conducted interviews with both sides on numerous occasions, and attended court proceedings.

therefore, i dont think there is any way to legitimize your arguments in the first place, other than saying they are the opinions of one person who has no tangible connection to either injunction and who doesnt live or work in either community affected by them.

FWIW, ITN's first-hand accounts of neighborhood residents' response to the injunctions in the NO area have much more credibility in my book than anything you have said.

"at the very least, i dont think we can just accept either side's rhetoric at face value."

True!

We cannot trust statistics to tell OUR story.

The increase in NO crime is tied to one group of young adults (per their MO and witnesses). Therefore we cannot say, truthfully, that the increase in crime is due soley to the GI. (And understanding correlation does not equal causation.)

Ignoring crimes outside this one group's actions demonstrates that the GI has clearly lowered crime.

Talk to your POs, many understand the difference between statistics and reality because they live it, daily.

ITN

BTW - Great book: http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Chance-Markets/dp/1400067936/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Many examples of where statistics fail us.

Some quick points as I think I have pretty much said all I have to say, I tend not to use statistics because one can manipulate them (i.e. gather and report them in such a way as to support their claim. Furthermore, you give ITN more credence than the "white" guy because ITN talked to some people who support the GI.)  and Eric you have been fairly good at manipulating the use of statistics. Correlation does not equal causation.

The investigative work performed by OPD is case building work. It is the type of work investigators would be performing to build a case against individuals. It is the type of work investigators and detectives do. Since I don't assign duties at OPD I don't know any better than you how they detail people to work.

It is not a matter of one solution completely addressing an issue. It is part of tools available. You are attempting to paint the GI as a panacea when no one said it was.

Allocation of resources.  I don't know if allocating more resources to murder investigation would have improved the clearance rate. There was a study conducted a while back that indicated the nationwide homicide clearance rate is ~65% - number of factors that went into clearance rates, some of which had nothing to do with available investigators. I would prefer that Oakland be above average and at a minimum, average. But I don't think allocating the equivalent to 2 officers to open murder cases would have improved the clearance rate particularly when in a majority of cases a suspect is known. There is something else in play.  

From GI supporters to "unbiased journalist," no one wants individuals trying to get out of the life on the list. There is no need to belabor the point.

It is a shame that some people are being discounted based on the color of their skin, what happened to the content of his character. By extension, I can't see where personally you would ever agree with Mr. Russo. Your "reporting" may be objective, but your comments make it clear that you do not think it is possible that non-white people can do anything positive for the black community. I truly feel sorry for you.

monica, if you think i'm manipulating statistics, feel free to discount my analysis altogether. and if you want to play OPD apologist, that's your call. but comparing the national homicide clearance rate to oakland's misses the point.i will say, unequivocably, that i support a reduction in violent crime in the communities which are hurting the most. i'm certainly not in favor of unabated gangbanging, and i'd like to see progress on clearing unsolved homicides, especially in cases where the shooter is known. i'd also like to see OPD reach full compliance with the Negotiated Settlement. as for supporting Russo, or any other public official, that's not my job, nor should it be the job of any journalist.

The article mentioned that Javier Quintero has to wear a GPS device. Is this a result of the gang injunction or is this part of his parole for a crime that he committed before?