The non-cooperation by Oakland’s Asian Resource Center as described in the Journal article is enough for some people to maintain that “Too many Oakland residents are more disturbed by the efforts of the police to solve the murder than the murder itself.” I guess too many means any, or at least those folks.

As to the first article about snitching, while possibly relevant to the non-cooperation described in the Journal, the kids bragged and were ultimately “snitched out”, so there are still kids with a conscience who are not afraid to do the right thing. One might conjecture that there are too few of them, but as long as it’s enough to make an arrest I don’t want to condemn “too many Oakland residents”.

I’m most concerned about the mentality which lead to the original crime. I’m not sure how the defensive attitude of supposed youth advocates as described in the article might correlate with the mind set of the perps. There likely are some, but I don’t presume to know their import.

Oh yeah, there was a gun found at the home where one of the original arrests was made of two youths now deemed not to be associated with the crime. It has not been clarified whether that weapon was in somebody’s legal possession or not.

“He said the Oakland youth center refused to cooperate with police from the outset - “They wouldn’t even take our calls,” he said - and that officers were not racially profiling when they visited the center because they were searching for specific individuals.”
http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_7602790?source=most_emailed

Is “too many” the number who protested in Alameda? Is it any number at all? Is it supposed to imply you think a majority of Oaklanders have this attitude? Not that we could actually know.

Is it fair to say that too many Alamedans are more disturbed by crimes in Oakland as potential spillage into their own community, than with the essential problem of why the crime exists? If so, is that justified? (If so, it is fairly typical of human nature and should be no surprise.)

At a sensitive time like this I think it’s important to step back from the empirical evidence alone and also look to statistical material over long time periods in order to get the clearest perspective possible in terms of things like spillage. Perhaps complaints against APD also. The latter would probably reflect positively.

Crime spillage from Oakland is not new and in varying degrees is regular. This murder seems to be in every way an aberration. It seems the criminals who commit snatch and grab assaults or armed stick-up robberies are at least a little older and are focused on money as opposed to making a display of being bad assed.

There is room to believe that APD may have been a bit clumsy or hurried in some instances in their urgent effort to solve this crime. I understand if persons who may have been on the receiving end of any such mis-step are rankled by it. I think I would be also. But the reference in the Sun article to police working 24/7 is not figurative but quite literal, by accounts that have trickled my way. Who has made that kind of effort and not had their own clarity dulled by it? I’m confident any review will absolve the APD of any serious improprieties, or any at all. Surly some people will never be satisfied.

A question here: The on line version of the Sun article had a photo of Alamedan Michael Yoshi at the rally asking for a moment of silence in respect for Iko. Thanks for that. Carl Halpern who has posted here is or was on the board of the Multicultural Center with Rev. Yoshi. I wonder if he or other readers of this blog are in a position to clarify how Rev. Yoshi became involved with the rally. If he was in full or partial support of the group, or how he viewed his purpose in being there.

I agree with others about bad timing. The printed signs with “APD investigate don’t HATE” were hyperbolic and unfortunately seem to support ANT’s statement quoted at the top of this post.

In Alameda, unlike Oakland, single slaying gets big police response
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/06/BAJ2T6RKI.DTL&hw=chip+johnson+alameda&sn=001&sc=1000

“As an Oakland resident, I think it’s refreshing to see police mount such an energetic response to a single slaying. But it’s also frustrating to live in a city where so many homicides go unsolved.

One exception was the case of journalist Chauncey Bailey, who was shot and killed while walking to work on a downtown Oakland street in August. Police swooped down on Your Black Muslim Bakery the next day and arrested the alleged shooter.

It’s got to be even worse for the families of Oakland crime victims whose slayings are never solved - and justice is never done.

But just as hard to swallow will be if the shooter who killed Iko turns out to be from Oakland. That will mean that our own cup runneth over, that the violence plaguing Oakland is spilling over into other communities.”

My eyes still roll when I think about the protest. More kids today need to be reminded that they may be judged by the company they keep.

Now is that the parents’ job to teach them or the schools?
…and if you think it should be at home doesn’t that widen the “achievement gap” for those unfortunately born to losers who never learned right from wrong?

Her first analysis was right. There is a difference between taking a second look and group think. In this case, I tend to agree with Jack.

David, if you read laurendos’s”Profiling Protesters” above. You’ll notice the hastily candid impulse eyes quit rolling when speculated “irregularities” were group announced. See what happens to individual reasoned thought when group thought takes over.

I agree with Loren - this protest doesn’t warrant more than a role of the eyes and a shake of the head, and move on.