Oakland's Chief of Police Resigns

By TChris, Section Misconduct
Posted on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 11:44:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Good riddance to Wayne Tucker, who until this morning was the chief of police in Oakland. Tucker resigned before the city council had a chance to hold a planned no-confidence vote. Just yesterday, Tucker said he wouldn't resign.

Tucker's four year reign as police chief has been a disaster. Tucker promoted Edward Poulson to head the department's internal affairs division, despite Poulson's interference with an internal affairs investigation in 2000. [more ...]

Investigators found Poulson ordered subordinate officers to lie about the beating of a drug suspect, Jerry Amaro, who later died of complications of broken ribs. The FBI began an investigation of the case last week and Poulson was suspended without pay.

Other scandals on Tucker's watch include police officers who lied to obtain search warrants and allegations that the murderer of journalist Chauncey Bailey was protected by the lead detective assigned to the murder investigation.

< Open Thread and Diary Rescue | An Acid Test For Obama And The Post Partisan Unity Schtick >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Oakland's Chief of Police Resigns | 5 comments (5 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

In all fairness to Tucker (4.00 / 1) (#1)
by hairspray on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:32:18 AM EST

the Oakland police department has been a disaster for a very long time. Some years ago the citizens of Oakland wanted create an ordinance to hire only residents as officers. The ordinance was thrown out on grounds for a reason I cannot recall. The police are mostly residents of surrounding suburbs which tend to be white and more conservative. The previous police chiefs have not been able (or willing) to implement community policing because the department is understaffed. Whenever a ballot measure is presented to increase the size of the force, the minority community and liberals vote it down. To them it is just more "bad cops" On the other hand these crooks on the street are tough and its all about drug turf. Drive by killing of young innocents is an almost weekly event.

Well ... (none / 0) (#2)
by FreakyBeaky on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:56:04 AM EST

Whenever a ballot measure is presented to increase the size of the force, the minority community and liberals vote it down.

Actually, no. Whenever a ballot measure is presented to increase the size of the force, the minority community, liberals, and everybody else vote 60+ percent in favor, but such ballot measures usually include a tax increase. Thanks to various other ballot measures over the years, a tax increase requires a 2/3rds (66.67%) supermajority. Anything less fails.

I mean you can't get 67% of anybody to agree 2+2=4. It's a joke. F'ing clowns at the ballot box ...

Meanwhile, here's an article on the recent success of community policing in nearby screwed-up Richmond.

What Oakland lacks is political will (and a functional government). It ought to be put into receivership.


Are you an Oakland resident? (none / 0) (#4)
by hairspray on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:29:41 PM EST

When Jerry Brown tried to increase the size of the police force it was voted down. The newspapers did a district by district analysis of where the votes came from. People who lived in the flat lands voted it down overwhelmingly. Affluent neighborhoods tended to vote for it. Most police presence is in the flatlands where most of the crime occurs. Why would people in those neighborhoods vote against funding the force, except that they saw the police as their enemies. I know that because I was a volunteer Oakland for years and saw the city from many angles. As for voting it down because it was a tax increase, nonsense. Oakland residents voted for all sorts of parcel taxes on their property, schools, libraries, violence prevention programs, kids first, county hospitals in those years. No it wasn't taxes that caused those programs to go down.


: It's possible - and it was the 2/3rds rule (n/t) (none / 0) (#6)
by FreakyBeaky on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:42:17 AM EST

Your diatribe is so full (none / 0) (#5)
by hairspray on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:42:52 PM EST

of assumptions about me that I am overwhelmed. In the first place I lived in Oakland and was active in many areas of the city including being a commissioner for the dept of aging. I also was active in the League of Women Voters and worked to implement many strategies to improve the quality of life for Oaklanders. Oakland is full of really good programs devoted to improving schools, reducing violence, helping the vulnerable aged, etc. I won't go into all of your nonsense, but where you get In the meantime, the world does not revolve around you, and the rest of us have far too much going on right now to pay any further attention to your incessant complaining about how bad things are, especially when you offer nothing in the way of reality-based solutions. this idea is insane. As for reality based solutions, I spent the better part of a year with a grass roots group successfully working at election reform in Oakland. It is called Instant runoff elections and hopefully will allow the process to open up for more varied candidates. In addition another group I worked with has been keeping campaign financing alive in the city. You know not of what you speak.
