People against vaxxing and other COVID mandates are usually very outspoken against crime. They’re often rightwing republicans with a “lock em up” mindset; criminals, they argue, have no regard for societal norms, and must mend their ways, or pay the penalty.
While I largely share these anti-criminal views, I part company with these conservatives when they refuse to mask up, get jabbed, and offer proof of vaccination, and particularly when they resort to violent behavior on airplanes and in stores. Such anti-social behavior is no different from that of the criminals they so resent. It’s the same “I have my rights, you can’t tell me what to do” crap they decry in others who don’t obey the law. Look: No one who refuses to obey COVID mandates has any right to criticize anyone else’s behavior.
* * *
Here’s what Cat Brooks said concerning the Rittenhouse verdict in her regular op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle: “I imagine there will be protests. People will take to the street. Windows may be broken in anger as these protests grow across the nation.”
Folks, with those words, Cat Brooks incited violence. Substitute “I hope” for “I imagine” and you’ll get closer to her true thinking, IMO. If and when “windows are broken” in the Bay Area, the San Francisco Chronicle, which published this rubbish, will be complicit in inciting reckless street behavior. We expect this sort of rhetoric from Brooks. From the Chronicle, which used to be a reputable paper, it’s a sad descent into irrelevance.
* * *
Speaking of irresponsibility, there’s plenty to go around in this next story about how San Francisco’s Police Chief, Bill Scott, is “investigating” an SFPD officer’s “political commentary.” What commentary has roused Scott’s ire? The cop allegedly remarked to a burglary victim whose garage had been broken into nine times, “This is happening to you guys because San Francisco is too progressive.”
Apparently that remark violates what Scott calls “SFPD’s values.”
Let me be clear about where I stand. I know what the officer meant. He meant, “Career criminals are arrested every day in San Francisco, and they’re released every day to commit more crimes. And there’s nothing SFPD can do about it.” We see the same thing here in Oakland: bad people go through revolving doors at the Court House, sometimes after committing dozens of crimes, and within hours are back on the street, where they prey on us innocent citizens again.
Whose fault is this? Cops say, “Don’t blame us. All we can do is make the collar.” True enough. It’s up to the D.A. to prosecute, and then if guilt is proved, it’s up to a judge to determine the sentence. But as we’ve continually seen, D.A.s often fail to indict, and judges routinely let career criminals go free. Whether you can blame this on “progressives” is debatable, but I know what the S.F. cop was implying. The criminal justice system is way too soft on repeat offenders.
But the cop also was irresponsible. It may not be fair, but when you sign up to be a cop, you have to watch what you say and do in public. The cop is entitled to his beliefs. He’s free (one would hope) to express those opinions to his friends, family and co-workers. But to say something like that to a crime victim—well, he wasn’t using his head.
NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE I INVITED CARROLL FIFE TO HAVE TEA WITH ME, WITH NO REPLY: 11
Steve Heimoff