This is hokum. Maybe you should study a little harder about what Bratton has done to accomplish what he has done, specifically in NYC.

In 1991 the NYC murder rate per capita was higher than Oakland's at the time. Bratton first came in as head of the transit police before the new mayor Guliani brought him in to run the NYPD.

At the Transit Authority he first worked on cop morale, which was grimly low. All the subway cars were entirely covered in graffiti, muggings on the platforms and trains was rampant, it was a common site to see people at the token slots at the turn styles sucking tokens out of the slots and hawkers reselling then to the riders as they arrive.

It was estimated that 50% of all the riders were fare jumpers riding for free.

How do you think the riders who paid the fare felt: like chumps.

Just like many of us trying to live and be left alone to our nonviolent lives feel like in Oakland. Chumps.

The difference, of course, is that the voters in NY looked at their situation and were fed up enough that they voted to do something about it. As opposed to the voters in Oakland who elect idiots like Quan who haven't a clue what to do or care, as fighting crime is not a priority.

But I digress. Bratton changed the TA policing policy to aggressively pursue criminal behavior. For example, he enforced the law regarding fare jumping. So they arrested many many people for this violation of the law and prosecutions followed. And fare jumping was greatly reduced. And fare paying riders were chumps no more. And they were happy and approved.

But something surprising happened: among those they arrested they found many parole violators, many who were in possession of weapons, including guns (also felons not in violation of parole but illegally having guns), even some people wanted for murder.

Isn't that surprising? Who would imagine people wanted for murder would do such a stupid thing to save less than a buck and risk getting caught? I would say those of us who are law abiding middle class people have a hard time understanding the mind set of the criminal class. And this is an example of Bratton's genius: he created this policing policy and the results were far greater than conventional belief would expect. And he did this over and over.

From a strategic viewpoint, what Bratton accomplished was a change in the environment in which criminals operate: before Bratton, they felt perfectly comfortable doing what they chose to do: not just commit murder and illegally carrying weapons, but when they are "off duty" ride the subways without paying the fare. After Bratton, they had to watch themselves, in their daily life, to make sure they weren't caught by doing something stupid. Now they had to watch their back, and that takes a psychological toll. And this pressure grew and grew as Bratton gradually changed policing policies over the next few years at NYPD. So the criminal class had to make a decision: pay that psychological price or take up a different career or move to a place where this new enforcement was not happening.

And the end result: after just the first 3 years, the violent crime rate dropped by 80%. After 10 years, NYC is the safest large city in America and the NY prison population has shrunk so much that the state needs to close prisons (which the prison guard union is fighting, naturally). So it is likely the criminals decided to do something different (after all, for most criminals, the pay is surprisingly low) or moved elsewhere, because iris clear fewer and fewer of them chose to continue to ply their trade.

And as an end note, I would stress that Bratton did this WITHOUT focusing on community policing, jobs programs, economic development schemes, or any of the "solutions" you mentioned, such as school improvement, housing, food, medicine or community gardens(!). Or changes to gun control laws. None.

The question is: why do you want to diddle with non solutions when real solutions have been proven? The family and friends of those 143 murder victims this last year deserve an explanation. And those of the 130 in 2011, and all the years since the mid 1990's when a proven solution has been demonstrated for us.

Go visit New York and see the solution for yourself.

^ Ugh, spare me from racism apologists.

Stop and frisk is racist.

Many Oaklanders with eyes and ears, not to mention brains, understand that the daily shootings and several-killings-a-week are as about as significant as as any civil rights problems can be. If you fear or are likely to be killed or mugged at any time you are certainly going to be oppressed all of the time. This is what very many black and brown Oaklanders experience. White Oaklanders perhaps less so but the oppressive high crime environment is real to them too.

And regarding racism--reflect for a moment on the fact that it's by far mostly black and brown folks who get shot at. That's not racism? Oakland is a racist town not because of a few problem cops but because of 40 years of letting the black and brown community suffer from crime.

Ugh, Keri Cambell. The race card. And oh so fast. When you have no argument to defend your position, attack the person.

Not very constructive.

So by "non solutions" you mean school improvement, housing, food, medicine, and community spaces, and you see work in those areas as diddling.  

I've spent lots of time in New York.  Some of it talking to the family of people like Ramarley Graham who are dead because of this solution you're so fond of.  Or, if you need people actually killed while Bratton was large and in charge, how about Amadou Diallo?  We could have a whole conversation about the fact that the number of people murdered by the police in NYC went up 34% in the first year Bratton was Chief.  

So, yeah, I'll stick to those non-solutions.