PDA

View Full Version : DOJ Appointments by AG Harris


RP1911
06-06-2011, 1:30 PM
http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2011/06/kamala-harris-names-jus.html

Link fixed. Thanks Glock22Fan.

SoCal Bob
06-06-2011, 1:33 PM
I get a "404 - not found" when I click on the link.

Glock22Fan
06-06-2011, 1:33 PM
Link gives "404 - not found."

Try this (http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2011/06/kamala-harris-names-jus.html)one.

All from LAPD, Orange County SD and (three) from San Francisco (can you say "jobs for the brown-noses?"). All from "leftie" areas, none (if we ignore Carona's reign) from pro-gun areas.

I guess that's about what we expected.

RP1911
06-06-2011, 1:44 PM
Sorry tried to type the link using cell phone.

POLICESTATE
06-06-2011, 2:00 PM
Obviously appointing people from more urban counties where they have all sorts of crime, and lots of it, makes the most sense. Never mind that their track record might stink, evidence being the fact these counties have all sorts of crime and lots of it.

uyoga
06-06-2011, 2:33 PM
" . . . . known by the company we keep . . . . "

Glock22Fan
06-06-2011, 2:59 PM
Obviously appointing people from more urban counties where they have all sorts of crime, and lots of it, makes the most sense. Never mind that their track record might stink, evidence being the fact these counties have all sorts of crime and lots of it.

I'm not sure whether this is sarcasm or not, but as there isn't a smiley, I'll assume it isn't.

I'm not sure, if so, that this follows completely, although I can see the superficial logic.

I believe that the population split is something like 50:50 between urban and rural population. Are you saying that the 50% rural areas have to be governed by 100% urban law enforcement, because only they know how to control crime? (hint, they don't do that good a job, do they?)

It is surely not appropriate to base rural law enforcement and DoJ guidance on totally urban practice. To be representative of the state as a whole, there should surely be officials representative of the different demographics.

How are you going to get a neutral (or representitive) view on, say, CCW from the DoJ if every official has the lefty urban attitude?

Name me a big city CoP or D.A. who is known to support the 2nd.

Totally what I'd expect from Kamala, perhaps, but not very democratic.

BigDogatPlay
06-06-2011, 3:06 PM
Some of the blog comments in the linked article are a bit.... catty?

But seriously... her own chief deputy for investigations from SFDA (although what is a "San Francisco Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement"????), and a bunch of past union presidents.

To be expected, sadly.

POLICESTATE
06-06-2011, 3:08 PM
I'm not sure whether this is sarcasm or not, but as there isn't a smiley, I'll assume it isn't.

I'm not sure, if so, that this follows completely, although I can see the superficial logic.

I believe that the population split is something like 50:50 between urban and rural population. Are you saying that the 50% rural areas have to be governed by 100% urban law enforcement, because only they know how to control crime? (hint, they don't do that good a job, do they?)

It is surely not appropriate to base rural law enforcement and DoJ guidance on totally urban practice. To be representative of the state as a whole, there should surely be officials representative of the different demographics.

How are you going to get a neutral (or representitive) view on, say, CCW from the DoJ if every official has the lefty urban attitude?

Name me a big city CoP or D.A. who is known to support the 2nd.

Totally what I'd expect from Kamala, perhaps, but not very democratic.

I was being sarcastic, forgot the smiley though. Oh well. Yeah I think the idea of LEO representation in the DOJ being mostly from urban areas is ridiculous.

CHS
06-06-2011, 3:30 PM
I believe that the population split is something like 50:50 between urban and rural population. Are you saying that the 50% rural areas have to be governed by 100% urban law enforcement, because only they know how to control crime? (hint, they don't do that good a job, do they?)


Given the size of the Bay Area (Oakland/Berkeley, SF, San Jose), Los Angeles (Ventura to Long Beach), Orange County, San Diego, and Sacramento, I highly doubt the population split is anywhere close to 50:50 in California.

The urban politicians RUN this state.

Librarian
06-06-2011, 4:40 PM
State has 37.5 million as of Jan 2011. See http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/

Top 10 cities (LA, SD, SJ, SF, Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, Bakersfield, Anaheim) have 9.4 million. Top 20, 11.8 million.

But this table http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/documents/E-1_2011_Internet_Version.xls
says things like ~10% of Alameda county lives outside of some city limit, Contra Costa 16%, Fresno 17%, Humboldt 53%, Imperial 21%, Los Angeles 10%, Orange 3%, Riverside 20%, San Bernardino 14%, San Diego 16%. We look VERY urbanized.

vincewarde
06-06-2011, 4:49 PM
So what do we know about the person running the Bureau of Firearms? A quick look at their website does not even reveal who is in charge.

CHS
06-06-2011, 4:55 PM
State has 37.5 million as of Jan 2011. See http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/

Top 10 cities (LA, SD, SJ, SF, Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, Bakersfield, Anaheim) have 9.4 million. Top 20, 11.8 million.

But this table http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/documents/E-1_2011_Internet_Version.xls
says things like ~10% of Alameda county lives outside of some city limit, Contra Costa 16%, Fresno 17%, Humboldt 53%, Imperial 21%, Los Angeles 10%, Orange 3%, Riverside 20%, San Bernardino 14%, San Diego 16%. We look VERY urbanized.

We really have to look at populations by county though. LA County, for example has at least 20-30 cities or more. All that adds up. The population in LA County ALONE is 9.8 million people. That trumps the top 10 cities by itself (and only includes a couple of the top 10 cities).

Orange County again has another 20'ish cities at least and 3 million people.

So. Add LA and Orange to: SF, Alameda, Contra Costa and San Mateo and you're already well past 50% of the population.

This has always been, in my opinion, one of the CRITICAL reasons why California is so anti-gun. Most states have a fairly gun-friendly rural population to balance out the anti-gun wackjobs that come from urban areas. That balance just DOES NOT EXIST in California.

Glock22Fan
06-06-2011, 5:13 PM
Well, I guess I wasn't trying to make a mathematically correct statement, but I believe I am approximately right in saying that there is a roughly even split between Republicans and Democrats, but the way they are distributed makes the cities disproportionally Democratic.

wildhawker
06-06-2011, 5:41 PM
Well, I guess I wasn't trying to make a mathematically correct statement, but I believe I am approximately right in saying that there is a roughly even split between Republicans and Democrats, but the way they are distributed makes the cities disproportionally Democratic.

Here's the most recent data from SOS: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/ror-odd-year-11/county.xls

Librarian
06-06-2011, 6:57 PM
We really have to look at populations by county though.

This has always been, in my opinion, one of the CRITICAL reasons why California is so anti-gun. Most states have a fairly gun-friendly rural population to balance out the anti-gun wackjobs that come from urban areas. That balance just DOES NOT EXIST in California.

Went back and added up the 'balance of county' lines - total is 16.7% of the California population not in some city (ignoring that some of those cities are pretty small, in rural counties).

But, that doesn't really explain all of CA.

This link =- www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0029.xls - has the whole set of states. For 2000, the US as a whole was 79% urban.

In descending order: District of Columbia 100% urban
California 94
New Jersey 94
Nevada 92
Hawaii 91
Massachusetts 91
Rhode Island 91
Florida 89
Utah 88
Arizona 88
Illinois 88
Connecticut 88
New York 87
Maryland 86
===============
Colorado 84
Texas 83
Washington 82
Delaware 80
Oregon 79
Ohio 77
Pennsylvania 77
New Mexico 75
Michigan 75
Virginia 73
Louisiana 73
Georgia 72
Kansas 71
Minnesota 71
Indiana 71
Nebraska 70
Missouri 69
Wisconsin 68
Idaho 66
Alaska 66
Oklahoma 65
Wyoming 65
Tennessee 64
Iowa 61
South Carolina 60
North Carolina 60
New Hampshire 59
North Dakota 56
Kentucky 56
Alabama 55
Montana 54
Arkansas 53
South Dakota 52
Mississippi 49
West Virginia 46
Maine 40
Vermont 38It looks like there's something about 85% or more urban that correlates with reduced gun civil rights - but note Arizona and Utah and Nevada and Florida. Maybe the desert pretty much forces most folk into cities, maybe swamps do the same in Florida?

Anchors
06-06-2011, 7:08 PM
We really have to look at populations by county though. LA County, for example has at least 20-30 cities or more. All that adds up. The population in LA County ALONE is 9.8 million people. That trumps the top 10 cities by itself (and only includes a couple of the top 10 cities).

Orange County again has another 20'ish cities at least and 3 million people.

So. Add LA and Orange to: SF, Alameda, Contra Costa and San Mateo and you're already well past 50% of the population.

This has always been, in my opinion, one of the CRITICAL reasons why California is so anti-gun. Most states have a fairly gun-friendly rural population to balance out the anti-gun wackjobs that come from urban areas. That balance just DOES NOT EXIST in California.

Like Arizona.
Even though Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff aren't really anti-gun, the only antis I have run into were in those bigger cities/metropolitan areas.
No one in the desert is an anti because they get to worry about creepy crawly things and weirdos out there haha.

I guess Washington/Oregon are better examples. Portland/Seattle seem pretty anti, but everyone else is cool.

It looks like there's something about 85% or more urban that correlates with reduced gun civil rights - but note Arizona and Utah and Nevada and Florida. Maybe the desert pretty much forces most folk into cities, maybe swamps do the same in Florida?

Something like that. I think it is more that those states have boom towns that had a rapid influx of people moving from out of state (Phoenix, SLC, Vegas/Reno, Miami).
So every new resident ended up in the city because they only came to the state to live there in the first place.
Same thing with Los Angeles though, really.

CHS
06-06-2011, 7:20 PM
Well, I guess I wasn't trying to make a mathematically correct statement, but I believe I am approximately right in saying that there is a roughly even split between Republicans and Democrats, but the way they are distributed makes the cities disproportionally Democratic.

I don't think that makes the difference either.

California is the shining example of anti-gun republicans, and pro-gun democrats.

While overall at the federal level republicans GENERALLY seem to be pro-gun and democrats GENERALLY seem to be anti-gun, that just doesn't happen in CA as predictably as elsewhere.

Basically, California is just screwed up.

DarthSean
06-06-2011, 8:52 PM
Suzy Loftus is a special assistant attorney general, working on criminal law issues and public safety policy. She also is the AG's primary liaison to local, state and federal law enforcement. As a San Francisco prosecutor, Loftus specialized in domestic violence, elder abuse and firearms cases in the San Francisco district attorney's office.
What do we know about Suzy Loftus?

Heatseeker
06-07-2011, 6:03 AM
... (although what is a "San Francisco Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement"????)...

A joke.

ccmc
06-07-2011, 6:12 AM
I don't think that makes the difference either.

California is the shining example of anti-gun republicans, and pro-gun democrats.

While overall at the federal level republicans GENERALLY seem to be pro-gun and democrats GENERALLY seem to be anti-gun, that just doesn't happen in CA as predictably as elsewhere.

Basically, California is just screwed up.

There may be SOME pro-gun democrats in CA, but given the monolithic democrat majority in the state there aren't that many, at least not enough to make a difference. There is a far higher percent of pro-gun democrats in virtually every state south of the Mason-Dixon line than there is in CA. I know at least one of the "shall issue" counties in CA (Shasta) is republican majority (I'm sure there are others), and I'll bet virtually every "no issue" county is overwhelmingly democrat.

Glock22Fan
06-07-2011, 9:19 AM
What do we know about Suzy Loftus?


As a San Francisco prosecutor, Loftus specialized in domestic violence, elder abuse and firearms cases . . . .


The second quote likely tells one quite enough.

RP1911
06-07-2011, 10:48 AM
Probably handled the case of the illegal who killed afather and two sons.

Anchors
06-07-2011, 1:42 PM
I don't think that makes the difference either.

California is the shining example of anti-gun republicans, and pro-gun democrats.

While overall at the federal level republicans GENERALLY seem to be pro-gun and democrats GENERALLY seem to be anti-gun, that just doesn't happen in CA as predictably as elsewhere.

Basically, California is just screwed up.

Not to mention many republicans here would likely be considered pretty liberal RINOs in most conservative states and many democrats here would be considered extremists in many liberal states. lol.

California is screwed up.

stitchnicklas
06-07-2011, 3:11 PM
all the names in the link indicate all anti's......