"Chief Anthony Batts listed exactly 44 situations that his officers will no longer respond to and they include grand theft, burglary, car wrecks, identity theft and vandalism. He says if you live and Oakland and one of the above happens to you, you need to let police know on-line."
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/suffer-these-crimes-in...
Guess what happens when you fill in a form online? Maybe it turns in to an entry in a database, but that might be the end of it.
Some first hand examples: The four times my car was stolen, no investigation or arrest, including the one time I even was able to give them the name of one of the people who did it.
Usually they don't explicitly announce these policies because they are unpopular, but every police department has some threshold beyond which they do nothing.
However, the problem of prioritization by police is exactly that. Police could be doing any number of things; if the outcome of arresting someone is nothing happens, literally any other remaining work, including the kind that could be expanded a lot - e.g. patrolling - becomes higher priority. But ofc Seattle police for example is so under-staffed that they have trouble with 911 calls and sexual assault investigation backlog.
Eh, this part is dubious. They have no duty to protect, and no duty to respond to a crime.
> What is the point of police if they’re ignoring reports?
Lots of people asking this question lately. It's a good one.
"Breed has repeatedly promised to catch the perpetrators and even incentivized residents with up to $100,000 rewards for information leading to arrests."
They said people will stop reporting crimes because there is no point, and then people will point to the reduction in reported crime as proof that crime is down.
It turns out people stop reporting when they no one will get prosecuted and the cops won't do anything because they know there is no point in arresting criminals.