The cats that are good at rodent control, almost by definition, will not need to spend a lot of time chasing mice. They are efficient mouse catchers.

Considering the abysmal clearance rates while violent crime rates have gone down, it is clear these cats are not good at catching mice. There is some other factor at work.

The smell of even the most inept cat still scares off mice.

Why would the police bother to catch criminals in the big left wing cities? Carjackers are being let off without even an agreement. The electorate has clearly communicated that they don't want the laws enforced if they have disparate impact. This is democracy in action, doing the will of the people. Where is the problem?

Edit: It's not a rhetorical question. If you disagree please tell me where the problem is. I don't agree with the policy decisions in question, but I respect democracy so I live with being in the minority whose policy preferences aren't enacted. That is how the system is meant to work, right?

If someone argues: "cats are bad at rodent control because they spend very little time each day catching mice" that might be missing the point. But a better analogy might be "cats are bad at rodent control because they spend very little time each day catching mice, and I keep seeing mice-droppings everywhere".

Pulling away from the analogy, the argument seems to be "There is a lot of hints that high-level crime still persists, and yet cops aren't spending much time fixing it, so their job must not be fighting high-level crime".

No it’s not.

I'm afraid to say that it is, too.

Nonetheless, your use of an analogy implies that you think there's something faulty to the argument, when it is in fact a completely valid and reasonable argument. So your analogy is rather toothless/meaningless.

If you want to argue that cops are good at their job regardless of how they spend their time, then do that, but your analogy by itself isn't very convincing of anything.