San Leandro police are looking two masked gunmen who robbed a woman at about 8:30 pm Monday after she parked her car on the 1600 block of Hays Street near the heart of downtown.
Police say both suspects are in their early 20s and stood about 5-feet, 10-inches tall. One man was thin, the other had a large build. Both were black, and were wearing dark hooded sweatshirts and pants in addition to their masks.
Authorities say the men fled on foot but they are sure in which direction.
They ask members of the public who may have seen the suspects before or after the 8:30 pm robbery to call Det. Sgt. Ted Henderson at 510-577-3238 or the Anonymous Tip Line at 510-577-3278.
Get San Leandro Patch delivered by email. Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter @sanleandropatch. Or start your own blog
Also in the news today... OAKLAND -- A nationally recognized violence prevention program that has had some success at reducing crime in Chicago, Boston and Cincinnati has launched in Oakland. The program, called Operation Ceasefire, is the result of several months of collaborative work between Oakland law enforcement agencies and the California Partnership for Safe Communities.
David and Vince are assuming that the victim didn't have a weapon. However, this is a fallacy, for it doesn't follow from this crime report that the victim wasn't carrying, only that she didn't use a weapon to prevent the attack. Criminals use suprise and sheer numbers to overwhelm their intended victims. It's not the shoot out at the O.K. Corral in the vast majority of incidence of violent crime. Even in areas where homocide rates are the highest in the nation, like East Oakland, it is generally understood that shootings are retaliatory. One young person gets shot and killed, then the family or friends/gang members plan out and execute a murder in retaliation. Reports like the one I linked above focus on this cycle and intensity of violence occuring in our neighboring community. I feel that this public safety issue is not restricted to these high crime areas. As far as I can tell, of the break-ins and robberies that have occured recently on my block, for example, many were perpetrated by young people on bicycles. The violent and reckless crimes are then, neighbor preying on neighbor. It's silly and backwards to think of this in any other way.
2) I plan on educating my children about the proper care and use of firearms, as I learned how to safely use and enjoy using guns (I enjoy target practice; both challenging and relaxing) many many years ago (starting at 12). What age they might learn will be dependent on my judgement of their maturity at the time; they are obviously too young now. 3) Yes, I am assuming the victim didn't have a weapon. Considering how rarely concealed carry permits are granted, and the recent banning of open carry in the state (yes I know that open carry of a loaded firearm was already outlawed), and the lack of a mention of a legal firearm in her possession at the time of the robbery all contribute to this assumption. I admit there is a very low probability she had a gun in her possession and was unable to use it. 4) Retaliatory shootings happen in gangland where the shooters and victims know each other and where they all live. There is no evidence or mention that she knew who mugged her. Thinking that if she defended herself against these felons, she'd be subject to retaliation is unsupported by your comparison. 5) The backwards thinking is that by leaving yourself defenseless, you're somehow protecting yourself. By definition, you're not. There are thousands of burglaries and robberies prevented by armed, law-abiding citizens. There are none prevented by rolling over and allowing the criminals free rein.
Why don't you give my questions some thought before you try to get all over my case? I am curious to understand your thinking. Especially about advocating that San Leandro youth (and seniors, for that matter) should be carrying guns, which is different than taking folks you feel responsible for out for target practice. Heck, my daughter wants to learn how to box, and I am seriously giving it some thought, so I can't be that passive. I don't see the distinctions you are trying to make. It's hard to parse when folks I know well and folks in active areas like Downtown San Leandro are being mugged at 8:30pm by young people around 18 years old, some a few years younger, some a few years older. I see these things as distinctly related. We need to lessen this by shrinking the areas where violence thrives, not spend huge amounts of our time and resources trying to corral it to areas where public safety has all but been written off. That form of tragic social and economic neglect is biting us in the butt big time here in the flat lands. San Leandro has one of the highest armed robbery rates of any city in Alameda county, yet I never hear a push to change this.
1. She trys to get the gun out and shoot the robber. She might hesitate for a second in which case the robbers take her gun from her and most likely would shoot her or pistol whip her. There is very high rate of people who are shot with their own gun because they pull it out but are not really mentally ready to shoot and possibly kill someone. 2. She does manage to fumble through her purse, and while the robber just happen to be standing there watching her she does manager to shoot one of two of them. Now first of all she has to go through a ton of legal problems to defend her killing of another person which even though it might be justified still will have to be provide. She will have to worry about retaliation from friends or family members from the victims. And worst of all she will have to live with herself that she killed another human being. I am not sure about you guys but having to live with the fact that I killed someone over what is in my wallet would make me question myself and my morals everyday for a very long time if not the rest of my life. Is a few dollars and lose of a few personal items worth someone's life?
I do think "the right" has some good points as well. Self defense is not a bad idea. As I mentioned, I'm actually warming up to the idea of investing in boxing lessons for our daughter. One of the hardest things to come to terms with is that boxers get trained to be hit. The worst thing to happen if you get punched, the instructor explained, is to not be trained. Untrained fighters freeze like a deer in headlights and then they get pounded pretty mercilessly. Boxing 101 in a nutshell for you. I think our community might be acting a little bit like a deer in the headlights. The things we need to overcome to move forward are hard and unpopular. We have several council seats now open, for example. I really haven't heard much of a peep about the rising level of crime I am experiencing and reading about. Has anyone? The right and left amongst us have things they certainly will not like about a real solution. We need to arm ourselves, in some cases literally, metaphorically in others. The status quo is unacceptable in my view. Arming ourselves might also mean things like partnering with East Oakland on anti-gang/violence initiatives and actually learning the names of the neighborhoods, community leaders, and human service providers there.
Richer communities in Oakland are sheltered from East Oakland by freeways and the hills - though some gentrification has occured this last decade by crossing over the freeway from the hills near Lake Merritt and new housing and development downtown. Alameda to the west of East Oakland is literally an island only reached by water or crossing over tunnels.
When others would choose to listen and respond in a thoughtul manner...David comes out swinging at everything he sees and ends up making himself and everyone around him dizzy. I'll have to ask the boxing instructor about how he goes about coaching fighters who are stuck in that mode.