1. I Should Like to Be Able to Love Bruno and Still Love Justice
One tough SOB.
Bruno the Police Dog is apparently, improbably, healing. Less visibly, Anaheim itself is not.
I didn’t hear most of the official account on the Anaheim Police shooting of Robert Moreno Jr. — I’ll refer to him as “Moreno Jr.” in deference to all of the other prominent and unrelated Morenos in and around Anaheim these days — until Friday evening. Until then, I knew only that a police dog was shot and that police killed the shooter.
By then, my Google search of “Anaheim Police Shooting” was already filled with news of Bruno, Moreno Jr.’s innocent victim, above all else. As heroic Bruno has been recovering in Yorba Linda’s animal hospital, minus part of his lower jaw and half a lung, much of the rest of the story has been driven out of the news.
As a political figure and an animal lover — one incensed by a recently well-publicized police tactic of shooting the dogs of families targeted (sometimes mistakenly) in drug raids — I should probably try to have my photo taken with Bruno, print up buttons saying that I stand (on all fours) with Bruno, etc. I’ll leave that to others, though; we don’t need competition over who’s happiest about Bruno’s likely recovery. (Unfortunately, we do disagree over ensuring that everyone else should have access to that level of catastrophic care. On Friday night I learned that my granddaughter from Manila was in the emergency room, unable to breathe, so I’m a little sensitive about that at the moment. She’ll be OK.)
But while I am highly opposed to killing police dogs, I recognize that the ennobling story of Bruno’s bravery and survival is not really the part of this story that mattes most when it comes to public policy. As policy is what our elections are supposed to be about, we can’t let that part of the story cannot become obscured.
I’m running for Orange County District Attorney. That is an executive rather than a legislative position. The DA is not simply supposed to represent the people’s desires — not, for example, if what they want is unconstitutional. He or she is supposed to represent the interests of the lawful and impartial pursuit of justice.
Let me pose a question as a way to explain how those conflict.
Let’s say that, as the official reports state, Moreno Jr. was hiding in or behind a trash bin after fleeing from an interaction with probation officers at whom he had fired shots. From there, he shot at Bruno — who presumably either had found him or was a good bet to find him. Now let’s add one other possible fact: realizing that he was cornered, let’s say that Moreno Jr. tossed away the gun, raised his hands over his head, and surrendered.
You’re a police officer, maybe standing near the bloody and mangled form of your unit’s beloved dog. What’s your proper response?
A. Get him away from the dumpster at gunpoint, put him face down on the ground, and arrest him.
B. Avenge the dog — and just shoot the perp to death right there.
It’s really tempting to say “B,” isn’t it? I understand the feeling. After all, that’s what happens in the movies. It’s called “summary execution” — police serving as “judge, jury and executioner” — and it has the theoretical advantage of “saving us the cost of a trial.”
The correct answer is “A.” I can’t say that loudly or often or clearly enough: the correct answer is “A.” Our justice system does not allow for summary executions.
Let’s be clear: the Anaheim officers assert that they were still at imminent risk from Moreno Jr. at the moment that they fired — and I hope and expect that that is true. But I am truly and deeply troubled that, for some observers commenting on this killing, that doesn’t matter. For them, it’s apparently just a technicality — because the guy needed killing, period.
Summary executions wound our society. Name a significant domestic riot in the past 50 years and there’s a good chance that, if it wasn’t over a sports championship, it was about what the public believed was a completed or attempted summary execution.
Part of my job as District Attorney will be to reassure the public, with actions as well as words, that that won’t be allowed to happen. I might as well explain my position now — at maybe the worst possible time, politically, but the moment when I’ll most have your attention.
And while we want to follow the wonderful story of the recovery of Bruno, which I hope has a happy ending, we should remember that there’s more to this story that demands our attention. For example: what was happening in this image from Thursday, from a video taken by the OC Weekly‘s Gabriel San Roman?
Here’s the full video:
Public safety is unquestionably threatened anytime someone fires at probation officers. But it is also threatened when a police search for such a shooter puts children leaving elementary school in a potential crossfire. How do we balance these interests? Who pays the price if we do it wrong?
(Putting it another way: would this have played out in just the same way had it happened right nearby an elementary school in Anaheim Hills?)
2. Riots Usually Don’t Just Come Out of Nowhere
I’ll be blunt: if you favor summary execution by police — which you do if you’re happy that a particular killing of a suspect “saved us a trial” — then you need to get out of government.
Anaheim Councilmember Lucille Kring needs to get out of government — and I call upon her to resign.
In a written statement to a private group on Friday morning, Kring came out for summary execution — killing a suspect without trial. (If the Anaheim Police had merely wounded Moreno and arrested him, then there would have been a trial. No “cost savings” if he lived.) For making that statement, she should resign — and stay out of this fall’s Mayoral race. Her expressed position is poison for a city — especially one like Anaheim, which only twenty months ago was plagued by riots.
Riots usually don’t just come out of nowhere. Riots may occur for many reasons — but one of them is when a city’s residents are afraid of summary execution by the government. Kring’s comments favoring summary execution made every police officer, every resident, and every visitor in Anaheim less safe. And while she’ll say that she apologized for the statement, she didn’t apologize for the sentiment.
As a District Attorney candidate, these two things about me should be no surprise:
(1) It’s not my first instinct to blame the police in a situation like Thursday’s fatal shooting. I may come to that conclusion eventually, but I don’t do it easily or happily. I’m just open to that possibility.
(2) I don’t defend membership in violent gangs generally or soft-pedal the harm that I think that violent gangs generally do to their communities.
These next two things about me shouldn’t surprise you either — although they might:
(1) I think that valid questions have been raised about this shooting that deserve answers — through an investigatory process that all people in the county can trust.
(2) I am completely opposed to summary executions — and as District Attorney I would be prepared to prosecute over police killings of suspects that appear to fit within that category.
To explore these last two points, I’d like to introduce you to two Anaheim women , Councilwoman Kring and community activist Zia Back. Many people would frown on Zia’s response to this shooting, while respecting Kring’s. Zia hasn’t convinced me of her position — but I consider her position a lot more respectable than Kring’s. Any self-respecting and constitution-respecting District Attorney should agree with me on this one.
3. Kring Apologizes for the Wrong Thing
Lucille Kring’s comment to an email list maintained for residents of Anaheim’s Colony District was this:
“Bruno [the wounded police dog] is a true hero as are all the canine police officers. And the shooting saved us a trial. Always a good outcome.”
I agree with that first sentence. But those last two sentences were a terrible thing to say for a government official to say, for at least three reasons.
The first, that it was unfeeling to deny Moreno Jr.’s human value. She later apologized in writing for doing so:
“This morning I made a careless and insensitive statement in an on-line newsgroup that does not reflect my values. The loss of a human life is always a tragedy. He was someone’s son, maybe an uncle, brother, father. I apologize unreservedly for my statement and I hope you will forgive me.”
I give Kring some credit for this. I believe that her values, even if she sometimes forgets about them, do probably teach that the loss of a human life is “always a tragedy” — although, frankly, being unfeeling about the death of gang members appears to be pretty popular with voters. But it is the least of the three real problem with her statement.
The second, more serious, problem is that the official story of what happened could be incorrect in important ways. (Do you know right now, for example, how the police knew that they had the right guy at the time that they fired — rather than someone with similar appearance who thought that he had a reason to hide from police?) We won’t know that until an investigation is completed — and even then we won’t really know unless that investigation is reliable and its results are valid. (Of course, that investigation just became a lot harder now that the person who knew the most about what happened — and who was best placed to contradict that official story, if that is appropriate — is dead.)
My gut instinct here is the official story is correct — but I also know that my gut instinct (or yours, or anyone’s) is worthless compared to the result of a thorough and fair investigation. I’ll develop an opinion based on my gut instinct — but not a final conclusion. It’s no shock that Kring doesn’t agree with this — she’s a minor legislator, not a district attorney — but, especially from a lawyer, it’s disappointing.
The final problem is far worse: valuing the killing of a suspect because it “saves us a trial.” Making a case for summary execution is wrong — and in a city with Anaheim’s recent history and continuing conflicts, it’s close to insane. If suspects think that they’ll be shot by police anyway, whether they are guilty of anything or not, because of how they look or their non-criminal activity, then they are going to be more likely to shoot first — because it might be their only chance to escape.
That’s not a value judgment — it’s a cold hard fact. (So is the cold hard fact that one of the likeliest accidental targets of this particular shooting would have been one of the group of children just letting out of elementary school.) Unless Moreno Jr. was flat out crazy (another thing I can’t rule out), we have to wonder why he — as a non-probationer and non-parolee — reportedly shot at the two probation officers.
I’d like to see him answer that question — but he’s been dead for a couple of days. One possibility is that he thought that his appearance — young, male, and Latino; heavily tattooed, indicators of gang involvement, and in the company of others who probably looked similar — made him more likely to be arrested. And, of course, maybe he was up to no good — although while that’s a concern for law enforcement overall, it should not have been the concern of those two probation officers (except for them to call the police if they suspected something.)
Why does someone like him shoot at police? Either he just wanted to kill someone, or he wanted to protect others, or he was nuts — or he wanted to protect himself. The prospect of facing summary execution makes all of those factors worse. Moreno Jr. probably knew the stories of Cesar Cruz, Martin Hernandez, Manuel Diaz, and Joel Acevedo. To the poorer residents of Anaheim, especially its youth, all of those killings look like summary executions — and the credibility of official investigations into them is low. (That’s why you have agitation for Citizens Review Commissions.)
If you listen to the mothers protesting the killings in Anaheim, they’re afraid that their sons will get shot simply for being suspects, without being able to explain their actions or receive the benefits of the judicial system. By talking about the shooting having “saved us a trial” — and both parents and children in this part of Anaheim know exactly what that means — Kring’s comments made future such preemptive shootings of police and bystanders by innocent and guilty suspects more likely. What she thinks is exactly what people in the barrios are afraid she thinks.
Kring’s comments also made it more likely that police will shoot at suspects first to preempt shots from suspects, and on and on. (With widely available concealed carry of handguns on the way to OC, this problem has already been destined to get worse — unless perhaps we’re going to unconstitutionally deny that right to young Latinos in Anaheim.)
I don’t like that Kring’s comments made it more likely that such killings would lead to riots. That’s not I’d like the world be — I never like to see domestic riots — that’s just how it is. Take away people’s sense that they will have opportunities for justice — and that the government even values justice for the accused — and they lose faith in the system. Then, they don’t cooperate with local police and they don’t help local police feel safe. (The police may respond to this with less on-the-ground community policing — which in turn leads to more crime.)
One purpose of government is to give people — from the most to the least exalted — access to a judicial system in which they can have faith. We already have a huge problem with faith in government and — among poorer residents — with faith in police in particular. Several commenters on various news stories, ones without Kring’s prominence, have suggested that our society is generally better off shooting gang members preemptively because they’re sure to do something wrong sooner or later. Anything that suggests that a public official agrees with those miscreants — such as that execution without trial is “always a good outcome” — leaves a scar on poorer communities that won’t easily be forgotten.
Kring apologized for not honoring the dignity of human life — so good for her. She did not apologize — in fact, it apparently did not even occur to her to apologize — for not honoring the dignity of the federal and state Constitution.
Polling routinely shows that Fourth Amendment protections of the rights of suspects and Eighth Amendment protections of the rights of convicts would never survive if they went to a popular vote — which is one reason that they’re embedded in the Constitution itself rather than merely in easily repealed statutes. So Kring’s venting her spleen may have been good politics. But as policy, which is what she’s elected to decide, it was atrocious. She needs to resign.
4. Zia Back Asks Some Valid Questions
Zia Back, who will also feature in a story slated for early next week, has pursued this story more fervently than anyone else I know since it broke on Thursday. A frequent commenter at City Council meetings, she has lived in a part of the city that was touched by tragedy in 2012 — the police shooting death of the son of her friend Donna Acevedo, now a candidate for Anaheim City Council.
If you credit Zia’s view of policing in Anaheim, then from her vantage point she has a lot of basis to mistrust the police. She’s like a lot of other residents there — but she has had the advantages of a good education, work in the non-profit sector in Washington, DC, and experience as a speaker. We agree on some things and disagree on others. (For example, I won’t refer to police as “pigs”: I think that they’re a necessary part of society with an awesome responsibility. When she’s angry, she will sometimes call them names.)
To me, name-calling and tarring police generally with a broad brush is both unfair and politically self-defeating — but, then again, my perspective as a middle-class and middle-aged white attorney would naturally tend to differ from hers. (Having three beautiful brown-skinned stepdaughters has affected my perspective, though.) I can get involved in fights over civil rights as a matter of choice rather than of necessity. And, if I need to, I can leave Anaheim anytime I want and go back home to Brea. The residents of Anaheim’s flatlands can’t.
I don’t need to endorse all or most of what Zia says to understand that her perspective is valuable, though — and I want to share it with people who wouldn’t normally see it or take it seriously. This matters because people like Zia, like Donna, and others have perspectives on police investigations that Lucille Kring and her appointees won’t share. People like Zia need to be included in investigations of police shootings if they are to have credibility within the community. I’m sure that the Anaheim Police would not want to see that — but it’s a choice between that and the failure of a self-proclaimed “clean bill of health” to receive public acceptance.
Here’s are some of the concerns that Zia raised with me in a Facebook conversation from Friday evening, largely in response to questions that I was asking her (as I was just then catching up on events.) I’ve slightly rephrased some of the wording for publication; she may have revised some of these thoughts since then as new facts and claims have appeared. Among her concerns (with my current responses):
- There was no reason for chasing this man. His only reported crime so far was STANDING next to someone found to be on probation.
- Remember, the cops engaged the 3 suspects enough to know that one was on probation. The young man who chose to MOVE AWAY from the police was NOT on probation!
Here’s what GSR quotes the APD spokesperson as saying about the initial interaction between the police and Moreno Jr. and his companions:
“[The probation officers] were working in a county marked white car when they contacted three individuals on the street,” Anaheim Police Department Public Information Officer Lt. Tim Schmidt tells the Weekly. “Two suspects took off running. One suspect pulled a handgun out, shot multiple rounds, missed them and ran away.
If it’s just (paraphrasing) “officers saw three people on the street, two ran, and one fired and missed and then ran,” then of course the police had a reason for chasing him. (The probation officers should not have done so themselves — and it’s not clear that that’s what’s alleged.) But several aspects of Schmidt’s statement don’t square with Zia’s comments — that Moreno Jr. is “the” (meaning the sole) “young man who chose to move away.” If there’s a factual conflict here, it needs to be resolved.
- Officers had lethal automatic weapons out before any shot was fired on them as a nearby elementary school was letting out.
- There are plenty of pics of cops with lethal weapons drawn PRIOR to the low flying helio announcement and subsequent release of the K9
- Do we KNOW that “he” shot the K9? Approximately 30 rounds of automatic police fire vs his one, possibly two, even more possibly ZERO shots fired! Whose bullet went into Bruno???
I don’t know where Zia gets this information — but I wouldn’t be surprised if she had access to sources that the media does not. (Or, some of the information may be wrong. At this point, one can’t tell.) Let’s take these one by one.
1. Witnesses being taken away from a crime scene to a police station doesn’t bother me. Their not wanting to be identified, especially given Moreno Jr.’s apparent gang affiliation, seems understandable. Why the APD would not bend over backwards to make witnesses available to the media for not-for-attribution interviews does bother me — because it leaves open the possibility of official witness intimidation. (I don’t think that the APD has done that — but I think that the APD should want people like Zia not to have to take them at their word.)
2. Turning Moreno Jr.’s mother away doesn’t bother me if they didn’t or shouldn’t have been expected to know who she was. (It’s unfortunate — but understandable.) If they knew her identity and still turned her away — that’s cruel and damaging (and also suggests a lack of interest in investigation.) I don’t think that there’s much to be said about this without knowing more facts.
3. No pictures of the body with a gun — if true, and it’s not clear to me how Zia would know that it’s true — then that shocks me. Do I need to spell out why? OK: the suspicion in these communities is going to be that Moreno Jr. never had a gun at all. In other words, people who suspect government criminality will likely think that the probation officers made up a story about shots fired to get police involved — no casings had been reported found by Friday, or to my knowledge even since. Some will doubt that Moreno Jr. shot at Bruno or police at all, asserting that he was killed in cold blood — as various commenters on local news stories have suggested would have done the world a favor anyway due to his gang affiliations. (Why would the police do so? Well, if there’s one thing that the Manual Diaz shooting shows, it’s that Anaheim Police do not like people, even ones not yet in custody, running away from them.)
Under such circumstances, which a sensible police department should anticipate, I can’t think of any valid reason not to photograph the body of the decedent with his gun. It’s just inviting people to think that Moreno Jr. had no gun there at all. (And if they’d lie about that — wouldn’t they also possibly lie about Moreno Jr. being the same guy who was with the probation officers?) This would be so boneheaded that I think that it’s most likely that Zia’s information or supposition was incorrect.
Now let’s take a step back. My guess — my hope, at least — is that most of these questions have benign answers and that the concerns behind them have reasonable explanations. But they are the right questions to ask — there is nothing wrong with asking them — and more people out there than just Zia and the Moreno family will be asking them. Is it insulting to police even to ask them? Maybe so — but that considerations takes a distant second place to finding the truth in a way that settles the public’s concerns.
Zia Back’s response to this tragedy — remember, even Lucille Kring eventually called it that — may not please a lot of people outside of Anaheim’s poorer communities, but she is asking questions that, if answered through a transparent process in which citizens could have faith, would do much to repair the rips in the social fabric of Anaheim. We need people from the community, with the sort of skepticism we want in criminal defense lawyers, to be probing the validity of police investigations of these sorts of high-profile shootings from the outset. (South OC Congressman Darrell Issa alone probably comes up with far crazier ideas that the notion that Moreno Jr. didn’t have a gun most days before he’s done with breakfast.) So yes, Zia Back — thanks for caring enough to ask.
In contrast to Zia Back’s challenging response to this tragedy, Lucille Kring showed unwillingness to entertain the thought that the police don’t always volunteer the whole truth in such situations. Her never-recanted preference for the death of a suspect — even while gesturing to his innate human dignity — as a means of closing off a controversy cheaply and with finality, comes across as being completely irresponsible. Anaheim has come to a sad state when many of the neighborhood activists hectoring the Council from the audience are more responsible than many of its top political leaders. The latter endangers public safety and cannot be tolerated.
Lucille Kring should leave her position on the City Council — “save us the cost of a recall election” is I suppose how she might have put it — and abandon her quest to become Anaheim’s Mayor. The damage done to a city like Anaheim by a Mayor with a “shoot first and ask questions later — or not at all” approach to policing much of its population would be enormous. As District Attorney, I would not stand for it. I’ll ask anyone necessary as many questions as necessary — without fear or favor — and I’ll see justice done lawfully in order to enforce the law.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=849605995064811&set=p.849605995064811&type=1&theater
For those, like Ricardo and Zenger, who don’t do Facebook (created by our friend Mark Daniels)
It’s like he was trained in writing at the Winship Academy…..itself!
It would be too nasty to speculate about the use of those plastic funnel collars, to prevent re-irritation, so I’m NOT GOING TO GO THERE!
I hope that Chief Quezada will set an accountability practice different from his predecessor, chief John Welter’s who claimed in an Al-Jazeera documentary that he didn’t know about a military-style police unit that had been dispatched to patrol the city after the downtown riot as a result of a string of fatal police shootings.
If Lucille Kring quits her run for Mayor, who are Pringle & Associates going to support?
Don’t know, Ricardo. I’m sort of out of that loop.
They can get a bicycle pump and reinflate that Chavez Loge guy?
Now, that’s funny. Steven Albert Chavez Lodge – the pneumatic candidate.
Gives new meaning to the phrase “empty suit.”
She’s not quitting, Ricardo, just because Greg thinks she should. Although, they say Lorri’s been meeting with Pringle as well.
Pinocchio would be appropriate.
This is the same John Welter who supposedly told the previous city manager Wingen-whatever that I was not under investigation by his PD. Meanwhile, 17+ years of criminal harassment with the participation of the Anaheim police department. In some ways, he wasn’t lying Ricardo – I’m not the subject of investigation by the APD – I’m the subject of criminal harassment by the APD.
It’s called lying by selective fact dissemination. The DA does it all day long in court.
While Kring’s comments regarding the injured dog were appropriate, an individual who publicly demonstrates more compassion and respect towards an injured DOG than a dead MAN clearly lacks the moral authority required to serve a public body.
I don’t care what choices this individual made in his life. To be stripped of both his rights and his humanity in the way that Kring did isn’t forgivable.
She was elected to speak for and represent all her constituents, not just the ones whose lifestyles she approves of. This demonstrates she’s clearly not up to her charge. If I had my name on her endorsement list . . . I’d better be first in line to demand she step down.
*California State Law protects our K-9 buddies: They are treated the same as any other brother police member. Kring understands that:
State Statutes Protecting Police Dogs
http://www.policek9.com/html/statutes.html
California Penal Code 600 (a) Any person who willfully and maliciously and … or by a fine not exceeding one thousand $(1000.00), or by both a fine and imprisonment. … As used in this section, “police service dog” means a dog used by apeace … Any person who purposely kills a dog, horse or other animal owned or used …
This is the very reason why in Newport Beach, bullet proof vests are provided
to as many K-9 animals as possible.
Lucille, defending Police animals and attacking the “Mike Vicks” of the world is not a Ron Calderon offense….thanks!
What?
Translation services welcomed.
I actually posted a story @ newanaheim about the Lucille K and about a one word comment “Goob” that a well known latina community activist wrote on day the story. She actually, wrote this on someone else fb status page and it was most likely because English is not her first language that i suspect she gets her b and d mixed up. (Seen it a few times before)
I think she allowed her emotions to get to her too,just like Lucille.
Should she resign as that community’s representative? Of course not.
Let this Lucille issue rest, I don’t support her nor the Pringle machine but the more issues(call for Recall) you let become issues the more you take the main problem ( the Pringle machine ) and the crony captilism out of the equation and put issues that will help Eastman and Murray’s re-election.
First things first: I went to New Anaheim for the first time in a long time as a result of your post and all of the articles there are posted by Art Pedroza, although eight of the most recent nine are just ported in from other sites.
So: presumably, you’re Art Pedroza, in which case — why are you posting here as “Jose”?
Some people conflate “post” with “comment.” I think it’s old Joe “jose” moreno, who put up the best run he could against tom Daly, remember?
I did consider that — but none of the nine posts on the site’s first page (nor the nine posts on the site’s second page) indicate that they have any comments.
Maybe the “comments indicator” there is broken — I’m not going to open up every single item to find out — but I doubt it. I could hear the clacking from my keys echoing as I moved around the site.
Perhaps “Jose” will clarify, even offer a link.
I just sent Vern the facebook post info, hopefully, he shares it with you, Greg
So is Vern right that this is “Non-Doctor” Jose Moreno?
Okay I guess this is all somewheres on the FACEBOOK PAGE that Art made for his NEW ANAHEIM blog — no wonder nobody ever saw it. (Daniel Lamb once confused me similarly, leading me to believe he’d been banned from Art’s BLOG OC politics, when in reality he’d just been prevented from COMMENTING as OC Politics on the OC Politics FACEBOOK page.)
I guess what Jose is talking about is somewhere here: https://www.facebook.com/NewAnaheim?ref=br_tf
I don’t really have time to look thru that page. What are we trying to prove again? Oh, Jose is saying that Yesenia wrote “Goob” somewhere, about the dog getting shot, maybe? And so those of us who object to Lucille’s comments have a “double standard.” Maybe Yesenia is still remembering getting bit by a police dog, which coulda been Bruno.
PS. Joe now says his interpretation is that Yesenia said “GOOB” about the cops shooting Lil Clumsy… that’s harder to believe. Who knows?
Really sad that anyone needs to have it explained why summary executions are bad.
Now about those drone strikes…
*After D.B. Cooper, there were a rash of Aircraft Highjackings in the United States and in Europe. General Creighton Abrams was one of those that supported “Summary Execution” for anyone who either highjacked a plane, killed anone aboard the plane or anyone that attempted to set off a bomb aboard a plane.
Just the talk about “Summary Execution” put a damper on most highjacking activities for a time. Times of course have changed since the 1960’s……eh?
Today, parent train their children to grown up and be “Suicide Bombers” when
they turn 12. The Social Contract has changed a great deal, but their is little
to discuss or put before the Justice system…..today that is redemptive for these folks. The Justice system, don’t forget is designed to serve as an example of why “Crime does not pay!”. We invite you to watch carefully the coming trial of Jo-Car Bro……the remaining Boston Marathon bomber. Be careful to watch each and every day of the trial, and tell us what message is being sent out into the world regarding “Bombing Innocent People”. Drone Strikes? Absolutely necessary in a world that has lost its moral compass and insights others to do great harm to innocent folks……who just live in a particular neighborhood at the wrong time and place.
Just what every tyrant says: “This time it’s different, so we have to bypass due process and rule of law.”
Yup. And yet there we are.
I’m not a fan of drone strikes either, but at least they’re a step up from what I (and probably President Obama) grew up watching on TV: “carpet bombing.”
But let’s keep a focus on the topic at hand.
Well… summary executions are not the topic at hand?
Drones on foreign soil aren’t domestic summary executions. They’re de facto acts of war in low-level non-traditional conflicts. They are a worthy topic, but they distract from Anaheim.
Yes, they’re not domestic summary executions if they don’t happen domestically, but don’t count on that. They’re still summary executions, and very sloppy ones at that.
They don’t even pretend to be judicial. They’re military actions. Yes, there are similarities, and yes, I find them disturbing — but conflating the purposes and operations of the police and the military confuses more than it clarifies.
One place where it’s useful to note similarities, though, is in the effect each has on the population that sees itself as under attack.
The FB headline only says
“Officer shot and killed man who shot dog”
The response is Good but was misspelled “goob”
Was is good the dog was shot?
Or
Was it good the cops killed a man?
I don’t know but think whichever response is insensitive and wrong for any community leader. That all I’m saying.
Goob.
Jose, the level of responsibility of an elected official, candidate for Mayor, is much higher than an emergent community leader. You’re trying too hard to spin a misspoken statement from Yesenia to justify Lucille Kring’s very insensitive statement.
Again, Ricardo, it’s not a matter of its being insensitive. I don’t really care how sensitively someone tries to justify summary execution. Don’t do it at all.
Spot on Dr. D.
I’m using the merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensitive definition :” likely to cause people to become upset.”, to characterize her justification of summary execution.
I am not spinning anything just presenting bad and good of this. I suspect Lucille’s comment was all emotional but its being portrayed here like she favors public firing squads with due process. That is the spin.
I am not a supporter of Kring nor the Pringle machine but think it was emotion that trigger Licille response. We are all humans and make mistakes, even politicians make them.
Kring can clarify her position anytime she wants — although it would already be too late for her to redeem her reputation and evade legitimate calls for her to resign.
Right now, her apparent position is that everyone is someone’s mother’s child and that anyone’s death is a tragedy — BUT, that it’s also fine for police to shoot someone to death if they have allegedly done something heinous, such as shooting a police dog, regardless of whether they are at that moment armed or could be safely captured alive.
That’s summary execution. (Firing squads generally aren’t summary execution, but are usually a punishment taking place after some degree of due process.) If she opposed summary execution by the police — if her position is that a suspect should be brought home alive if possible and not shot fatally unless they pose a clear present threat — then this would be an excellent time to say so.
That’s what the Constitution requires. I’ve had people whisper to me over the past few days that it’s not a popular position. Maybe so — but it’s what the Constitution requires, and I’m not going to wink and avert my eyes from it.
Okay, I think both comments are not goob, Bad.
Insensitive. Yes. I would make them as it would be terrible to those who care for the young man or animal.
The use of Summary executions is not the appropriate word here given what we know and it is that spin and calls for resignation that will put the Pringle machine member in their seats for another four years
I hope your grandchild is alright.
Who cares about the dog.
She’s breathing on her own now, thanks, and with some scrambling we were able to get together the cash to get her released from the hospital around midnight. (Yes, you can’t leave the hospital unless you’ve paid your bill. And the horrific implications of that, which might convince you that that can’t possibly be true, are both real and as horrific as you’d imagine.)
I care about the dog — but I care about my granddaughter more.
Thanks for the good news.
FWIW, I have spent time in a Manila hospital. I would move Heaven and Earth to get out. I was being sincere (as opposed to sarcastic) for a change.
Now, about that Trust Act…….just kidding.
Understood — and thanks. The hospitals themselves are pretty good and is relatively inexpensive. The approach to paying medical bills before being allowed to depart legally, though, is shocking.
The kid made a mistake that caused him his life.
She spoke the truth, no reason to apology.
Tell us more about the breadth and depth of your support for summary executions, cook!
That kid made the mistake of shooting at officers for what ever reason he did.
Use of lethal force is justified. Correct?
“summary executions” GD, You must be joking.
Let’s say that someone shoots at officers and then surrenders. Are they justified in shooting to kill?
Let’s say that someone shoots a police dog and then surrenders. Are officers justified in shooting to kill?
Right now there’s not even any physical evidence (such as bullet casings, or a gun in his possession that matched the bullet found in Bruno’s chest) that he had a gun at all. Now, I suspect that the cops aren’t lying about that — but they could be. (There’s good reason to think that it has happened in Anaheim’s recent history.) There’s even less evidence that, if he had a gun, he still retained it at the time he was shot. (That, by the way, is a good reason not to shoot if one can avoid it.)
Many people seem to think that if he shot Bruno, he deserved to be shot, no matter what — which includes “no matter whether he surrenders.”
If you don’t think that that last scenario would be a “summary execution,” you’re simply too ignorant to take part in a discussion. Just because heroes do it in action movies doesn’t make it constitutional.
Mistake or not, until the facts are investigated It appears as another summary execution (A summary execution is a variety of execution in which a person is accused of a crime and then immediately killed without benefit of a full and fair trial. Wiki).
You’re not doing her a favor by saying that she spoke the “truth”. I hope that neither you nor her condone actions that resemble a police state.
*it sort of goes like this……you train your puppy, love your puppy, feed your puppy, make your puppy part of your family, take down the bad guys with your puppy. Then some slime shoots your puppy and tries to kill them. You go nuts and double tap that loser
until the sun won’t shine.
They don’t call that “Summary Execution”….they call that “Revenge”!
It’s also, rightly, called “murder”.
*Stuff happens…when you are having fun or trying to protect your family.
Overstepping my self-imposed allotment,
I believe she meant to say:
“Today a tragic event unfolded in our city. A young man is dead, a horrible outcome, no matter how we look at it. Moreover, the violence resulting in the injury of a police department canine makes this more painful and confusing”…………..
That comment would be for the Voice Of OC crowd.
For the rest she really meant to say:
“I am glad he is dead and you should be too” . VOTE FOR ME , “He was a dirty scumbag who shot a FUCKING DOG.”
“Look Anaheim, the truth is, my heart does not bleed for Manny “Stomper” Diaz or Robert “Lil Clumsy” Moreno nor should you. We are working HARD to cleanse the streets of Anaheim, from this kind”.
She might go on:
“Sure it’s sad that “Stomper” and “Clumsy” are dead, but does it really matter? I want to go after the cause, their Mothers and Fathers that failed to raise them correctly. That allowed them to become the violent killers they were.”
VOTE FOR ME.
That might work better than the back peddling.
+1
Ok , sorry guys. I contribute to newanaheim on the Facebook platform whereas Art and others contribute to both, online and Facebook.
Look, like I said earlier I am no fan of Lucille and think her comment was brought out by emotion..
Well, just WAIT for the possible BIG SHOW, tomorrow night, in Council Chambers, where two gents familiar to Council watchers, will probably have LOTS to say! (Of course I’m referring to Msrs. Fitzgerald and Reade) Be sure and get there early for good seats! (Sorry, no coolers or outside food allowed!)
Do you think that dogs understand that they could be shot for doing what we train them to do? Maybe we shouldn’t involve them in our human problems.
You know, that’s a good question.
I also have been wondering if Bruno and his mates are covered by POBR.
Can we keep the bomb-sniffing ones? And the St. Bernards, with their whiskey? Sorry, but I think that having K-9 Corps are fine.
*When you are a cop….running through alleys….looking behind every trash can you can find…….for the bad guy that just shot and killed the liquour store clerk…you will be more than happy to have Bruno…….scouting out the bad folks for you. Especailly, if they are armed and dangerous. Bruno took how many bullets for the cop standing behind him? Send some cash to get those
puppies some Bullet Proof attire instead of moralizing over lost Miranda Rights!
Oh I get it. If I play this backwards it’ll say “Paul is dead…”
*DZ – should probably let this go…..but – not everyone arrested or chased by the cops is a victim. How about another rhetorical question: You are cop chasing someone – the guy turns on you fires four bullets into chest. Should the shooter sue because he expended four bullets at $1.25 a piece? Lucille is pro-police, pro public safety, pro animal rights. Something wrong with that?
The answer to your first question is “no.” Let us know if you can figure out why.
We’re looking for pro-human, ‘Ship. That always comes first.
This young man’s choices have no bearing on his inalienable humanity. That was stripped from him by his elected official, which ought to shock you– which clearly it does not.
What’s worse, clearly she didn’t write her own apology. I’ve seen Speak and Spells read things with more honesty and compassion than she did last night.
This is about a basic qualification for public service: Moral authority. Kring lacks it, and a list of her positions as you’ve given us, does nothing to fill the gaping hole that ought to be the heart of her candidacy.
Ah, dear me.
Yes, you should have just let it go since nothing you said has anything remotely to do with the asinine comment Kring made. The equally asinine “apology” was just as bad since now we have to guess why she made the comment in the first place since it is diametrically opposite to what she now says she stands for.
Is she now trying to tell us that every now and then (no telling when) incoherent and meaningless statements tumble out of her mouth? Or are we just to swallow it all with a shrug and accept her humanitarianism?
Dave, I think she’s telling us that if it’s not in her campaign literature, it doesn’t count.
Not qualified to lead. It’s just that simple.
Oh, snap!
*Overwhelming…..we are underwhelmed! Your response is not just weak, but hopelessly sectarian…..as in “ethnic divide”. No, No, No…..we are talking about “policy issues” – not weak sister, knee cap injury based upon overtime limitations. The concept for reproach….should start will errors in judgement based upon erronerous concepts. That being said:
What is Lucille’s worse failing again? Please be brief!
?
Anyone?
I have no idea what that’s supposed to say.
I do sort of feel like setting it to music.
“What is Lucille’s worse failing again? Please be brief!”
I can be very brief: she is an habitual liar.
*Any other polticians you know that has there character based on their ethical word? Name a couple…..
Are you using “politician” to mean the occupant of an elected office, or to denote one who uses that office primarily for their own advancement? If the first, many answers come to mind, but I can see the question shifting to the second to win the point. Clarification?
BBRW – Both sir…..in fact, anyone elected needs to serve many masters
to be elected. They cannot be on all sides of any issue and get away with
it for long. It is the main reason why we expect our electeds to answer our e-mails, be responsive to issues and have a modicum of common sense. As we say….it is a lot to ask.
“Republican Lucille Kring”
I have found the smoking gun. Lucille Kring is a republican, That is why the gang of Democrats are beating her up like a bunch of bullies.
Democrats, Cook? Democrats like Scott Baugh, Jon Fleischman, much of the OCGOP, Allan Bartlett, Deborah Pauly, Cynthia Ward, David Zenger, Ryan Cantor, Mayor Tait?
You sure miss a lot, dude. An amazing amount of details, and the point. She is NOT a good Republican.
Vern. While it is true those republicans listed above don’t support a government involving crony capitalism, like Anaheim, it would be shocking to me if they followed Greg’s “summary execution” thinking given the details we understand to be true.
And as long as we are throwing out names, I wouldn’t call it bullying because Lucille, Gail, and Kris weren’t going to get the votes of those who feel Lucille’s comment was insensitive and her apology not sincere enough, anyways.
I would call it pestering. Pestering on an issue that I guess 70% to 80% of the voters in Anaheim would call it as the police doing their job.
I don’t think police get any enjoyment in killing another human, get revenge, or anything remotely satisfying as it’s getting portrayed here.
While Greg is seemingly trying to make the case by using the highly charged term of “summary executions” that those police officers had a choice, he does not know as he was not there.
But based on the events we understand, I can not imagine the mindset of an officer who witnesses a fleeing suspect who shoots a gun, a fleeing suspect who shoots a police dog, and a fleeing suspect who shoots at police, and think despite being emotionally aware of a possible serious deadly threat that that officer went looking for that gun-shooting not to commit a “summary execution”(ridiculous thought based on reporting) but to protect our community.
Again Lucille’s comment was a emotionally driven, insensitive- sort of jokingly comment but she apologized sincerely.
I wasn’t going to vote for Lucille anyways but believe that the public safety advocates supporters in our city’s electorate stand by our police officers.
Jose, I think that most police officers would NOT kill someone who did not pose an immediate threat based on whatever heinous thing (or not so heinous thing, like running away) they had previously done. But I also think that a minority well might. And even if none on a given force would, we still have to ensure that it wouldn’t happen or be tolerated. Do we agree that far?
If they were so disposed, though, they’d be listening to (and supported by) the chorus of people you can read on recent comments sections stating that if he shot the dog he should have been shot, period — and, sometimes they add, save the city the bother of a trial. That sort of anti-constitutional view is not well-suppressed in our society; as I’ve noted, it’s a continual motif in our action movies.
And that’s exactly what this City Councilwoman said should be the rule. In this case, it’s not the officers that I’m worried about — most of them seem much more thoughtful about this than an armchair vigilante like Kring does — but the tone set by their political representative. And if her comment came across as even the least bit “jokingly” to you, then I’m sorry to say it, but you’re tone deaf.
And yes, Jose, what I describe above — not a perceptual mistake in the heat of the moment, not a preemptive shot against someone who was still armed and posed a lethal threat, but a shot fired against then neutralized person who had done something really bad and whom an officer thought deserved to die for it (given that so many people would never question the result) without trial — is summary execution. Even considering it as anything other than an aberration should be a social taboo.
(P.S. You can’t vote for or against Lucille, right? Or have you moved to Anaheim?)
He’s always been in Anaheim. Where did you think he lived?
Santa Ana! I guess he just worked there.
I think he works in Westminster.
FYI- I have lived in Anaheim for close to thirteen years, campaign for AUHS district seat 6 years ago.
I have actually maintained a residency, with the exception of when I was attending UCI, in the cities of Garden Grove, Santa Ana and Anaheim the last 45 years.
“Santa Ana!” Nice assumption there.
You did work in Santa Ana when you ran last time, right?
I thought that I had seen you referred to as a Santa Ana resident back then. Not an assumption, but a faulty memory. (If I were assuming that you lived somewhere, it would have been Villa Park, right?)
While I believe that police abuse does exist, I find it troubling that with this officer involved shooting you imply things that you don’t know or may never know as true in order to reach an inappropriate conclusion that an execution happened.
First paragraph:
Yes, I suspect most police officers would be at a heightened alertness with an “immediate threat” like a fleeing suspect shooting at them and a police dog, and thus would possibly shoot that known armed and proven dangerous person before being shot at again. Talking about movies, you don’t get shot and then return fire.
Of course, police officers are human and have emotions. LIke your previous concern was strictly on the well being of your relative, so is it with a police officer concern with those who they work with, including a police dog. That is known, peoples’ emotions are greater when involves people or animals they know, people close to them.
But, if someone is willing to shoot a defenseless living dog, then would your agree that quite likely that person is capable of shooting a living human too, like a police officer.
Paragragh 2: Never heard people say that a particular person should rot in hell, never heard people say child molester should be castrated, gang members should be put on an island, that rapist should be with Bubba, drug users should be shot(Darryl Gates comment despite having a drug addicted son and he still went on to win re-election) etc, etc, etc. but people say these comments based on emotion and yes in a joking way. Have you really not heard people make these comments? If so, do you honestly believe these people would truly sanction, much more carry out the offenses they verbally proclaimed on the criminal offenders. Despite your thinking, we have evolved to a more civilized society. I guess with my experiences, I’m exposed to a wider variety of people than you, as i have heard and seen these un-Constitutional proclamations. Must be a inner city thing
More important, it is though inappropriate to bring an insinuation that this police officer pulled the trigger after thinking specifically that the fleeing armed shooting suspect “deserve to die”. You are a mind reader now.
Lastly, why all of a sudden have you made a choice to call officer involved shootings in Anaheim a “summary executions” when the elected officials that you have politically supported have presided over in the city of Santa Ana (based on your definition, not mine) plenty of “summary executions”.
Tell me, do you still support Anaheim councilman Jordan Brandman despite his reportedly inability at an LoS Amigos meeting to answer the question “If police abuse exist?”
I think police abuse would be a precursor to your definition of “Summary Execution” but you and many other political folks were fine with Jordan’s response then and I’m sure in two years it’ll be ok as well.
I can’t tell if your comment here is actively dishonest or simply loopy and ill-informed. (Conceivably it’s any and all.)
(1) We’re discussing what Kring said: a categorical statement that killing violent suspects is better than going to trial.
(2) I’m not making assertions about what happened last week. I don’t know the answers. I’ve said several times that my gut feeling is that it played out basically as the police said: that Moreno Jr. shot Bruno, that officers returned fire at the time that he was still a threat, and that the killing was therefor justified. BUT: that’s just a gut feeling. It’s liable to being revised as evidence surfaces — or doesn’t. They have the bullet from Bruno’s chest. If it’s a caliber and type used by police, and if Moreno Jr. (presuming that he did have a gun) was using different ammunition, then that would change our understanding of what happened. Bruno’s wound would be from friendly fire — a sad fact of war and of policing — and the question would legitimate arise as to whether Moreno Jr. fired at all. I don’t know that answer; neither do you.
(3) My concern is that the investigatory process of the DA’s office is by now so decayed that even an honest report would have limited credibility. That’s something I’ll change — and I expect people will appreciate reports from someone who is willing to follow the evidence wherever it goes — even if it implicates police.
(4) In your “Yes I suspect” paragraph, you make a number of assumptions that, if I shared, I’d come to the same conclusion. At this point, they’re only assumptions, and police critics have a legitimate right to doubt them.
(5) In your “Of course, police officers are human” paragraph — sure. They would be deeply angry at Bruno being shot. We don’t allow that emotion, though, to say that they now get to take revenge if they feel like it even if the subject has been disarmed. Emotion would say “yeah, kill him” — but we don’t allow that unless he presents a present threat. We want people to surrender peacefully, no matter what they’ve done up to that point, and then we deal with it during the justice system. Right, Jose? That keeps officers safe.
(6) I agree that if someone is willing to shoot a defenseless dog, they’re more willing than others to shoot a defenseless human. And if they remain armed — one of those facts we don’t know about here, although we both suspect that he did — then they’re a legitimate target. But, even if they’re sort of the rotten person who’d shoot that dog, do we still say it’s OK shoot them if they’re unarmed, because they’re obviously bad? My position on that is clear: no. Your position is unclear — except that for some reason you seem to doubt that answering that question “yes” means support for summary execution.
(7) In your “rot in hell, castrated, etc.” paragraph: yeah, these can be jokes. Or they may not be. And from a public official, they’re unacceptable either way. I doubt that you’re “exposed to a wider variety of people than me,” too, as much as you seem here to enjoy making yourself seem “street.”
(8) I’m not making any insinuation about this case. Both critics and defenders have expressed certainty; I don’t.
(9) I’ve called them “summary executions,” when the shoe fits, for decades, and for more than a year in writing here. So what’s the basis for your false assertion that this is sudden? This is why I find your comment possibly dishonest.
(10) I have had my differences with the Santa Ana City Council (although more of them with your presumed ally the Mayor), with Brandman, and with others in my party — and outside of it. Why don’t you look up what I wrote at the time before making a reckless and — sorry, Jose, but now you did earn it — dishonest and false assertion about what I said at the time?
It’s unfortunate that you tried to gin up some partisan political gain there at the end, Jose; it would have detracted from your rational argument — had you offered one.
“Tell me, do you still support Anaheim councilman Jordan Brandman despite his reportedly inability at an LoS Amigos meeting to answer the question “If police abuse exist?”….you and many other political folks were fine with Jordan’s response then and I’m sure in two years it’ll be ok as well.”
WHAT? Now Greg and I support Jordan Brandman? Just because we’re Democrats? NOW who’s making lame assumptions? Is this the first time you read this blog in two years? Jordan has no bigger critics than me and Greg. I wrote a lot about Jordan’s lameness in refusing to say there’s police brutality in Anaheim (which was at a couple of candidate forums, including one on Anna Drive – not Los Amigos. Have you been to Los Amigos?)
It doesn’t help in understanding Anaheim, to look at things through partisan lenses, and now it looks like you’re the one doing it – sticking up for “Republican” Kring, and assuming wrongly that WE’RE in the bag for “Democrat” Brandman.
You really should try reading this blog sometimes, and not just Pedroza’s stuff, before you make statements like that. NOBODY criticizes Jordan more than me and Greg – why do you think the Liberal OC hates us?
*Be gentle DA Diamond………remember Alexander Haig: “I’m here, I’m in charge……at the Whitehouse!” Took Al a while to live that down too! Lucille was simply voicing the responses from Law Enforcement, Animal Rights Citizens and Public Safety folks around the County. Shows you,
that you can’t trust anyone…..doesn’t it?
Going on 100 comments…. too bad so many of them are so silly and clueless.
I criticize Jordan’s actions, Vern, but I do see myself as someone who supports him a hell of a lot more than his “friends” who still think that his Wikipedia report was a pretty slick way to make $25,000. I see him as a good kid who suffered a traumatic loss (his mother) and then fell in with a bad crowd — one that will use him up right until the day that he’s indicted. As I’ve said many times here, I want to reclaim his soul.
He’s a gifted retail politician, likeable as heck, with good knowledge of education policy. Unfortunately, powerful people in this county want him to be the Democrat who votes like a Republican except when it’s safe not to do so — and who they hope for decades to come will give a patina of bipartisanship to the most regressive and self-enriching policies that they can arrange.
He’s intellectually and temperamentally ill-equipped for that task, bless him, and if he doesn’t get it yet he’ll get it soon enough. So my criticizing his actions as Pringle’s puppet is, absolutely, supporting him — and some day he’ll understand that he was on the wrong path and had to turn.
I do this not simply to protect my party, but to honor his mother, whom I understand was a wonderful reformer — the very kind he’s being trained to hate. If that sounds harsh, sometimes harsh is the only way.
“He’s intellectually and temperamentally ill-equipped for that task, bless him…”
I don’t know him so I can’t comment too much on his temperament (except his hissy fits against Tait); as far as his intellect is concerned (and his principles) I would argue that the Copy/Paste report was pure kleptocracy at work, if only at a cheapjack, pipsqueak level.
He seems to have nursed long and diligently at the kleptocratic nipple: Mother’s Milk to him.
I think it is a partisan motive on your behalf that you find it necessary for Lucille to resign her post despite her apology yet you threw soft balls during Jordan’s campaign after he reportedly could not say if “police abuse exist” Come on admit it, if Jordan was not a democrat you would have been a lot less forgiving and more attacking. I don’t think the $25,000 report was slick but political corruption or public theft. It was always a “Jordan is worth salvaging” type of statements after you commented on his alliance with the Pringle machine. You sure did let him have it. Wondering did you support him with any votes in your position with the democratic party?
There’s a world of difference between Lucille’s maliciousness and Jordan’s cluelessness.
We haven’t had any “votes on Jordan” since he left the school board. We have had more than one resolution on Anaheim policies, as I recall. On one, district elections, we were on the same side. I got there way ahead of him, though.
Do I go easier on Democrats on matters not-quite-corrupt? As part of the party apparatus, I expect that I do — but several Democratic electeds would probably disagree with me. Being part of a party has some advantages and some disadvantages; I think that I’ve been able to accrue much more of the former than the latter. But relatively benign party loyalty? Sure, why not?
LA’s ex mayor was also a likable guy with several positive qualities, and HIS City also suffered when that sum was exceeded by situational and job requirements. It insults those who are supposed to be well-served, when ANY elected office is allowed to be viewed as OJT (or a layover) for either itself or a higher one.
I do not disagree, regardless of party.
I don’t know those people and I don’t know Kring. But to me it sure looks like a bunch of bullies beating up on one person for political or personal gain.
You keep using that word, bully.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
1. To behave like a bully.
2. To force one’s way aggressively or by intimidation:
A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people
A hired ruffian; a thug.
I think I used the word bully correctly, but I am not a English major and I do make mistakes.
An elected official in Anaheim is hardly small or weak. Furthermore, no one here is being (in any way) intimidating or cruel.
When you misapply the word “bully” like you’re doing on this page, you diminish the struggle that many bullied people must suffer through.
No one here is being a bully.
Unless it’s the person hiding behind a Police Force and cheering for summary execution saving “us” the cost of a trial. THAT might be called a bully.
Eye of the beholder.
Ryan, I don’t know you or most of those who post here. I see some of the post and “summary executions” as a form of bulling.
Thanks for your input as it helps me to understand some of the posts.
You’re looking for “hyperbolic”, but I see what you’re going for.
Well, you’re right – looking at something is not always the same as knowing what you’re looking at.
I finally figured out where that “…and still love justice” came from. I knew I’d heard it before. It’s from Albert Camus’ Resistance, Rebellion and Death. Classy!
“There are means that cannot be excused. And I should like to be able to love my country and still love justice. I don’t want just any greatness for it, particularly a greatness born of blood and falsehood. I want to keep it alive by keeping justice alive.”
Correct! You win a … win a … check in with the blog owner; he’ll tell you.
Is it ALSO in a song or something? Cuz it seems to resonate more than a typical Camus quote.
Don Henley apparently used some version of it in some song, judging by my Google Images search.
Kring being a council member would have been briefed on this shooting before she said what she said.
I bet that briefing colored her statement.
I have no knowledge of the facts, as the negative posters have no knowledge of the facts either.
I would expect that GD has lost 100 percent of the cop voters by demonizing then in mass.
For the record, Greg didn’t demonize LEOs.
He said making a stupid statement is really, well, stupid.
And also he didn’t demonize them in mass because he doesn’t go to Mass because he’s Jewish.
It’s more like I said that how I’d feel would depend on whether certain facts are true, which I didn’t yet know.
If it’s demonizing cops (and lawyers) by saying that I don’t automatically trust that they aren’t lying, then so be it. I don’t consider that to be demonizing anyway, but simply accepting that they are human and humans sometimes deceive. Being willing to punish deception makes it less likely — and that’s good for everyone.
A stupid statement by Kring equals a call to resign.
A stupid statement by GD equals a call to withdraw from the DA race. (“(9) I’ve called them “summary executions,””) GD”
My opinion and an example on how something said/written can be taken in a matter not intended.
Yes to #1. It was that reckless and that stupid.
As to #2, now you’re being ridiculous.
I’m getting the sense that you can’t actually define the term “summary execution.” That’s sort of the price of admission to this discussion.
I’ll bet that it didn’t, if she was briefed at all.
I’ll bet that I never had the bad cop vote to begin with. I’ll bet that I’ll get a good amount of the good cop vote because they don’t want to be burdened by covering for bad cops — as well as being physically endangered by bad cops’ Dirty Harry fantasies. I have a tremendous amount of respect for good cops — and regarding the Kelly Thomas case, I showed that I can distinguish between (1) cops who are (like Ramos) mostly following bad policies, for which they should not be held criminally responsible personally except in really extreme cases, although the department should be forced to reform, and (2) cops who (like Cicinelli) go beyond what I can possibly believe department policy would have found to be acceptable, and so would face personal criminal liability.
That’s all that good cops should want to ask of me — and, while it falls short of what critics may want, it’s all that reforms can reasonably ask of me either.
Either way, analyzing a given situation starts with getting the facts. If you don’t like my refusing to get ahead of the facts, then fine. Perhaps you’ll appreciate that I wouldn’t tolerate behavior that is now threatening convictions for the Seal Beach Salon spree killer and several gang murders as well. Deciding to play by the rules actually turns out to be tougher on crime — as well as less expensive. The problem is that it doesn’t lead to high profile press conferences for public consumption that may attract future votes — and when I’m in office I simply will not allow that to be what drives my policies.
Are we clear, cook?
“Are we clear, cook?” GD, yes, but I am not the one who needs convincing.
If your concern is my electoral fate, thanks. I’ll stick to doing what I think is right and let that take care of itself.
Some clown named James Robert Reade, on Lucille King, 11/11/13:
“…the journey will be inspiring as Anaheim Ambassador Lucile Kring leads the field with integrity and grace.”
Move over, Winships.
*Great minds think alike…no doubt about it. Hey, Lucille doesn’t have a Chief of Staff just yet. All she has are these unpaid consultants like us to give her input. Things will be better when Lucille is King….Queen…..something important….eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Hearts_%28Alice%27s_Adventures_in_Wonderland%29
I’ve left one comment on Chumley’s so extremely well-timed post:
I’ll address the rest here at some point. (Or perhaps I won’t, because not many people still read Lib OC.)