While the Judge dismissed this portion of the suit, the bulk and core of the lawsuit remains. Of the nearly 20 causes of action filed by Attorney’s Matt Gonzalez and Whitney Leigh, only two have been dismissed, both of them relating to allegations of speech–one involving the newspaper and the other involving defamation by the police department in the course of defending themselves from the allegation in the public realm.
At the same time, Judge England has ruled that one of the key charges against the District Attorney’s office remains very much in play.
Judge England writes:
“There is a strong public policy in keeping juvenile court records confidential, and it is up to the juvenile court to determine when disclosure of such records is allowed… Here, the defendants have not shown that they had a court order allowing them to disseminate any information relating to Ms. Buzayan’s criminal case.”
In fact, although the Judge does not say so explicitly, the Yolo County Superior Court Judge in the case, Thomas Warriner, explicitly told the district attorney’s office that they could not release information or even make a statement about the case. They did so anyway. The family’s attorneys took the District Attorney back to Judge Warriner’s court, but the Judge at that point left it to a lawsuit to determine if rights had been violated by the District Attorney.
The statement by the Judge in this matter seems to indicate a strong probability that the Buzayan family may prevail on the core of their complaint. In addition to the causes of action against the District Attorney’s office for violation of a minor’s right to privacy, there are also those that aim at the core of the case–whether Davis Police Officer Pheng Ly’s actions violated the civil rights of the then-minor, Halema Buzayan.
Attorney Whitney Leigh told the Davis Enterprise:
“It confirms our position that the defendants are liable for the negligent and, in our view, the intentional disclosure of private information that the state court had ordered them not to disclose… The greater majority of the (lawsuit’s) claims the defendants have not and could not seek to dismiss, so we’re gratified with this decision.”
One of the key complaints against Officer Ly was an alleged violation of Miranda Law that was caught on tape.
This charge has been somewhat confused in the public realm to infer that Officer Ly did not read the minor her Miranda Rights. In fact as this transcript shows, he in fact clearly did read the minor her rights. What he did not do however was provide her with an attorney when she made an apparent request for one or even pause to clarify as to whether or not she asked for an attorney or if there was any question as to whether her statement, “ok, could you? Can you do that” was a request for attorney.
Another of the key complaints, are complaints against Davis Police Internal Affairs Sgt. Gina Anderson, who has since moved on to the Citrus Heights Police Department.
In the complaint filed by the Buzayan family and their attorneys, they allege:
“Defendant Anderson also knew that it was unlawful and against Davis Police Department policy to use an investigation of a Davis citizen’s complaint as an opportunity to browbeat a minor by threatening her with her mother’s incarceration.”
This complaint stems from another allegation caught on tape, this one not released to the public that during the course of Sgt. Gina Anderson’s investigation of complaints against Officers Hartz and Ly, that she in fact pressed the minor to admit that she was lying and in fact the one driving the car. And at one point, threatening to put her mother in jail if she did not come clean.
“But your mother has admitted to driving the car… So that would mean that if your citation was dismissed then your mother would be arrested… I just needed to let you know that if you are not the person who did it, she’s admitting to doing it, then your case will end up getting dismissed and we would end up arresting her.”
In an interview with KGO Channel 7 News, former San Francisco Supervisor Matt Gonzalez, says that the actions of Sgt Anderson were improper.
“They were putting a lot of pressure on her, and I don’t think that’s an appropriate way to conduct an internal investigation about whether or not a police officer has conducted himself properly.”
The job of an internal investigator during a citizen complaint is not to attempt to coerce a confession out of the defendant, it is to gather the facts involving the policies and actions of the police officers involved and determine whether the officers had acted properly.
As this ruling by Judge England indicates, the bulk of the Buzayan Case shall move forward.
The Davis Enterprise quotes new Davis Police Chief Landy Black as saying:
“While this ruling does not necessarily mean the end of the discussions and proceedings regarding the underlying incident, it clears the way to address what we feel are much more important issues and makes it possible for the healing to continue, and with fewer obstacles.”
In fact, Chief Black can play a crucial role in the healing process regardless of how this case turns out. A strong effort is needed to reach out to various parts of the community that feel disenfranchised and to bring them back into the process.
The Buzayan case represents a key moment of understanding and reflection and strong leadership will be needed to avoid a repeat of some of the emotions and anger that erupted just over a year ago.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Healing? If they didn’t hit the car, why did they pay to have it fixed?
Healing? If they didn’t hit the car, why did they pay to have it fixed?
Healing? If they didn’t hit the car, why did they pay to have it fixed?
Healing? If they didn’t hit the car, why did they pay to have it fixed?
The Buzayan Family when initially spoken to by the police and in particular Officer Ly did not think anyone in their family had hit another car. But Officer Ly insisted they had done so. Officer Ly convinced them the easiest way to resolve the matter was to contact the other car owner and resolve the matter by paying for any damages. Officer Ly gave the Buzayan’s the other car owner’s name & phone number. The Buzayans then contacted their insurance agent who in turn contacted the other car owner. Within several days the matter had been resolved between the two parties with the Buzayan’s paying for the repair and use of a rental car. They paid for the repairs in spite of their belief they had not in fact caused the damage, because it seemed to be a minor matter and not worth their time and effort to find out who really did cause the damage. The other party was very satisfied and thought the matter was over, as did the Buzayans.
Approximately a week later Officer Ly returned to the Buzayan home and committed a crime himself. He and his partner violated the minor’s Constitutional rights by illegally misrepresenting themselves as to their real purpose in being there to gain entry to the Buzayan home. They then committed a needless and unnecessary arrest and also violated their own departmental policy regarding non-injury “fender benders” which had been resolved.
Sgt. Gina Anderson and Davis police management under former Chief Jim Hyde and Assistant Chief Steve Pierce committed further misconduct which will come out at the trial.
The healing in this case will begin following the Buzayans winning their case and both the Davis Police Department and the Yolo County District Attorney Office being held accountable for their illegal actions and misconduct.
Yolo Judicial Watch
The Buzayan Family when initially spoken to by the police and in particular Officer Ly did not think anyone in their family had hit another car. But Officer Ly insisted they had done so. Officer Ly convinced them the easiest way to resolve the matter was to contact the other car owner and resolve the matter by paying for any damages. Officer Ly gave the Buzayan’s the other car owner’s name & phone number. The Buzayans then contacted their insurance agent who in turn contacted the other car owner. Within several days the matter had been resolved between the two parties with the Buzayan’s paying for the repair and use of a rental car. They paid for the repairs in spite of their belief they had not in fact caused the damage, because it seemed to be a minor matter and not worth their time and effort to find out who really did cause the damage. The other party was very satisfied and thought the matter was over, as did the Buzayans.
Approximately a week later Officer Ly returned to the Buzayan home and committed a crime himself. He and his partner violated the minor’s Constitutional rights by illegally misrepresenting themselves as to their real purpose in being there to gain entry to the Buzayan home. They then committed a needless and unnecessary arrest and also violated their own departmental policy regarding non-injury “fender benders” which had been resolved.
Sgt. Gina Anderson and Davis police management under former Chief Jim Hyde and Assistant Chief Steve Pierce committed further misconduct which will come out at the trial.
The healing in this case will begin following the Buzayans winning their case and both the Davis Police Department and the Yolo County District Attorney Office being held accountable for their illegal actions and misconduct.
Yolo Judicial Watch
The Buzayan Family when initially spoken to by the police and in particular Officer Ly did not think anyone in their family had hit another car. But Officer Ly insisted they had done so. Officer Ly convinced them the easiest way to resolve the matter was to contact the other car owner and resolve the matter by paying for any damages. Officer Ly gave the Buzayan’s the other car owner’s name & phone number. The Buzayans then contacted their insurance agent who in turn contacted the other car owner. Within several days the matter had been resolved between the two parties with the Buzayan’s paying for the repair and use of a rental car. They paid for the repairs in spite of their belief they had not in fact caused the damage, because it seemed to be a minor matter and not worth their time and effort to find out who really did cause the damage. The other party was very satisfied and thought the matter was over, as did the Buzayans.
Approximately a week later Officer Ly returned to the Buzayan home and committed a crime himself. He and his partner violated the minor’s Constitutional rights by illegally misrepresenting themselves as to their real purpose in being there to gain entry to the Buzayan home. They then committed a needless and unnecessary arrest and also violated their own departmental policy regarding non-injury “fender benders” which had been resolved.
Sgt. Gina Anderson and Davis police management under former Chief Jim Hyde and Assistant Chief Steve Pierce committed further misconduct which will come out at the trial.
The healing in this case will begin following the Buzayans winning their case and both the Davis Police Department and the Yolo County District Attorney Office being held accountable for their illegal actions and misconduct.
Yolo Judicial Watch
The Buzayan Family when initially spoken to by the police and in particular Officer Ly did not think anyone in their family had hit another car. But Officer Ly insisted they had done so. Officer Ly convinced them the easiest way to resolve the matter was to contact the other car owner and resolve the matter by paying for any damages. Officer Ly gave the Buzayan’s the other car owner’s name & phone number. The Buzayans then contacted their insurance agent who in turn contacted the other car owner. Within several days the matter had been resolved between the two parties with the Buzayan’s paying for the repair and use of a rental car. They paid for the repairs in spite of their belief they had not in fact caused the damage, because it seemed to be a minor matter and not worth their time and effort to find out who really did cause the damage. The other party was very satisfied and thought the matter was over, as did the Buzayans.
Approximately a week later Officer Ly returned to the Buzayan home and committed a crime himself. He and his partner violated the minor’s Constitutional rights by illegally misrepresenting themselves as to their real purpose in being there to gain entry to the Buzayan home. They then committed a needless and unnecessary arrest and also violated their own departmental policy regarding non-injury “fender benders” which had been resolved.
Sgt. Gina Anderson and Davis police management under former Chief Jim Hyde and Assistant Chief Steve Pierce committed further misconduct which will come out at the trial.
The healing in this case will begin following the Buzayans winning their case and both the Davis Police Department and the Yolo County District Attorney Office being held accountable for their illegal actions and misconduct.
Yolo Judicial Watch
“Healing? If they didn’t hit the car, why did they pay to have it fixed?”
They weren’t sure, they did not remember hitting it, but they had a son in the hospital, and they just wanted to deal with it. Frankly the physical evidence is pretty overwhelming that they did not hit the car.
“Healing? If they didn’t hit the car, why did they pay to have it fixed?”
They weren’t sure, they did not remember hitting it, but they had a son in the hospital, and they just wanted to deal with it. Frankly the physical evidence is pretty overwhelming that they did not hit the car.
“Healing? If they didn’t hit the car, why did they pay to have it fixed?”
They weren’t sure, they did not remember hitting it, but they had a son in the hospital, and they just wanted to deal with it. Frankly the physical evidence is pretty overwhelming that they did not hit the car.
“Healing? If they didn’t hit the car, why did they pay to have it fixed?”
They weren’t sure, they did not remember hitting it, but they had a son in the hospital, and they just wanted to deal with it. Frankly the physical evidence is pretty overwhelming that they did not hit the car.
There is a lot of information provided that can’t be confirmed without the Buzayan Family waiving their rights to confidential information. If this case is to be litigated by bloggers in public, it is important to know 1) Did any family member have their license revoked for reckless driving before this incident? 2) Did officer Ly have a legitimate fear for public safety if the arrest was not made when it was? 3) Were any threats made or was legal advice requested and not provided?
All these items could be publicly viewed and debated if the complete file is made public. Otherwise, this discussion is just about made-up facts and stories that people have published and repeated.
I hope that the Buzayan Family does so.
There is a lot of information provided that can’t be confirmed without the Buzayan Family waiving their rights to confidential information. If this case is to be litigated by bloggers in public, it is important to know 1) Did any family member have their license revoked for reckless driving before this incident? 2) Did officer Ly have a legitimate fear for public safety if the arrest was not made when it was? 3) Were any threats made or was legal advice requested and not provided?
All these items could be publicly viewed and debated if the complete file is made public. Otherwise, this discussion is just about made-up facts and stories that people have published and repeated.
I hope that the Buzayan Family does so.
There is a lot of information provided that can’t be confirmed without the Buzayan Family waiving their rights to confidential information. If this case is to be litigated by bloggers in public, it is important to know 1) Did any family member have their license revoked for reckless driving before this incident? 2) Did officer Ly have a legitimate fear for public safety if the arrest was not made when it was? 3) Were any threats made or was legal advice requested and not provided?
All these items could be publicly viewed and debated if the complete file is made public. Otherwise, this discussion is just about made-up facts and stories that people have published and repeated.
I hope that the Buzayan Family does so.
There is a lot of information provided that can’t be confirmed without the Buzayan Family waiving their rights to confidential information. If this case is to be litigated by bloggers in public, it is important to know 1) Did any family member have their license revoked for reckless driving before this incident? 2) Did officer Ly have a legitimate fear for public safety if the arrest was not made when it was? 3) Were any threats made or was legal advice requested and not provided?
All these items could be publicly viewed and debated if the complete file is made public. Otherwise, this discussion is just about made-up facts and stories that people have published and repeated.
I hope that the Buzayan Family does so.
2) Did officer Ly have a legitimate fear for public safety if the arrest was not made when it was?
Exactly, an essential subject of inquiry. We reall need to look into the possibility that Ly attended a Department of Homeland Security briefing that discussed how sleeper cells are frequently discovered through vehicle code violations, especially those involving juveniles.
One of the interesting angles of the situation is Warriner’s willingness to allow the District Attorney’s Office to violate his confidentiality order without any consequence. Hopefully, the court in this litigation, as well as the State Bar of California, will treat the matter more seriously.
–Richard Estes
2) Did officer Ly have a legitimate fear for public safety if the arrest was not made when it was?
Exactly, an essential subject of inquiry. We reall need to look into the possibility that Ly attended a Department of Homeland Security briefing that discussed how sleeper cells are frequently discovered through vehicle code violations, especially those involving juveniles.
One of the interesting angles of the situation is Warriner’s willingness to allow the District Attorney’s Office to violate his confidentiality order without any consequence. Hopefully, the court in this litigation, as well as the State Bar of California, will treat the matter more seriously.
–Richard Estes
2) Did officer Ly have a legitimate fear for public safety if the arrest was not made when it was?
Exactly, an essential subject of inquiry. We reall need to look into the possibility that Ly attended a Department of Homeland Security briefing that discussed how sleeper cells are frequently discovered through vehicle code violations, especially those involving juveniles.
One of the interesting angles of the situation is Warriner’s willingness to allow the District Attorney’s Office to violate his confidentiality order without any consequence. Hopefully, the court in this litigation, as well as the State Bar of California, will treat the matter more seriously.
–Richard Estes
2) Did officer Ly have a legitimate fear for public safety if the arrest was not made when it was?
Exactly, an essential subject of inquiry. We reall need to look into the possibility that Ly attended a Department of Homeland Security briefing that discussed how sleeper cells are frequently discovered through vehicle code violations, especially those involving juveniles.
One of the interesting angles of the situation is Warriner’s willingness to allow the District Attorney’s Office to violate his confidentiality order without any consequence. Hopefully, the court in this litigation, as well as the State Bar of California, will treat the matter more seriously.
–Richard Estes
“The lawsuit alleges the defendants are guilty of racial discrimination, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, slander, libel, defamation, battery and racial discrimination, among other conduct.”
If this lawsuit is not settled out of court or dismissed entirely before it goes to trial, I would be willing to bet that the plaintiffs lose on almost every ground they allege:
* Racial discrimination — no chance.
* False imprisonment — no chance.
* Assault — no chance.
* Intentional infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Negligent infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Abuse of process — this has a chance. The most problematic thing that the Davis police did in this case was, after Ly read the girl her Miranda rights, and she seemed to request a lawyer and the police ignored her request, that may well be deemed to be an ‘abuse of process.’
* Slander — dismissed
* Libel — dismissed.
* Defamation — no chance.
* Battery — no chance.
My guess is that this case will not ultimately go to trial. It is a very weak case. Yet going to trial is very expensive. As such, the principal defendants may settle out of court for an amount of money smaller than it would cost to fight and win in court.
It’s an unfortunate shame that this lawsuit was ever filed in the first place. The only winners, ultimately, are going to be the Buzayan’s attorneys, Matt Gonzalez and Whitney Leigh, and the law firm of Angelo Kilday & Kilduff, which represents the city and county.
I think we should wait for the trial.
Sleeper cells, public safety issues steming from a fender bender in a grocery store parking lot, reckless driving offenses by members of the family!?
The controversy is still growing, it seems.
This is why the City’s attempt to settle with the Buzayans was rejected by the family. This is why the trial is important for the Buzayans and the community – to help establish what really happened.
All that has been decided is that the DPD and the Enterprise are not liable for their part in discussing the juvenile arrest or the release of juvenile arrest information to the public.
“The lawsuit alleges the defendants are guilty of racial discrimination, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, slander, libel, defamation, battery and racial discrimination, among other conduct.”
If this lawsuit is not settled out of court or dismissed entirely before it goes to trial, I would be willing to bet that the plaintiffs lose on almost every ground they allege:
* Racial discrimination — no chance.
* False imprisonment — no chance.
* Assault — no chance.
* Intentional infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Negligent infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Abuse of process — this has a chance. The most problematic thing that the Davis police did in this case was, after Ly read the girl her Miranda rights, and she seemed to request a lawyer and the police ignored her request, that may well be deemed to be an ‘abuse of process.’
* Slander — dismissed
* Libel — dismissed.
* Defamation — no chance.
* Battery — no chance.
My guess is that this case will not ultimately go to trial. It is a very weak case. Yet going to trial is very expensive. As such, the principal defendants may settle out of court for an amount of money smaller than it would cost to fight and win in court.
It’s an unfortunate shame that this lawsuit was ever filed in the first place. The only winners, ultimately, are going to be the Buzayan’s attorneys, Matt Gonzalez and Whitney Leigh, and the law firm of Angelo Kilday & Kilduff, which represents the city and county.
I think we should wait for the trial.
Sleeper cells, public safety issues steming from a fender bender in a grocery store parking lot, reckless driving offenses by members of the family!?
The controversy is still growing, it seems.
This is why the City’s attempt to settle with the Buzayans was rejected by the family. This is why the trial is important for the Buzayans and the community – to help establish what really happened.
All that has been decided is that the DPD and the Enterprise are not liable for their part in discussing the juvenile arrest or the release of juvenile arrest information to the public.
“The lawsuit alleges the defendants are guilty of racial discrimination, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, slander, libel, defamation, battery and racial discrimination, among other conduct.”
If this lawsuit is not settled out of court or dismissed entirely before it goes to trial, I would be willing to bet that the plaintiffs lose on almost every ground they allege:
* Racial discrimination — no chance.
* False imprisonment — no chance.
* Assault — no chance.
* Intentional infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Negligent infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Abuse of process — this has a chance. The most problematic thing that the Davis police did in this case was, after Ly read the girl her Miranda rights, and she seemed to request a lawyer and the police ignored her request, that may well be deemed to be an ‘abuse of process.’
* Slander — dismissed
* Libel — dismissed.
* Defamation — no chance.
* Battery — no chance.
My guess is that this case will not ultimately go to trial. It is a very weak case. Yet going to trial is very expensive. As such, the principal defendants may settle out of court for an amount of money smaller than it would cost to fight and win in court.
It’s an unfortunate shame that this lawsuit was ever filed in the first place. The only winners, ultimately, are going to be the Buzayan’s attorneys, Matt Gonzalez and Whitney Leigh, and the law firm of Angelo Kilday & Kilduff, which represents the city and county.
I think we should wait for the trial.
Sleeper cells, public safety issues steming from a fender bender in a grocery store parking lot, reckless driving offenses by members of the family!?
The controversy is still growing, it seems.
This is why the City’s attempt to settle with the Buzayans was rejected by the family. This is why the trial is important for the Buzayans and the community – to help establish what really happened.
All that has been decided is that the DPD and the Enterprise are not liable for their part in discussing the juvenile arrest or the release of juvenile arrest information to the public.
“The lawsuit alleges the defendants are guilty of racial discrimination, false imprisonment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, slander, libel, defamation, battery and racial discrimination, among other conduct.”
If this lawsuit is not settled out of court or dismissed entirely before it goes to trial, I would be willing to bet that the plaintiffs lose on almost every ground they allege:
* Racial discrimination — no chance.
* False imprisonment — no chance.
* Assault — no chance.
* Intentional infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Negligent infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Abuse of process — this has a chance. The most problematic thing that the Davis police did in this case was, after Ly read the girl her Miranda rights, and she seemed to request a lawyer and the police ignored her request, that may well be deemed to be an ‘abuse of process.’
* Slander — dismissed
* Libel — dismissed.
* Defamation — no chance.
* Battery — no chance.
My guess is that this case will not ultimately go to trial. It is a very weak case. Yet going to trial is very expensive. As such, the principal defendants may settle out of court for an amount of money smaller than it would cost to fight and win in court.
It’s an unfortunate shame that this lawsuit was ever filed in the first place. The only winners, ultimately, are going to be the Buzayan’s attorneys, Matt Gonzalez and Whitney Leigh, and the law firm of Angelo Kilday & Kilduff, which represents the city and county.
I think we should wait for the trial.
Sleeper cells, public safety issues steming from a fender bender in a grocery store parking lot, reckless driving offenses by members of the family!?
The controversy is still growing, it seems.
This is why the City’s attempt to settle with the Buzayans was rejected by the family. This is why the trial is important for the Buzayans and the community – to help establish what really happened.
All that has been decided is that the DPD and the Enterprise are not liable for their part in discussing the juvenile arrest or the release of juvenile arrest information to the public.
By the way, if any of the big-talkers who are cheerleading for the Buzayans think I am wrong, I’m willing to bet a cup of coffee at your coffeehouse of choice in Davis on my prediction:
If the case is not settled, it goes to a jury, the jury finds the defendants liable on most of the complaint, the jury’s verdict is not overturned on appeal, and the city and county (or other defendants) pay off the Buzayans’ claim, I lose and I’ll buy the coffee; otherwise, I’ll take a large mocha java.
By the way, if any of the big-talkers who are cheerleading for the Buzayans think I am wrong, I’m willing to bet a cup of coffee at your coffeehouse of choice in Davis on my prediction:
If the case is not settled, it goes to a jury, the jury finds the defendants liable on most of the complaint, the jury’s verdict is not overturned on appeal, and the city and county (or other defendants) pay off the Buzayans’ claim, I lose and I’ll buy the coffee; otherwise, I’ll take a large mocha java.
By the way, if any of the big-talkers who are cheerleading for the Buzayans think I am wrong, I’m willing to bet a cup of coffee at your coffeehouse of choice in Davis on my prediction:
If the case is not settled, it goes to a jury, the jury finds the defendants liable on most of the complaint, the jury’s verdict is not overturned on appeal, and the city and county (or other defendants) pay off the Buzayans’ claim, I lose and I’ll buy the coffee; otherwise, I’ll take a large mocha java.
By the way, if any of the big-talkers who are cheerleading for the Buzayans think I am wrong, I’m willing to bet a cup of coffee at your coffeehouse of choice in Davis on my prediction:
If the case is not settled, it goes to a jury, the jury finds the defendants liable on most of the complaint, the jury’s verdict is not overturned on appeal, and the city and county (or other defendants) pay off the Buzayans’ claim, I lose and I’ll buy the coffee; otherwise, I’ll take a large mocha java.
There are no cheerleaders here. This isn’t a game. And Rich’s offer of a bet on the outcome of the Buzayan’s legal battle to clear their family’s name is offensive.
There are no cheerleaders here. This isn’t a game. And Rich’s offer of a bet on the outcome of the Buzayan’s legal battle to clear their family’s name is offensive.
There are no cheerleaders here. This isn’t a game. And Rich’s offer of a bet on the outcome of the Buzayan’s legal battle to clear their family’s name is offensive.
There are no cheerleaders here. This isn’t a game. And Rich’s offer of a bet on the outcome of the Buzayan’s legal battle to clear their family’s name is offensive.
“
* Racial discrimination — no chance.
* False imprisonment — no chance.
* Assault — no chance.
* Intentional infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Negligent infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
“
If there is “no chance” they would have been dismissed. So you need to change your terminology.
“
* Racial discrimination — no chance.
* False imprisonment — no chance.
* Assault — no chance.
* Intentional infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Negligent infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
“
If there is “no chance” they would have been dismissed. So you need to change your terminology.
“
* Racial discrimination — no chance.
* False imprisonment — no chance.
* Assault — no chance.
* Intentional infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Negligent infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
“
If there is “no chance” they would have been dismissed. So you need to change your terminology.
“
* Racial discrimination — no chance.
* False imprisonment — no chance.
* Assault — no chance.
* Intentional infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Negligent infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
“
If there is “no chance” they would have been dismissed. So you need to change your terminology.
As lawyer, I wonder your legal training Mr. Rifkin? On the one area mentioned by Judge England in the court and the two excerpts shown by DPD in his article, I see three key sustained causes of action. That alone would necessitate a trial. I think you severely underestimate this case and again I don’t think you have the legal background to determine much of the “no chance” points, which someone before me suggested they must be greater than no chance, since no chance would have meant dismissal.
As lawyer, I wonder your legal training Mr. Rifkin? On the one area mentioned by Judge England in the court and the two excerpts shown by DPD in his article, I see three key sustained causes of action. That alone would necessitate a trial. I think you severely underestimate this case and again I don’t think you have the legal background to determine much of the “no chance” points, which someone before me suggested they must be greater than no chance, since no chance would have meant dismissal.
As lawyer, I wonder your legal training Mr. Rifkin? On the one area mentioned by Judge England in the court and the two excerpts shown by DPD in his article, I see three key sustained causes of action. That alone would necessitate a trial. I think you severely underestimate this case and again I don’t think you have the legal background to determine much of the “no chance” points, which someone before me suggested they must be greater than no chance, since no chance would have meant dismissal.
As lawyer, I wonder your legal training Mr. Rifkin? On the one area mentioned by Judge England in the court and the two excerpts shown by DPD in his article, I see three key sustained causes of action. That alone would necessitate a trial. I think you severely underestimate this case and again I don’t think you have the legal background to determine much of the “no chance” points, which someone before me suggested they must be greater than no chance, since no chance would have meant dismissal.
My apologies to Mr. Rifkin, I missed his statement on Miranda. I think that one based on case law (again the lawyer thing sir) is a slam dunk. In fact, the defendants did not even try to get that one thrown out.
But I think you underestimate the false imprisonment charge, because the police clearly failed to follow several key protocols for detention of minors. I think that one is much stronger than you think and again, your lack of legal training undercuts your understanding of it.
If they get the key planks of this suit–which are (1) illegal arrest and I think they have that; (2) violation of miranda and they almost certainly have that based on case law particularly involving minors; (3) DA’s invasion of privacy where Judge England pretty much indicated they had that already; (4) Gina Anderson’s stuff which will carry with it several of the ancillary charges.
If those four sustain and I think they do, then you will see some of the secondary causes of action implemented as well.
The one that is questionable is the head scarf equaling racial discrimination. That is clearly poor police work, I’ve in fact seen Ms. Buzayan wear a head scarf as often as not including in a picture on this blog. To deduce from that who was driving doesn’t make much sense. But is that religious discrimination? I don’t know. However, Ly makes statements into his mic that may end up sustaining that one. We’ll have to see.
I think this is a far stronger case than you think but it all revolves around those four basic points of law.
My apologies to Mr. Rifkin, I missed his statement on Miranda. I think that one based on case law (again the lawyer thing sir) is a slam dunk. In fact, the defendants did not even try to get that one thrown out.
But I think you underestimate the false imprisonment charge, because the police clearly failed to follow several key protocols for detention of minors. I think that one is much stronger than you think and again, your lack of legal training undercuts your understanding of it.
If they get the key planks of this suit–which are (1) illegal arrest and I think they have that; (2) violation of miranda and they almost certainly have that based on case law particularly involving minors; (3) DA’s invasion of privacy where Judge England pretty much indicated they had that already; (4) Gina Anderson’s stuff which will carry with it several of the ancillary charges.
If those four sustain and I think they do, then you will see some of the secondary causes of action implemented as well.
The one that is questionable is the head scarf equaling racial discrimination. That is clearly poor police work, I’ve in fact seen Ms. Buzayan wear a head scarf as often as not including in a picture on this blog. To deduce from that who was driving doesn’t make much sense. But is that religious discrimination? I don’t know. However, Ly makes statements into his mic that may end up sustaining that one. We’ll have to see.
I think this is a far stronger case than you think but it all revolves around those four basic points of law.
My apologies to Mr. Rifkin, I missed his statement on Miranda. I think that one based on case law (again the lawyer thing sir) is a slam dunk. In fact, the defendants did not even try to get that one thrown out.
But I think you underestimate the false imprisonment charge, because the police clearly failed to follow several key protocols for detention of minors. I think that one is much stronger than you think and again, your lack of legal training undercuts your understanding of it.
If they get the key planks of this suit–which are (1) illegal arrest and I think they have that; (2) violation of miranda and they almost certainly have that based on case law particularly involving minors; (3) DA’s invasion of privacy where Judge England pretty much indicated they had that already; (4) Gina Anderson’s stuff which will carry with it several of the ancillary charges.
If those four sustain and I think they do, then you will see some of the secondary causes of action implemented as well.
The one that is questionable is the head scarf equaling racial discrimination. That is clearly poor police work, I’ve in fact seen Ms. Buzayan wear a head scarf as often as not including in a picture on this blog. To deduce from that who was driving doesn’t make much sense. But is that religious discrimination? I don’t know. However, Ly makes statements into his mic that may end up sustaining that one. We’ll have to see.
I think this is a far stronger case than you think but it all revolves around those four basic points of law.
My apologies to Mr. Rifkin, I missed his statement on Miranda. I think that one based on case law (again the lawyer thing sir) is a slam dunk. In fact, the defendants did not even try to get that one thrown out.
But I think you underestimate the false imprisonment charge, because the police clearly failed to follow several key protocols for detention of minors. I think that one is much stronger than you think and again, your lack of legal training undercuts your understanding of it.
If they get the key planks of this suit–which are (1) illegal arrest and I think they have that; (2) violation of miranda and they almost certainly have that based on case law particularly involving minors; (3) DA’s invasion of privacy where Judge England pretty much indicated they had that already; (4) Gina Anderson’s stuff which will carry with it several of the ancillary charges.
If those four sustain and I think they do, then you will see some of the secondary causes of action implemented as well.
The one that is questionable is the head scarf equaling racial discrimination. That is clearly poor police work, I’ve in fact seen Ms. Buzayan wear a head scarf as often as not including in a picture on this blog. To deduce from that who was driving doesn’t make much sense. But is that religious discrimination? I don’t know. However, Ly makes statements into his mic that may end up sustaining that one. We’ll have to see.
I think this is a far stronger case than you think but it all revolves around those four basic points of law.
“A strong effort is needed to reach out to various parts of the community that feel disenfranchised and to bring them back into the process.”
The real effort should focus inside the police dept – this case demonstrated weak supervision, little or no review of work and a deficient process in reviewing citizen complaints. If Mr. Black improves on those things all parts of the community should feel better about the process.
As for the DA’s release of information, I would like to understand how and why that happened. The DA’s office is supposed to enforce the law, but for whatever reason they seem to bend the rules/disregard the law when it comes down to their own day to day activities. Much of the focus should be on Ms. Fong, why did she disregard a judge and release information (unedited information related to a juvenile case) to the public? My theory is that the decision to release the information was directly related to fact that the ancestors of both Fong and Ly came from Southeast Asia. Ms Fong lost direction/focus of the law and normal procedure when it came down to protecting someone she felt close to. People do make mistakes, but this was not a mistake and this was not the first time Ms. Fong placed her ancestry above the law. That kind of bias (if true) does not belong in the DA’s office, particularly when it distorts behavior.
The interesting thing is the DA’s release of information seemed to be a response to an allegation bias against Officer Ly – probably an unfounded allegation.
“A strong effort is needed to reach out to various parts of the community that feel disenfranchised and to bring them back into the process.”
The real effort should focus inside the police dept – this case demonstrated weak supervision, little or no review of work and a deficient process in reviewing citizen complaints. If Mr. Black improves on those things all parts of the community should feel better about the process.
As for the DA’s release of information, I would like to understand how and why that happened. The DA’s office is supposed to enforce the law, but for whatever reason they seem to bend the rules/disregard the law when it comes down to their own day to day activities. Much of the focus should be on Ms. Fong, why did she disregard a judge and release information (unedited information related to a juvenile case) to the public? My theory is that the decision to release the information was directly related to fact that the ancestors of both Fong and Ly came from Southeast Asia. Ms Fong lost direction/focus of the law and normal procedure when it came down to protecting someone she felt close to. People do make mistakes, but this was not a mistake and this was not the first time Ms. Fong placed her ancestry above the law. That kind of bias (if true) does not belong in the DA’s office, particularly when it distorts behavior.
The interesting thing is the DA’s release of information seemed to be a response to an allegation bias against Officer Ly – probably an unfounded allegation.
“A strong effort is needed to reach out to various parts of the community that feel disenfranchised and to bring them back into the process.”
The real effort should focus inside the police dept – this case demonstrated weak supervision, little or no review of work and a deficient process in reviewing citizen complaints. If Mr. Black improves on those things all parts of the community should feel better about the process.
As for the DA’s release of information, I would like to understand how and why that happened. The DA’s office is supposed to enforce the law, but for whatever reason they seem to bend the rules/disregard the law when it comes down to their own day to day activities. Much of the focus should be on Ms. Fong, why did she disregard a judge and release information (unedited information related to a juvenile case) to the public? My theory is that the decision to release the information was directly related to fact that the ancestors of both Fong and Ly came from Southeast Asia. Ms Fong lost direction/focus of the law and normal procedure when it came down to protecting someone she felt close to. People do make mistakes, but this was not a mistake and this was not the first time Ms. Fong placed her ancestry above the law. That kind of bias (if true) does not belong in the DA’s office, particularly when it distorts behavior.
The interesting thing is the DA’s release of information seemed to be a response to an allegation bias against Officer Ly – probably an unfounded allegation.
“A strong effort is needed to reach out to various parts of the community that feel disenfranchised and to bring them back into the process.”
The real effort should focus inside the police dept – this case demonstrated weak supervision, little or no review of work and a deficient process in reviewing citizen complaints. If Mr. Black improves on those things all parts of the community should feel better about the process.
As for the DA’s release of information, I would like to understand how and why that happened. The DA’s office is supposed to enforce the law, but for whatever reason they seem to bend the rules/disregard the law when it comes down to their own day to day activities. Much of the focus should be on Ms. Fong, why did she disregard a judge and release information (unedited information related to a juvenile case) to the public? My theory is that the decision to release the information was directly related to fact that the ancestors of both Fong and Ly came from Southeast Asia. Ms Fong lost direction/focus of the law and normal procedure when it came down to protecting someone she felt close to. People do make mistakes, but this was not a mistake and this was not the first time Ms. Fong placed her ancestry above the law. That kind of bias (if true) does not belong in the DA’s office, particularly when it distorts behavior.
The interesting thing is the DA’s release of information seemed to be a response to an allegation bias against Officer Ly – probably an unfounded allegation.
an important point to remember: the Buzayans can prevail on just one of their causes of action, and recover quite substantially against the defendants involved
my personal seat of the pants opinion is that, while Officer Ly may not have conducted himself appropriately, it is uncertain as to whether it rises to the level of fault and compensatory damages, police officers are legally given wide discretion to do so pretty dumb things (like, for example, executing a search warrant on the wrong house)
but, there is real vulnerability in regard to the release of confidential information from Buzayan’s juvenile case file by the DA’s Office, it is openly contrary to the code and openly in violation of Warriner’s order, so it requires deliberate misconduct, you don’t do that sort of thing by accident, and it constitutes a conscious attempt to violate the privacy rights of a juvenile
you might just get some significant dollars for that, especially as it involves the release of things like the minor’s social security number
a situation that could have been readily resolved if the police had been accomodating escalated when the case was sent over to the DA instead, and Pattie Fong rubberstamped it, instead of using her independent judgment as an attorney to drop it
subsequent public criticism stung so severely that the DA’s office openly violated the juvenile code and a standing court order
police officers are given discretion to deal with situations as they encounter them, while DAs are considered officers of the court, responsible for following the law and the orders of the court
in a nutshell, that’s why the DA’s office and Pattie Fong find themselves in a much scarier situation than Officer Ly
–Richard Estes
an important point to remember: the Buzayans can prevail on just one of their causes of action, and recover quite substantially against the defendants involved
my personal seat of the pants opinion is that, while Officer Ly may not have conducted himself appropriately, it is uncertain as to whether it rises to the level of fault and compensatory damages, police officers are legally given wide discretion to do so pretty dumb things (like, for example, executing a search warrant on the wrong house)
but, there is real vulnerability in regard to the release of confidential information from Buzayan’s juvenile case file by the DA’s Office, it is openly contrary to the code and openly in violation of Warriner’s order, so it requires deliberate misconduct, you don’t do that sort of thing by accident, and it constitutes a conscious attempt to violate the privacy rights of a juvenile
you might just get some significant dollars for that, especially as it involves the release of things like the minor’s social security number
a situation that could have been readily resolved if the police had been accomodating escalated when the case was sent over to the DA instead, and Pattie Fong rubberstamped it, instead of using her independent judgment as an attorney to drop it
subsequent public criticism stung so severely that the DA’s office openly violated the juvenile code and a standing court order
police officers are given discretion to deal with situations as they encounter them, while DAs are considered officers of the court, responsible for following the law and the orders of the court
in a nutshell, that’s why the DA’s office and Pattie Fong find themselves in a much scarier situation than Officer Ly
–Richard Estes
an important point to remember: the Buzayans can prevail on just one of their causes of action, and recover quite substantially against the defendants involved
my personal seat of the pants opinion is that, while Officer Ly may not have conducted himself appropriately, it is uncertain as to whether it rises to the level of fault and compensatory damages, police officers are legally given wide discretion to do so pretty dumb things (like, for example, executing a search warrant on the wrong house)
but, there is real vulnerability in regard to the release of confidential information from Buzayan’s juvenile case file by the DA’s Office, it is openly contrary to the code and openly in violation of Warriner’s order, so it requires deliberate misconduct, you don’t do that sort of thing by accident, and it constitutes a conscious attempt to violate the privacy rights of a juvenile
you might just get some significant dollars for that, especially as it involves the release of things like the minor’s social security number
a situation that could have been readily resolved if the police had been accomodating escalated when the case was sent over to the DA instead, and Pattie Fong rubberstamped it, instead of using her independent judgment as an attorney to drop it
subsequent public criticism stung so severely that the DA’s office openly violated the juvenile code and a standing court order
police officers are given discretion to deal with situations as they encounter them, while DAs are considered officers of the court, responsible for following the law and the orders of the court
in a nutshell, that’s why the DA’s office and Pattie Fong find themselves in a much scarier situation than Officer Ly
–Richard Estes
an important point to remember: the Buzayans can prevail on just one of their causes of action, and recover quite substantially against the defendants involved
my personal seat of the pants opinion is that, while Officer Ly may not have conducted himself appropriately, it is uncertain as to whether it rises to the level of fault and compensatory damages, police officers are legally given wide discretion to do so pretty dumb things (like, for example, executing a search warrant on the wrong house)
but, there is real vulnerability in regard to the release of confidential information from Buzayan’s juvenile case file by the DA’s Office, it is openly contrary to the code and openly in violation of Warriner’s order, so it requires deliberate misconduct, you don’t do that sort of thing by accident, and it constitutes a conscious attempt to violate the privacy rights of a juvenile
you might just get some significant dollars for that, especially as it involves the release of things like the minor’s social security number
a situation that could have been readily resolved if the police had been accomodating escalated when the case was sent over to the DA instead, and Pattie Fong rubberstamped it, instead of using her independent judgment as an attorney to drop it
subsequent public criticism stung so severely that the DA’s office openly violated the juvenile code and a standing court order
police officers are given discretion to deal with situations as they encounter them, while DAs are considered officers of the court, responsible for following the law and the orders of the court
in a nutshell, that’s why the DA’s office and Pattie Fong find themselves in a much scarier situation than Officer Ly
–Richard Estes
“As (a) lawyer, I wonder your legal training Mr. Rifkin?”
I’m not a lawyer. I’m simply smarter than most lawyers.
“But I think you underestimate the false imprisonment charge, because the police clearly failed to follow several key protocols for detention of minors. I think that one is much stronger than you think and again, your lack of legal training undercuts your understanding of it.”
This is (as your pseudonym advertises) the Yolo-ACLU’s reading of the law. However, that reading of the law — on the arrest of minors — is highly disputed by many other lawyers. I have an informed opinion on which side is right, but my opinion is irrelevant.
Ultimately, this comes down to how an impartial jury will look at this situation. And it is my reading of juries — really, my reading of the nature of my fellow citizens — which tells me that each of the points that I believe have ‘no chance’ in fact have ‘no chance.’
The biggest wild card in a case that goes to trial is the talent of the litigators in the court room. If Leigh and Gonzalez are especially suave, especially good at portraying their client as an innocent victim, while the defense counsel are stiff and ineffective, the Buzayans may win. Having heard neither side argue in front of a jury, however, makes me assume that each side is equal. And with equal talent, the case looks very weak on almost every ground save ‘abuse of process.’
Nevertheless, if the plaintiff can win big on ‘abuse of process,’ they might get a big remuneration from this case.
But on every other ground of this lawsuit, who is the bad guy and who is the good guy is too unclear for a jury to lower the hammer on the defense over.
“As (a) lawyer, I wonder your legal training Mr. Rifkin?”
I’m not a lawyer. I’m simply smarter than most lawyers.
“But I think you underestimate the false imprisonment charge, because the police clearly failed to follow several key protocols for detention of minors. I think that one is much stronger than you think and again, your lack of legal training undercuts your understanding of it.”
This is (as your pseudonym advertises) the Yolo-ACLU’s reading of the law. However, that reading of the law — on the arrest of minors — is highly disputed by many other lawyers. I have an informed opinion on which side is right, but my opinion is irrelevant.
Ultimately, this comes down to how an impartial jury will look at this situation. And it is my reading of juries — really, my reading of the nature of my fellow citizens — which tells me that each of the points that I believe have ‘no chance’ in fact have ‘no chance.’
The biggest wild card in a case that goes to trial is the talent of the litigators in the court room. If Leigh and Gonzalez are especially suave, especially good at portraying their client as an innocent victim, while the defense counsel are stiff and ineffective, the Buzayans may win. Having heard neither side argue in front of a jury, however, makes me assume that each side is equal. And with equal talent, the case looks very weak on almost every ground save ‘abuse of process.’
Nevertheless, if the plaintiff can win big on ‘abuse of process,’ they might get a big remuneration from this case.
But on every other ground of this lawsuit, who is the bad guy and who is the good guy is too unclear for a jury to lower the hammer on the defense over.
“As (a) lawyer, I wonder your legal training Mr. Rifkin?”
I’m not a lawyer. I’m simply smarter than most lawyers.
“But I think you underestimate the false imprisonment charge, because the police clearly failed to follow several key protocols for detention of minors. I think that one is much stronger than you think and again, your lack of legal training undercuts your understanding of it.”
This is (as your pseudonym advertises) the Yolo-ACLU’s reading of the law. However, that reading of the law — on the arrest of minors — is highly disputed by many other lawyers. I have an informed opinion on which side is right, but my opinion is irrelevant.
Ultimately, this comes down to how an impartial jury will look at this situation. And it is my reading of juries — really, my reading of the nature of my fellow citizens — which tells me that each of the points that I believe have ‘no chance’ in fact have ‘no chance.’
The biggest wild card in a case that goes to trial is the talent of the litigators in the court room. If Leigh and Gonzalez are especially suave, especially good at portraying their client as an innocent victim, while the defense counsel are stiff and ineffective, the Buzayans may win. Having heard neither side argue in front of a jury, however, makes me assume that each side is equal. And with equal talent, the case looks very weak on almost every ground save ‘abuse of process.’
Nevertheless, if the plaintiff can win big on ‘abuse of process,’ they might get a big remuneration from this case.
But on every other ground of this lawsuit, who is the bad guy and who is the good guy is too unclear for a jury to lower the hammer on the defense over.
“As (a) lawyer, I wonder your legal training Mr. Rifkin?”
I’m not a lawyer. I’m simply smarter than most lawyers.
“But I think you underestimate the false imprisonment charge, because the police clearly failed to follow several key protocols for detention of minors. I think that one is much stronger than you think and again, your lack of legal training undercuts your understanding of it.”
This is (as your pseudonym advertises) the Yolo-ACLU’s reading of the law. However, that reading of the law — on the arrest of minors — is highly disputed by many other lawyers. I have an informed opinion on which side is right, but my opinion is irrelevant.
Ultimately, this comes down to how an impartial jury will look at this situation. And it is my reading of juries — really, my reading of the nature of my fellow citizens — which tells me that each of the points that I believe have ‘no chance’ in fact have ‘no chance.’
The biggest wild card in a case that goes to trial is the talent of the litigators in the court room. If Leigh and Gonzalez are especially suave, especially good at portraying their client as an innocent victim, while the defense counsel are stiff and ineffective, the Buzayans may win. Having heard neither side argue in front of a jury, however, makes me assume that each side is equal. And with equal talent, the case looks very weak on almost every ground save ‘abuse of process.’
Nevertheless, if the plaintiff can win big on ‘abuse of process,’ they might get a big remuneration from this case.
But on every other ground of this lawsuit, who is the bad guy and who is the good guy is too unclear for a jury to lower the hammer on the defense over.
“The biggest wild card in a case that goes to trial is the talent of the litigators in the court room.”
Check that. It’s the second biggest. The biggest is the make up of the jury itself (see OJ Simposon).
“The biggest wild card in a case that goes to trial is the talent of the litigators in the court room.”
Check that. It’s the second biggest. The biggest is the make up of the jury itself (see OJ Simposon).
“The biggest wild card in a case that goes to trial is the talent of the litigators in the court room.”
Check that. It’s the second biggest. The biggest is the make up of the jury itself (see OJ Simposon).
“The biggest wild card in a case that goes to trial is the talent of the litigators in the court room.”
Check that. It’s the second biggest. The biggest is the make up of the jury itself (see OJ Simposon).
“However, that reading of the law — on the arrest of minors — is highly disputed by many other lawyers.”
Actually, that reading of the law is disputed by an ex-attorney with the Yolo County DA’s office who wrote a letter to the editor in the Enterprise. It was also the reading of the law by the attorney’s for the DPD. Other than those interested, no one knew this portion of the law better than the late-Mel Trujillo who tried to explain to Dunning this law and Dunning wasn’t interested in hearing anything of it. But Whitney Leigh is also an expert on juvenile law and knows this area as well as anyone. Your information in my opinion comes from inferior sources than Trujillo and Leigh.
“However, that reading of the law — on the arrest of minors — is highly disputed by many other lawyers.”
Actually, that reading of the law is disputed by an ex-attorney with the Yolo County DA’s office who wrote a letter to the editor in the Enterprise. It was also the reading of the law by the attorney’s for the DPD. Other than those interested, no one knew this portion of the law better than the late-Mel Trujillo who tried to explain to Dunning this law and Dunning wasn’t interested in hearing anything of it. But Whitney Leigh is also an expert on juvenile law and knows this area as well as anyone. Your information in my opinion comes from inferior sources than Trujillo and Leigh.
“However, that reading of the law — on the arrest of minors — is highly disputed by many other lawyers.”
Actually, that reading of the law is disputed by an ex-attorney with the Yolo County DA’s office who wrote a letter to the editor in the Enterprise. It was also the reading of the law by the attorney’s for the DPD. Other than those interested, no one knew this portion of the law better than the late-Mel Trujillo who tried to explain to Dunning this law and Dunning wasn’t interested in hearing anything of it. But Whitney Leigh is also an expert on juvenile law and knows this area as well as anyone. Your information in my opinion comes from inferior sources than Trujillo and Leigh.
“However, that reading of the law — on the arrest of minors — is highly disputed by many other lawyers.”
Actually, that reading of the law is disputed by an ex-attorney with the Yolo County DA’s office who wrote a letter to the editor in the Enterprise. It was also the reading of the law by the attorney’s for the DPD. Other than those interested, no one knew this portion of the law better than the late-Mel Trujillo who tried to explain to Dunning this law and Dunning wasn’t interested in hearing anything of it. But Whitney Leigh is also an expert on juvenile law and knows this area as well as anyone. Your information in my opinion comes from inferior sources than Trujillo and Leigh.
Anonyous 8:48 –
They had insurance, so even thought they did not hit the car it was cheaper to pay $700 to $800 + dollars than it would have been to fight this with an attorney, court costs, etc.
Of course I’m sure they never knew it would lead them down this path. Besides, Officer Ly advised them to just take care of it since they had insurance.
Some more important questions that need to be asked is:
1) What happened to the phone chip? It was in the posession of the police department and has “vanished.” This purportedly had the picture on it, but it’s gone, lost, damaged by the department.
2) Where are the supposed persons who saw this accident take place?
Answer: Nowhere to be found.
Too many unanswered questions that could have been answered with better IA process.
Anonyous 8:48 –
They had insurance, so even thought they did not hit the car it was cheaper to pay $700 to $800 + dollars than it would have been to fight this with an attorney, court costs, etc.
Of course I’m sure they never knew it would lead them down this path. Besides, Officer Ly advised them to just take care of it since they had insurance.
Some more important questions that need to be asked is:
1) What happened to the phone chip? It was in the posession of the police department and has “vanished.” This purportedly had the picture on it, but it’s gone, lost, damaged by the department.
2) Where are the supposed persons who saw this accident take place?
Answer: Nowhere to be found.
Too many unanswered questions that could have been answered with better IA process.
Anonyous 8:48 –
They had insurance, so even thought they did not hit the car it was cheaper to pay $700 to $800 + dollars than it would have been to fight this with an attorney, court costs, etc.
Of course I’m sure they never knew it would lead them down this path. Besides, Officer Ly advised them to just take care of it since they had insurance.
Some more important questions that need to be asked is:
1) What happened to the phone chip? It was in the posession of the police department and has “vanished.” This purportedly had the picture on it, but it’s gone, lost, damaged by the department.
2) Where are the supposed persons who saw this accident take place?
Answer: Nowhere to be found.
Too many unanswered questions that could have been answered with better IA process.
Anonyous 8:48 –
They had insurance, so even thought they did not hit the car it was cheaper to pay $700 to $800 + dollars than it would have been to fight this with an attorney, court costs, etc.
Of course I’m sure they never knew it would lead them down this path. Besides, Officer Ly advised them to just take care of it since they had insurance.
Some more important questions that need to be asked is:
1) What happened to the phone chip? It was in the posession of the police department and has “vanished.” This purportedly had the picture on it, but it’s gone, lost, damaged by the department.
2) Where are the supposed persons who saw this accident take place?
Answer: Nowhere to be found.
Too many unanswered questions that could have been answered with better IA process.
Forget about a guilty or not-guilty verdict…
Who arrests a 16 year old girl in her pajamas on a school night for an alleged, scraped bumper?
Forget about a guilty or not-guilty verdict…
Who arrests a 16 year old girl in her pajamas on a school night for an alleged, scraped bumper?
Forget about a guilty or not-guilty verdict…
Who arrests a 16 year old girl in her pajamas on a school night for an alleged, scraped bumper?
Forget about a guilty or not-guilty verdict…
Who arrests a 16 year old girl in her pajamas on a school night for an alleged, scraped bumper?
More and more bluster from the Buzayan cheerleading squad, but still not one of them — not one — will take my bet.
“Your information in my opinion comes from inferior sources than Trujillo and Leigh.”
ACLU, this is a stupid comment. If you are in fact an attorney, I’m shocked you are not more careful with your language. No wonder you don’t have the guts to put your name to your accusations. Of course, Bill Kopper of the Yolo-ACLU puts his name to his words and he’s as sloppy with his accusations as you are with yours. (Witness his b.s. attack on Bob Dunning, based on his own misunderstanding of when a telephone conversation he never heard took place.)
I never said or even implied that the Buzayan/ACLU reading of the law with regard to minors was wrong. So when you say “your information comes from inferior sources,” you are a complete and total putz to assume that it is “my information.”
My point — apparently this went over your head — was that there is enough of a compelling argument on the other side of this dispute to tell me that no jury is going to award damages where the supposed violation — what Leigh and Gonzalez call ‘false imprisonment’ — is so reasonably disputed.
Now, maybe your bias is too strong to understand that the argument of the other side is compelling. That is why a neutral jury is needed. But given that the California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 625 does say:
“A peace officer may, without a warrant, take into temporary custody a minor: (a) Who is under the age of 18 years when such officer has reasonable cause for believing that such minor is a person described in Section 601 or 602.”
And Section 602 does say:
“Any person who is under the age of 18 years when he or she violates any law of this state or of the United States or any ordinance of any city or county of this state defining crime other than an ordinance establishing a curfew based solely on age, is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.”
The argument made by the ACLU that this action represents ‘false imprisonment’ is far from obvious.
You almost have to be a total dunce — even if you have a law degree — to not understand that when there is a reasonable dispute over the law, a jury will not find entirely for one side. And in this particular matter of this particular case, in order to find that the Davis police falsely imprisoned Miss Buzayan, the law would have to be far, far clearer.
Unfortunately, you seem quite unable to grasp that simple fact, ACLU.
More and more bluster from the Buzayan cheerleading squad, but still not one of them — not one — will take my bet.
“Your information in my opinion comes from inferior sources than Trujillo and Leigh.”
ACLU, this is a stupid comment. If you are in fact an attorney, I’m shocked you are not more careful with your language. No wonder you don’t have the guts to put your name to your accusations. Of course, Bill Kopper of the Yolo-ACLU puts his name to his words and he’s as sloppy with his accusations as you are with yours. (Witness his b.s. attack on Bob Dunning, based on his own misunderstanding of when a telephone conversation he never heard took place.)
I never said or even implied that the Buzayan/ACLU reading of the law with regard to minors was wrong. So when you say “your information comes from inferior sources,” you are a complete and total putz to assume that it is “my information.”
My point — apparently this went over your head — was that there is enough of a compelling argument on the other side of this dispute to tell me that no jury is going to award damages where the supposed violation — what Leigh and Gonzalez call ‘false imprisonment’ — is so reasonably disputed.
Now, maybe your bias is too strong to understand that the argument of the other side is compelling. That is why a neutral jury is needed. But given that the California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 625 does say:
“A peace officer may, without a warrant, take into temporary custody a minor: (a) Who is under the age of 18 years when such officer has reasonable cause for believing that such minor is a person described in Section 601 or 602.”
And Section 602 does say:
“Any person who is under the age of 18 years when he or she violates any law of this state or of the United States or any ordinance of any city or county of this state defining crime other than an ordinance establishing a curfew based solely on age, is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.”
The argument made by the ACLU that this action represents ‘false imprisonment’ is far from obvious.
You almost have to be a total dunce — even if you have a law degree — to not understand that when there is a reasonable dispute over the law, a jury will not find entirely for one side. And in this particular matter of this particular case, in order to find that the Davis police falsely imprisoned Miss Buzayan, the law would have to be far, far clearer.
Unfortunately, you seem quite unable to grasp that simple fact, ACLU.
More and more bluster from the Buzayan cheerleading squad, but still not one of them — not one — will take my bet.
“Your information in my opinion comes from inferior sources than Trujillo and Leigh.”
ACLU, this is a stupid comment. If you are in fact an attorney, I’m shocked you are not more careful with your language. No wonder you don’t have the guts to put your name to your accusations. Of course, Bill Kopper of the Yolo-ACLU puts his name to his words and he’s as sloppy with his accusations as you are with yours. (Witness his b.s. attack on Bob Dunning, based on his own misunderstanding of when a telephone conversation he never heard took place.)
I never said or even implied that the Buzayan/ACLU reading of the law with regard to minors was wrong. So when you say “your information comes from inferior sources,” you are a complete and total putz to assume that it is “my information.”
My point — apparently this went over your head — was that there is enough of a compelling argument on the other side of this dispute to tell me that no jury is going to award damages where the supposed violation — what Leigh and Gonzalez call ‘false imprisonment’ — is so reasonably disputed.
Now, maybe your bias is too strong to understand that the argument of the other side is compelling. That is why a neutral jury is needed. But given that the California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 625 does say:
“A peace officer may, without a warrant, take into temporary custody a minor: (a) Who is under the age of 18 years when such officer has reasonable cause for believing that such minor is a person described in Section 601 or 602.”
And Section 602 does say:
“Any person who is under the age of 18 years when he or she violates any law of this state or of the United States or any ordinance of any city or county of this state defining crime other than an ordinance establishing a curfew based solely on age, is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.”
The argument made by the ACLU that this action represents ‘false imprisonment’ is far from obvious.
You almost have to be a total dunce — even if you have a law degree — to not understand that when there is a reasonable dispute over the law, a jury will not find entirely for one side. And in this particular matter of this particular case, in order to find that the Davis police falsely imprisoned Miss Buzayan, the law would have to be far, far clearer.
Unfortunately, you seem quite unable to grasp that simple fact, ACLU.
More and more bluster from the Buzayan cheerleading squad, but still not one of them — not one — will take my bet.
“Your information in my opinion comes from inferior sources than Trujillo and Leigh.”
ACLU, this is a stupid comment. If you are in fact an attorney, I’m shocked you are not more careful with your language. No wonder you don’t have the guts to put your name to your accusations. Of course, Bill Kopper of the Yolo-ACLU puts his name to his words and he’s as sloppy with his accusations as you are with yours. (Witness his b.s. attack on Bob Dunning, based on his own misunderstanding of when a telephone conversation he never heard took place.)
I never said or even implied that the Buzayan/ACLU reading of the law with regard to minors was wrong. So when you say “your information comes from inferior sources,” you are a complete and total putz to assume that it is “my information.”
My point — apparently this went over your head — was that there is enough of a compelling argument on the other side of this dispute to tell me that no jury is going to award damages where the supposed violation — what Leigh and Gonzalez call ‘false imprisonment’ — is so reasonably disputed.
Now, maybe your bias is too strong to understand that the argument of the other side is compelling. That is why a neutral jury is needed. But given that the California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 625 does say:
“A peace officer may, without a warrant, take into temporary custody a minor: (a) Who is under the age of 18 years when such officer has reasonable cause for believing that such minor is a person described in Section 601 or 602.”
And Section 602 does say:
“Any person who is under the age of 18 years when he or she violates any law of this state or of the United States or any ordinance of any city or county of this state defining crime other than an ordinance establishing a curfew based solely on age, is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.”
The argument made by the ACLU that this action represents ‘false imprisonment’ is far from obvious.
You almost have to be a total dunce — even if you have a law degree — to not understand that when there is a reasonable dispute over the law, a jury will not find entirely for one side. And in this particular matter of this particular case, in order to find that the Davis police falsely imprisoned Miss Buzayan, the law would have to be far, far clearer.
Unfortunately, you seem quite unable to grasp that simple fact, ACLU.
Rich, do you think a 16 year old girl should be arrested on a school night for allegedly scraping a bumper?
Rich, do you think a 16 year old girl should be arrested on a school night for allegedly scraping a bumper?
Rich, do you think a 16 year old girl should be arrested on a school night for allegedly scraping a bumper?
Rich, do you think a 16 year old girl should be arrested on a school night for allegedly scraping a bumper?
great and small:
If her only alleged offense had been “scraping a bumper,” of course the answer is no.
However, because the Buzayan case is far more complex than that and the allegations are beyond those in your question, your question is moot.
great and small:
If her only alleged offense had been “scraping a bumper,” of course the answer is no.
However, because the Buzayan case is far more complex than that and the allegations are beyond those in your question, your question is moot.
great and small:
If her only alleged offense had been “scraping a bumper,” of course the answer is no.
However, because the Buzayan case is far more complex than that and the allegations are beyond those in your question, your question is moot.
great and small:
If her only alleged offense had been “scraping a bumper,” of course the answer is no.
However, because the Buzayan case is far more complex than that and the allegations are beyond those in your question, your question is moot.
Rich – the “cheerleading” allegation and the issue of your wanting to place a bet has already been responded to. Quit insisting on being a jerk about this. Stick to the conversation.
Rich – the “cheerleading” allegation and the issue of your wanting to place a bet has already been responded to. Quit insisting on being a jerk about this. Stick to the conversation.
Rich – the “cheerleading” allegation and the issue of your wanting to place a bet has already been responded to. Quit insisting on being a jerk about this. Stick to the conversation.
Rich – the “cheerleading” allegation and the issue of your wanting to place a bet has already been responded to. Quit insisting on being a jerk about this. Stick to the conversation.
Rich:
I have a pretty good idea about where your information comes from, likely the same sources as Dunning. If that is incorrect, perhaps you can state your sources who are other than the retired deputy DA and the attorneys for the DPD.
“Witness his b.s. attack on Bob Dunning, based on his own misunderstanding of when a telephone conversation he never heard took place.”
That is of course Dunning’s claim. However, when I spoke to Mel shortly before his death, his account was very different. He said that while it is possible that Dunning had already written the column, but that the paper had not gone to press yet, so Dunning if compelled certainly had the option to change his argument based on new information. Nor for that matter did he ever change his argument, even after Trujillo’s information clearly came to him, so like most of your arguments you are reaching for non-essential distinctions. Dunning did not adjust his argument regardless of when he came to the information, period.
Your interpretation of the California Welfare and Institutions Code section 601, 602, and 625 is like the people whose sources you rely on, incomplete.
They conveniently ignored Section 626 which stipulates that in order to use this code to take a minor into custody, they must take the minor to a probation officer prior to an interview with the minor. This was violated and hence the arrest was not conducted lawfully.
Rich:
I have a pretty good idea about where your information comes from, likely the same sources as Dunning. If that is incorrect, perhaps you can state your sources who are other than the retired deputy DA and the attorneys for the DPD.
“Witness his b.s. attack on Bob Dunning, based on his own misunderstanding of when a telephone conversation he never heard took place.”
That is of course Dunning’s claim. However, when I spoke to Mel shortly before his death, his account was very different. He said that while it is possible that Dunning had already written the column, but that the paper had not gone to press yet, so Dunning if compelled certainly had the option to change his argument based on new information. Nor for that matter did he ever change his argument, even after Trujillo’s information clearly came to him, so like most of your arguments you are reaching for non-essential distinctions. Dunning did not adjust his argument regardless of when he came to the information, period.
Your interpretation of the California Welfare and Institutions Code section 601, 602, and 625 is like the people whose sources you rely on, incomplete.
They conveniently ignored Section 626 which stipulates that in order to use this code to take a minor into custody, they must take the minor to a probation officer prior to an interview with the minor. This was violated and hence the arrest was not conducted lawfully.
Rich:
I have a pretty good idea about where your information comes from, likely the same sources as Dunning. If that is incorrect, perhaps you can state your sources who are other than the retired deputy DA and the attorneys for the DPD.
“Witness his b.s. attack on Bob Dunning, based on his own misunderstanding of when a telephone conversation he never heard took place.”
That is of course Dunning’s claim. However, when I spoke to Mel shortly before his death, his account was very different. He said that while it is possible that Dunning had already written the column, but that the paper had not gone to press yet, so Dunning if compelled certainly had the option to change his argument based on new information. Nor for that matter did he ever change his argument, even after Trujillo’s information clearly came to him, so like most of your arguments you are reaching for non-essential distinctions. Dunning did not adjust his argument regardless of when he came to the information, period.
Your interpretation of the California Welfare and Institutions Code section 601, 602, and 625 is like the people whose sources you rely on, incomplete.
They conveniently ignored Section 626 which stipulates that in order to use this code to take a minor into custody, they must take the minor to a probation officer prior to an interview with the minor. This was violated and hence the arrest was not conducted lawfully.
Rich:
I have a pretty good idea about where your information comes from, likely the same sources as Dunning. If that is incorrect, perhaps you can state your sources who are other than the retired deputy DA and the attorneys for the DPD.
“Witness his b.s. attack on Bob Dunning, based on his own misunderstanding of when a telephone conversation he never heard took place.”
That is of course Dunning’s claim. However, when I spoke to Mel shortly before his death, his account was very different. He said that while it is possible that Dunning had already written the column, but that the paper had not gone to press yet, so Dunning if compelled certainly had the option to change his argument based on new information. Nor for that matter did he ever change his argument, even after Trujillo’s information clearly came to him, so like most of your arguments you are reaching for non-essential distinctions. Dunning did not adjust his argument regardless of when he came to the information, period.
Your interpretation of the California Welfare and Institutions Code section 601, 602, and 625 is like the people whose sources you rely on, incomplete.
They conveniently ignored Section 626 which stipulates that in order to use this code to take a minor into custody, they must take the minor to a probation officer prior to an interview with the minor. This was violated and hence the arrest was not conducted lawfully.
However, because the Buzayan case is far more complex than that and the allegations are beyond those in your question, your question is moot.
If it is so complex, why hasn’t the DA’s Office told us? And, why wasn’t it charged?
After all, they sure haven’t hesitated to say and do everything else. Leaking confidential juvenile records of a personal nature, lecturing the Buzayan family about how to raise their children (really, shouldn’t Tim Wallace focus more on his own family?) and claiming that the Buzayan family paid off a witness to prevent her from testifying (again, uncharged)
apparently, the only complexity here is a vindictive DA’s Office that got embarrassed when the community, including the alleged “victim” of the crime, the owner of the scratched vehicle, couldn’t understand what the police and DA were doing elevating a matter that could be easily resolved in a contentious public dispute
–Richard Estes
However, because the Buzayan case is far more complex than that and the allegations are beyond those in your question, your question is moot.
If it is so complex, why hasn’t the DA’s Office told us? And, why wasn’t it charged?
After all, they sure haven’t hesitated to say and do everything else. Leaking confidential juvenile records of a personal nature, lecturing the Buzayan family about how to raise their children (really, shouldn’t Tim Wallace focus more on his own family?) and claiming that the Buzayan family paid off a witness to prevent her from testifying (again, uncharged)
apparently, the only complexity here is a vindictive DA’s Office that got embarrassed when the community, including the alleged “victim” of the crime, the owner of the scratched vehicle, couldn’t understand what the police and DA were doing elevating a matter that could be easily resolved in a contentious public dispute
–Richard Estes
However, because the Buzayan case is far more complex than that and the allegations are beyond those in your question, your question is moot.
If it is so complex, why hasn’t the DA’s Office told us? And, why wasn’t it charged?
After all, they sure haven’t hesitated to say and do everything else. Leaking confidential juvenile records of a personal nature, lecturing the Buzayan family about how to raise their children (really, shouldn’t Tim Wallace focus more on his own family?) and claiming that the Buzayan family paid off a witness to prevent her from testifying (again, uncharged)
apparently, the only complexity here is a vindictive DA’s Office that got embarrassed when the community, including the alleged “victim” of the crime, the owner of the scratched vehicle, couldn’t understand what the police and DA were doing elevating a matter that could be easily resolved in a contentious public dispute
–Richard Estes
However, because the Buzayan case is far more complex than that and the allegations are beyond those in your question, your question is moot.
If it is so complex, why hasn’t the DA’s Office told us? And, why wasn’t it charged?
After all, they sure haven’t hesitated to say and do everything else. Leaking confidential juvenile records of a personal nature, lecturing the Buzayan family about how to raise their children (really, shouldn’t Tim Wallace focus more on his own family?) and claiming that the Buzayan family paid off a witness to prevent her from testifying (again, uncharged)
apparently, the only complexity here is a vindictive DA’s Office that got embarrassed when the community, including the alleged “victim” of the crime, the owner of the scratched vehicle, couldn’t understand what the police and DA were doing elevating a matter that could be easily resolved in a contentious public dispute
–Richard Estes
I’m tired of the Saga of Pajama Girl and the Scratched Bumper.
I’m tired of the Saga of Pajama Girl and the Scratched Bumper.
I’m tired of the Saga of Pajama Girl and the Scratched Bumper.
I’m tired of the Saga of Pajama Girl and the Scratched Bumper.
Rich: Have you seen the pictures of the damage to the two vehicles and if so, can you please explain how a long thin scratch on the Highlander produced a dent on the Honda?
Rich: Have you seen the pictures of the damage to the two vehicles and if so, can you please explain how a long thin scratch on the Highlander produced a dent on the Honda?
Rich: Have you seen the pictures of the damage to the two vehicles and if so, can you please explain how a long thin scratch on the Highlander produced a dent on the Honda?
Rich: Have you seen the pictures of the damage to the two vehicles and if so, can you please explain how a long thin scratch on the Highlander produced a dent on the Honda?
Rich, I think you stopped reading California Code too soon.
I believe that the statutes demand that the police officer can take the juvenile into temporary custody to deliver them (“without any unnessary delay”) to the Probation Officer. (Ref. W&I Code 626)
The Officer must inform the child of their rights immediately upon taking them into custody. It is the Probation Officer that interviews the child after being taken into custody, not the Police Officer, if that is what the Officer feels needs to be done.
I think this is where Officer Ly went astray. He kept the child and interviewed her after he “arrested” her (juveniles are actually not arrested – they are “taken into temporary custody”). This was incorrect handling of a juvenile. Had he done what he should have done – cited and released her or taken her to the Probation Officer to be interviewed – then maybe there would not be an issue of “false imprisonment”. Since I have not talked to anyone directly involved in the case, I am making an assumption about that.
I agree. Let’s wait for the trial.
Rich, I think you stopped reading California Code too soon.
I believe that the statutes demand that the police officer can take the juvenile into temporary custody to deliver them (“without any unnessary delay”) to the Probation Officer. (Ref. W&I Code 626)
The Officer must inform the child of their rights immediately upon taking them into custody. It is the Probation Officer that interviews the child after being taken into custody, not the Police Officer, if that is what the Officer feels needs to be done.
I think this is where Officer Ly went astray. He kept the child and interviewed her after he “arrested” her (juveniles are actually not arrested – they are “taken into temporary custody”). This was incorrect handling of a juvenile. Had he done what he should have done – cited and released her or taken her to the Probation Officer to be interviewed – then maybe there would not be an issue of “false imprisonment”. Since I have not talked to anyone directly involved in the case, I am making an assumption about that.
I agree. Let’s wait for the trial.
Rich, I think you stopped reading California Code too soon.
I believe that the statutes demand that the police officer can take the juvenile into temporary custody to deliver them (“without any unnessary delay”) to the Probation Officer. (Ref. W&I Code 626)
The Officer must inform the child of their rights immediately upon taking them into custody. It is the Probation Officer that interviews the child after being taken into custody, not the Police Officer, if that is what the Officer feels needs to be done.
I think this is where Officer Ly went astray. He kept the child and interviewed her after he “arrested” her (juveniles are actually not arrested – they are “taken into temporary custody”). This was incorrect handling of a juvenile. Had he done what he should have done – cited and released her or taken her to the Probation Officer to be interviewed – then maybe there would not be an issue of “false imprisonment”. Since I have not talked to anyone directly involved in the case, I am making an assumption about that.
I agree. Let’s wait for the trial.
Rich, I think you stopped reading California Code too soon.
I believe that the statutes demand that the police officer can take the juvenile into temporary custody to deliver them (“without any unnessary delay”) to the Probation Officer. (Ref. W&I Code 626)
The Officer must inform the child of their rights immediately upon taking them into custody. It is the Probation Officer that interviews the child after being taken into custody, not the Police Officer, if that is what the Officer feels needs to be done.
I think this is where Officer Ly went astray. He kept the child and interviewed her after he “arrested” her (juveniles are actually not arrested – they are “taken into temporary custody”). This was incorrect handling of a juvenile. Had he done what he should have done – cited and released her or taken her to the Probation Officer to be interviewed – then maybe there would not be an issue of “false imprisonment”. Since I have not talked to anyone directly involved in the case, I am making an assumption about that.
I agree. Let’s wait for the trial.
Rich
What crime did she allegedly commit, beyond scraping the bumper?
Rich
What crime did she allegedly commit, beyond scraping the bumper?
Rich
What crime did she allegedly commit, beyond scraping the bumper?
Rich
What crime did she allegedly commit, beyond scraping the bumper?
Reason should tell anyone (who is not obsessively committed to defending the Guzayan girl for the sole purpose of jumping on the anti-police bandwagon) that she hit the other car and left the scene. That’s a law violation whether it’s paid off when you get caught, or not. The officer was within his lawful authority to make the arrest and the hour was not unreasonable. So, stop acting so offended by way of asking that overwhelmingly ridiculous and naive question: “Who arrests a 16 year old girl in her pajamas on a school night for an alleged, scraped bumper?” It’s just static that makes hearing the real issues more difficult. I didn’t think we had different laws for different classes of people anyway. Seems the question belies a sentiment that maybe we should.
The rest of the blather surrounding the case is just meant to muddy the waters so the bogus and laughable accusations of racism leveled against the police become more believable. The police detractors need the believability factor since this is their best chance for a sympathy-inspiring poster-child for police bias that they’ll ever see in Davis. The police foes have to keep Ms. Buzayan’s case alive or they don’t get their chance to experience a sense of vicarious notoriety through having Davis deemed another city full of racist cops. (Feeling left out, I guess.)
Why do they want that disgraceful distinction anyway? (Nearly everything about Davis is special and enviable – especially the police.) I’ll have to leave you to figure out the answer to that question for yourselves. I have my suspicions…and they tell me that it doesn’t involve any of the nobility of the issues they are hidden behind.
Reason should tell anyone (who is not obsessively committed to defending the Guzayan girl for the sole purpose of jumping on the anti-police bandwagon) that she hit the other car and left the scene. That’s a law violation whether it’s paid off when you get caught, or not. The officer was within his lawful authority to make the arrest and the hour was not unreasonable. So, stop acting so offended by way of asking that overwhelmingly ridiculous and naive question: “Who arrests a 16 year old girl in her pajamas on a school night for an alleged, scraped bumper?” It’s just static that makes hearing the real issues more difficult. I didn’t think we had different laws for different classes of people anyway. Seems the question belies a sentiment that maybe we should.
The rest of the blather surrounding the case is just meant to muddy the waters so the bogus and laughable accusations of racism leveled against the police become more believable. The police detractors need the believability factor since this is their best chance for a sympathy-inspiring poster-child for police bias that they’ll ever see in Davis. The police foes have to keep Ms. Buzayan’s case alive or they don’t get their chance to experience a sense of vicarious notoriety through having Davis deemed another city full of racist cops. (Feeling left out, I guess.)
Why do they want that disgraceful distinction anyway? (Nearly everything about Davis is special and enviable – especially the police.) I’ll have to leave you to figure out the answer to that question for yourselves. I have my suspicions…and they tell me that it doesn’t involve any of the nobility of the issues they are hidden behind.
Reason should tell anyone (who is not obsessively committed to defending the Guzayan girl for the sole purpose of jumping on the anti-police bandwagon) that she hit the other car and left the scene. That’s a law violation whether it’s paid off when you get caught, or not. The officer was within his lawful authority to make the arrest and the hour was not unreasonable. So, stop acting so offended by way of asking that overwhelmingly ridiculous and naive question: “Who arrests a 16 year old girl in her pajamas on a school night for an alleged, scraped bumper?” It’s just static that makes hearing the real issues more difficult. I didn’t think we had different laws for different classes of people anyway. Seems the question belies a sentiment that maybe we should.
The rest of the blather surrounding the case is just meant to muddy the waters so the bogus and laughable accusations of racism leveled against the police become more believable. The police detractors need the believability factor since this is their best chance for a sympathy-inspiring poster-child for police bias that they’ll ever see in Davis. The police foes have to keep Ms. Buzayan’s case alive or they don’t get their chance to experience a sense of vicarious notoriety through having Davis deemed another city full of racist cops. (Feeling left out, I guess.)
Why do they want that disgraceful distinction anyway? (Nearly everything about Davis is special and enviable – especially the police.) I’ll have to leave you to figure out the answer to that question for yourselves. I have my suspicions…and they tell me that it doesn’t involve any of the nobility of the issues they are hidden behind.
Reason should tell anyone (who is not obsessively committed to defending the Guzayan girl for the sole purpose of jumping on the anti-police bandwagon) that she hit the other car and left the scene. That’s a law violation whether it’s paid off when you get caught, or not. The officer was within his lawful authority to make the arrest and the hour was not unreasonable. So, stop acting so offended by way of asking that overwhelmingly ridiculous and naive question: “Who arrests a 16 year old girl in her pajamas on a school night for an alleged, scraped bumper?” It’s just static that makes hearing the real issues more difficult. I didn’t think we had different laws for different classes of people anyway. Seems the question belies a sentiment that maybe we should.
The rest of the blather surrounding the case is just meant to muddy the waters so the bogus and laughable accusations of racism leveled against the police become more believable. The police detractors need the believability factor since this is their best chance for a sympathy-inspiring poster-child for police bias that they’ll ever see in Davis. The police foes have to keep Ms. Buzayan’s case alive or they don’t get their chance to experience a sense of vicarious notoriety through having Davis deemed another city full of racist cops. (Feeling left out, I guess.)
Why do they want that disgraceful distinction anyway? (Nearly everything about Davis is special and enviable – especially the police.) I’ll have to leave you to figure out the answer to that question for yourselves. I have my suspicions…and they tell me that it doesn’t involve any of the nobility of the issues they are hidden behind.
Rich Rifkin said…
If this lawsuit is not settled out of court or dismissed entirely before it goes to trial, I would be willing to bet that the plaintiffs lose on almost every ground they allege:
* Racial discrimination — no chance.
* False imprisonment — no chance.
* Assault — no chance.
* Intentional infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Negligent infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Abuse of process — this has a chance.
* Slander — dismissed
* Libel — dismissed.
* Defamation — no chance.
* Battery — no chance.
By the way, if any of the big-talkers who are cheerleading for the Buzayans think I am wrong, I’m willing to bet a cup of coffee at your coffeehouse of choice in Davis on my prediction:
If the case is not settled, it goes to a jury, the jury finds the defendants liable on most of the complaint, the jury’s verdict is not overturned on appeal, and the city and county (or other defendants) pay off the Buzayans’ claim, I lose and I’ll buy the coffee; otherwise, I’ll take a large mocha java.
Rich, I definitely am not one of the cheerleaders you referred to, but with that said I am able to recognize a bully when I see one. Therefore, I’m calling you on your bet. You throw around your opinions as if they are facts, and belittle those people you disagree with. You tried the same tactic with your snide comment about El Macero’s “terrible diversity problem” on Saturday. I responded then and I’m responding now. As the Blog is my witness your bet is called.
You can come down from your bully pulpit, you neither walk softly nor carry a big stick. I look forward to that cup of coffee.
Rich Rifkin said…
If this lawsuit is not settled out of court or dismissed entirely before it goes to trial, I would be willing to bet that the plaintiffs lose on almost every ground they allege:
* Racial discrimination — no chance.
* False imprisonment — no chance.
* Assault — no chance.
* Intentional infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Negligent infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Abuse of process — this has a chance.
* Slander — dismissed
* Libel — dismissed.
* Defamation — no chance.
* Battery — no chance.
By the way, if any of the big-talkers who are cheerleading for the Buzayans think I am wrong, I’m willing to bet a cup of coffee at your coffeehouse of choice in Davis on my prediction:
If the case is not settled, it goes to a jury, the jury finds the defendants liable on most of the complaint, the jury’s verdict is not overturned on appeal, and the city and county (or other defendants) pay off the Buzayans’ claim, I lose and I’ll buy the coffee; otherwise, I’ll take a large mocha java.
Rich, I definitely am not one of the cheerleaders you referred to, but with that said I am able to recognize a bully when I see one. Therefore, I’m calling you on your bet. You throw around your opinions as if they are facts, and belittle those people you disagree with. You tried the same tactic with your snide comment about El Macero’s “terrible diversity problem” on Saturday. I responded then and I’m responding now. As the Blog is my witness your bet is called.
You can come down from your bully pulpit, you neither walk softly nor carry a big stick. I look forward to that cup of coffee.
Rich Rifkin said…
If this lawsuit is not settled out of court or dismissed entirely before it goes to trial, I would be willing to bet that the plaintiffs lose on almost every ground they allege:
* Racial discrimination — no chance.
* False imprisonment — no chance.
* Assault — no chance.
* Intentional infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Negligent infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Abuse of process — this has a chance.
* Slander — dismissed
* Libel — dismissed.
* Defamation — no chance.
* Battery — no chance.
By the way, if any of the big-talkers who are cheerleading for the Buzayans think I am wrong, I’m willing to bet a cup of coffee at your coffeehouse of choice in Davis on my prediction:
If the case is not settled, it goes to a jury, the jury finds the defendants liable on most of the complaint, the jury’s verdict is not overturned on appeal, and the city and county (or other defendants) pay off the Buzayans’ claim, I lose and I’ll buy the coffee; otherwise, I’ll take a large mocha java.
Rich, I definitely am not one of the cheerleaders you referred to, but with that said I am able to recognize a bully when I see one. Therefore, I’m calling you on your bet. You throw around your opinions as if they are facts, and belittle those people you disagree with. You tried the same tactic with your snide comment about El Macero’s “terrible diversity problem” on Saturday. I responded then and I’m responding now. As the Blog is my witness your bet is called.
You can come down from your bully pulpit, you neither walk softly nor carry a big stick. I look forward to that cup of coffee.
Rich Rifkin said…
If this lawsuit is not settled out of court or dismissed entirely before it goes to trial, I would be willing to bet that the plaintiffs lose on almost every ground they allege:
* Racial discrimination — no chance.
* False imprisonment — no chance.
* Assault — no chance.
* Intentional infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Negligent infliction of emotional distress — no chance.
* Abuse of process — this has a chance.
* Slander — dismissed
* Libel — dismissed.
* Defamation — no chance.
* Battery — no chance.
By the way, if any of the big-talkers who are cheerleading for the Buzayans think I am wrong, I’m willing to bet a cup of coffee at your coffeehouse of choice in Davis on my prediction:
If the case is not settled, it goes to a jury, the jury finds the defendants liable on most of the complaint, the jury’s verdict is not overturned on appeal, and the city and county (or other defendants) pay off the Buzayans’ claim, I lose and I’ll buy the coffee; otherwise, I’ll take a large mocha java.
Rich, I definitely am not one of the cheerleaders you referred to, but with that said I am able to recognize a bully when I see one. Therefore, I’m calling you on your bet. You throw around your opinions as if they are facts, and belittle those people you disagree with. You tried the same tactic with your snide comment about El Macero’s “terrible diversity problem” on Saturday. I responded then and I’m responding now. As the Blog is my witness your bet is called.
You can come down from your bully pulpit, you neither walk softly nor carry a big stick. I look forward to that cup of coffee.
Dear Anonymous:
“Reason should tell anyone (who is not obsessively committed to defending the Guzayan girl for the sole purpose of jumping on the anti-police bandwagon) that she hit the other car and left the scene. That’s a law violation whether it’s paid off when you get caught, or not. The officer was within his lawful authority to make the arrest and the hour was not unreasonable.”
Let me take each of these first initial points in turn.
First, I have seen the damage to both vehicles–have you? Because if you had, I don’t think you could possibly have issued your first statement.
Second, according to the law, the moment civil damages are paid, there is no crime. Hence the reason that the Judge dismissed it. Are you a judge or a lawyer? Do you disagree with Judge Warriner?
Third, the Officer may have been within his lawful authority to do something, but Sharla clearly laid out the process according to the law. The officer did not follow the law.
There are each points of reason and logic that negate the premise of your statements that there is an intrinsic illogic in defending the Buzayans (with a “B”), perhaps you can dispute these rules of law.
Dear Anonymous:
“Reason should tell anyone (who is not obsessively committed to defending the Guzayan girl for the sole purpose of jumping on the anti-police bandwagon) that she hit the other car and left the scene. That’s a law violation whether it’s paid off when you get caught, or not. The officer was within his lawful authority to make the arrest and the hour was not unreasonable.”
Let me take each of these first initial points in turn.
First, I have seen the damage to both vehicles–have you? Because if you had, I don’t think you could possibly have issued your first statement.
Second, according to the law, the moment civil damages are paid, there is no crime. Hence the reason that the Judge dismissed it. Are you a judge or a lawyer? Do you disagree with Judge Warriner?
Third, the Officer may have been within his lawful authority to do something, but Sharla clearly laid out the process according to the law. The officer did not follow the law.
There are each points of reason and logic that negate the premise of your statements that there is an intrinsic illogic in defending the Buzayans (with a “B”), perhaps you can dispute these rules of law.
Dear Anonymous:
“Reason should tell anyone (who is not obsessively committed to defending the Guzayan girl for the sole purpose of jumping on the anti-police bandwagon) that she hit the other car and left the scene. That’s a law violation whether it’s paid off when you get caught, or not. The officer was within his lawful authority to make the arrest and the hour was not unreasonable.”
Let me take each of these first initial points in turn.
First, I have seen the damage to both vehicles–have you? Because if you had, I don’t think you could possibly have issued your first statement.
Second, according to the law, the moment civil damages are paid, there is no crime. Hence the reason that the Judge dismissed it. Are you a judge or a lawyer? Do you disagree with Judge Warriner?
Third, the Officer may have been within his lawful authority to do something, but Sharla clearly laid out the process according to the law. The officer did not follow the law.
There are each points of reason and logic that negate the premise of your statements that there is an intrinsic illogic in defending the Buzayans (with a “B”), perhaps you can dispute these rules of law.
Dear Anonymous:
“Reason should tell anyone (who is not obsessively committed to defending the Guzayan girl for the sole purpose of jumping on the anti-police bandwagon) that she hit the other car and left the scene. That’s a law violation whether it’s paid off when you get caught, or not. The officer was within his lawful authority to make the arrest and the hour was not unreasonable.”
Let me take each of these first initial points in turn.
First, I have seen the damage to both vehicles–have you? Because if you had, I don’t think you could possibly have issued your first statement.
Second, according to the law, the moment civil damages are paid, there is no crime. Hence the reason that the Judge dismissed it. Are you a judge or a lawyer? Do you disagree with Judge Warriner?
Third, the Officer may have been within his lawful authority to do something, but Sharla clearly laid out the process according to the law. The officer did not follow the law.
There are each points of reason and logic that negate the premise of your statements that there is an intrinsic illogic in defending the Buzayans (with a “B”), perhaps you can dispute these rules of law.
Anonymous 9:19
Reason should tell you that if a judge threw out the case against Halema, that maybe she is innocent.
If we were waiting for a trial maybe the one that that exonerated her should have been it.
Anonymous 9:19
Reason should tell you that if a judge threw out the case against Halema, that maybe she is innocent.
If we were waiting for a trial maybe the one that that exonerated her should have been it.
Anonymous 9:19
Reason should tell you that if a judge threw out the case against Halema, that maybe she is innocent.
If we were waiting for a trial maybe the one that that exonerated her should have been it.
Anonymous 9:19
Reason should tell you that if a judge threw out the case against Halema, that maybe she is innocent.
If we were waiting for a trial maybe the one that that exonerated her should have been it.
If only there were some hope that the results of the civil action might help the community to reach some consensus about what really happened.
Unfortunately, the trial won’t satisfactorily resolve the factual disputes. As a society, we’ve had plenty of examples of trials failing to bring any closure to concerned onlookers, let alone parties to the action. A trial result may have legal authority, but it doesn’t mean anybody’s going to agree with it.
The civil action here isn’t going to really resolve anything anymore than the criminal proceeding did.
A trial is a poor substitute for a meaningful dialogue.
If only there were some hope that the results of the civil action might help the community to reach some consensus about what really happened.
Unfortunately, the trial won’t satisfactorily resolve the factual disputes. As a society, we’ve had plenty of examples of trials failing to bring any closure to concerned onlookers, let alone parties to the action. A trial result may have legal authority, but it doesn’t mean anybody’s going to agree with it.
The civil action here isn’t going to really resolve anything anymore than the criminal proceeding did.
A trial is a poor substitute for a meaningful dialogue.
If only there were some hope that the results of the civil action might help the community to reach some consensus about what really happened.
Unfortunately, the trial won’t satisfactorily resolve the factual disputes. As a society, we’ve had plenty of examples of trials failing to bring any closure to concerned onlookers, let alone parties to the action. A trial result may have legal authority, but it doesn’t mean anybody’s going to agree with it.
The civil action here isn’t going to really resolve anything anymore than the criminal proceeding did.
A trial is a poor substitute for a meaningful dialogue.
If only there were some hope that the results of the civil action might help the community to reach some consensus about what really happened.
Unfortunately, the trial won’t satisfactorily resolve the factual disputes. As a society, we’ve had plenty of examples of trials failing to bring any closure to concerned onlookers, let alone parties to the action. A trial result may have legal authority, but it doesn’t mean anybody’s going to agree with it.
The civil action here isn’t going to really resolve anything anymore than the criminal proceeding did.
A trial is a poor substitute for a meaningful dialogue.
“I have a pretty good idea about where your information comes from, likely the same sources as Dunning.”
The information I quoted comes from the California Welfare and Institutions Code. The reason you know where my information comes from is because I directly said what I was quoting from, ACLU. I don’t understand why this point is so confusing to you.
“They conveniently ignored Section 626 which stipulates that in order to use this code to take a minor into custody, they must take the minor to a probation officer prior to an interview with the minor. This was violated and hence the arrest was not conducted lawfully.”
This, of course, is what will be argued in court. And I have never — here or elsewhere — expressed an opinion as to which side is right on this question. You are on one side of the argument, and because I don’t express support for your contentions, you assume that I support the contentions of the other side. But you are, not surprisingly, mistaken. The only opinion I have expressed on this is that there are two sides to the question, and I don’t think the plaintiff’s contention blows away the defense’s reading of the law. As such, it is my conclusion (based on common sense) that when there is a close call, one way or the other, the side with the burden of proof, with the burden of demonstrating their argument with a preponderance of the evidence will lose. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that the ‘false imprisonment’ allegation is very weak. I have never — to repeat myself — never concluded that the ACLU/Buzayan claim on juvenile law is wrong. I just don’t see it as being anything close to a slam dunk.
You, unfortunately, seem to be drawing conclusions without closely reading what I have said. When I quote statute, it is not to say that that is my interpretation of case law or of statutory law. It is simply to show that there is a compelling defense argument here, even if it is not complete. (I should stipulate that if the trial judge rules that the defense cannot argue its case based on its reading of the CWIC, then the argument I make — that there are two compelling interpretations — then the plaintiffs could win on this issue. However, I spoke with a civil litigator friend (who lives in LA and has represented clients suing the LAPD) and asked him if it was likely that such a defense would be precluded, and he said, ‘not a chance.’ He said a trial judge will leave that up to the jury, unless case law is clear to the point where he must strike one side or the other.
“Your interpretation of the California Welfare and Institutions Code section 601, 602, and 625 is like the people whose sources you rely on, incomplete.”
Again, I didn’t interpret the CWIC. I simply suggest that the defense has an interpretation of it that is compelling enough to nullify the plaintiff’s interpretation.
Dave Jones said…
Rich: Have you seen the pictures of the damage to the two vehicles and if so, can you please explain how a long thin scratch on the Highlander produced a dent on the Honda?”
I have not seen those pictures, Dave, as far as I can remember. I am not an expert on accident reconstruction, and so I have no comment on your question.
At this point, whether Miss Buzayan caused the damage to the Honda or not is legally irrelevant. It is not a matter of contest in the Buzayan lawsuit, and that is what we are talking about here. It is not a criminal matter, in that the hit and run charges against Miss Buzayan were dismissed.
It is, nonetheless, my understanding that there were two eyewitnesses who believed that the massive SUV did damage the much smaller Honda. And importantly, the police at the time (and likely still) found the eyewitnesses credible, regardless of the disputation of their testimony by a paid witness for the defense.
“The Officer must inform the child of their rights immediately upon taking them into custody. It is the Probation Officer that interviews the child after being taken into custody, not the Police Officer, if that is what the Officer feels needs to be done.”
Sharla, that is the conclusion of the Buzayans and their friends. As I have said over and over, I have not drawn a conclusion on this question one way or the other. I simply stated that I find the argument compelling enough on the defense side of the civil suit to nullify the plaintiff’s claim.
Great and Small writes:
“What crime did she allegedly commit, beyond scraping the bumper?”
The police allege (and I do believe them on this score) that the Buzayans lied about who was driving their SUV in the Safeway pakring lot. I think Mr. Ly’s conclusions about the headscarf are entirely credible. Further, the police alleged not only that Miss Buzayan damaged the Honda, but that she fled without leaving a note. So (from the Davis police perspective) it is not simply about hitting another car, it is about hit and run, which is legally a much more serious question. Of course, whether Miss Buzayan did commit hit and run or not is somewhat of a moot point now too, because the legal case against her was dismissed. Almost all of the questions that still have standing revolve around the police department’s and DA’s response to their allegations and assumptions.
Matt Williams whines:
“I am able to recognize a bully when I see one.”
Matt, if you think the one guy on this website who is constantly willing to stand up by name for unpopular causes is “a bully,” you in fact have no understanding of what a bully is. What you mistake for bullying is simply my sincere opinions.
“You can come down from your bully pulpit, you neither walk softly nor carry a big stick. I look forward to that cup of coffee.”
Send me an email with your name, address and phone number and we can work out the details. Because I am a public person — and an open book — you know you can collect from me, should I be proven wrong. But I have no idea who the hell you are. And because I will win this bet, I want to be able to collect.
“Reason should tell you that if a judge threw out the case against Halema, that maybe she is innocent.”
That may be a reasonable conclusion. Or it may not. To my knowledge, the juvenile court judge did not consider or hear a single argument in this case on its merits. Rather, it is my recollection that the judge dismissed the case as settled, because the Buzayans compensated the owner of the Honda and the owner of the Honda was satisfied with that outcome.
“I have a pretty good idea about where your information comes from, likely the same sources as Dunning.”
The information I quoted comes from the California Welfare and Institutions Code. The reason you know where my information comes from is because I directly said what I was quoting from, ACLU. I don’t understand why this point is so confusing to you.
“They conveniently ignored Section 626 which stipulates that in order to use this code to take a minor into custody, they must take the minor to a probation officer prior to an interview with the minor. This was violated and hence the arrest was not conducted lawfully.”
This, of course, is what will be argued in court. And I have never — here or elsewhere — expressed an opinion as to which side is right on this question. You are on one side of the argument, and because I don’t express support for your contentions, you assume that I support the contentions of the other side. But you are, not surprisingly, mistaken. The only opinion I have expressed on this is that there are two sides to the question, and I don’t think the plaintiff’s contention blows away the defense’s reading of the law. As such, it is my conclusion (based on common sense) that when there is a close call, one way or the other, the side with the burden of proof, with the burden of demonstrating their argument with a preponderance of the evidence will lose. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that the ‘false imprisonment’ allegation is very weak. I have never — to repeat myself — never concluded that the ACLU/Buzayan claim on juvenile law is wrong. I just don’t see it as being anything close to a slam dunk.
You, unfortunately, seem to be drawing conclusions without closely reading what I have said. When I quote statute, it is not to say that that is my interpretation of case law or of statutory law. It is simply to show that there is a compelling defense argument here, even if it is not complete. (I should stipulate that if the trial judge rules that the defense cannot argue its case based on its reading of the CWIC, then the argument I make — that there are two compelling interpretations — then the plaintiffs could win on this issue. However, I spoke with a civil litigator friend (who lives in LA and has represented clients suing the LAPD) and asked him if it was likely that such a defense would be precluded, and he said, ‘not a chance.’ He said a trial judge will leave that up to the jury, unless case law is clear to the point where he must strike one side or the other.
“Your interpretation of the California Welfare and Institutions Code section 601, 602, and 625 is like the people whose sources you rely on, incomplete.”
Again, I didn’t interpret the CWIC. I simply suggest that the defense has an interpretation of it that is compelling enough to nullify the plaintiff’s interpretation.
Dave Jones said…
Rich: Have you seen the pictures of the damage to the two vehicles and if so, can you please explain how a long thin scratch on the Highlander produced a dent on the Honda?”
I have not seen those pictures, Dave, as far as I can remember. I am not an expert on accident reconstruction, and so I have no comment on your question.
At this point, whether Miss Buzayan caused the damage to the Honda or not is legally irrelevant. It is not a matter of contest in the Buzayan lawsuit, and that is what we are talking about here. It is not a criminal matter, in that the hit and run charges against Miss Buzayan were dismissed.
It is, nonetheless, my understanding that there were two eyewitnesses who believed that the massive SUV did damage the much smaller Honda. And importantly, the police at the time (and likely still) found the eyewitnesses credible, regardless of the disputation of their testimony by a paid witness for the defense.
“The Officer must inform the child of their rights immediately upon taking them into custody. It is the Probation Officer that interviews the child after being taken into custody, not the Police Officer, if that is what the Officer feels needs to be done.”
Sharla, that is the conclusion of the Buzayans and their friends. As I have said over and over, I have not drawn a conclusion on this question one way or the other. I simply stated that I find the argument compelling enough on the defense side of the civil suit to nullify the plaintiff’s claim.
Great and Small writes:
“What crime did she allegedly commit, beyond scraping the bumper?”
The police allege (and I do believe them on this score) that the Buzayans lied about who was driving their SUV in the Safeway pakring lot. I think Mr. Ly’s conclusions about the headscarf are entirely credible. Further, the police alleged not only that Miss Buzayan damaged the Honda, but that she fled without leaving a note. So (from the Davis police perspective) it is not simply about hitting another car, it is about hit and run, which is legally a much more serious question. Of course, whether Miss Buzayan did commit hit and run or not is somewhat of a moot point now too, because the legal case against her was dismissed. Almost all of the questions that still have standing revolve around the police department’s and DA’s response to their allegations and assumptions.
Matt Williams whines:
“I am able to recognize a bully when I see one.”
Matt, if you think the one guy on this website who is constantly willing to stand up by name for unpopular causes is “a bully,” you in fact have no understanding of what a bully is. What you mistake for bullying is simply my sincere opinions.
“You can come down from your bully pulpit, you neither walk softly nor carry a big stick. I look forward to that cup of coffee.”
Send me an email with your name, address and phone number and we can work out the details. Because I am a public person — and an open book — you know you can collect from me, should I be proven wrong. But I have no idea who the hell you are. And because I will win this bet, I want to be able to collect.
“Reason should tell you that if a judge threw out the case against Halema, that maybe she is innocent.”
That may be a reasonable conclusion. Or it may not. To my knowledge, the juvenile court judge did not consider or hear a single argument in this case on its merits. Rather, it is my recollection that the judge dismissed the case as settled, because the Buzayans compensated the owner of the Honda and the owner of the Honda was satisfied with that outcome.
“I have a pretty good idea about where your information comes from, likely the same sources as Dunning.”
The information I quoted comes from the California Welfare and Institutions Code. The reason you know where my information comes from is because I directly said what I was quoting from, ACLU. I don’t understand why this point is so confusing to you.
“They conveniently ignored Section 626 which stipulates that in order to use this code to take a minor into custody, they must take the minor to a probation officer prior to an interview with the minor. This was violated and hence the arrest was not conducted lawfully.”
This, of course, is what will be argued in court. And I have never — here or elsewhere — expressed an opinion as to which side is right on this question. You are on one side of the argument, and because I don’t express support for your contentions, you assume that I support the contentions of the other side. But you are, not surprisingly, mistaken. The only opinion I have expressed on this is that there are two sides to the question, and I don’t think the plaintiff’s contention blows away the defense’s reading of the law. As such, it is my conclusion (based on common sense) that when there is a close call, one way or the other, the side with the burden of proof, with the burden of demonstrating their argument with a preponderance of the evidence will lose. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that the ‘false imprisonment’ allegation is very weak. I have never — to repeat myself — never concluded that the ACLU/Buzayan claim on juvenile law is wrong. I just don’t see it as being anything close to a slam dunk.
You, unfortunately, seem to be drawing conclusions without closely reading what I have said. When I quote statute, it is not to say that that is my interpretation of case law or of statutory law. It is simply to show that there is a compelling defense argument here, even if it is not complete. (I should stipulate that if the trial judge rules that the defense cannot argue its case based on its reading of the CWIC, then the argument I make — that there are two compelling interpretations — then the plaintiffs could win on this issue. However, I spoke with a civil litigator friend (who lives in LA and has represented clients suing the LAPD) and asked him if it was likely that such a defense would be precluded, and he said, ‘not a chance.’ He said a trial judge will leave that up to the jury, unless case law is clear to the point where he must strike one side or the other.
“Your interpretation of the California Welfare and Institutions Code section 601, 602, and 625 is like the people whose sources you rely on, incomplete.”
Again, I didn’t interpret the CWIC. I simply suggest that the defense has an interpretation of it that is compelling enough to nullify the plaintiff’s interpretation.
Dave Jones said…
Rich: Have you seen the pictures of the damage to the two vehicles and if so, can you please explain how a long thin scratch on the Highlander produced a dent on the Honda?”
I have not seen those pictures, Dave, as far as I can remember. I am not an expert on accident reconstruction, and so I have no comment on your question.
At this point, whether Miss Buzayan caused the damage to the Honda or not is legally irrelevant. It is not a matter of contest in the Buzayan lawsuit, and that is what we are talking about here. It is not a criminal matter, in that the hit and run charges against Miss Buzayan were dismissed.
It is, nonetheless, my understanding that there were two eyewitnesses who believed that the massive SUV did damage the much smaller Honda. And importantly, the police at the time (and likely still) found the eyewitnesses credible, regardless of the disputation of their testimony by a paid witness for the defense.
“The Officer must inform the child of their rights immediately upon taking them into custody. It is the Probation Officer that interviews the child after being taken into custody, not the Police Officer, if that is what the Officer feels needs to be done.”
Sharla, that is the conclusion of the Buzayans and their friends. As I have said over and over, I have not drawn a conclusion on this question one way or the other. I simply stated that I find the argument compelling enough on the defense side of the civil suit to nullify the plaintiff’s claim.
Great and Small writes:
“What crime did she allegedly commit, beyond scraping the bumper?”
The police allege (and I do believe them on this score) that the Buzayans lied about who was driving their SUV in the Safeway pakring lot. I think Mr. Ly’s conclusions about the headscarf are entirely credible. Further, the police alleged not only that Miss Buzayan damaged the Honda, but that she fled without leaving a note. So (from the Davis police perspective) it is not simply about hitting another car, it is about hit and run, which is legally a much more serious question. Of course, whether Miss Buzayan did commit hit and run or not is somewhat of a moot point now too, because the legal case against her was dismissed. Almost all of the questions that still have standing revolve around the police department’s and DA’s response to their allegations and assumptions.
Matt Williams whines:
“I am able to recognize a bully when I see one.”
Matt, if you think the one guy on this website who is constantly willing to stand up by name for unpopular causes is “a bully,” you in fact have no understanding of what a bully is. What you mistake for bullying is simply my sincere opinions.
“You can come down from your bully pulpit, you neither walk softly nor carry a big stick. I look forward to that cup of coffee.”
Send me an email with your name, address and phone number and we can work out the details. Because I am a public person — and an open book — you know you can collect from me, should I be proven wrong. But I have no idea who the hell you are. And because I will win this bet, I want to be able to collect.
“Reason should tell you that if a judge threw out the case against Halema, that maybe she is innocent.”
That may be a reasonable conclusion. Or it may not. To my knowledge, the juvenile court judge did not consider or hear a single argument in this case on its merits. Rather, it is my recollection that the judge dismissed the case as settled, because the Buzayans compensated the owner of the Honda and the owner of the Honda was satisfied with that outcome.
“I have a pretty good idea about where your information comes from, likely the same sources as Dunning.”
The information I quoted comes from the California Welfare and Institutions Code. The reason you know where my information comes from is because I directly said what I was quoting from, ACLU. I don’t understand why this point is so confusing to you.
“They conveniently ignored Section 626 which stipulates that in order to use this code to take a minor into custody, they must take the minor to a probation officer prior to an interview with the minor. This was violated and hence the arrest was not conducted lawfully.”
This, of course, is what will be argued in court. And I have never — here or elsewhere — expressed an opinion as to which side is right on this question. You are on one side of the argument, and because I don’t express support for your contentions, you assume that I support the contentions of the other side. But you are, not surprisingly, mistaken. The only opinion I have expressed on this is that there are two sides to the question, and I don’t think the plaintiff’s contention blows away the defense’s reading of the law. As such, it is my conclusion (based on common sense) that when there is a close call, one way or the other, the side with the burden of proof, with the burden of demonstrating their argument with a preponderance of the evidence will lose. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that the ‘false imprisonment’ allegation is very weak. I have never — to repeat myself — never concluded that the ACLU/Buzayan claim on juvenile law is wrong. I just don’t see it as being anything close to a slam dunk.
You, unfortunately, seem to be drawing conclusions without closely reading what I have said. When I quote statute, it is not to say that that is my interpretation of case law or of statutory law. It is simply to show that there is a compelling defense argument here, even if it is not complete. (I should stipulate that if the trial judge rules that the defense cannot argue its case based on its reading of the CWIC, then the argument I make — that there are two compelling interpretations — then the plaintiffs could win on this issue. However, I spoke with a civil litigator friend (who lives in LA and has represented clients suing the LAPD) and asked him if it was likely that such a defense would be precluded, and he said, ‘not a chance.’ He said a trial judge will leave that up to the jury, unless case law is clear to the point where he must strike one side or the other.
“Your interpretation of the California Welfare and Institutions Code section 601, 602, and 625 is like the people whose sources you rely on, incomplete.”
Again, I didn’t interpret the CWIC. I simply suggest that the defense has an interpretation of it that is compelling enough to nullify the plaintiff’s interpretation.
Dave Jones said…
Rich: Have you seen the pictures of the damage to the two vehicles and if so, can you please explain how a long thin scratch on the Highlander produced a dent on the Honda?”
I have not seen those pictures, Dave, as far as I can remember. I am not an expert on accident reconstruction, and so I have no comment on your question.
At this point, whether Miss Buzayan caused the damage to the Honda or not is legally irrelevant. It is not a matter of contest in the Buzayan lawsuit, and that is what we are talking about here. It is not a criminal matter, in that the hit and run charges against Miss Buzayan were dismissed.
It is, nonetheless, my understanding that there were two eyewitnesses who believed that the massive SUV did damage the much smaller Honda. And importantly, the police at the time (and likely still) found the eyewitnesses credible, regardless of the disputation of their testimony by a paid witness for the defense.
“The Officer must inform the child of their rights immediately upon taking them into custody. It is the Probation Officer that interviews the child after being taken into custody, not the Police Officer, if that is what the Officer feels needs to be done.”
Sharla, that is the conclusion of the Buzayans and their friends. As I have said over and over, I have not drawn a conclusion on this question one way or the other. I simply stated that I find the argument compelling enough on the defense side of the civil suit to nullify the plaintiff’s claim.
Great and Small writes:
“What crime did she allegedly commit, beyond scraping the bumper?”
The police allege (and I do believe them on this score) that the Buzayans lied about who was driving their SUV in the Safeway pakring lot. I think Mr. Ly’s conclusions about the headscarf are entirely credible. Further, the police alleged not only that Miss Buzayan damaged the Honda, but that she fled without leaving a note. So (from the Davis police perspective) it is not simply about hitting another car, it is about hit and run, which is legally a much more serious question. Of course, whether Miss Buzayan did commit hit and run or not is somewhat of a moot point now too, because the legal case against her was dismissed. Almost all of the questions that still have standing revolve around the police department’s and DA’s response to their allegations and assumptions.
Matt Williams whines:
“I am able to recognize a bully when I see one.”
Matt, if you think the one guy on this website who is constantly willing to stand up by name for unpopular causes is “a bully,” you in fact have no understanding of what a bully is. What you mistake for bullying is simply my sincere opinions.
“You can come down from your bully pulpit, you neither walk softly nor carry a big stick. I look forward to that cup of coffee.”
Send me an email with your name, address and phone number and we can work out the details. Because I am a public person — and an open book — you know you can collect from me, should I be proven wrong. But I have no idea who the hell you are. And because I will win this bet, I want to be able to collect.
“Reason should tell you that if a judge threw out the case against Halema, that maybe she is innocent.”
That may be a reasonable conclusion. Or it may not. To my knowledge, the juvenile court judge did not consider or hear a single argument in this case on its merits. Rather, it is my recollection that the judge dismissed the case as settled, because the Buzayans compensated the owner of the Honda and the owner of the Honda was satisfied with that outcome.
“I have not seen those pictures, Dave, as far as I can remember.”
I did, however, see a KGO-TV 7 (very odd that a San Francisco television station is interested in this case*) report which showed some pictures of the cars, I believe. I just don’t have a clear memory of them.
* I was told that a reporter with KGO is a close friend of one of the plaintiff’s lawyers, and the person who told me this (who works for the Yolo DA’s office) suggested that for that reason, the KGO reports were biased in favor of the Buzayans.
“I have not seen those pictures, Dave, as far as I can remember.”
I did, however, see a KGO-TV 7 (very odd that a San Francisco television station is interested in this case*) report which showed some pictures of the cars, I believe. I just don’t have a clear memory of them.
* I was told that a reporter with KGO is a close friend of one of the plaintiff’s lawyers, and the person who told me this (who works for the Yolo DA’s office) suggested that for that reason, the KGO reports were biased in favor of the Buzayans.
“I have not seen those pictures, Dave, as far as I can remember.”
I did, however, see a KGO-TV 7 (very odd that a San Francisco television station is interested in this case*) report which showed some pictures of the cars, I believe. I just don’t have a clear memory of them.
* I was told that a reporter with KGO is a close friend of one of the plaintiff’s lawyers, and the person who told me this (who works for the Yolo DA’s office) suggested that for that reason, the KGO reports were biased in favor of the Buzayans.
“I have not seen those pictures, Dave, as far as I can remember.”
I did, however, see a KGO-TV 7 (very odd that a San Francisco television station is interested in this case*) report which showed some pictures of the cars, I believe. I just don’t have a clear memory of them.
* I was told that a reporter with KGO is a close friend of one of the plaintiff’s lawyers, and the person who told me this (who works for the Yolo DA’s office) suggested that for that reason, the KGO reports were biased in favor of the Buzayans.
Reason should tell anyone (who is not obsessively committed to defending the Guzayan girl for the sole purpose of jumping on the anti-police bandwagon) that she hit the other car and left the scene. That’s a law violation whether it’s paid off when you get caught, or not.
The reason why this post is anonymous is obvious. People seem to forget that the charges against Buzayan were dismissed, and that, to this day, she was not convicted of anything. Of course, that doesn’t stop people like Rifkin, Bob Dunning, Ted Puntillo and this poster from implyng the contrary. They know secret evidence we don’t. That sort of thing. Typical Davis, and especially, typical Enterprise.
Even assuming Rifkin is correct about the accident, which I don’t, I can’t see how it justifies the arrest of Halima in her pajamas at night. Maybe, Rifkin has the bizarre notion that she was flight risk.
The real embarassment, though, has been the silence of people in Davis who know better, who should have stepped forward to support the Buzayans, and challenge the police and the DA. I know several of them personally, and, instead of doing the right thing, they, to quote Pat Buchanan, “hid in the tall grass”. Over the years, they developed a reputation for civil rights advocacy, but when it really mattered, when there was a case close to home, they were silent.
–Richard Estes
Reason should tell anyone (who is not obsessively committed to defending the Guzayan girl for the sole purpose of jumping on the anti-police bandwagon) that she hit the other car and left the scene. That’s a law violation whether it’s paid off when you get caught, or not.
The reason why this post is anonymous is obvious. People seem to forget that the charges against Buzayan were dismissed, and that, to this day, she was not convicted of anything. Of course, that doesn’t stop people like Rifkin, Bob Dunning, Ted Puntillo and this poster from implyng the contrary. They know secret evidence we don’t. That sort of thing. Typical Davis, and especially, typical Enterprise.
Even assuming Rifkin is correct about the accident, which I don’t, I can’t see how it justifies the arrest of Halima in her pajamas at night. Maybe, Rifkin has the bizarre notion that she was flight risk.
The real embarassment, though, has been the silence of people in Davis who know better, who should have stepped forward to support the Buzayans, and challenge the police and the DA. I know several of them personally, and, instead of doing the right thing, they, to quote Pat Buchanan, “hid in the tall grass”. Over the years, they developed a reputation for civil rights advocacy, but when it really mattered, when there was a case close to home, they were silent.
–Richard Estes
Reason should tell anyone (who is not obsessively committed to defending the Guzayan girl for the sole purpose of jumping on the anti-police bandwagon) that she hit the other car and left the scene. That’s a law violation whether it’s paid off when you get caught, or not.
The reason why this post is anonymous is obvious. People seem to forget that the charges against Buzayan were dismissed, and that, to this day, she was not convicted of anything. Of course, that doesn’t stop people like Rifkin, Bob Dunning, Ted Puntillo and this poster from implyng the contrary. They know secret evidence we don’t. That sort of thing. Typical Davis, and especially, typical Enterprise.
Even assuming Rifkin is correct about the accident, which I don’t, I can’t see how it justifies the arrest of Halima in her pajamas at night. Maybe, Rifkin has the bizarre notion that she was flight risk.
The real embarassment, though, has been the silence of people in Davis who know better, who should have stepped forward to support the Buzayans, and challenge the police and the DA. I know several of them personally, and, instead of doing the right thing, they, to quote Pat Buchanan, “hid in the tall grass”. Over the years, they developed a reputation for civil rights advocacy, but when it really mattered, when there was a case close to home, they were silent.
–Richard Estes
Reason should tell anyone (who is not obsessively committed to defending the Guzayan girl for the sole purpose of jumping on the anti-police bandwagon) that she hit the other car and left the scene. That’s a law violation whether it’s paid off when you get caught, or not.
The reason why this post is anonymous is obvious. People seem to forget that the charges against Buzayan were dismissed, and that, to this day, she was not convicted of anything. Of course, that doesn’t stop people like Rifkin, Bob Dunning, Ted Puntillo and this poster from implyng the contrary. They know secret evidence we don’t. That sort of thing. Typical Davis, and especially, typical Enterprise.
Even assuming Rifkin is correct about the accident, which I don’t, I can’t see how it justifies the arrest of Halima in her pajamas at night. Maybe, Rifkin has the bizarre notion that she was flight risk.
The real embarassment, though, has been the silence of people in Davis who know better, who should have stepped forward to support the Buzayans, and challenge the police and the DA. I know several of them personally, and, instead of doing the right thing, they, to quote Pat Buchanan, “hid in the tall grass”. Over the years, they developed a reputation for civil rights advocacy, but when it really mattered, when there was a case close to home, they were silent.
–Richard Estes
“Reason should tell anyone (who is not obsessively committed to defending the Guzayan girl for the sole purpose of jumping on the anti-police bandwagon) that she hit the other car and left the scene.”
Was that Officer Ly writing those comments?
“Reason should tell anyone (who is not obsessively committed to defending the Guzayan girl for the sole purpose of jumping on the anti-police bandwagon) that she hit the other car and left the scene.”
Was that Officer Ly writing those comments?
“Reason should tell anyone (who is not obsessively committed to defending the Guzayan girl for the sole purpose of jumping on the anti-police bandwagon) that she hit the other car and left the scene.”
Was that Officer Ly writing those comments?
“Reason should tell anyone (who is not obsessively committed to defending the Guzayan girl for the sole purpose of jumping on the anti-police bandwagon) that she hit the other car and left the scene.”
Was that Officer Ly writing those comments?
“People seem to forget that the charges against Buzayan were dismissed, and that, to this day, she was not convicted of anything. Of course, that doesn’t stop people like Rifkin … implyng the contrary.”
Estes, when did I imply that the charges were not dropped? Your attack against me is baseless and witless.
“[Rifkin] knows secret evidence we don’t. That sort of thing. Typical Davis, and especially, typical Enterprise.”
Estes, you charge me with claiming to ‘know secret evidence.’ When did I make this claim? Have you no decency?
“Even assuming Rifkin is correct about the accident, which I don’t, I can’t see how it justifies the arrest of Halima in her pajamas at night.”
Whoa, Estes! If I am correct about the accident? That begs the question. What is my opinion about the accident? You seem entirely incapable of understanding written English. I did not express my opinion about ‘the accident.’
” Maybe, Rifkin has the bizarre notion that she was flight risk.”
Estes, what did I ever say to cause you to ask this half-witted question? You seem to be obsessed with attacking me without any basis in fact. It’s a poor reflection on your character.
“People seem to forget that the charges against Buzayan were dismissed, and that, to this day, she was not convicted of anything. Of course, that doesn’t stop people like Rifkin … implyng the contrary.”
Estes, when did I imply that the charges were not dropped? Your attack against me is baseless and witless.
“[Rifkin] knows secret evidence we don’t. That sort of thing. Typical Davis, and especially, typical Enterprise.”
Estes, you charge me with claiming to ‘know secret evidence.’ When did I make this claim? Have you no decency?
“Even assuming Rifkin is correct about the accident, which I don’t, I can’t see how it justifies the arrest of Halima in her pajamas at night.”
Whoa, Estes! If I am correct about the accident? That begs the question. What is my opinion about the accident? You seem entirely incapable of understanding written English. I did not express my opinion about ‘the accident.’
” Maybe, Rifkin has the bizarre notion that she was flight risk.”
Estes, what did I ever say to cause you to ask this half-witted question? You seem to be obsessed with attacking me without any basis in fact. It’s a poor reflection on your character.
“People seem to forget that the charges against Buzayan were dismissed, and that, to this day, she was not convicted of anything. Of course, that doesn’t stop people like Rifkin … implyng the contrary.”
Estes, when did I imply that the charges were not dropped? Your attack against me is baseless and witless.
“[Rifkin] knows secret evidence we don’t. That sort of thing. Typical Davis, and especially, typical Enterprise.”
Estes, you charge me with claiming to ‘know secret evidence.’ When did I make this claim? Have you no decency?
“Even assuming Rifkin is correct about the accident, which I don’t, I can’t see how it justifies the arrest of Halima in her pajamas at night.”
Whoa, Estes! If I am correct about the accident? That begs the question. What is my opinion about the accident? You seem entirely incapable of understanding written English. I did not express my opinion about ‘the accident.’
” Maybe, Rifkin has the bizarre notion that she was flight risk.”
Estes, what did I ever say to cause you to ask this half-witted question? You seem to be obsessed with attacking me without any basis in fact. It’s a poor reflection on your character.
“People seem to forget that the charges against Buzayan were dismissed, and that, to this day, she was not convicted of anything. Of course, that doesn’t stop people like Rifkin … implyng the contrary.”
Estes, when did I imply that the charges were not dropped? Your attack against me is baseless and witless.
“[Rifkin] knows secret evidence we don’t. That sort of thing. Typical Davis, and especially, typical Enterprise.”
Estes, you charge me with claiming to ‘know secret evidence.’ When did I make this claim? Have you no decency?
“Even assuming Rifkin is correct about the accident, which I don’t, I can’t see how it justifies the arrest of Halima in her pajamas at night.”
Whoa, Estes! If I am correct about the accident? That begs the question. What is my opinion about the accident? You seem entirely incapable of understanding written English. I did not express my opinion about ‘the accident.’
” Maybe, Rifkin has the bizarre notion that she was flight risk.”
Estes, what did I ever say to cause you to ask this half-witted question? You seem to be obsessed with attacking me without any basis in fact. It’s a poor reflection on your character.
“It is, nonetheless, my understanding that there were two eyewitnesses who believed that the massive SUV did damage the much smaller Honda.”
1) A Highlander is a “massive SUV?” They weigh about 4,100 lbs (about 800 lbs more than a Honda CRV, to be sure, but not even in the same league as the big SUVs like the 5,400-lb Toyota Land Cruiser or the 5,800-lb Navigator.)
2) I a very low-speed collision, I doubt that the relative masses of the vehicles involved would have much impact on the relative damages suffered by the vehicles. Currently-manufactured vehicles generally have flexible, painted plastic bumpers. How much damage is done depends greatly on where and how the contact occurs because the bumpers are reinforced in some areas but not others.
“It is, nonetheless, my understanding that there were two eyewitnesses who believed that the massive SUV did damage the much smaller Honda.”
1) A Highlander is a “massive SUV?” They weigh about 4,100 lbs (about 800 lbs more than a Honda CRV, to be sure, but not even in the same league as the big SUVs like the 5,400-lb Toyota Land Cruiser or the 5,800-lb Navigator.)
2) I a very low-speed collision, I doubt that the relative masses of the vehicles involved would have much impact on the relative damages suffered by the vehicles. Currently-manufactured vehicles generally have flexible, painted plastic bumpers. How much damage is done depends greatly on where and how the contact occurs because the bumpers are reinforced in some areas but not others.
“It is, nonetheless, my understanding that there were two eyewitnesses who believed that the massive SUV did damage the much smaller Honda.”
1) A Highlander is a “massive SUV?” They weigh about 4,100 lbs (about 800 lbs more than a Honda CRV, to be sure, but not even in the same league as the big SUVs like the 5,400-lb Toyota Land Cruiser or the 5,800-lb Navigator.)
2) I a very low-speed collision, I doubt that the relative masses of the vehicles involved would have much impact on the relative damages suffered by the vehicles. Currently-manufactured vehicles generally have flexible, painted plastic bumpers. How much damage is done depends greatly on where and how the contact occurs because the bumpers are reinforced in some areas but not others.
“It is, nonetheless, my understanding that there were two eyewitnesses who believed that the massive SUV did damage the much smaller Honda.”
1) A Highlander is a “massive SUV?” They weigh about 4,100 lbs (about 800 lbs more than a Honda CRV, to be sure, but not even in the same league as the big SUVs like the 5,400-lb Toyota Land Cruiser or the 5,800-lb Navigator.)
2) I a very low-speed collision, I doubt that the relative masses of the vehicles involved would have much impact on the relative damages suffered by the vehicles. Currently-manufactured vehicles generally have flexible, painted plastic bumpers. How much damage is done depends greatly on where and how the contact occurs because the bumpers are reinforced in some areas but not others.
Rich – please tone down the aggressiveness of your posts i.e. calling people half-witted, etc.
Rich – please tone down the aggressiveness of your posts i.e. calling people half-witted, etc.
Rich – please tone down the aggressiveness of your posts i.e. calling people half-witted, etc.
Rich – please tone down the aggressiveness of your posts i.e. calling people half-witted, etc.
Bob Aaronson –
If the trial does not help clarify what happened for the community, what will? If not for the trial, there would be no discussion about what happened to Halema to any satisfactory conclusion.
Even the discussion on this blog seems to go nowhere and is dissolving into name calling. Could you suggest a better venue?
Bob Aaronson –
If the trial does not help clarify what happened for the community, what will? If not for the trial, there would be no discussion about what happened to Halema to any satisfactory conclusion.
Even the discussion on this blog seems to go nowhere and is dissolving into name calling. Could you suggest a better venue?
Bob Aaronson –
If the trial does not help clarify what happened for the community, what will? If not for the trial, there would be no discussion about what happened to Halema to any satisfactory conclusion.
Even the discussion on this blog seems to go nowhere and is dissolving into name calling. Could you suggest a better venue?
Bob Aaronson –
If the trial does not help clarify what happened for the community, what will? If not for the trial, there would be no discussion about what happened to Halema to any satisfactory conclusion.
Even the discussion on this blog seems to go nowhere and is dissolving into name calling. Could you suggest a better venue?
“Rich – please tone down the aggressiveness of your posts i.e. calling people half-witted, etc. “
Sharla, the ‘aggressiveness’ of my tone was entirely due to being falsely accused by Mr. Estes. If you would have asked him not to make personal and false charges against other posters, then my response would have been mild.
“Rich – please tone down the aggressiveness of your posts i.e. calling people half-witted, etc. “
Sharla, the ‘aggressiveness’ of my tone was entirely due to being falsely accused by Mr. Estes. If you would have asked him not to make personal and false charges against other posters, then my response would have been mild.
“Rich – please tone down the aggressiveness of your posts i.e. calling people half-witted, etc. “
Sharla, the ‘aggressiveness’ of my tone was entirely due to being falsely accused by Mr. Estes. If you would have asked him not to make personal and false charges against other posters, then my response would have been mild.
“Rich – please tone down the aggressiveness of your posts i.e. calling people half-witted, etc. “
Sharla, the ‘aggressiveness’ of my tone was entirely due to being falsely accused by Mr. Estes. If you would have asked him not to make personal and false charges against other posters, then my response would have been mild.
Rich Rifkin said…
Matt, if you think the one guy on this website who is constantly willing to stand up by name for unpopular causes is “a bully,” you in fact have no understanding of what a bully is. What you mistake for bullying is simply my sincere opinions.
Rich, it is not what you say it is how you say it. Although, in the case of your comment above it is both. In my short time here I have seen numerous people stand up by name for unpopular causes. You self anoint yourself with the mantle of expertness, and then sneer as you share your opinions. That doesn’t make your opinions right or wrong per se, but it does make your delivery that of a bully. If you don’t like that label, then stop posturing.
Send me an email with your name, address and phone number and we can work out the details. Because I am a public person — and an open book — you know you can collect from me, should I be proven wrong. But I have no idea who the hell you are. And because I will win this bet, I want to be able to collect.
Afgain your delivery lacks common decency. You were smart enough to know I live in El Macero. It would appear that that makes you smart enough to pick up a telephone book and call me on the number listed therein. But to make your job easier, my email address is mattwill@pacbell.net. I really don’t care if you win the bet or lose it. I just hope you begin to act like agetleman with a bit more frequency. If you do win the bet I will be there ready willing and able to order you a mocha java at your earliest convenience.
Rich Rifkin said…
Matt, if you think the one guy on this website who is constantly willing to stand up by name for unpopular causes is “a bully,” you in fact have no understanding of what a bully is. What you mistake for bullying is simply my sincere opinions.
Rich, it is not what you say it is how you say it. Although, in the case of your comment above it is both. In my short time here I have seen numerous people stand up by name for unpopular causes. You self anoint yourself with the mantle of expertness, and then sneer as you share your opinions. That doesn’t make your opinions right or wrong per se, but it does make your delivery that of a bully. If you don’t like that label, then stop posturing.
Send me an email with your name, address and phone number and we can work out the details. Because I am a public person — and an open book — you know you can collect from me, should I be proven wrong. But I have no idea who the hell you are. And because I will win this bet, I want to be able to collect.
Afgain your delivery lacks common decency. You were smart enough to know I live in El Macero. It would appear that that makes you smart enough to pick up a telephone book and call me on the number listed therein. But to make your job easier, my email address is mattwill@pacbell.net. I really don’t care if you win the bet or lose it. I just hope you begin to act like agetleman with a bit more frequency. If you do win the bet I will be there ready willing and able to order you a mocha java at your earliest convenience.
Rich Rifkin said…
Matt, if you think the one guy on this website who is constantly willing to stand up by name for unpopular causes is “a bully,” you in fact have no understanding of what a bully is. What you mistake for bullying is simply my sincere opinions.
Rich, it is not what you say it is how you say it. Although, in the case of your comment above it is both. In my short time here I have seen numerous people stand up by name for unpopular causes. You self anoint yourself with the mantle of expertness, and then sneer as you share your opinions. That doesn’t make your opinions right or wrong per se, but it does make your delivery that of a bully. If you don’t like that label, then stop posturing.
Send me an email with your name, address and phone number and we can work out the details. Because I am a public person — and an open book — you know you can collect from me, should I be proven wrong. But I have no idea who the hell you are. And because I will win this bet, I want to be able to collect.
Afgain your delivery lacks common decency. You were smart enough to know I live in El Macero. It would appear that that makes you smart enough to pick up a telephone book and call me on the number listed therein. But to make your job easier, my email address is mattwill@pacbell.net. I really don’t care if you win the bet or lose it. I just hope you begin to act like agetleman with a bit more frequency. If you do win the bet I will be there ready willing and able to order you a mocha java at your earliest convenience.
Rich Rifkin said…
Matt, if you think the one guy on this website who is constantly willing to stand up by name for unpopular causes is “a bully,” you in fact have no understanding of what a bully is. What you mistake for bullying is simply my sincere opinions.
Rich, it is not what you say it is how you say it. Although, in the case of your comment above it is both. In my short time here I have seen numerous people stand up by name for unpopular causes. You self anoint yourself with the mantle of expertness, and then sneer as you share your opinions. That doesn’t make your opinions right or wrong per se, but it does make your delivery that of a bully. If you don’t like that label, then stop posturing.
Send me an email with your name, address and phone number and we can work out the details. Because I am a public person — and an open book — you know you can collect from me, should I be proven wrong. But I have no idea who the hell you are. And because I will win this bet, I want to be able to collect.
Afgain your delivery lacks common decency. You were smart enough to know I live in El Macero. It would appear that that makes you smart enough to pick up a telephone book and call me on the number listed therein. But to make your job easier, my email address is mattwill@pacbell.net. I really don’t care if you win the bet or lose it. I just hope you begin to act like agetleman with a bit more frequency. If you do win the bet I will be there ready willing and able to order you a mocha java at your earliest convenience.
“They weigh about 4,100 lbs (about 800 lbs more than a Honda CRV, to be sure, but not even in the same league as the big SUVs like the 5,400-lb Toyota Land Cruiser or the 5,800-lb Navigator.)”
According to this auto guide
, the gross vehicle weight of the Toyota Highlander is 5,360 pounds. I don’t know a damn thing about cars, so maybe gross vehicle weight is the wrong measure. There is something else called curb weight, and Wikipedia says the Highlander’s is 4,500 pounds. The car that Halema Buzayan allegedly hit was not a Honda, but a Mazda Protege. I don’t know how much that model of Protege weighs, but I would guess it is less than the Highlander…. My using the term “massive SUV” was probably a mistake. I meant simply to say that it was my understanding that the SUV had greater weight and mass than the Mazda.
“They weigh about 4,100 lbs (about 800 lbs more than a Honda CRV, to be sure, but not even in the same league as the big SUVs like the 5,400-lb Toyota Land Cruiser or the 5,800-lb Navigator.)”
According to this auto guide
, the gross vehicle weight of the Toyota Highlander is 5,360 pounds. I don’t know a damn thing about cars, so maybe gross vehicle weight is the wrong measure. There is something else called curb weight, and Wikipedia says the Highlander’s is 4,500 pounds. The car that Halema Buzayan allegedly hit was not a Honda, but a Mazda Protege. I don’t know how much that model of Protege weighs, but I would guess it is less than the Highlander…. My using the term “massive SUV” was probably a mistake. I meant simply to say that it was my understanding that the SUV had greater weight and mass than the Mazda.
“They weigh about 4,100 lbs (about 800 lbs more than a Honda CRV, to be sure, but not even in the same league as the big SUVs like the 5,400-lb Toyota Land Cruiser or the 5,800-lb Navigator.)”
According to this auto guide
, the gross vehicle weight of the Toyota Highlander is 5,360 pounds. I don’t know a damn thing about cars, so maybe gross vehicle weight is the wrong measure. There is something else called curb weight, and Wikipedia says the Highlander’s is 4,500 pounds. The car that Halema Buzayan allegedly hit was not a Honda, but a Mazda Protege. I don’t know how much that model of Protege weighs, but I would guess it is less than the Highlander…. My using the term “massive SUV” was probably a mistake. I meant simply to say that it was my understanding that the SUV had greater weight and mass than the Mazda.
“They weigh about 4,100 lbs (about 800 lbs more than a Honda CRV, to be sure, but not even in the same league as the big SUVs like the 5,400-lb Toyota Land Cruiser or the 5,800-lb Navigator.)”
According to this auto guide
, the gross vehicle weight of the Toyota Highlander is 5,360 pounds. I don’t know a damn thing about cars, so maybe gross vehicle weight is the wrong measure. There is something else called curb weight, and Wikipedia says the Highlander’s is 4,500 pounds. The car that Halema Buzayan allegedly hit was not a Honda, but a Mazda Protege. I don’t know how much that model of Protege weighs, but I would guess it is less than the Highlander…. My using the term “massive SUV” was probably a mistake. I meant simply to say that it was my understanding that the SUV had greater weight and mass than the Mazda.
Rich Rifkin said …
“Estes, what did I ever say to cause you to ask this half-witted question? You seem to be obsessed with attacking me without any basis in fact. It’s a poor reflection on your character.”
Rich, perhaps you should look in the mirror when you make a statement like the one above.
When you complain about being attacked perhaps you might want to reflect on the following excerpts from your posts.
I’m not a lawyer. I’m simply smarter than most lawyers.
… you are a complete and total putz to assume that it is “my information.
You almost have to be a total dunce — even if you have a law degree — to not understand that …
Rich Rifkin said …
“Estes, what did I ever say to cause you to ask this half-witted question? You seem to be obsessed with attacking me without any basis in fact. It’s a poor reflection on your character.”
Rich, perhaps you should look in the mirror when you make a statement like the one above.
When you complain about being attacked perhaps you might want to reflect on the following excerpts from your posts.
I’m not a lawyer. I’m simply smarter than most lawyers.
… you are a complete and total putz to assume that it is “my information.
You almost have to be a total dunce — even if you have a law degree — to not understand that …
Rich Rifkin said …
“Estes, what did I ever say to cause you to ask this half-witted question? You seem to be obsessed with attacking me without any basis in fact. It’s a poor reflection on your character.”
Rich, perhaps you should look in the mirror when you make a statement like the one above.
When you complain about being attacked perhaps you might want to reflect on the following excerpts from your posts.
I’m not a lawyer. I’m simply smarter than most lawyers.
… you are a complete and total putz to assume that it is “my information.
You almost have to be a total dunce — even if you have a law degree — to not understand that …
Rich Rifkin said …
“Estes, what did I ever say to cause you to ask this half-witted question? You seem to be obsessed with attacking me without any basis in fact. It’s a poor reflection on your character.”
Rich, perhaps you should look in the mirror when you make a statement like the one above.
When you complain about being attacked perhaps you might want to reflect on the following excerpts from your posts.
I’m not a lawyer. I’m simply smarter than most lawyers.
… you are a complete and total putz to assume that it is “my information.
You almost have to be a total dunce — even if you have a law degree — to not understand that …
Rich: It doesn’t really matter the weight. If you see the damage to both vehicles, it does not match. A thin scratch on the highlander, a dent on the mazda. Paint transfer didn’t match, looked like a white rather than blue car hit the mazda. Height didn’t match, there was about a twelve inch difference between the two. I’m not an engineer, but I see no way that the highlander hit the mazda. None.
Rich: It doesn’t really matter the weight. If you see the damage to both vehicles, it does not match. A thin scratch on the highlander, a dent on the mazda. Paint transfer didn’t match, looked like a white rather than blue car hit the mazda. Height didn’t match, there was about a twelve inch difference between the two. I’m not an engineer, but I see no way that the highlander hit the mazda. None.
Rich: It doesn’t really matter the weight. If you see the damage to both vehicles, it does not match. A thin scratch on the highlander, a dent on the mazda. Paint transfer didn’t match, looked like a white rather than blue car hit the mazda. Height didn’t match, there was about a twelve inch difference between the two. I’m not an engineer, but I see no way that the highlander hit the mazda. None.
Rich: It doesn’t really matter the weight. If you see the damage to both vehicles, it does not match. A thin scratch on the highlander, a dent on the mazda. Paint transfer didn’t match, looked like a white rather than blue car hit the mazda. Height didn’t match, there was about a twelve inch difference between the two. I’m not an engineer, but I see no way that the highlander hit the mazda. None.
For the record, Curb Weight is the unloaded weight of the car. Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) is the curb weight plus payload capacity. That is, the total weight the vehicle is designed to carry.
So consider the following equation:
GWV (5360 lbs) – Curb Weight (4500 lbs) = Payload capacity (860 lbs)
For the record, Curb Weight is the unloaded weight of the car. Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) is the curb weight plus payload capacity. That is, the total weight the vehicle is designed to carry.
So consider the following equation:
GWV (5360 lbs) – Curb Weight (4500 lbs) = Payload capacity (860 lbs)
For the record, Curb Weight is the unloaded weight of the car. Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) is the curb weight plus payload capacity. That is, the total weight the vehicle is designed to carry.
So consider the following equation:
GWV (5360 lbs) – Curb Weight (4500 lbs) = Payload capacity (860 lbs)
For the record, Curb Weight is the unloaded weight of the car. Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) is the curb weight plus payload capacity. That is, the total weight the vehicle is designed to carry.
So consider the following equation:
GWV (5360 lbs) – Curb Weight (4500 lbs) = Payload capacity (860 lbs)
Sharla:
I fear we are beyond the point of ever reaching any meaningful community consensus on what happened (as is evidenced by the tone of discussion here). No forum and no clever arguments are going to dissolve the differences. Even if all the evidence, all the testimony and all the depositions were made available to the public, there would still be endless, and ultimately fruitless, debate.
Although it would be nice, the critical point is not reaching a shared determination of exactly what happened; the critical point is to render less likely the reoccurence of a similar incident.
I do not believe a common understanding about the past is necessary to bring about positive changes for the future. Even though people might not be willing to admit past mistakes, they are frequently anxious to alter their behavior to avoid a repetition of such an undesirable result.
So, even though we don’t, won’t and can’t all agree about the past, this public debate has made a reoccurrence less likely. Not impossible, but at least less likely.
I wish I could give you a more hopeful answer.
Sharla:
I fear we are beyond the point of ever reaching any meaningful community consensus on what happened (as is evidenced by the tone of discussion here). No forum and no clever arguments are going to dissolve the differences. Even if all the evidence, all the testimony and all the depositions were made available to the public, there would still be endless, and ultimately fruitless, debate.
Although it would be nice, the critical point is not reaching a shared determination of exactly what happened; the critical point is to render less likely the reoccurence of a similar incident.
I do not believe a common understanding about the past is necessary to bring about positive changes for the future. Even though people might not be willing to admit past mistakes, they are frequently anxious to alter their behavior to avoid a repetition of such an undesirable result.
So, even though we don’t, won’t and can’t all agree about the past, this public debate has made a reoccurrence less likely. Not impossible, but at least less likely.
I wish I could give you a more hopeful answer.
Sharla:
I fear we are beyond the point of ever reaching any meaningful community consensus on what happened (as is evidenced by the tone of discussion here). No forum and no clever arguments are going to dissolve the differences. Even if all the evidence, all the testimony and all the depositions were made available to the public, there would still be endless, and ultimately fruitless, debate.
Although it would be nice, the critical point is not reaching a shared determination of exactly what happened; the critical point is to render less likely the reoccurence of a similar incident.
I do not believe a common understanding about the past is necessary to bring about positive changes for the future. Even though people might not be willing to admit past mistakes, they are frequently anxious to alter their behavior to avoid a repetition of such an undesirable result.
So, even though we don’t, won’t and can’t all agree about the past, this public debate has made a reoccurrence less likely. Not impossible, but at least less likely.
I wish I could give you a more hopeful answer.
Sharla:
I fear we are beyond the point of ever reaching any meaningful community consensus on what happened (as is evidenced by the tone of discussion here). No forum and no clever arguments are going to dissolve the differences. Even if all the evidence, all the testimony and all the depositions were made available to the public, there would still be endless, and ultimately fruitless, debate.
Although it would be nice, the critical point is not reaching a shared determination of exactly what happened; the critical point is to render less likely the reoccurence of a similar incident.
I do not believe a common understanding about the past is necessary to bring about positive changes for the future. Even though people might not be willing to admit past mistakes, they are frequently anxious to alter their behavior to avoid a repetition of such an undesirable result.
So, even though we don’t, won’t and can’t all agree about the past, this public debate has made a reoccurrence less likely. Not impossible, but at least less likely.
I wish I could give you a more hopeful answer.
Thank you, Bob.
I agree with your assessment of the current situation. I too am interested in avoiding a repeat of events.
I believe that there is a lack of understanding of juvenile justice process by citizens, parents and, especially, kids and maybe some police officers. Often kids do not understand their rights and are at a distinct disadvantage when the system is set up where parents cannot intervene on their behalf. We teach our kids to follow the directions of people in authority and so they do have trouble resisting the questioning of law enforcement or enforcing their rights. This means that we rely on our local law enforcement to ensure that they take care when dealing with the kids in the community.
I actually believe that there has been tremendous improvement in the way the Davis Police Department is handling juvenile crime in Davis, under the leadership of Steve Pierce. Trease Peterson, our Youth Services Officer, has been reaching out to parents and the educational community to help in dealing with rampant drug and alcohol use by our teens. She is also overseeing the youth diversion program in the department, so many first time offenders are not ending up in juvenile court at all.
However,the most important part of discovering what happened with Halema is working out how things should have worked. What is the process for “arresting” a child who denies committing the crime?
Thank you, Bob.
I agree with your assessment of the current situation. I too am interested in avoiding a repeat of events.
I believe that there is a lack of understanding of juvenile justice process by citizens, parents and, especially, kids and maybe some police officers. Often kids do not understand their rights and are at a distinct disadvantage when the system is set up where parents cannot intervene on their behalf. We teach our kids to follow the directions of people in authority and so they do have trouble resisting the questioning of law enforcement or enforcing their rights. This means that we rely on our local law enforcement to ensure that they take care when dealing with the kids in the community.
I actually believe that there has been tremendous improvement in the way the Davis Police Department is handling juvenile crime in Davis, under the leadership of Steve Pierce. Trease Peterson, our Youth Services Officer, has been reaching out to parents and the educational community to help in dealing with rampant drug and alcohol use by our teens. She is also overseeing the youth diversion program in the department, so many first time offenders are not ending up in juvenile court at all.
However,the most important part of discovering what happened with Halema is working out how things should have worked. What is the process for “arresting” a child who denies committing the crime?
Thank you, Bob.
I agree with your assessment of the current situation. I too am interested in avoiding a repeat of events.
I believe that there is a lack of understanding of juvenile justice process by citizens, parents and, especially, kids and maybe some police officers. Often kids do not understand their rights and are at a distinct disadvantage when the system is set up where parents cannot intervene on their behalf. We teach our kids to follow the directions of people in authority and so they do have trouble resisting the questioning of law enforcement or enforcing their rights. This means that we rely on our local law enforcement to ensure that they take care when dealing with the kids in the community.
I actually believe that there has been tremendous improvement in the way the Davis Police Department is handling juvenile crime in Davis, under the leadership of Steve Pierce. Trease Peterson, our Youth Services Officer, has been reaching out to parents and the educational community to help in dealing with rampant drug and alcohol use by our teens. She is also overseeing the youth diversion program in the department, so many first time offenders are not ending up in juvenile court at all.
However,the most important part of discovering what happened with Halema is working out how things should have worked. What is the process for “arresting” a child who denies committing the crime?
Thank you, Bob.
I agree with your assessment of the current situation. I too am interested in avoiding a repeat of events.
I believe that there is a lack of understanding of juvenile justice process by citizens, parents and, especially, kids and maybe some police officers. Often kids do not understand their rights and are at a distinct disadvantage when the system is set up where parents cannot intervene on their behalf. We teach our kids to follow the directions of people in authority and so they do have trouble resisting the questioning of law enforcement or enforcing their rights. This means that we rely on our local law enforcement to ensure that they take care when dealing with the kids in the community.
I actually believe that there has been tremendous improvement in the way the Davis Police Department is handling juvenile crime in Davis, under the leadership of Steve Pierce. Trease Peterson, our Youth Services Officer, has been reaching out to parents and the educational community to help in dealing with rampant drug and alcohol use by our teens. She is also overseeing the youth diversion program in the department, so many first time offenders are not ending up in juvenile court at all.
However,the most important part of discovering what happened with Halema is working out how things should have worked. What is the process for “arresting” a child who denies committing the crime?
“However,the most important part of discovering what happened with Halema is working out how things should have worked. What is the process for “arresting” a child who denies committing the crime? “
The other part of that would be to make sure the “better” process is followed in the future. It would be great if the DPD acknowlegded that they could have done things better and developed a strategy to insure a new process is always followed. In order to make that meaningful, something has to be announced to the public. The public needs to feel the DPD is both interested in making positive change and in fact are implementing those changes. Independent verification would help.
My view is that the DPD is afraid to admit errors and any changes that are made are cloaked in secrecy. I can not see change so I assume the worst case.
“However,the most important part of discovering what happened with Halema is working out how things should have worked. What is the process for “arresting” a child who denies committing the crime? “
The other part of that would be to make sure the “better” process is followed in the future. It would be great if the DPD acknowlegded that they could have done things better and developed a strategy to insure a new process is always followed. In order to make that meaningful, something has to be announced to the public. The public needs to feel the DPD is both interested in making positive change and in fact are implementing those changes. Independent verification would help.
My view is that the DPD is afraid to admit errors and any changes that are made are cloaked in secrecy. I can not see change so I assume the worst case.
“However,the most important part of discovering what happened with Halema is working out how things should have worked. What is the process for “arresting” a child who denies committing the crime? “
The other part of that would be to make sure the “better” process is followed in the future. It would be great if the DPD acknowlegded that they could have done things better and developed a strategy to insure a new process is always followed. In order to make that meaningful, something has to be announced to the public. The public needs to feel the DPD is both interested in making positive change and in fact are implementing those changes. Independent verification would help.
My view is that the DPD is afraid to admit errors and any changes that are made are cloaked in secrecy. I can not see change so I assume the worst case.
“However,the most important part of discovering what happened with Halema is working out how things should have worked. What is the process for “arresting” a child who denies committing the crime? “
The other part of that would be to make sure the “better” process is followed in the future. It would be great if the DPD acknowlegded that they could have done things better and developed a strategy to insure a new process is always followed. In order to make that meaningful, something has to be announced to the public. The public needs to feel the DPD is both interested in making positive change and in fact are implementing those changes. Independent verification would help.
My view is that the DPD is afraid to admit errors and any changes that are made are cloaked in secrecy. I can not see change so I assume the worst case.
SAH: I think you hit the nail completely on the head here. I think that had the Chief and the police and the Council come out immediately and said things were not handled right and they were going to fix them, this would have never become the controversy that it was. Instead, the reaction was unequivocal denial from Saylor and Puntillo to Hyde to Ly to Gina Anderson. That poisoned the atmosphere and helped bring us to this point.
SAH: I think you hit the nail completely on the head here. I think that had the Chief and the police and the Council come out immediately and said things were not handled right and they were going to fix them, this would have never become the controversy that it was. Instead, the reaction was unequivocal denial from Saylor and Puntillo to Hyde to Ly to Gina Anderson. That poisoned the atmosphere and helped bring us to this point.
SAH: I think you hit the nail completely on the head here. I think that had the Chief and the police and the Council come out immediately and said things were not handled right and they were going to fix them, this would have never become the controversy that it was. Instead, the reaction was unequivocal denial from Saylor and Puntillo to Hyde to Ly to Gina Anderson. That poisoned the atmosphere and helped bring us to this point.
SAH: I think you hit the nail completely on the head here. I think that had the Chief and the police and the Council come out immediately and said things were not handled right and they were going to fix them, this would have never become the controversy that it was. Instead, the reaction was unequivocal denial from Saylor and Puntillo to Hyde to Ly to Gina Anderson. That poisoned the atmosphere and helped bring us to this point.