It took Clayton Garzon less than a day after his bail was increased to 520,000 dollars to make bail. He is also free on bail, pending his preliminary hearing set for mid-May in Solano County.
That means that Mr. Garzon, who is alleged to have beaten 32-year-old Davis resident Mikey Partida in the early morning hours of March 10, is out of custody.
His case is now set for a hearing on April 12 with the preliminary hearing scheduled presently for April 26, but it seems more likely than not that will be re-scheduled in the coming weeks.
Mr. Garzon is represented by Sacramento attorney Linda Parisi. She has been arguing against the assault as a hate crime.
In documents filed, she argued, “Mr. Garzon has many family members and friends that are members of the LGTB community.”
A letter from Mr. Garzon’s uncle, who is gay, states, “I can unequivocally say that Clayton has been uncommonly supportive of me being gay.”
A neighbor, who is also gay, stated, “I do not believe that Clay’s actions in the morning of March 10 were driven by hate for gay people.”
Ms. Parisi said that, while the beating was “a very tragic event,” she said that the use of slurs was a “sad commentary on today’s youth, but not necessarily an expression of hate.”
Supervising Deputy District Attorney Garrett Hamilton filed a motion to raise bail arguing “changed circumstances.” He argued, “The initial setting of bail failed to include the fact that the defendant’s acts constitute a ‘hate crime.’ “
On Wednesday Yolo County Commissioner Janene Beronio not only raised bail to $520,000, but also ordered Mr. Garzon to wear a GPS tracking device and another device to monitor drinking, after prosecutors at the hearing described Mr. Garzon as a young man who becomes violent and out of control when he is under the influence of alcohol.
Mr. Garzon was allegedly intoxicated during both his actions in Dixon and the Davis incident in question.
Ms. Parisi told reporters following the ruling from Yolo County Commissioner Janene Beronio that she was disappointed with the increase in bail and the additional levels of supervision imposed.
“I don’t believe he’s a young man who engaged in a hate crime,” she said.
Mr. Partida had attended a party at his cousin’s apartment and apparently left his keys there and returned to retrieve them, “when a man began kicking and beating him while yelling homophobic slurs.”
Mr. Partida was walking with a group but forgot his keys and had to go back. Before that point, the attacker was already yelling slurs at him, according to Mr. Partida’s cousin, Vanessa Turner.
“He just continued, getting closer and closer, and then he just punched me,” Mr. Partida explained.
“The slur used begins with the letter ‘F’ and is a nasty term for homosexuals. Partida said the attacker was saying it over and over again while beating him,” News 10 reported.
“Pretty loud and proud about it,” Mr. Partida said. “He just kept fighting me and fighting me until I blacked out. And then I came to and was here.”
Ms. Turner told News 10 that, after the attack, the attacker knocked on the door to brag about what he had done.
Mr. Partida is now out of the hospital and recovering well from his injuries of less than three weeks ago.
“I just don’t want it to be swept under the rug,” Mr. Partida told News 10 prior to the hearing. “I just want it to be known. Just want people to take precaution when they go out.”
Again, Mr. Garzon’s next hearing will be April 12 in front of Judge David Rosenberg, while a preliminary hearing is scheduled for April 26.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
, “I can unequivocally say that Clayton has been uncommonly supportive of me being gay.”
“I do not believe that Clay’s actions in the morning of March 10 were driven by hate for gay people.”
If true, even more evidence of Garzon’s sociopathic nature.
[quote]Ms. Parisi said that, while the beating was “a very tragic event,” she said that the use of slurs was a “sad commentary on today’s youth, but not necessarily an expression of hate.”[/quote]
It’s a sad commentary not just on today’s youth but today’s society as a whole. Read any newspaper or Twitter account to see politicians, judges, news media, sports commentators and actors just to name a few who have used slurs and are not necessarily driven by hate.
biddlin
“If true, even more evidence of Garzon’s sociopathic nature.”
I am not following. Can you clarify this comment ?
Ms. Parisi said:
> while the beating was “a very tragic event,”
> she said that the use of slurs was a “sad
> commentary on today’s youth, but not necessarily
> an expression of hate.”
I think that people that hit others need to spend time in jail to think about what they did, but I’m not sure this was a “hate crime”. I went to an all boys Catholic High School and most of my classmates were probably called the “slur that begins with the letter “F” and is a nasty term for homosexuals” a hundred times in just our High School years. As far as I know this use of this F word (not to be confused with the other F word that is used even more) has been in wide use for the past 30 years. Just recently I was at a friend’s home recently and his kids (that go to Rio Americana HS) used the “slur that begins with the letter “F” and is a nasty term for homosexuals” to describe the guys that go to nearby Jesuit HS (and a bunch of other derogatory terms for the guys that go to Jesuit HS). The funny thing is that the public school kid that I remember using the F-anti gay slur the most came out of the closet in his 20’s and moved to the Castro.
P.S. I was at the park with my kids last week and heard some white HS age Davis kids (that were going for the wigger* look like the guys on Garzon’s My Space page) and they used the “N” word about a 50 times (in a non-derogatory way) when talking about each other…
*wigger defined:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wigger
DG: [i]”Mr. Garzón is represented by Sacramento attorney Linda Parisi. She has been arguing against the assault as a hate crime.”[/i]
What makes this particular case most disturbing is not the allegation of prejudice. It is the combination of its brutality (based on the injuries to Mr. Partida) and that Mr. Garzón allegedly was involved in a violent attack not long before.
Sadly, there are a lot of 20-year-old males who are very immature and who get in fights when they are drunk. These guys “look for trouble.”
In Garzón’s case, if this allegations is proven and the one in Dixon is proven, he has a much more serious problem than a typical young troublemaker, entirely aside from anti-gay hatred.
First, his level of violence seems to be more serious. The injuries to Partida were horrific; and the person who inflicted them seems to have meant to do terrible damage. That kind of an attack could result in permanent brain damage. It was not “child’s play.”
Second, again under the assumption that both cases are proven, a repeat offense demonstrates neither was a single case of poor judgment.
Many sociopaths are chameleon like in their ability to act appropriately, while concealing their total absence of empathy.
Ted Bundy is a classic example .
If true and proven, prior stabbings and beating a guy to a pulp puts it way past this guy just being an ugly drunk. This guy needs to go to jail and to hell with restorative justice.
SouthofDavis
[quote]I think that people that hit others need to spend time in jail to think about what they did[/quote]
And if this is what people used their time in jail to do, I would probably agree. However, people that hit others have not learned appropriate techniques for learning how to deal with disagreements, anger, envy, disappointment, or whatever feelings they have that cause them to lash out. I do not think that our current jail system or prison system helps them to learn more appropriate skills that would allow them to be successful in our society upon their release. It is this that would seem to be to be a more desirable goal for our society as a whole. This has nothing to do with being “soft on crime”. It is all about how to prevent crime by helping people to live successfully and peacefully in our society.
What defense counsel of record, of any worth, would say to the effect, (to the press) I believe he is a young man who engaged in a hate crime…
Of course she will deny it….
[url]However, people that hit others have not learned appropriate techniques for learning how to deal with disagreements, anger, envy, disappointment, or whatever feelings they have that cause them to lash out.[/url]
LOL, people already know that you don’t stab or beat someone to a pulp over a disagreement, anger, envy, disappointment or whatever feelings they might have. This is way beyond just a reaction to something that the perpetrator didn’t like. That type of reaction would be a quick punch or something of that nature, not almost killing someone. Once again, if these allegations are true and proven in both cases.
GYNODOC: [i]”I do not think that our current jail system or prison system helps them to learn more appropriate skills that would allow them to be successful in our society upon their release. It is this that would seem to be to be a more desirable goal for our society as a whole.”[/i]
Insofar as our “corrections” system fails to graduate inmates who, upon release, are better equipped to function in society, I completely agree with you. That is the biggest failing of our prison system. I am a great believer in counseling inmates and teaching them skills which will allow them to work productively the rest of their lives.
However, incarceration also serves other purposes: including as a deterrent to all would-be criminals. If violent crimes, such as beating up Partida and stabbing multiple people in Dixon, don’t come with time in prison and lost liberties, then there will be many more such attacks on other Mikey Partidas and so on. A stiff and sure punishment keeps people in line.
I don’t think the threat of “involuntary counseling” would stop someone from holding up a bank, if the robber knew there was no chance that crime would result in time in prison, too.
[img]http://s3.vidimg02.popscreen.com/original/44/ZjlwQVVMX2g4dVkx_o_woody-allen—take-the-money-and-run—bank-robberymp4.jpg[/img]
“I do not believe that Clay’s actions in the morning of March 10 were driven by hate for gay people.”
Well the $520,000 question is: what was it driven by? If we knew that, perhaps it could be addressed. He is ANGRY and can not suppress it when he’s drunk! He his lashing out at people with whom he seemingly has no legitimate beef.
Rifs
[quote]However, incarceration also serves other purposes: including as a deterrent to all would-be criminals. If violent crimes, such as beating up Partida and stabbing multiple people in Dixon, don’t come with time in prison and lost liberties, then there will be many more such attacks on other Mikey Partidas and so on. A stiff and sure punishment keeps people in line.
[/quote]
I agree that incarceration serves other purposes, such as providing safety for the community from this particular individual during his time of incarceration. I know that other purpose you have cited is a commonly held belief, but I am not sure I agree. I would however be willing to consider evidence that
incarceration, and particularly very long sentences serve as a deterrent to other potential perpetrators.
Can you provide such evidence ?
One of the problems with relying on deterrence (as opposed to deterrence+incapacitation+retribution as the rationale for prison sentences) is that there are a substantial number of crimes for which there is not clearance (charges being filed). So, for instance, in Yolo County in 2011, the clearance rate for violent crimes (murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery) was only 53.25% (of 303 reported violent crimes). The highest the clearance rate has been between 2002 and 2011 was 60.5% in 2003. (These figures come from the California AG’s crime statistics pages.) So if you are a criminal, you can figure that better than forty percent of the time you are not going to get charged – so go ahead and do the crime. If the clearance rate was 100% then deterrence would do a better job.
Also, using long sentences to keep crime down has a downside. Recidivism and offending rates drop substantially with age. Once an individual is over 40 years of ag, their rate of offending and their probability of reoffending drops off. So why keep people in prison beyond the point where age acts to reduce crime. It’s money wasted. Particularly when you think about the costs of medical and mental health care for inmates as they age. (Of course there are certain crimes and individuals who society has decided to keep in prison no matter what – perpetrators of heinous crimes – Manson is an extremem example – or pedophiles – although there is an argument against that too.)
“GYNODOC”= MISOGYNY?
This entire conversation is all well and good but to me seems short on public safety. My concern is for protecting the rest of us from attack. How do we do that?
Mr. Toad
[quote]“GYNODOC”= MISOGYNY? [/quote]
Not to worry. I have been called far worse ; )
As far as public safety, that public health and prevention of injury, is because of my career almost always my primary concern. From the information provided so far by rdcanning ( whose expertise is in this area)
it would seem that an emphasis on policing rather than on length of incarceration would seem to be a promising area. I am just starting to scratch the surface of information summarized in Joel Dvoskin’s
Using Social Science to Reduce Violent Offending, which so far would not seem to substantiate sentencing and incarceration as used in this country as an effective means of deterrence ( with the exception of incapacitation of the individual of course ) and am quite interested in evidence to the contrary which Rich
may have knowledge of.
[quote]…the beating was “a very tragic event,”
Linda Parisi[/quote]
[b]Criminal Event[/b]
This wasn’t a “very tragic event.” This was a violent, criminal act. If found guilty, this will require hard time in state prison. Compounded by the other criminal violent act in Dixon involving multiple stabbings with a knife, we now enter into the realm of criminal violent psychopathic behavior.
[b]Falsehoods by Parisi[/b]
Garzon’s paid mouth piece is trying to redefine the terms. These are falsehoods. This is a violent crime. All those who end up on the jury, if this mouth piece doesn’t pull a change of venue or use the family’s “status” to pull an undeserved plea on reduced charges, remember the criminal violent nature of the CRIMES this individual is charged with.
MR. TOAD = BIGOT?
GI
[quote]LOL, people already know that you don’t stab or beat someone to a pulp over a disagreement, anger, envy, disappointment or whatever feelings they might have. [/quote]
I disagree with your generalization that “people already know….” This does not apply to all people.
Some folks, for a number of different reasons do not learn this. I would not apply anything that I am about to say to the Garzon family, who I do not know. However, I have known of children who have been abused, neglected and or beaten as a regular means of punishment and therefore have not had the opportunity to have learned that violence is not an appropriate response to negative emotions. And as Rich has pointed out, Garzon is young. Young men are psychologically and physiologically immature. This unfortunately correlates with greater impulsive and potentially violent behavior. And it also correlates with a greater potential for rehabilitation given the increased plasticity of the adolescent brain.
Garzon’s violence may stem from problems such as those medwoman describes, and/or they may result from a problem in the part of the brain that regulates self-control. If the later is the case, medication would be very helpful, along with NOT drinking!
Rifs and Mr. Toad
GYNODOC= MISOGYNY
MR TOAD = BIGOT
I picked up on this differently ! I know, how unusual ; )
I picked up on the “sounds like” quality of GYNODOC sounds like DINODOC and thought, as many of my former students and residents, do that this might be a commentary on how long I have been in the field.
I don’t really care what you call me as long as you do not attempt to put words in my mouth. That will of course unleash the worst possible outcome. One of my diatribes, as poor Frankly will attest.
eagle eye
Agreed that no alcohol and counseling regarding more appropriate means of dealing with adverse situations and emotions might be the best course of action concurrently with ensuring the safety of the public.