Cops and Courts: Aug. 5, 2008 - Santa Cruz Sentinel

[LeetleLaddle]

it was Almquist

[Yes]

Buck wrote:

The judge may be the key holder, but his not the gatekeeper. A judge makes a decision(a poor one in this case) and must rely on others to act upon his/her decisions. When the jail actually releases an individual, as they are the ones who process the individual, information could and should be disseminated. It is not possible nor is it within a judges duties to communicate with law enforcement regarding their decisions. It is law enforcements duty to act within and abide by their decisions. This is all about the jail comunicating
with law enforcement, which it either failed to do or is not required by mandate.
<quoted text>

That's one possibility for sure but I stand by my comments. It's not up to law enforcement (or the jail) to "clean up" this judges stupid decision. They caught her once and did their job. Once again, this judge should be held accountable. If he is going to make such a stupid decision, then he should be the one leting everyone know.

[Pamparius]

Santa Cruz Local wrote:

So THAT'S why Cops were driving on the wrong side of the road on Mount Hermon yesterday...NOW it makes sense! Scared the bajeezus out of me!
So, did the SUV in Aptos crash to AVOID the stalled car? Is that what happened? Sentinel, as usual, was not clear.

Yeah, stalled cars, especially around blind corners can come up quick and be a scare. Preventative maintenance is good.

Best wishes for the lady injured in the wreck.

[Buck]

What huh? I guess you also expect a judge to contact law enforcement and personally track down anyone that escapes from the authorities?

Crawl back in your hole and drop some window pane you frickin' hippy!

Tom W wrote:

<quoted text>
Huh?... have some more Kool-Aid!

[mr maya]

more beaner attacks thats why pack can you say hollow point' gitsome' allday baby allday

[Buck]

You have to admit it is impossible to expect a judge to clean up their mistakes? Come on, they make decisions, judgments, that is it. Judges don't ride in patrol cars, they act with impunity. If a judge convicts the wrong person of a crime, we don't fire the judge when DNA reverses the case. Your expectation is just not realistic.

What is realistic? Expecting law enforcement to readily communicate with each other to avoid placing citizens in greater harm.

I fundamentally agree with you, but considering we very rarely get to vote for judges(most are appointed), their is no recourse here. All we can ask is that law enforcement, including those in incarcerate(public or private) communicate with each other. Oh yeah, letting the public know would be an added bonus, but you'll have the ACLU all over you for that one.

Yes wrote:

<quoted text>
That's one possibility for sure but I stand by my comments. It's not up to law enforcement (or the jail) to "clean up" this judges stupid decision. They caught her once and did their job. Once again, this judge should be held accountable. If he is going to make such a stupid decision, then he should be the one leting everyone know.

[BKC]

scnativegurl wrote:

Dude, with all the drive by shootings in the county of late, brandishing any weapon, however innocuous should be considered terroristic. Has anyone else noticed how freaking on edge everybody is lately? ScArY

not terrorism. Ignorance. I guess they are close though.

[yup]

BKC wrote:

<quoted text>
not terrorism. Ignorance. I guess they are close though.

Yes, in as much as both are required to get Republicans elected.

[J Carl]

So the punk up in BC was spinning donuts in the street. Is it just my imagination or has this become a popular thing to do with the younger set? Seems that I have seen quite a few donut marks lately.

Anybody else noticed this?

[Oh Oh]

J Carl wrote:

So the punk up in BC was spinning donuts in the street. Is it just my imagination or has this become a popular thing to do with the younger set? Seems that I have seen quite a few donut marks lately.
Anybody else noticed this?

You mean idiots like these guys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[omg]

Santa Cruz Local wrote:

So THAT'S why Cops were driving on the wrong side of the road on Mount Hermon yesterday...NOW it makes sense! Scared the bajeezus out of me!
So, did the SUV in Aptos crash to AVOID the stalled car? Is that what happened? Sentinel, as usual, was not clear.

I was there. The car was not stalled before the accident; it was spinning on the freeway and then drove to the side afterwards to wait for help.

[check this out]

I thought they said this was a man. Looks like the person in BC who caused that car accident is the one who never returned to jail after getting a pass.

http://www.ksbw.com/index.html

[I wish]

... that the Sentinel would figure out how to attach the correct captions to the photos that they print online. They seem absolutely unable to do this. The photo of a Black person with a horrible haircut has a caption about the car overturning. Hello??? Also, to publish a color and B&W version of the same photo? Not really that useful. One more thing: I wish that they would print more (accurately captioned) photos of people apprehended or wanted for violent crimes, so that the community will know who to keep an eye out for.

[check this out]

Sorry. It is the stabbing person. I read it wrong.

[hmmm]

So who was that in the picture? The circle burner in Boulder Creek? The driver of the burgundy Toyota in Aptos? The man who was stabbed on Pacific? Or the female stabber?

Just when I'm almost convinced the Sentinel cannot get any worse.

[wondering]

I have always struggled with a learning disability, and thought I was the "worlds worst speller" and "writer" until I started reading the Sentinel. You know it's "bad" when I can find mistakes in their paper and can't make heads-or-tails of stories!

I am so confused as to what happened. I never thought I would be looking forward to reading the Valley Press to "clear things up".

[Feh]

Luza wrote:

<quoted text>
Yup. Anything resembling a firearm and can launch a projectile that "may" be harmful to another is considered brandishing a weapon. Even a plastic squirtgun.

False. I took a look at the California penal code. Brandishing a real firearm is a felony. Brandishing a fake one is a misdemeanor.

@Riptide, no the situation is NOT escalated to a felony. Someone else already pointed out the correct law this falls under; look at the previous page.