“It would be so refreshing to have someone from either the city council or police department actually stick up for the officers and tell the morons to shove it up their collective asses rather than try to blame and second guess the officers for the suspects actions which created the circumstances in which force was necessary. “

There was such a video of an SFPD Captain sticking up for his guys against the press.  He gave them all hell, and vowed to find out what judge had let a violent felon out on OR. It circulated on YouTube a couple of months back.  Sadly, I deleted it, and can’t find it again.

However, that sort of thing is rare.  More often you get the pandering PR types like Chief Davis spouting a PC line to mollify the tiny mob of loudmouths headed by the likes of Raj.

Steve said-
“It would be so refreshing to have someone from either the city council or police department actually stick up for the officers and tell the morons to shove it up their collective asses rather than try to blame and second guess the officers for the suspects actions which created the circumstances in which force was necessary.”

Agreed. The reason why that will never happen is because they don’t see the police as voters they need to get or keep them in office. Sam went against the Little Saigon folks and got his butt kicked so he is using the Pham, and Ho situations to try and reconcile with the Vietnamese community to keep his seat on the Council.

Steve,
In my opinion, Liccardo is both hypocritical and duplicitous in his treatment of people. He is also an opportunist. A year or so ago, he went after the Vietnamese community bending, twisting, and using the law to beat them down over something as silly as signage. He says the “public’s trust” must be preserved, and the “people’s right to know,” is vital yet he certainly wasn’t practicing what he preaches towards the Vietnamese community in that situation now was he? He has to run for Office again so I’m not surprised that he is using this situation to ingratiate himself into this community’s good grace. 

Secondly, he neglects to properly inform the public that it was and is the Council that is mandating heavy Police presence in downtown. Decent business owners like McEnery and others have suffered a lot because “some,” not all, club owners have attracted some very unfriendly characters to downtown that has cost them business, property damage, and have created a very unfriendly environment downtown. So again back to pre-election horn blowing, Liccardo uses recent efforts by the City Manager, the few remaining Drunken Task Force members, and the Chief of Police to make it look like he has created some type of huge change in downtown.

He never once really addresses the violence, stabbings, or shootings downtown that Jack VanZandt, or Tom McEnery have written about here on SJI for years. Rather he wants everyone to believe that the Murk, Raj, and his cronies are right and it is the Police, not the independent actions of these criminals that are to blame.

Liccardo focuses on an incomplete video shot showing the Police trying to subdue a self admitted knife wielding guy who threatened his roommate with murder, the deeply sad case of a mentally ill young man who was killed by Police after he slit his brother’s throat and was out of control, and another sad case of a mentally ill Vietnamese woman who lost her life when she ran at a Police Officer wielding an 8-10 inch vegetable peeler that looked like an axe. I will never understand how he or anyone else can truly rationalize defending such violent actions against the Police, or their victims. It is rather disturbing to me to hear him say that those of us who have faith in the Police when using discretion on force are blind to the other side of the issue when he himself does not practice what he preaches.

Sadly, D3 residents with the assistance of the Murk, Raj and his fellow Police haters will probably put him right back into that Council seat for yet another four more years of this type of behavior. I’m so glad I don’t live anywhere near there.

As if Mr. Liccardo’s reaction to this Ho-hum incident wasn’t insulting enough, he now aggravates the situation by assuming he can use his lawyerly skills to explain it all away. What does that say about his respect for the intelligence of this community? Is this what happens when courtroom lawyers get used to presenting their arguments before jurors hand-picked for gullibility?

In his original emailer, he wrote that “Ash Kalra, Madison Nguyen, and I immediately called for a full investigation and—if any criminal charges of the officers are sought—a grand jury process open to public view.” When I criticized him for focusing only on one potential outcome of the just undertaken investigation, he responded back encouraging me to read again his words. But rather than reread what I understood in the first place, I instead looked closely at the words he wrote in his response. I found them much more interesting, as I believe they reveal what he really thinks. I quote:

“Specifically, I said that “if any criminal charges are sought,” there should be an open grand jury.  That decision, ultimately, is up to the DA…”

Dissecting this statement into three parts, we first encounter, again, Mr. Liccardo focusing on only one of the many possible outcomes of the investigation (and perhaps, as a former prosecutor, this might be expected).

Next we find the councilman tripping over his own excuse, as he makes a direct connection between the (as yet unmade) decision to seek criminal charges and an open Grand Jury hearing. The problem is that historically in cases where charges were sought for “assault under the color of authority” (a felony), the matter did not go before a Grand Jury, open or closed. The decision (whether to charge or not) in such cases is typically reached via the complaint process, thus, Mr. Liccardo’s call for “an open Grand Jury” constitutes a discriminatory attitude toward the police officers on two fronts, the first, that the prosecutorial process itself be altered to include the Grand Jury, and second, that the normally closed jury room doors be open. Sheesh! One wonders why he doesn’t just cut the pretense and call for the swift construction of a guillotine?

Lastly, he admits the the decision is the DA’s. Really? Is that an admission that the decision is not his? Will Mr. Liccardo admit that anything else is not his—such as the manner in which the case is investigated (the police chief’s) or how it is reported (the Mercury-Barb’s)? Question: how many self-serving, stupid statements does it take before our bigmouth politicians have so prejudiced the public that, should Mr. Liccardo’s dreams come true, a fair and impartial jury for this case becomes impossible?

Raj isn’t trying to publish an unbiased version of the truth, K.  Raj is advocating a position.  Tus, he leaves out any “inconvenient truths” that do not support his position.

Raj could report for The Murky News, where the line between reporting and editorializing disappeared at least a decade ago.

Do did your son have a blood alcohol level higher then .08%?  Why did he go to the hospital?  Was the case dismissed?

Frank,
Actually I do know what I’m talking about, it just simply that you and others chose not to listen to things you don’t want to hear. I have first hand experience with youth offenders and care very deeply about these kids. To deny that they come from some of the most hardened criminals, or abused, or poor families would be grossly ignorant and unfair. Having said that, regardless of their up bringing, they do not have the right to harm innocent people. Rarely do they realize that the greatest harm they are doing is to themselves and to the rest of their lives because they are making ignorant choices.

I worked in Victim Offender Mediation for six years, served on the Juvenile Justice Reform Committee for a year and a half, was on the Neighborhood Accountability Board and Council, as well as, being on the Criminal Justice Committee, and a member of the Network For A Hate Free Community for years.  I have heard and seen a lot and parents are the biggest problem those of us who work with troubled youth encounter.

I have more respect for these integrity ridden youth because they admit committing their crime, their parents either refuse to believe their sweet innocent child would do such a thing, or they pull the race card, or they blame some other kid. It is a dam shame that youth has a better head on their shoulders than their parents, but I’m grateful that these kids have enough honesty in them to stand up and be accountable regardless of the idiots who raise them.  So you keep on believing what you will about me, but former youth offender clients still call or write me from time to time to let me know how they are doing. I feel very good about my work with youth, and no amount of criticism from a guy like you will ever change that fact.

We do agree about one thing though, once these Officers have these cameras recording the types of behaviors displayed by these arrestees, boy will the public be surprised about how unfairly the press has respresented them in the media. Have a great weekend Frank.

Dutch, I can’t dispute your opinions about marijuana, but I need to correct your mistaken assumptions about the size restrictions on clubs.  If you’d read the piece carefully, you would have seen the following sentence: “Since that time, the Council passed almost all of these measures, with only the new club size restrictions pending Council deliberation.” 

I expect that the club occupancy proposal (which has been subjected to considerable staff and legal analysis since it was introduced) to surface for a final council vote within 5-6 weeks.

Also, as a result of the measure we passed in June, clubs that want to stay open past 2 a.m. can do so—most clubs simply don’t have the post-last-call business to justify keeping the staff on the clock.

I’m not interested in my own back-patting here; as the piece suggests, I have repeatedly given public credit to city staff like Lee Wilcox, responsible club owners like Dave Powell and John Conway, and to SJPD officers like Lt. Marozick and Lt. McGrady for vastly increasing the level of cooperation between the clubs and the cops.

Obviously, the awful economy will continue to take its toll, and clubs will be battered by losses (and some will close) like every other business.  The point is simply that we’re starting to get some traction on this problem.  As a long-awaited economic recovery takes hold, the downtown will be ready for it.

Given your vast experience you certainly should be able to do something I can’t: come up with a list of examples where a fundamental courtroom procedure was changed because of the defendant’s occupation. This county has prosecuted cases against plenty of elected and appointed officials, many of whom have occupied positions of great power, influence, and trust, yet for their hearings Grand Jury doors remained closed, council coalitions remained silent, and the public was expected to maintain its faith in the judicial system.

I ask you again, are you ready to demand open grand juries in all cases involving public officials, or do you intend to continue to espouse judicial discrimination against cops?

About those many juries from whom you’ve secured convictions, need I remind you that the identities of those jurors were kept secret from any “tattoo-wearing” friends of the defendants, while the identities of the Grand Jury are considered public information (and can be found on the internet). The primary function of the volunteers who serve on the Grand Jury is that as government watchdogs, yet in you and your little coalition we have government officials joining in with a mob (mini-mob, in reality) that has made clear its distrust of the Grand Jury.

Tell me, Sam, is it the Grand Jury you distrust or the intelligence and civility of the citizens you serve?

This alleged beating case is hardly worth the attention it’s getting. The idiot who used a knife in so alarming a manner as to have the police summoned needed to be controlled while the matter was investigated; he refused to comply, and force was utilized to effect control. The questions are few. Did the cops need to be there? Yes. Did they have a duty to control the suspect? Yes. Did the suspect fail to cooperate? Yes (very clearly, at the start of the tape, as officers are issuing him orders, you hear what sounds to be a friend shout, “Phuong, shut up and listen to them”). The only real question is whether the force used to affect control was excessive, and even at that, the issue comes down to counting police baton strikes and tallying up the suspect’s muscle bruises. What will be impossible to gauge is the raw power the suspect used in resisting, his reaction, if any, to pain, and whether these elements influenced the officers actions. This is a case about reasonableness, one in which reasonableness cannot be established conclusively.

And for this you felt the need to usurp the police chief’s responsibilities, question the integrity of the Grand Jury, and add an extra zero to the city’s potential civil liability?

Just think, you could’ve shut up, waited for those two dozen protesters from the Vietnamese rest home to nod off or die, allowed Chief Davis to ride out the discomfort and lance his own Raj, and gone about your business of single-handedly saving the downtown club scene. But no, you and the other two stooges formed your little coalition, pumped your fists in solidarity, and pissed-off every street cop—and every citizen who appreciates the tough job they do, by joining up with a race-obsessed collection of loudmouths seeking not justice, but political power.