The Wrongful Incarceration of Emmanuel Martinez


 

Do not pass Go!

An alert Friend reminded us today of a story that came to light last fall and that has eerie overtones of the subsequent Veth Mam case we have previously reported. The story is told in the OC Register, here.

 

Wouldn't hurt a fly...

The facts are simple. Even though an eye-witness ID’d another guy in a line-up, the Fullerton police arrested Emmanuel Martinez who unluckily just happened to be in the vicinity. Of course Fullerton “Officer” Miguel Siliceo told a hearing judge that he had indeed got the right guy and Martinez was locked up in the County jail for five long months awaiting the inevitable railroad job.

Martinez’s luck changed for the better when he got a public defender, Denise Crawford, who bulldogged the case. When audio evidence surfaced that proved  Siliceo was telling tall tales, the DA, mirabile dictu, dropped the bogus charges against Martinez.

So Emmanuel can thank his lucky stars that he didn’t actually go on trial like Veth Mam, and then end up in state prison. And “Officer” Siliceo is lucky, too. Lucky he never had to perjure himself in front of a jury, and lucky he works for a police department where incompetence, and worse – felonious behavior are just par for the course.

How about the truth, if it's not too much trouble?

Of course the story wouldn’t be complete without the bland statement by FPD spokesassclown Andrew Goodrich that the cops work “diligently” to arrest the right people and generously let ‘em go if exculpatory evidence surfaces. Gee, thanks, Andy. Of course no mention is made by Goodrich of FPD hiding exculpatory evidence in the first place; nor is perjury; and of course there is no apology to the victim of FPD malfeasance. Wouldn’t want to undermine public confidence in our Heroes, now would we?

I wonder how much that one cost us.

Email This Post To A Friend Email This Post To A Friend

  1. #1 by truthseeker on September 14, 2011

    Thanks FFFF for without this blog the light of day would not be shining on the darkness of the department. To the other 105 sworn personell, WAKE UP-do what is right and stand for the truth. Come join us on Saturday.

  2. #2 by trythem4murder on September 14, 2011

    He should also count his lucky stars that they didn’t murder him. People should be greatful for this site and for the help of John and Ken. So many cases are swept under the carpeting and the killer cops go free. Please keep up the good work!

  3. #3 by Dee Dee on September 14, 2011

    Hes damn lucky his public defender actually cared. That is another corrupt agency.

  4. #4 by Anonymous on September 14, 2011

    Disband the Fullerton Police Association, Get rid of Bankhead, Jones and McKinley, Fire the entire police department and restart the hiring process.

  5. #5 by Ricky on September 14, 2011

    I’d like Goodrich to spend five months in the can for no reason.

    Except that in his case there probably would be a reason.

  6. #6 by Go Green on September 14, 2011

    Bring in the Sheriff’s Dept. They’re no better (or worse) but a helluva lot cheaper!

  7. #7 by Anonymous on September 14, 2011

    How appropriate is his name which means;

    “God is with us”

    Thank God for Denise Crawford and her diligence. Taking one look at this young man my heart strings are pulled.

    http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Emmanuel

  8. #8 by Cynthia Ward on September 14, 2011

    How much did the DA know? They let it get as far as starting the trial before the public defender brought the correct info to light. Did the DA not check that audio tape to be sure they were prosecuting the right guy?

  9. #9 by Anonymous on September 14, 2011

    Sadly the only purpose of the DA is to prove a person’s guilt. They do not exonerate.

  10. #10 by Ken on September 14, 2011

    The trash just keep pilling up. I am sure FPD is not the only place. It’s just happen that FPD is the the police deparment version of the Bell City problem.

  11. #11 by Ken on September 14, 2011

    Strangely, They (DA) are sure taking their time to do “a thorough investigation” when come to bringing charges or prosecute cops.

  12. #12 by local business owner on September 14, 2011

    I use to respect the Fullerton pd, but with these morons running the show there, it makes it hard to respect any of the officer’s there. The department continues to promote idiots into supervisory roles and let the younger officers run amuck! The place needs a serious overhall or to be taken over by the sheriff’s. I know the sheriff’s are not popular either, but let’s be real, someone has to police the city!

  13. #13 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 14, 2011

    Thanks for this story Joe.

    I have a few questions:

    1) How do we know that the cop, Siliceo, would have perjured himself if he had taken the stand and fingered Martinez as the right guy? Perjury is a willful act, so the question becomes, how do we know that Siliceo didn’t have an honest but mistaken belief that Martinez was in fact the guy identified in the lineup?
    2) How did Martinez’ attorney come to review the recording? If the ‘inevitable railroad job’ was underway why didn’t the recording just disappear?
    3) Where was the victim? Absent the recording, wouldn’t she have presumably corrected the mistake from the stand when the prosecutor asked the traditional question, “do you see the man who threatened you here in court today?”
    4) An FPD gang investigator, Detective Mater, testified that Martinez was an “active gang member at the time of the incident.” In your mind did this material fact affect Siliceo’s state of mind as to whether or not he had the right guy?

    5) Lastly, what do we know about Martinez’ juvenile record? I’ve read that he had as many as nine brushes with the law leading up to this incident that occurred after he turned 18. Could it be that Martinez was known to the police as a troublemaker, increasing the chance that a mistake might be made in wrongly fingering him as the perp?

    For me the question posed by your post is not did Martinez do it or not, but what is the evidence in support of your strong implications that Sileceo didn’t just make a mistake?

  14. #14 by Anonymous on September 14, 2011

    Ken :
    Strangely, They (DA) are sure taking their time to do “a thorough investigation” when come to bringing charges or prosecute cops.

    THE D A IS HOPING IT ALL GOES AWAY. AND IT WILL. TOO MANY PRESSURES, THE D A HAS HIS FUTURE TO PROTECT.

  15. #15 by Anonymous on September 14, 2011

    local business owner :
    I use to respect the Fullerton pd, but with these morons running the show there, it makes it hard to respect any of the officer’s there. The department continues to promote idiots into supervisory roles and let the younger officers run amuck! The place needs a serious overhall or to be taken over by the sheriff’s. I know the sheriff’s are not popular either, but let’s be real, someone has to police the city!

    THEY’RE TO POWERFUL AND CONNECTED. YOU WILL NOT CHANGE THINGS. THE CORRUPT CITY COUNCIL AND THE COPS ARE BLEEDING THE COFFERS WHILE THEY EXIT WITH OUTRAGEOUS PENSIONS. $5000.00 A WEEK FOR A PSYCHO POLICE CHIEF WHO APPROVED THAT DEAL.

  16. #16 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 14, 2011

    From the OCR:

    “(Martinez) could not be reached for comment Thursday, but (Defense Attorney) Crawford said he was happy to be a free man. “He was ecstatic,” Crawford said. “I’m very pleased the right outcome happened, and impressed with the (district attorney’s office) for dropping the charges.”

  17. #17 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 14, 2011

    From the trial docket: “The People request dismissal due to new evidence discovered at the noon hour that has been verified, casting serious doubt on the defendant’s guilt.”

    It was the DA’s office that requested dismissal right after the new evidence was brought to light and verified.

    From the OCR: “Orange County Superior Court Commissioner Michael A. Leversen ruled on June 15 that there was enough evidence to hold Martinez for a jury trial.Three months later, Deputy Public Defender Denise Crawford reviewed a police audio tape that showed police incorrectly fingered Martinez as the suspect identified by the victim…”

    Contrary to popular belief here, the DA’s office isn’t really in the business of knowingly sending inocent folks to jail.

  18. #18 by T N Z on September 14, 2011

    One nation under Horus, with Liberty and Justice for US.

  19. #19 by Paul on September 14, 2011

    All that you say is correct. Unfortunately most of the business owners in Fullerton do not agree with you. They are “sleeping” or complaining about noise. My friends and I have boycotted Fullerton businesses since the beginning of August. Hit them in the pocket. Then they will wake up.
    Wait till they get off their duffs and go to the attorney Mardrossian’s website and see the size of the damages against LA Sheriff Department and over 20 deputies. No one died and the amount was $25,000,000. That would have to be paid by the SELF INSURED City of Fullerton. Good luck business owners, your annual business license will be tripling!

  20. #20 by Ken on September 14, 2011

    Like I said, the modern crop of politicians in this country are not much different with other corrupted countries. They are all corrupted. . Friends/buddies/relatives got pay back with goverment positions. Bribery (fund raising, campaign donation). The only leverage for the ordinary citizens is to vote them out. But sadly they probably will be appointed to some position in the goverment from their buddies as a payback.

  21. #21 by Anonymous on September 14, 2011

  22. #22 by Anonymous on September 14, 2011

  23. #23 by Meriblow on September 14, 2011

    Hey joe if you think Martinez wouldn’t hurt a fly, who dont you take him into your house? Let’s see what happens! You have no idea who this kid is! You keep spouting off nonsense! I hope you know that 99% of people think this blog is a joke just like you, admin and chris! Everyone knows what your true agenda is and these stupid story just go to prove it!!! Keep up the good work idiot!!!

  24. #24 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 14, 2011

    Not so strange.

    The harder the case to try and convict, the more time and effort it gets. Historically, cases against cops related to excessive force are among the very most difficult, if not all but impossible to gain a conviction.

    On the other hand, the victim here reportedly told police the perp yelled ‘Come on, motherfucker’ or something similar, and jumped toward her, making a gang sign and calling out the name of a local gang. The victim then purportedly identified Martinez from a 3 person lineup, and a gang investigator identified him as a current gang banger. Must have seemed like a slam dunk.

  25. #25 by T N Z on September 14, 2011

    Wow. That is a meat headed thug.

  26. #27 by SDLocal on September 14, 2011

    John and Ken just announced the locations of the recall petition sites.

    They’ve also posted the locations on the KFI website.

  27. #28 by Joe Blow on September 14, 2011

    Why is this the mentality of so many of the pro-police posters? The guy was innocent of this crime regardless of prior convictions. Oh, I forgot. FPD was doing their best. Mistakes happen. Don’t worry. This will never happen again. Oh wait, it already did. Veth Mam. Who else is out there? Who wasn’t as lucky as these two?

  28. #29 by Anonymous on September 14, 2011

    Oh they will

  29. #30 by Joe Blow on September 14, 2011

    Who purportedly identified Martinez? Officer Siliceo. Not the victim. Siliceo can testify whatever he wants, but it seems like the judge didn’t believe the victim picked Martinez out of the line-up.

  30. #31 by TheFullertonWatcher on September 14, 2011

    I have a buddy that was arrested for a DUI and was giving a blood test at the station, upon testing his BAC read .01, the cops held and the DA pressed charges. His lawyer proved that .01 BAC can happen after taking mouthwash. The judge dismissed before giving it to the jury. No applogy no nothing except a $5000 lawyer bill! Nice job FPD!

  31. #32 by TheFullertonWatcher on September 14, 2011

    The DA had access to the evidence. They choose to ignore it hoping the public defender would suck!

  32. #33 by local business owner on September 14, 2011

    #23, we all know what happened to Gang Officer Mater. He was terminated a few weeks ago, for distruction of evidence related to the death of inmate in the Fullerton Police Jail..I am sure this will be another law suit against the city.

  33. #34 by Just a Citizen on September 14, 2011

    Sonny and his wife are divorced and she is busily moving as far away from him as possible. Both are sweating regarding their personal assets and she has even changed her last name back to her maiden name. I think with all the dirty laundry at the Fullerton PD, something may surface regarding this officer that could affect the both of them. With all the folks nosing around the records and activities of many officers, something is bound to surface. Best of luck Sonny !!

  34. #35 by nomad on September 14, 2011

    You want to get rid of the bad apples? Just keep shakin’ that tree! Got no problem with the public servants, who do thier job in a professional manner, the screw ups need go, though.

  35. #36 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 14, 2011

    Just to be clear, am I correct in concluding that you think the DA is somehow obligated to go sniffing around through FPD audio records looking for exculpatory evidence before trial? Seriously?

  36. #37 by Joe Sipowicz on September 14, 2011

    It’s hard to believe he could have made a mistake when the eye-witness pointed out some other guy – as in the guy with the red shirt.

    You would think that would stick in his mind in the intervening seconds between the ID and his cuffing the guy and throwing him into the Fullerton jail cell. Still, given the quality of police work in Fullerton I suppose it’s possible he unintentionally grabbed the Martinez. His record and possible gang affiliation just make it more likely that he was known as a gang guy and conveniently solved two FPD problems at the same time.

    I have no idea how the audio surfaced. My guess is the PD requested or subpoenaed it and it confirmed her client’s story. I am happily comfortable making the assertion that absent that audio the cops and DA would have persecuted the wrong man.

  37. #38 by Case Closed on September 14, 2011

    “the DA’s office isn’t really in the business of knowingly sending inocent folks to jail.”

    The DA is in the business of securing convictions – as you yourself have so eloquently acknowledged. Justice may be a happy by-product, of his endeavors, but is in no way a core goal of our DA. If the DA knew of the audio but the PD didn’t that guy would be behind bars right about now.

  38. #39 by nipsey on September 14, 2011

    We know who this kid is, he’s the one who didn’t commit the crime the FPD tried to railroad him for.

  39. #40 by Wrong Guy on September 14, 2011

    Typical “All in the Family” corrupt legal system.
    The DA refuses to look at the evidence and simply bite, suck and swallow whatever their dirty little slimeball piggies tell them.
    Same thing they did with Mr. Mam. Even though there was cell phone video evidence that would exhonerate Mam, the DA just wanted to make another conviction to justify their existence and look like they are doing their job arresting people. When T-Rax comes up for election again, he could boast about the number of arrests his dept. made. The problem is at least 20% of them were from trumped up charges from corrupt law enforcement agencies like the FPD. Herego, overcrowded jails. Thanks for ALL of your efforts DA (Dumb Ass).

  40. #41 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 14, 2011

    Right, Silecio apparently wrongly identified Martinez, but that’s not the issue. The essence of the post I was replying to was a question, ‘why is the DA taking so long investigating the Thomas murder invlolving cops as perps, as opposed to this case involving a gang banger where the DA didn’t take the time to look for the exculpatory audio tape?’

    Putting aside that its not the DA’s job to look for each and every possible piece exculpatory evidence, that the defense’s role, the Martinez case looked like a slam dunk with the evidence at hand, the Thomas case might look like a slam dunk to many here, but that’s just based on emotion not reality.

  41. #42 by Joe Sipowicz on September 14, 2011

    P.S. Mr. Mater is not a trustworthy individual.

  42. #43 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 14, 2011

    What? I think you meant ‘if the DA knew of the audio but the DEFENSE didn’t that guy would be behind bars.’ This may be your opinion but it appears to be grounded in cynicism only. Show me a case where the DA hid exculpatory evidence from the court and I’ll show you grounds for disbarment.

  43. #44 by ➩➡➩➡➩➡➩➡ on September 14, 2011

    If you have questions or complaints about government, your first step should be to contact the agency or officials most directly involved. Here is a general guide to help you direct your inquiries and complaints to the appropriate place.

    CHECK THE LINK- It Has some good info for those that dont know.
    http://ag.ca.gov/consumers/general/government.php#enforce

  44. #45 by Anonymous on September 14, 2011

    Contrary to popular belief here, the DA’s office isn’t really in the business of knowingly sending inocent folks to jail.

    Susan “EyeNeverSayNo” Kang you are so full of gas.

  45. #46 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 14, 2011

    Oh I get it, PD is supposed to be ‘public defender’ not ‘police department.’

    Hmm, seems like I’m dealing with another sock puppet, Joe Spicowicz used the same confusing abbreviation below. Bummer.

  46. #47 by Joe Sipowicz on September 14, 2011

    That guy does yard work for me since I only have one arm. He’s a hard working kid and takes care of his grandmother who’s sick. He wants to finish high school so he can become a police officer and help people.

    Yes, I just made that up. All of it. Can I have Goodrich’s job now?

  47. #48 by Anonymous on September 14, 2011

    GOOD GOD THAT IS ONE MESSED UP DEPARTMENT!

  48. #49 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 14, 2011

    Admin has my real name and email address. I contacted FFF this morning when they started ‘moderating’ my comments. Seems like an odd thing to do for a site advocating transparency and free speech. Honk Honk :)

    Oh and I have not gotten a reply.

  49. #50 by Anonymous on September 14, 2011

  50. #51 by LeRoy Murray on September 14, 2011

    Mr Martinez should contact Garo Mardirossian immediately and join in suing Fullerton, and the FPD and the individual cops, for false arrest and anything else that Attorney Mardirossian considers relevant. The cops should be prosecuted for perjury, but hey, it was just a “mistake,” right? Just like murdering Kelly Thomas was “just a mistake,” right? They sure make a lot of mistakes…

  51. #52 by LeRoy Murray on September 14, 2011

    unfortunately you get what you pay for. Of course FPD is the exception that proves the rule. I want to add though that there are honest people in both depts, trying to do a good and honest job. But, there’s always a but, where they fall down is by supporting the bad guys, their superiors, and the unions by keeping silent, which makes every one an accessory after the fact of whatever crime is commited.

  52. #53 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    Meriblow :
    Hey joe if you think Martinez wouldn’t hurt a fly, who dont you take him into your house? Let’s see what happens! You have no idea who this kid is! You keep spouting off nonsense! I hope you know that 99% of people think this blog is a joke just like you, admin and chris! Everyone knows what your true agenda is and these stupid story just go to prove it!!! Keep up the good work idiot!!!

    Their unlawful arrest should be FELONY KIDNAPPING

    KIDNAPPING.. YES..

    You go to jail for 5 months and see how it feels.. creep

  53. #54 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    EyeNeverSayNo :
    From the OCR:
    “(Martinez) could not be reached for comment Thursday, but (Defense Attorney) Crawford said he was happy to be a free man. “He was ecstatic,” Crawford said. “I’m very pleased the right outcome happened, and impressed with the (district attorney’s office) for dropping the charges.”

    YEs.. once again.. because dictatorships need to be cocksucked and coddled is why she said “impressed”

    You do not really think we are as dumb as you wish we were?

    Impressed??????? That was VERY CLASSY

    Lock up the DA’s CHILDREN FOR FIVE MONTHS ILLEGALLY

    OR YOURS ESPECIALLY.. see if you say “IMPRESSED”

    I would say.. he needs to lookout for my car bumper in the dark of the night

  54. #55 by nomad on September 14, 2011

    MeYou :

    EyeNeverSayNo :From the OCR:“(Martinez) could not be reached for comment Thursday, but (Defense Attorney) Crawford said he was happy to be a free man. “He was ecstatic,” Crawford said. “I’m very pleased the right outcome happened, and impressed with the (district attorney’s office) for dropping the charges.”

    YEs.. once again.. because dictatorships need to be cocksucked and coddled is why she said “impressed”
    You do not really think we are as dumb as you wish we were?
    Impressed??????? That was VERY CLASSY
    Lock up the DA’s CHILDREN FOR FIVE MONTHS ILLEGALLY
    OR YOURS ESPECIALLY.. see if you say “IMPRESSED”
    I would say.. he needs to lookout for my car bumper in the dark of the night

    MEYOU you put into words what I was thinking, it’s a good thing you said it first, I might have said something crude! LOL

  55. #56 by YVETTE CABRERA on September 14, 2011

  56. #57 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    nomad :

    MeYou :

    EyeNeverSayNo :From the OCR:“(Martinez) could not be reached for comment Thursday, but (Defense Attorney) Crawford said he was happy to be a free man. “He was ecstatic,” Crawford said. “I’m very pleased the right outcome happened, and impressed with the (district attorney’s office) for dropping the charges.”

    YEs.. once again.. because dictatorships need to be cocksucked and coddled is why she said “impressed”
    You do not really think we are as dumb as you wish we were?
    Impressed??????? That was VERY CLASSY
    Lock up the DA’s CHILDREN FOR FIVE MONTHS ILLEGALLY
    OR YOURS ESPECIALLY.. see if you say “IMPRESSED”
    I would say.. he needs to lookout for my car bumper in the dark of the night

    MEYOU you put into words what I was thinking, it’s a good thing you said it first, I might have said something crude! LOL

    I worry about what I say (anger sometimes gets the best of me).. and try not to be too rude.. I just cannot believe how the cop supporters do not understand or comprehend

    Empathy-Compassion etc
    “Put your self in the other persons shoes”

  57. #58 by Joe Blow on September 14, 2011

    EyeNeverSayNo, did you forget you posted this?:

    “The victim then purportedly identified Martinez from a 3 person lineup, and a gang investigator identified him as a current gang banger.”

    You’re very knowledgeable, but you somehow manage to dance around putting blame on FPD any chance you get.

  58. #59 by We Are All One on September 14, 2011

  59. #60 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    local business owner :
    #23, we all know what happened to Gang Officer Mater. He was terminated a few weeks ago, for distruction of evidence related to the death of inmate in the Fullerton Police Jail..I am sure this will be another law suit against the city.

    upon looking for some info about Mater.. I found this
    LA Gang Officers Quit Over Financial Rules
    LOS ANGELES (AP) — Dozens of Los Angeles gang officers across the city are quitting their assignments over a requirement to reveal details of their personal finances under strict anti-corruption rules.

    Assistant Chief Earl Paysinger said Monday that gang units in some of the city’s most violent neighborhoods are being left with multiple vacancies, with officers instead working regular patrol shifts.

    One of the affected areas is the city’s northeast division, which includes territory controlled by the notorious Avenues gang around Highland Park.

    Most of the division’s anti-gang unit has chosen to leave and return to patrol, resulting in an unspecified number of vacancies.

    Paysinger and other police officials stressed the reassignments would not effect public safety.
    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/01/10/la-gang-officers-quit-over-financial-rules/

  60. #61 by Meriblow on September 14, 2011

    Joe you couldn’t hold goodrich’s jock strap !

  61. #62 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    “Most of the division’s anti-gang unit has chosen to leave and return to patrol”

    Excuse me.. ? No Comprende…

    I would say they all need to be investigated if they want to even remain in any active duty as a police officer.. you don’t just get to “leave a department to avoid prosecution” and keep your job..

    The Administration knows “why” they left.. so.. politely let them know it does not work that way.. You will be investigated anyhow…

  62. #63 by Joe Sipowicz on September 14, 2011

    The PD has to work with the DA all the time. Hence the BS “impressed” routine. Defense Atty. David Borsari did the same thing after the Mam dismissal when he felt compelled to congratulate the Deputy DA for her alleged professionalism.

    Gag.

  63. #64 by Joe Sipowicz on September 14, 2011

    I could carry fatso’s jock strap with fatso in it. And I only have one arm.

  64. #65 by Go Green on September 14, 2011

    Goodrich doesn’t need a jock strap. You should know, Mrs. Jockstrap, er, I mean Mrs. Goodrich.

  65. #66 by merijoe on September 14, 2011

    I could play this all night http://youtu.be/mhT07wVyfPw

  66. #67 by 9c1copcar on September 14, 2011

    The thing that angers me is if an officer commits a crime, most of the time they will only have to resign, and the charges will be dropped. I think they should also be prosecuted like the rest of us.

  67. #68 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    My Friends,

    :) I just have to share this man
    http://pvom.org/

    Thich Nhat Hahn

    Thank whatever . .. that he was never assassinated like
    Jesus
    MLK
    Gandhi

    Peace/Love is the only thing that will further our EVOLUTION

    MonkeyMind and Violence are what we are supposed to rid of

    Disease is actually “Dis-ease” .. Dis-ease of the mind is what creates the illnesses in our dna

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYCamVx4fSQ
    Louise Hay: You Can Heal Your Life: The Movie

  68. #69 by 9c1copcar on September 14, 2011

    If this story is indeed true, then Officer Siliceo purjured himself already regarding the identitiy of Martinez. Martinez can sue the dept, and the officer.

  69. #70 by still love fullerton on September 14, 2011

    look at this.. geesh
    already arrested and charged with felony mayhem, for biting off an eyebrow..ewww

    http://www.ocregister.com/news/luong-317033-eyebrow-park.html

    yet the fpd6 are on the loose..
    did someone say they still have their badges and weapons too???

  70. #71 by van get it da artiste on September 14, 2011

    in an earlier post, a blogger accused me of babbling about a pattern of fullerton police officer abuse because I did not back up my claim with specific incidents. I assumed that people who kept up with FFFF posts on the kelly thomas beating death by FPD and the other incidents of gross FPD misconduct, may infer from the past incidents a pattern of abuse by FPD. My point is : how many more incidents need to be revealed before the defenders and apologists for FPD see the pattern of police abuse and gross misconduct?

  71. #72 by van get it da artiste on September 14, 2011

    deduct comma between misconduct and may

  72. #73 by still love fullerton on September 14, 2011

    i agree.. they seem to not keep up with the news, or do any research on their own..

    must be nice to live in la’ la’ land huh?

    and exactly how bad does it have to be? before they actually get upset??

  73. #74 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    still love fullerton :
    look at this.. geesh
    already arrested and charged with felony mayhem, for biting off an eyebrow..ewww
    http://www.ocregister.com/news/luong-317033-eyebrow-park.html
    yet the fpd6 are on the loose..
    did someone say they still have their badges and weapons too???

    AND CASHHH!!!!!!!!!!

    BIG HUGE CASHHH

    for being giant fat dolts like their Union Officer/President

    Citizens need to take back the police departments and ENFORCE SOME STANDARDS

    they have Inferiority Complex because they eat too many donuts and get fat.. then they take it out on helpless homeless peoples etc

  74. #75 by 9c1copcar on September 14, 2011

    VAN GET IT,

    These people will continue to believe the way they do until they, or one of their family members gets jacked up and arrested. A few members from my own dept. still terrorize the area around where my kids live, and it is a good neighborhood. I am ever so vigilant regarding these hoodlums, and if they ever were to do my kids wrong, stand-by. I would be down at the station soon afterwards.
    So, these people who speak as if everything is hunky-dory, have never been on the other end of a maniac with a baton, taser, or firearm.

  75. #76 by Joe Blow on September 14, 2011

    Its not that much cash. Only $20,000 per week. Or should I say, almost more than 6 millions Californians make per year. 80k per month being paid to these officers to sit at home. While 16.3% of the CA population is living below the poverty line. Poverty line = $22,113 for a family of 4. How the hell could a family possibly survive on that? Insane.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-poverty-california-20110914,0,2221453.story

  76. #77 by Fullerton Gay Boy on September 14, 2011

    Fullerton cops are killers. They will prey on the weak and innocent whenever they can. God, I am scared to death whenever I see one of these animals cruising around town, looking for their next victim. They have no souls.

  77. #78 by Ana on September 14, 2011

    They’ re predators looking for their next prey. It’s all about who they think they can get away with.

    As long as people look the other way, they will continue terrorizing people.

  78. #79 by fullerton lover on September 14, 2011

    I’m curious as to why you think this story is “stupid” and “nonsensical” when it’s about an ordinary citizen wrongly accused of a crime and put in jail for five long months? This must have been glaringly obvious to everyone but the FPD that this person was wrongly accused, if an over worked public defender was able to discern that there was absolutely no eveidence of wrongdoing and she smelled caca a mile away? How does all of these equate to the blog being a “joke” when they expose these inept and incompetent ppunks that don’t have the moral turpititude to admit that they made a mistake, and do the decent thing and apologize to this man for their wrongdoing?
    It’s post like yours that make me realize that this blog is continually doing the right thing by exposing these lies, and that we MUST recall these three stooges as soon as humanly possible.

  79. #80 by TIGERMANLSU on September 14, 2011

    SOULS are people that fear god and strive to be good,The FPD fear only that thay will be found out and the trueth will put them in the pen.

  80. #81 by Just a Citizen on September 14, 2011

    Pass this on to Sonny and watch him squirm……..

    Sonny and his wife are divorced and she is busily moving as far away from him as possible. Both are sweating regarding their personal assets and she has even changed her last name back to her maiden name. I think with all the dirty laundry at the Fullerton PD, something may surface regarding this officer that could affect the both of them. With all the folks nosing around the records and activities of many officers, something is bound to surface. Best of luck Sonny !!

  81. #82 by fullerton lover on September 14, 2011

    I’m sure that Sonny’s personal demons are overwheming him and starting to permeate his wife and children and that their all frightened of what their father has become. Lose/Lose situation when you don’t have the fortitude to do the right thing.

  82. #83 by Disgusted on September 14, 2011

    Sounds like a threat, Douchebag!

  83. #84 by dudley d a on September 14, 2011

    EyeNeverSayNo :Contrary to popular belief here, the DA’s office isn’t really in the business of knowingly sending inocent folks to jail.

    Umm, I wouldn’t go quite that far. It all depends which DDA is working the case. I’ve seen some pretty egregious shit go down in a few OC courtrooms.

  84. #85 by dudley d a on September 14, 2011

    MeYou :“Most of the division’s anti-gang unit has chosen to leave and return to patrol”
    Excuse me.. ? No Comprende…
    I would say they all need to be investigated if they want to even remain in any active duty as a police officer.. you don’t just get to “leave a department to avoid prosecution” and keep your job..
    The Administration knows “why” they left.. so.. politely let them know it does not work that way.. You will be investigated anyhow…

    WTF are you talking about?

    Do you know the background of the financial document disclosure requirements at LAPD or are you just talking outta your ass?

    The gang officers at LAPD are not being investigated for any kind of wrongdoing and they did nothing wrong.

  85. #86 by dudley d a on September 14, 2011

    9c1copcar :The thing that angers me is if an officer commits a crime, most of the time they will only have to resign, and the charges will be dropped. I think they should also be prosecuted like the rest of us.

    Please give us an example.

  86. #87 by Steve Brow on September 14, 2011

    EyeNeverSayNo :Right, Silecio apparently wrongly identified Martinez, but that’s not the issue. The essence of the post I was replying to was a question, ‘why is the DA taking so long investigating the Thomas murder invlolving cops as perps, as opposed to this case involving a gang banger where the DA didn’t take the time to look for the exculpatory audio tape?’
    Putting aside that its not the DA’s job to look for each and every possible piece exculpatory evidence, that the defense’s role, the Martinez case looked like a slam dunk with the evidence at hand, the Thomas case might look like a slam dunk to many here, but that’s just based on emotion not reality.

    No, eye, you are dead wrong. The prosecutors always point out that they do not have to prosecute, they only have to prosecute when they have reviewed all of the evidence in the case and believe that the case can be proven beyond a reasonalble doubt.

    Are you telling us that the DA has been lying to us for all of these decades?

  87. #88 by fedupwithmorons on September 14, 2011

    Pitchess motionFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
    A Pitchess motion is a request made by the defense in a California criminal case, such as a DUI case or a resisting arrest case, to access a law enforcement officer’s personnel information when the defendant alleges in an affidavit that the officer used excessive force or lied about the events surrounding the defendant’s arrest. The information included can include prior incidents of use of force, allegations of excessive force, citizen complaints, and information gathered during the officer’s pre-employment background investigation. The motion’s name comes from the case Pitchess v. Superior Court 11 Cal.3d 531 (1974).

    A defendant’s right to information about alleged officer misconduct or dishonesty has since been established by statute in California in sections 1043 through 1047 of the California Evidence Code.[1][2]

  88. #89 by fedupwithmorons on September 14, 2011

    THE GANG OFFICERS AT LAPD ARE REQUIRED TO TURN OVER THEIR FINANCIAL RECORDS BECAUSE OF THE RAMPART SCANDAL. THERE IS A REPORT ON LINE REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION AND THE OUTCOMES OF IT.

  89. #90 by fedupwithmorons on September 14, 2011

    C.R.A.S.H. WAS DISBANDED FOR A REASON, OFFICER CORRUPTION!

  90. #91 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    Steve Brow :

    EyeNeverSayNo :Right, Silecio apparently wrongly identified Martinez, but that’s not the issue. The essence of the post I was replying to was a question, ‘why is the DA taking so long investigating the Thomas murder invlolving cops as perps, as opposed to this case involving a gang banger where the DA didn’t take the time to look for the exculpatory audio tape?’
    Putting aside that its not the DA’s job to look for each and every possible piece exculpatory evidence, that the defense’s role, the Martinez case looked like a slam dunk with the evidence at hand, the Thomas case might look like a slam dunk to many here, but that’s just based on emotion not reality.

    No, eye, you are dead wrong. The prosecutors always point out that they do not have to prosecute, they only have to prosecute when they have reviewed all of the evidence in the case and believe that the case can be proven beyond a reasonalble doubt.
    Are you telling us that the DA has been lying to us for all of these decades?

    the DA is hearing impaired and did not review the lineup audio /wink

  91. #92 by dudley d a on September 14, 2011

    fedupwithmorons :THE GANG OFFICERS AT LAPD ARE REQUIRED TO TURN OVER THEIR FINANCIAL RECORDS BECAUSE OF THE RAMPART SCANDAL. THERE IS A REPORT ON LINE REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION AND THE OUTCOMES OF IT.

    THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION, MORON!

    TURN OFF YOUR CAPS, MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  92. #93 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    dudley d a :

    MeYou :“Most of the division’s anti-gang unit has chosen to leave and return to patrol”
    Excuse me.. ? No Comprende…
    I would say they all need to be investigated if they want to even remain in any active duty as a police officer.. you don’t just get to “leave a department to avoid prosecution” and keep your job..
    The Administration knows “why” they left.. so.. politely let them know it does not work that way.. You will be investigated anyhow…

    WTF are you talking about?
    Do you know the background of the financial document disclosure requirements at LAPD or are you just talking outta your ass?
    The gang officers at LAPD are not being investigated for any kind of wrongdoing and they did nothing wrong.

    Sigh.. did your parents go to bed and let you on the computer…

    Why do I have to share the same oxygen with idiots like you.. why..

    YOU FUCK… READ.. or is that impossible with your 7th grade education.. jackass

    I quoted the article you hillbilly pos

    WHEN TOLD their bank accounts would be investigated if they remained gang cops.. they took the option to RUN ..

    AND

    NOT LET THEIR bank accounts be investigated

    BUT WTF WHAT THE HOLY FUCK

    They leave one department TO AVOID INVESTIGATION.. YET.. KEEP THEIR JOBS

    Tell me if you stole something while employed in Human Resources and they told you.. we are going to investigate all people in Human Resources for X.. Then you run and hide in a different department.. DOES THAT MAKE THE CRIME COMMITTED GO AWAY?

    And.. at the same time.. go to the mirror and ask verbatim “Why am I so fucking stupid?”

  93. #94 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    dudley d a :

    fedupwithmorons :THE GANG OFFICERS AT LAPD ARE REQUIRED TO TURN OVER THEIR FINANCIAL RECORDS BECAUSE OF THE RAMPART SCANDAL. THERE IS A REPORT ON LINE REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION AND THE OUTCOMES OF IT.

    THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION, MORON!
    TURN OFF YOUR CAPS, MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I would call you a Moron but it would be an insult to Morons.

    You are lower than whale sperm..

  94. #95 by dudley d a on September 14, 2011

    fedupwithmorons :C.R.A.S.H. WAS DISBANDED FOR A REASON, OFFICER CORRUPTION!

    The gang units remained. The unit designator “CRASH” was terminated.

    TURN OFF YOUR CAPS, MORON!

  95. #96 by dudley d a on September 14, 2011

    MeYou :

    dudley d a :

    MeYou :“Most of the division’s anti-gang unit has chosen to leave and return to patrol”Excuse me.. ? No Comprende…I would say they all need to be investigated if they want to even remain in any active duty as a police officer.. you don’t just get to “leave a department to avoid prosecution” and keep your job..The Administration knows “why” they left.. so.. politely let them know it does not work that way.. You will be investigated anyhow…

    WTF are you talking about?Do you know the background of the financial document disclosure requirements at LAPD or are you just talking outta your ass?The gang officers at LAPD are not being investigated for any kind of wrongdoing and they did nothing wrong.

    Sigh.. did your parents go to bed and let you on the computer…
    Why do I have to share the same oxygen with idiots like you.. why..
    YOU FUCK… READ.. or is that impossible with your 7th grade education.. jackass
    I quoted the article you hillbilly pos
    WHEN TOLD their bank accounts would be investigated if they remained gang cops.. they took the option to RUN ..
    AND
    NOT LET THEIR bank accounts be investigated
    BUT WTF WHAT THE HOLY FUCK
    They leave one department TO AVOID INVESTIGATION.. YET.. KEEP THEIR JOBS
    Tell me if you stole something while employed in Human Resources and they told you.. we are going to investigate all people in Human Resources for X.. Then you run and hide in a different department.. DOES THAT MAKE THE CRIME COMMITTED GO AWAY?
    And.. at the same time.. go to the mirror and ask verbatim “Why am I so fucking stupid?”

    They didn’t “run and hide” from anything, dipshit.

    You’re the idiot.

    “Hillbilly pos”? That’s fucking laughable.

  96. #97 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    dudley d a :

    MeYou :

    dudley d a :

    MeYou :“Most of the division’s anti-gang unit has chosen to leave and return to patrol”Excuse me.. ? No Comprende…I would say they all need to be investigated if they want to even remain in any active duty as a police officer.. you don’t just get to “leave a department to avoid prosecution” and keep your job..The Administration knows “why” they left.. so.. politely let them know it does not work that way.. You will be investigated anyhow…

    WTF are you talking about?Do you know the background of the financial document disclosure requirements at LAPD or are you just talking outta your ass?The gang officers at LAPD are not being investigated for any kind of wrongdoing and they did nothing wrong.

    Sigh.. did your parents go to bed and let you on the computer…
    Why do I have to share the same oxygen with idiots like you.. why..
    YOU FUCK… READ.. or is that impossible with your 7th grade education.. jackass
    I quoted the article you hillbilly pos
    WHEN TOLD their bank accounts would be investigated if they remained gang cops.. they took the option to RUN ..
    AND
    NOT LET THEIR bank accounts be investigated
    BUT WTF WHAT THE HOLY FUCK
    They leave one department TO AVOID INVESTIGATION.. YET.. KEEP THEIR JOBS
    Tell me if you stole something while employed in Human Resources and they told you.. we are going to investigate all people in Human Resources for X.. Then you run and hide in a different department.. DOES THAT MAKE THE CRIME COMMITTED GO AWAY?
    And.. at the same time.. go to the mirror and ask verbatim “Why am I so fucking stupid?”

    They didn’t “run and hide” from anything, dipshit.
    You’re the idiot.
    “Hillbilly pos”? That’s fucking laughable.

    THEY LEFT POST like cowards/thieves when told they would be investigated

    Why .. are you so dumb

  97. #98 by dudley d a on September 14, 2011

    Oh yes, and you’re sooooo smart.

    Keep your conspiracy theories alive, loser.

  98. #99 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    dudley d a :
    Oh yes, and you’re sooooo smart.
    Keep your conspiracy theories alive, loser.

    Conspiracy? did you read the article or do you defend cops no matter their guilt?

  99. #100 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    DOZENS
    DOZENS DOZENS DOZENS DOZENS DOZENS DOZENS DOZENS

    Dozens would be more than 24? ran away from their positions when told their bank accounts would be investigated

    I guess you want us all to believe the timing was just COINCIDENCE… props idiot.. you live in an alternate reality

  100. #101 by dudley d a on September 14, 2011

    Yep, because I believe every news article that I read.

    Do you REALLY believe they went back to patrol because they’re thieves? If you do, you truly are a good little sheepie.

  101. #102 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    IF they stayed at their posts.. they would be investigated

    If they did NOT STAY.. their bank accounts would NOT be investigated

    Hmmm..

    DOZENS LEFT.. gee.. I wonder why

  102. #103 by dudley d a on September 14, 2011

    You’ll never understand.

    Enjoy your little sheepie world. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa………….

  103. #104 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    dudley d a :
    Yep, because I believe every news article that I read.
    Do you REALLY believe they went back to patrol because they’re thieves? If you do, you truly are a good little sheepie.

    Excuse me.. so the newspaper is anti-cop now..

    The article sure looked to me to say

    1. Gang Officers told their bank accounts will be investigated if they remain Gang Officers
    2. DOZENS of Gang Officers immediately leave their positions as Gang Officers when they are told of this new bank account policy and go back to patrol

    Please tell me how your beautiful mind read the article

  104. #105 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    dudley d a :
    You’ll never understand.
    Enjoy your little sheepie world. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa………….

    tell us how you read it Einstein.. tell us.. OH. thats right.. you DIDNT read it..

    Just defend the cops for anything eh..

    Kelly Thomas.. Fine Mr Thomas for the cleanup of the blood in the street and send him the doctors bill?

  105. #106 by dudley d a on September 14, 2011

    Plain & simple, it’s widely known they all left their positions as a big FUCK YOU to the consent decree.

    And now I’ll ask you, ARE YOU THAT FUCKING STUPID?

  106. #107 by dudley d a on September 14, 2011

    Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa………

  107. #108 by dudley d a on September 14, 2011

    Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa………..

  108. #109 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    dudley d a :
    Plain & simple, it’s widely known they all left their positions as a big FUCK YOU to the consent decree.
    And now I’ll ask you, ARE YOU THAT FUCKING STUPID?

    Widely known they are too cowardly and dishonest to submit to Police Policy?

    Wonderful.. then why are they cops and why are you defending them.

    btw.. you can call me anything in the world and it will not bother me..

    Covering up for cops again eh.. must feel good to think you aren’t a citizen of the city that pays you

  109. #110 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    dudley d a :
    Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa………

    I think we caught the idiot that sent the threatening email to fff

    http://www.whatismyip.com/
    http://www.whatismyip.com/tools/ip-address-lookup.asp

  110. #111 by dudley d a on September 14, 2011

    “must feel good to think you aren’t a citizen of the city that pays you”
    ———————–
    What?

    Are you trying to imply that I’m a cop? Well, I have bad news for you. I’m not a cop.

    I was supporting the Thomas cause, but my interest is waning because of misinformed imbiciles like you.

  111. #112 by dudley d a on September 14, 2011

    Wrong.

    I don’t think it’s wise to accuse people of crimes they didn’t commit.

  112. #113 by MeYou on September 14, 2011

    dudley d a :
    “must feel good to think you aren’t a citizen of the city that pays you”
    ———————–
    What?
    Are you trying to imply that I’m a cop? Well, I have bad news for you. I’m not a cop.
    I was supporting the Thomas cause, but my interest is waning because of misinformed imbiciles like you.

    Then your support was fake to begin with and you were just some loner follower..

    I do not represent police brutality.. do I?

    Do I represent murdering cops and now you are endeared to me?

    What is it

    You defend their cowardice to follow their own policies and now try to claim you aren’t against police brutality and murder because you think I am against cops?

    Have a nice life and really.. don’t respond to me anymore because you just do not bring anything worth value whatsoever..

    the cops now get to tell the public “a big FUCK YOU to the consent decree.”??

    bye bye

  113. #114 by dudley d a on September 14, 2011

    You really need to cut down on the –type in selected vice–….

    Again, another reason there are some who are losing their interest.

  114. #115 by john doe on September 14, 2011

    Citizen’s of Fullerton will never let this happen…You don’t know what you are asking for. You think FPD is bad..get ready.

  115. #116 by fedupwithmorons on September 15, 2011

    FUCK YOU DUDLEY DO THE WRONG THING! WHAT A FUCKING FREAK!

  116. #117 by fedupwithmorons on September 15, 2011

  117. #118 by fedupwithmorons on September 15, 2011

    MEYOU DUDLEY IF A FUCKING JACKASS WHO IS SO DEYHDRATE FROM HIS VOMITTING AND DIARRHEA, IT IS ALL HE CAN DO IS TO CALL NAMES! WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT UNIT DESIGNATORS? CRASH WAS DISBANDED! SO, FUCK YOU ASSHOLE DUDLEYWASTEOFDNA!

  118. #119 by fedupwithmorons on September 15, 2011

    LAPD gang units dismantled in some high-crime areas
    Officers who refuse to disclose financial status are assigned to patrol. Department downplays concerns but critics say it’s risky.
    February 02, 2011|By Joel Rubin and Scott Gold, Los Angeles TimesThe Los Angeles Police Department has temporarily dismantled anti-gang units in several of its most crime-plagued neighborhoods because officers in those squads refused to comply with a controversial financial disclosure rule that they view as misguided and invasive.

    Police officials have sent the defiant officers back to regular patrol duties and expect that it will take several months to rebuild the gang units with others willing to abide by the policy, which requires officers to periodically submit information regarding their assets and debts. Until then, patrol officers have been saddled with trying to keep up with gang-suppression efforts, a move some gang unit supervisors and community advocates fear could lead to an erosion of expertise and hard-fought gains in reducing gang violence and crime.

  119. #120 by fedupwithmorons on September 15, 2011

    Sid Garcia
    More: Bio, E-mail, Recent Stories, News Team LOS ANGELES (KABC) — Dozens of members of the Los Angeles Police Department’s anti-gang unit are opting out and are returning to regular patrols over a requirement to reveal personal financial information.

    In an effort to prevent corruption within the department’s narcotics and gang units, officers are asked to fill out a financial disclosure form. But some officers are opting not to fill out the form over concerns that information may become public during court proceeding.

    This stems from the Rampart Division Gang Units’ corruption scandal that rocked the LAPD in the late 1990s.

    LAPD Police Chief Charlie Beck said about four or five of the gang unit officers are filling out the forms and remaining with the detail.

    Some residents in troubled neighborhoods said they hope the gang units remain intact and not shrink in their numbers.

    In a written statement, the police officers’ union, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, said they are very unhappy that the city’s poorly thought out decision to implement the financial disclosure mandate might very well result in Los Angeles residents being deprived of having committed and experienced officers in gang units.

    The deadline to submit financial disclosure forms for current gang unit officers is the end of March. Early notifications give the department time to train officers to fill in the vacancies.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    (Copyright ©2011 KABC-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)

  120. #121 by fedupwithmorons on September 15, 2011

    LAPD gang units dismantled in some high-crime areas
    Officers who refuse to disclose financial status are assigned to patrol. Department downplays concerns but critics say it’s risky.
    February 02, 2011|By Joel Rubin and Scott Gold, Los Angeles TimesThe Los Angeles Police Department has temporarily dismantled anti-gang units in several of its most crime-plagued neighborhoods because officers in those squads refused to comply with a controversial financial disclosure rule that they view as misguided and invasive.

    Police officials have sent the defiant officers back to regular patrol duties and expect that it will take several months to rebuild the gang units with others willing to abide by the policy, which requires officers to periodically submit information regarding their assets and debts. Until then, patrol officers have been saddled with trying to keep up with gang-suppression efforts, a move some gang unit supervisors and community advocates fear could lead to an erosion of expertise and hard-fought gains in reducing gang violence and crime.

    Ads by Google
    Download Google Chrome
    A free browser that lets you do more of what you like on the web http://www.google.com/chromeIsland Hotel
    AAA 5 Diamond Luxury Hotel w/ Full Amenities. Reserve from $199/Night! islandhotel.com”There is definitely a concern that we might start to lose some of the ground we’ve gained,” said Sgt. Randy Goens, a veteran gang supervisor in South Los Angeles who reluctantly plans to complete the disclosure form.

    “They have an essential role,” the Rev. Ben “Taco” Owens, a former gang member who is now a prominent gang interventionist, said of the gang officers. “They are familiar with the gangs. They are familiar with the community…. They won’t be around. It’s detrimental.”

    The disclosure policy is intended to help identify and deter corruption among the estimated 600 gang and narcotic officers who frequently handle cash, drugs and other contraband. Adopted nearly two years ago, the plan gave officers who were already assigned to the units until the end of March to abide by the new rules or be moved back to regular patrol assignments.

    Few narcotics officers objected, but discontent among gang officers has persisted. In recent months, field commanders have grown increasingly worried that the March deadline would not leave them enough time to recruit and train new officers before the onset of summer, when gang crime traditionally spikes. Department officials required officers to declare their intentions in December and gave commanders permission to take action before the end of March.

    About three-quarters of the officers agreed to the disclosures, according to LAPD estimates. There were, however, significant holdouts: All but one of the roughly 80 gang officers in the department’s Southeast, 77th, Northeast and Hollenbeck divisions — areas that are home to some of the city’s most violent and active gangs — refused, LAPD officials confirmed. Likewise, all members of the smaller gang teams in Van Nuys and Devonshire said they would not adhere to the policy.

    “The bottom line is it isn’t going to be effective and it’s insulting. If we were dirty, we wouldn’t be putting cash into a bank account,” said a veteran gang officer who, like others, asked that his name not be used because of concern that he would be disciplined. “It’s a matter of principle.”

    In response, the LAPD captains in charge of those six divisions disbanded the gang units and have begun rebuilding them. Instead of keeping some or all of the veteran gang officers in the units until the end of March to help train new officers, field commanders said they decided it would be better to move them out at once and as early as possible. That decision was made in part to avoid possible tensions between the outgoing and incoming officers.

    Other LAPD divisions have lost some portion of their gang officers but managed to keep the units operational.

    Police Chief Charlie Beck and other LAPD officials downplayed the possibility that the decision to dismantle the units could lead to a rise in gang activity. With most of the former gang officers now on patrol assignments in the same neighborhoods in which they previously worked, Beck and the others said, there would be sufficient police presence to prevent a crime surge.

    Ads by Google
    Official Obama Website
    This election is about our future. Help change the world again. http://www.BarackObama.comAre You Writing a Book?
    Get a free guide to professional editing & publishing options. http://www.iUniverse.com
    “The sky is definitively not falling right now,” said Southeast Division Capt. Phil Tingirides. “This will work temporarily.”

    Several senior LAPD officials acknowledged, however, that the decision to disband the gang units inevitably will mean a less intense focus on gang activity and expressed concern that the longer-term risks are significant. With each week that passes, they said, the department will lose ground in the effort to stay on top of the shadowy and always-shifting machinations of the city’s gangs.

    “It’s the intelligence gathering, the intimate knowledge of who these gang members are and where they’re located, the upkeep with the informants and the constant stream of information on what the gangs are up to that I’m worried about losing,” said Capt. Dennis Kato, commanding officer of the 77th Area, where more than 15 major gangs are active. “We’re going to be a little slower in catching up to these guys.”

    Vic Corella, a recently retired detective who spent years battling gangs in South Los Angeles, noted that although the LAPD keeps tabs on gangs, the gangs are keeping tabs on the LAPD and may exploit the situation.

  121. #122 by fedupwithmorons on September 15, 2011

    THINKING OF ONE CASE INVOLVING TWO LASD DEPUTIES, ONE INVOLVED IN FILING A FALSE POLICE REPORT IN SEVERAL ARRESTS SHE MADE, FORCED TO RESIGN IN LIEU OF TERMINATION, WE WORKED ON THAT CASE, AND KNOW IT INTIMATELY!

  122. #123 by CHIKEN on September 15, 2011

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN4kX2eizjk&feature=related

    Somthing to think about .

    really ,, hard to stomach , but a concept worth examining.

    and i would say , this culture is the cause , the cops are a symptom , and kelly thomas is an example.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN4kX2eizjk&feature=related

  123. #124 by CHIKEN on September 15, 2011

    not meaning really hard to stomach

    but meaning really, something to think about, and hard to stomach, but a concept really worth thinking about

  124. #125 by CHIKEN on September 15, 2011

    and i deffinitly think that what WE ARE doing , HERE and THERE and EVERYWHERE is AWSOME AND IS HELPING , and will continue on into the future, and although , whoever this guy is , makes some pointed points that are true, it is the straw thaT breaks the camels back , it is, one spark to start a fire, it is a killing , or suicide to start a movement, to have a revolution in the minds of the people, and then a creation of a future with the people being ACTIVE in the creation of the future. IF NOT A STRAIGHT UP DESTRUCTION OF THE ILLEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP OF A CORRUPT ORGANIZATION , OR COUNTRY , OR WAY OF LIFE.

    BECAUSE this really is bigger than Kelly Thomas, THIS is about , what is wrong with EVERYTHING ,

  125. #126 by CHIKEN on September 15, 2011

  126. #127 by CHIKEN on September 15, 2011

    ps

    fuck the government !!!

  127. #128 by TIGERMANLSU on September 15, 2011

    GOOD DAY-To the good people of fullerton and FFFF GOD is letting the light shine,on EVIL PEOPLE I thank him for the trueth and his light.I know the FBI/DOJ/ Are going to step up and in the face of the so -called,DA and take back yall city.Thank you the LORD OF HOST,S and KING of KING,S amen and amen.

  128. #129 by Get Real on September 15, 2011

    OMG. Cant beleive PD would do this. That is horrible.

  129. #130 by Anonymous on September 15, 2011

    what goes around comes around?

  130. #131 by Anonymous on September 15, 2011

    obviously there is SERIOUS reason to not trust them if they feel the need to implement such a rule (financial document disclosure).

  131. #132 by trythem4murder on September 15, 2011

    T-Rack will never prosecute these “Fullerton 6,” he is like Steve Cooley. LA had 2 cases in the last two years very similar but they didn’t get the media that Kelly’s case is getting because their father wasn’t a former police officer. Instead, the cases are somewhere on someone’s desk until the families have moved on with their lives and have given up and forgotten about their sons. This is why as a citizen you can not let these 6 get away with this incident. Please don’t back off! Help with the signatures if you can. Here are the 2 links. Rayan Daniel Gonzales Shot 5/7/2008
    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/07/local/me-marshal7O
    Omar Garcia shot 11/17/2008
    http://www.whatis-theplan.org/t14818-operation-west-covina-corruption-police-butalityharassment-and-omar-garcia
    So, please help gather signatures because if we don’t do anything the next person could be us.

  132. #133 by Anonymous on September 15, 2011

    No, just the audio from the officer who identified Martinez. And yes, the DA is obligated to review any and all evidence, that is his job. Why record anything if the DA won’t listen to it or care about it? How is it a public defense chump found audio and the DA didnt?
    I find the DA inept in the Martinez epic fail.

  133. #134 by Anonymous on September 15, 2011

    Good, do it across the board. weed out all the crooks and scumbags. Flip burgers like you were meant to. and I said no pickles dickfor.

  134. #135 by Jt on September 15, 2011

    Yeah but Borsari and his assistant’s blog post and public statements about the Mam case brought it to a lot of people’s attention and Borsari was not shy about blasting the FPD officers for perjury.

  135. #136 by IJS on September 15, 2011

    Once again the mad bloggers of fullerton are quick on the keys, smearing the names of officers, posting blindly before all the facts are released. What does officer Siliceos personal life have to do with the discussion at hand? Is it simply to embarrass him out of Fullerton or is it possible you have a vendetta against him? Words of advice before you blog about someone make sure you have your facts straight and your ducks in a row… Your asinine post is comical and untrue… Best of Luck Just a Citizen!!!

    - IJS!!!!!!

  136. #137 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 15, 2011

    No, I didn’t forget, nor was I dancing around anything. And you are wrong, the victim did indeed PURPORTEDLY identify the victim. Substitute ‘supposedly’ for ‘purportedly’ if it helps. According to Siliceo the victim supposedly identified Martinez.

    Again the point is this: This case looked like a slam dunk. The victim ‘supposedly’ identified Martinez from a 3 man line-up as the young man who came onto her property with a knife shouting out the name of a local gang. Martinez was also identified by a gang investigator as local gang banger. The DA had no reason to doubt the facts as presented, nor did the DA’s need or have an obligation to go poking around for more evidence, such as the audio recording, to either confirm or disprove Silicedo’s assertion that the victim had in fact identified Martinez. Cops are presumed by juries to be telling the truth, and while it is also at least somewhat assumed that cops can make mistakes, the gang investigator’s testimony would be considered corroboration. Oh and let’s not forget, an OC jury would likely have been quite happy to send a little gang banger with a long juvenile record to jail for awhile. That’s 3 strikes against Martinez right there.

    All of this is simply to explain why the Martinez case did not get a lot, if any, of investigation time by the DA, this as opposed to the months long investigation into the Thomas murder. Martinez appeared to the DA to be a slam dunk, the Thomas case is anything but… and in the former it is assumed the investigating cops are telling the truth, and that they did accurate work. In the Thomas case all of the investigating has to be done by the DA, and it must be assumed that the cops are lying. Big, big difference.

  137. #138 by Save The Fullerton Cops on September 15, 2011

    Thank you

  138. #139 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 15, 2011

    Joe Spicowicz wrote: “I suppose it’s possible he unintentionally grabbed the Martinez. His record and possible gang affiliation just make it more likely that he was known as a gang guy and conveniently solved two FPD problems at the same time.”

    Right, and no doubt that would be Siliceo’s slam dunk defense to pejury, a very difficult charge to prove by the way.

    IMO, what probably happened is this:

    Answering the victim’s call, Siliceo rolled up and saw three known local gang banger/geniuses standing out front of the victim’s residence, probably talking about what had just happened and how they were going to fuck up whomever it was they were there to get it on with in the first place (the victim’s son or grandson?).

    Confronting them, Siliceo asked the victim to identify which of the three threatened her. Siliceo got the wrong guy and Martinez refused to roll over on his gang banging brother by saying “wait a minute, it wasn’t me, it was my buddy in the red shirt, ask her (the victim) again man, please it was him not me.”

    Martinez then sat in jail for five months, taking the rap for the dude in the red shirt, his banger bro. At any point he could have told the truth and become the witness against Mr. Red shirt, but that wasn’t going to happen.

    Sadly, the victim and the actual target of the threat probably woke up the next morning, still having to live in the hood, wanting the events of the night before to just go away. They weren’t going to correct the mistake and identify the correct perp either.

    So yeah, I don’t feel too sorry for the little gang banger Martinez, and I’m not going to get all worked up against Siliceo just because I’m really, really angry over what the FPD did to Kelly Thomas. That’s not my idea of justice.

  139. #140 by Joe Sipowicz on September 15, 2011

    Well, you don’t have a single fact to back up any of that guesswork.

    I have one fact. The wrong guy sat in jail.

    P.S. Not a single visible tattoo?

  140. #141 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 15, 2011

    Joe S. also wrote: “I have no idea how the audio surfaced. My guess is the PD requested or subpoenaed it and it confirmed her client’s story.”

    Yes, I believe you are right again. And that story likely was “I didn’t do it mam, I swear, my bro did it, the bitch told him my bro in the red shirt did it, but the cop arrested me!”

    The enterprising public defender then thought, “I wonder if I can find the DAR device recording from that night and prove it?”

    So it all worked out for the gang bangers. Not so much for justice, nor for the good of the community where all three are likely back doing their thing, and probably more emboldened then ever by the cops’ inability to make ‘em pay for their crimes.

  141. #142 by Joe Sipowicz on September 15, 2011

    EyeNeverSayNo :
    Oh I get it, PD is supposed to be ‘public defender’ not ‘police department.’
    Hmm, seems like I’m dealing with another sock puppet, Joe Spicowicz used the same confusing abbreviation below. Bummer.

    PD is Public Defender. The P stands for Public. The D stands for Defender.

    FPD stands for Fullerton Police Department.

    P.S. I am unaware of any reason your comments would be moderated.

  142. #143 by Fullerton on September 15, 2011

    “Why Fullerton polices keep using lies to cover the truth?” Girl asking his Mom.

  143. #144 by Joe Sipowicz on September 15, 2011

    I like how you seem to believe the “gang bangers” deserve mistreatment and injustice.

    And yet you claim to be a big opponent of the way Kelly Thomas was treated. The cop apologists have been telling us how Kelly got what he deserved, mostly because he too had a record.

    It’s starting to like you both think someone died and put your own brand of arbitrary system of justice in charge. It’s getting tedious.

  144. #145 by IJS on September 15, 2011

    Once again the mad bloggers of fullerton are quick on the keys, smearing the names of officers, posting blindly before all the facts are released. What does officer Siliceos personal life have to do with the discussion at hand? Is it simply to embarrass him out of Fullerton or is it possible you have a vendetta against him? Words of advice before you blog about someone make sure you have your facts straight and your ducks in a row… Your asinine post is comical and untrue… Best of Luck Just a Citizen!!!

    - IJS!!!!!!

  145. #146 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 15, 2011

    Joe S. replied: “Well, you don’t have a single fact to back up any of that guesswork.”

    First, thanks for the reply. True, I don’t know for sure what happened and neither do you. But please not that I prefaced my remarks as being my OPINION of what happened, as opposed to you in your blog entry where you offered your opinions as fact. And that sir, that is my root problem with what you wrote in your bloog entry. If you had, as you did here in subsequent discussion when called on to support your ‘facts,’ originally said that it seems “hard to believe he could have made a mistake’ and/or also acknowleged that “it’s possible he unintentionally grabbed Martinez,” I would have a lot less problem with what your blog post. But again, you did not, you presented your opinions and conclusions as absolute fact. That’s just not cool Joe, it disrespects the cause for justice in the muder of Kelly Thomas.

    Again though, thanks for the response and thanks also for the good work you do here at FFF.

    PS: I’m curious, do you think (your opinion) that maybe my scenario is more likely than one in which the cops, with the cooperation of that terrible and evil DA, set out to railroad a poor innocent kid who just happened to be standing around with two other innocent kids in front of the victim’s residence that night?

  146. #147 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 15, 2011

    “And yet you claim to be a big opponent of the way Kelly Thomas was treated. The cop apologists have been telling us how Kelly got what he deserved, mostly because he too had a record.”

    I don’t just claim, I am. Goggle my handle, I have many, many posts, dozens, here and on the OCR site referring to the cops who beat Thomas to death as murderers. I hate to use this term, but in that matter we are 100% on the same side.

    The notion that Thomas got what he deserved is offensive non-sense. No one desrves to be beaten to death by cops acting as judge, jury and executioner.

    That being said, Martinez’s record and gang affiliation is pertinent to the discussion as it possibly, partially, explains how he came to sit in jail for five months. That is apart from your personal opinion and theory of the case, stated as fact in your blog entry, that Siliceo intentionally and willfully sent him to jail on charges for crimes Siliceo knew Martinez did not commit.

    This playing fast and loose with the the truth in the presentation of opinion as fact, is what’s becoming tedious for as I said, it’s disrespectful to the cause of justice for Kelly. It weakens the good arguments being made.

  147. #148 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 15, 2011

    Joe S. wrote: “…you seem to believe the “gang bangers” deserve mistreatment and injustice.”

    I tell you what, I won’t put words in your mouth or claim to know what’s in your head and heart if you will afford me the same courtesy? Deal?

    For the record: I don’t believe anyone deserves mistreatment and injustice at the hands of law enforcement or government. Even little gang bangers who terrorize the neighborhoods in which they live.

    Everything I’ve written in the Martinez matter has been posted not to excuse what happened, but to explain how it could and probably did happen, as a human mistake, not an intentional, willful criminal act.

    Actually I believe it was probably a sloppy mistake, and one in which Siliceo probably thought it didn’t matter much anyway which kid went to jail.

    Or, allow me to propose an alternative, and you’ll love this one, perhaps the other two were juveniles and Siliceo really wanted to send the recently turned 18 Martinez to jail for his first crime as an adult, so Siliceo consciously or even subconsciously misidentified Martinez as the one fingered by the victim.

    This makes sense if you consider, and I’ve written this here before, how cops think: The end justifies the means. They see themselves as the good guys and hte rest of us, at least potentially, as the bad guys. There is no doubt they see gang bangers as the bad guys. So with that mindset, it doesn’t really matter to the arresting officer which gang banger gets tagged with the crime. Might as well go with the 18 year-old. Note, this is non-provable speculation only.

    See, I told you I was on your ‘side.’

  148. #149 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 15, 2011

    You know, I’d like to point out that there is something seriously misogynistic and kinda gay (in a bad way) of continuing to refer to a man as a woman just to insult him.

  149. #150 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 15, 2011

    I know for a fact that the DA’s office does not request the audio of every arrest while reviewing the facts of cases presented to them. And you are very wrong in asserting that prosecutors are obligated to do so. There is not a major city or county DA’s office in the country that has the resources or manpower to do so, nor to chase down every possible piece of evidence.

    You ask, “Why record anything if the DA won’t listen to it or care about it?”

    The DA deputy district attorney did listen to the recording and cared very much about it *when it was presented* to her as exculpatory evidence, and she immeditaely moved to have the case dismissed and the suspect released.

    The purpose of the cops wearing DAR’s and recording their arrests is two fold, it can provide evidence of the suspect’s guilt or innocence, as it did here, and it can provide crucial evidence in the defense or prosecution of officers accused of misconduct during the arrest process. Again though, neither side, prosecution or defense, is obligated to review and present these recordings either before or during trial.

  150. #151 by fedupwithmorons on September 15, 2011

    WITH THAT SORT OF EVIDENCE, WHY AREN’T THE COPS PROSECUTED?

  151. #152 by fedupwithmorons on September 15, 2011

    CASE LAW REGARDING PETITION GATHERING:
    Pruneyard Shopping Center v. RobinsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
    Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins

    Supreme Court of the United States
    Argued March 18, 1980
    Decided June 9, 1980
    Full case name Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
    Citations 447 U.S. 74 (more)
    100 S.Ct. 2035; 64 L.Ed.2d 741
    Prior history Writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California
    Holding
    A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center.
    Court membership
    Chief Justice
    Warren E. Burger

    Associate Justices
    William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart
    Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
    Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
    William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens

    Case opinions
    Majority Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Stevens
    Concurrence White
    Concurrence Powell
    Concurrence Blackmun

    Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students (who wished to solicit signatures for a petition against United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379).[1] In American constitutional law, the Pruneyard is famous for its role in establishing two important rules:

    under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers
    under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights
    This holding was possible because California’s constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution’s First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech. This distinction was significant because the U.S. Supreme Court had already held that under the federal First Amendment, there was no implied right of free speech within a private shopping center.[2] The Pruneyard case, therefore, raised the question of whether an implied right of free speech could arise under a state constitution without conflicting with the federal Constitution. In answering yes to that question, the Court rejected the shopping center’s argument that California’s broader free speech right amounted to a “taking” of the shopping center under federal constitutional law.

    A typical “Please Do Not Contribute” sign at a California shopping center.Footnote two of the decision quotes the relevant portions of the California Constitution, which states in Article 1, § 2

    “ Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press. ”

    and Article 1, § 3

    “ [P]eople have the right to . . . petition government for redress of grievances. ”

    The vote to uphold the California decision was unanimous, although three justices disagreed with part of the reasoning in Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion for the majority. Justices Thurgood Marshall, Byron White, and Harry Blackmun filed separate concurring opinions.

    Because of the Pruneyard case, people who visit shopping centers in California may regularly encounter people seeking money or attention for various causes, including charitable solicitations, qualifying petitions for amendments to the state constitution, voter registration drives, and sometimes a beggar. In turn, many shopping centers have posted signs to explain that they do not endorse the views of people exercising their right to free speech, and that if patrons do not give them money, the speakers will go away.

    Contents [hide]
    1 Subsequent developments
    2 References
    3 Further reading
    4 External links

    [edit] Subsequent developmentsAlthough 39 other states have free speech clauses in their constitutions that look like California’s – indeed, California borrowed its clause from a similar one in the New York Constitution – at least 13 of those states have declined to follow California in extending the right of free speech into private shopping centers.[3] In refusing to follow Pruneyard, the state supreme courts of New York and Wisconsin both attacked it as an unprincipled and whimsical decision.[4] In 2003, the European Court of Human Rights also considered and refused to follow Pruneyard, in a United Kingdom case.[5] Only New Jersey, Colorado, and Massachusetts have followed California, albeit with some reservations. In a 2000 decision, Puerto Rico (a U.S. territory) also adopted Pruneyard’s right of free speech, although the case was complicated by the presence of a branch office of a government agency (Puerto Rico Telephone, since privatized) in the shopping center (the Mayagüez Mall).[6] Some commentators have suggested the Pruneyard rule could be applied to speech on the Internet, including speech activities in virtual worlds, like Linden Labs’ Second Life, although the courts have not addressed this theory.[7]

    In the two decades since Pruneyard was decided, the Supreme Court of California has become much more conservative, especially after three liberal justices (including Chief Justice Rose Bird) were removed by the electorate in 1986 for their opposition to the death penalty.[8]

    In the 2001 Golden Gateway decision, a 4–3 majority of the Court significantly narrowed Pruneyard by holding for a variety of reasons that California’s free speech right does not apply to private apartment complexes – yet, they also refused to overrule Pruneyard.[9] Thus, California’s right of free speech in private shopping centers still survives.

    Naturally, the shopping center industry strongly “detests” the Pruneyard decision (since it has resulted in numerous “test” cases by protesters in California and elsewhere trying to find the boundaries of the Pruneyard rule); shopping centers have regularly imposed restrictions on unwanted solicitors and appealed the resulting legal cases in the hope of convincing the California judiciary that Pruneyard should be overturned, or at least limited.[10] Since Golden Gateway, decisions by the intermediate Courts of Appeal have generally limited the scope of the Pruneyard rule to the facts of the original case. For example, starting in 1997, the parking lots of many Costco warehouse club stores in California became sites of conflict involving a large number of political activist groups who had gradually become aware of their rights under Pruneyard. In 1998, Costco’s management imposed several restrictions, including a complete ban on soliciting at stand-alone stores, a rule that no group or person could use Costco premises for free speech more than 5 days out of any 30, and the complete exclusion of solicitors on the 34 busiest days of the year.

    In 2002, these restrictions were upheld as reasonable by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, and the Supreme Court of California denied review.[11] Costco’s stand-alone stores lacked the social congregation attributes of the multi-tenant shopping center at issue in Pruneyard. As for the restrictions on the stores in shopping centers, they were held to be reasonable because Costco had developed a strong factual record at trial which proved that hordes of unwanted solicitors had significantly interfered with its business operations – they had damaged its reputation, obstructed access to its stores, and traumatized Costco employees.

    In 2007, the Supreme Court of California confronted the Pruneyard decision once more, in the context of a complex labor dispute involving San Diego’s Fashion Valley Mall and the San Diego Union-Tribune. On December 24, 2007, a 4-3 majority of a sharply divided court once again refused to overrule Pruneyard, and instead, ruled that under the California Constitution, a union’s right of free speech in a shopping center includes the right to hand out leaflets urging patrons to boycott one of the shopping center’s tenants.[12] Justice Ming Chin, in his dissent joined by Justices Marvin Baxter and Carol Corrigan, expressed his sympathy with several of the most common critiques of the Pruneyard decision: “Pruneyard was wrong when decided. In the nearly three decades that have since elapsed, jurisdictions throughout the nation have overwhelmingly rejected it. We should no longer ignore this tide of history. The time has come for us to forthrightly overrule Pruneyard and rejoin the rest of the nation in this important area of the law. Private property should be treated as private property, not as a public free speech zone.”[13]

    In 2010, the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District, in an opinion authored by then-Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (now Chief Justice of California), held that it is unconstitutional under Pruneyard for shopping mall giant Westfield Group to promulgate rules discriminating in favor of commercial speech in its malls and against noncommercial speech.[14] The plaintiff had been detained by Westfield security after attempting to discuss the principles of his Christian faith with strangers at the Westfield Galleria at Roseville.

    [edit] References1.^ Linda Greenhouse, “Petitioning Upheld at Shopping Malls: High Court Says States May Order Access to Back Free Speech,” New York Times, 10 June 1980, A1.
    2.^ Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972).
    3.^ Mulligan, Josh (2004). “Finding A Forum in the Simulated City: Mega Malls, Gated Towns, and the Promise of Pruneyard”. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 13: 533, 557. ISSN 10690565. → This article is an excellent overview of Pruneyard’s progeny.
    4.^ See SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 488 N.E.2d 1211 (N.Y. 1985) and Jacobs v. Major, 407 N.W.2d 832 (Wis. 1987).
    5.^ Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom [2003] ECHR 222, (2003) 37 EHRR 38 (6 May 2003)
    6.^ Empresas Puertorriqueñas de Desarrollo, Inc. v. Hermandad Independiente de Empleados Telefónicos, 150 D.P.R. 924 (2000).. The court’s decision turned on the fact that the PRT branch office in the mall was the only local PRT facility in the entire municipality where the unions could publicly demonstrate against the governor’s privatization proposal.
    7.^ Barger, James (July 2010). “Extending Speech Rights Into Virtual Worlds”. The SciTech Lawyer 7 (1): 18–22. ISSN 1550-2090. http://delawarevalleylawyer.com/sites/DVL/SciTech_Speech-in-Virtual-Worlds-Barger-Summer2010.pdf. Retrieved 2011-03-08. “In this new world, long-established property law and state constitutions may provide the best protection for a user’s right to express himself in sometimes controversial ways.”.
    8.^ Culver, John H. (1998). “The transformation of the California Supreme Court: 1977-1997″. Albany Law Review 61 (5): 1461–1490. ISSN 00024678.
    9.^ Golden Gateway Ctr. v. Golden Gateway Tenants Ass’n, 26 Cal. 4th 1013 (2001).
    10.^ Joseph R. Grodin, Calvin R. Massey, and Richard B. Cunningham, The California State Constitution: A Reference Guide (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1993), 26.
    11.^ Costco Companies, Inc. v. Gallant, 96 Cal. App. 4th 740 (2002).
    12.^ Fashion Valley Mall, LLC, v. National Labor Relations Board, 42 Cal. 4th 850 (2007).
    13.^ Id. at 870.
    14.^ Snatchko v. Westfield, LLC, 187 Cal. App. 4th 469 (2010).
    [edit] Further readingAlexander, M. C. (1999). “Attention, Shoppers: The First Amendment in the Modern Shopping Mall”. Arizona Law Review 41: 1. ISSN 0004153X.
    Epstein, Richard A. (1997). “Takings, Exclusivity and Speech: The Legacy of PruneYard v Robins”. University of Chicago Law Review (The University of Chicago Law Review) 64 (1): 21–56. doi:10.2307/1600196. JSTOR 1600196.
    [edit] External linksCornell University Collection – U.S. Supreme Court decision
    California Continuing Education of the Bar Collection – California Supreme Court decision
    California Constitution from Official California Legislative Information Site – Article 1, Declaration of Rights (of which Section 2 was challenged in Pruneyard)
    [hide]v · d · eUnited States First Amendment case law

    [show] Establishment Clause

    Public funding Everson v. Board of Education (1947) • McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) • Walz v. Tax Commission (1970) • Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) • Marsh v. Chambers (1983) • Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) • Agostini v. Felton (1997) • Mitchell v. Helms (2000) • Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) • Locke v. Davey (2004)

    Public displays Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) • County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989) • McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) • Van Orden v. Perry (2005)

    School prayer Zorach v. Clauson (1952) • Engel v. Vitale (1962) • School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963) • Stone v. Graham (1980) • Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) • Lee v. Weisman (1992) • Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000) • Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004)

    Creationism Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) • Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) • Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (M.D. Pa. 2005)

    [show] Free Exercise Clause

    Reynolds v. United States (1879) • Davis v. Beason (1890) • Niemotko v. Maryland (1951) • Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) • Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) • Sherbert v. Verner (1963) • Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) • Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1981) • Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) • Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) • Employment Division v. Smith (1990) • Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) • City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) • Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton (2002) • Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005) • Gonzales v. UDV (2006)

    [hide] Freedom of speech

    Sedition and
    imminent danger Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) • Schenck v. United States (1919) • Abrams v. United States (1919) • Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (S.D.N.Y. 1917) • Gitlow v. New York (1925) • Whitney v. California (1927) • Dennis v. United States (1951) • Yates v. United States (1957) • Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

    Fighting words and
    the heckler’s veto Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) • Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) • Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) • Feiner v. New York (1951) • National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977) • R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) • Snyder v. Phelps (2011)

    Freedom of assembly
    and public forums Hague v. CIO (1939) • Schneider v. New Jersey (1939) • Martin v. Struthers (1943) • Cox v. Louisiana (1965) • Brown v. Louisiana (1966) • Coates v. Cincinnati (1971) • Adderley v. Florida (1966) • Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) • Hill v. Colorado (2000)

    Symbolic speech United States v. O’Brien (1968) • Cohen v. California (1971) • Texas v. Johnson (1989) • United States v. Eichman (1990)

    Compelled speech Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) • West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) • Wooley v. Maynard (1977) • Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000) • Davenport v. Washington Education Association (2007)

    School speech Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) • Board of Education v. Pico (1982) • Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) • Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) • Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) • Morse v. Frederick (2007)

    Obscenity Rosen v. United States (1896) • United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933) • Roth v. United States (1957) • One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958) • Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961) • MANual Enterprises v. Day (1962) • Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) • Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964) • Freedman v. Maryland (1965) • Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) • Redrup v. New York (1967) • Ginsberg v. New York (1968) • Stanley v. Georgia (1969) • United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971) • Kois v. Wisconsin (1972) • Miller v. California (1973) • Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) • United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973) • Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) • New York v. Ferber (1982) • American Booksellers v. Hudnut (7th Cir., 1985) • Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986) • Osborne v. Ohio (1990) • United States v. X-Citement Video (1994) • Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) • United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000) • Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) • Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2002) • Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y., 2005) • United States v. Williams (2008) • American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir., 2009) • United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir., 2009) • United States v. Stevens (2010)

    Public employees Garner v. Board of Public Works (1951) • Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) • Connick v. Myers (1983) • Rankin v. McPherson (1987) • Waters v. Churchill (1994) • Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) • Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (2011)

    Hatch Act
    and similar laws Ex parte Curtis (1882) • United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947) • United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers (1973) • Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973)

    Commercial speech Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) • Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (1973) • Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1974) • Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976) • Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) • Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro (1977) • Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980) • Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n (1980) • Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (1986) • San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987) • 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)

    Campaign finance and
    political speech Buckley v. Valeo (1976) • First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) • Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1981) • California Medical Association v. FEC (1981) • Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee (1982) • FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee (1985) • FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986) • Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) • McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995) • Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996) • Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000) • FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) • McConnell v. FEC (2003) • FEC v. Beaumont (2003) • Randall v. Sorrell (2006) • FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007) • Davis v. FEC (2008) • Citizens United v. FEC (2010) • Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. (2011)

  152. #153 by fedupwithmorons on September 15, 2011

    yeah and you mad coppers were pretty damned quick with the tasers and fists when you beat kelly to death!

  153. #154 by fedupwithmorons on September 15, 2011

    yeah IT does!

  154. #155 by fedupwithmorons on September 15, 2011

    dudleydirtbag, umm I seem to recall that LAPD was under a federal consent decree because they couldn’t or wouldn’t behave them bad selves. cost us a bazillion dollars to fund that debacle!

  155. #156 by fedupwithmorons on September 15, 2011

    yeah they all left because of the consent decree and wound up in fullerton! what a riot you maggot!

  156. #157 by fedupwithmorons on September 15, 2011

    if they were thieves and caught with their hands in the evidence jar, they went to state prison like the good lil rats that they are! booooooyah!

  157. #158 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 16, 2011

    Thanks for the clarification! :)

    As for my posts being moderated, I’m told by Travis that they were getting caught in a Word Press spam filter. To FFF’s credit, they were being approved and posted very quickly, and the problem “cleared itself up” after I complained above on this thread. I will say this though, it certainly chills your ability to speak freely to know that someone is reading your comments and ‘approving’ them before they are posted…

  158. #159 by I know nothing on September 16, 2011

    What does any of this have to do with Kelly Thomas? I find it quite annoying you are all fighting against each other and bringing up unnecessary past events or irrelevant material that have no relation to the real problem at ALL. We should be fighting for his justice…TOGETHER…not against each other for reasons that have NOTHING to do with what happened to Kelly and his unfortunate death. The facts will come out, a decision will be made, and whoever did this will get theirs. In the meantime, why don’t you do something meaningful and positive to benefit the homeless or seek justice without trying to subject yourself to more bullshit that doesn’t benefit ANYONE, it just makes you all look like selfish idiots. Geez.

  159. #160 by Infamouse on September 17, 2011

    The consensus here among the keystoners (cops) seems to be ” the guy is guilty of something, so who cares what his arrest Is for. I’m doing a good job cleanin up the streets. this is the NEW WEST. We own the streets, we own the political machine, and we own the da.”
    Get ready for no charges in Kelly Thomas. Why do you think they’re training in riot gear.

    I bet they already hired the “anarchists” to interrupt the fund raiser.

  160. #161 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 17, 2011

    Joe Sipcowicz wrote: “PD is Public Defender. The P stands for Public. The D stands for Defender.

    FPD stands for Fullerton Police Department.”

    LOL, yeah, okay… just one thing…

    You might want to clue your own ‘Mr. Peabody’ in too… this from the top of the “What are we expecting” blog entry by Travis:

    “I truly believe the protesters in front of PD HQ are getting into their little heads.”

    Now is that Public Defender HQ? P as in Public and D as in defender?

    or Police Department HQ? P as in Police and D as in Department?

    LOL

  161. #162 by jbj on September 20, 2011

    Not all FPD officers are bad.

  162. #163 by EyeNeverSayNo on September 20, 2011

    MeYou wrote “…prosecute when they have reviewed all of the evidence in the case and believe that the case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

    What I’m telling you, and I’ll make this as clear as I can, is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is for the DA to “review all of the evidence.”

    The DA’s investigation unit is small, and it certainly isn’t charged with the responsibility to reinvestigate the results of each police investigation presented to it for prosecution. The DA’s office has neither the time nor the resources for such duplication of tasks.

    In the Martinez case the DA did as it does in nearly every other case, it reviewed the evidence presented to it by law enforcement and determined that there was enough evidence to take to a jury. Obviously they believed that with the testimony of the two officers– the arresting officer and the gang unit officer– that a jury would find enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. And, absent the last minute revelation, they were probably right. That’s why we are still talking about it a year later. That boy was on his way to jail for awhile if not for his lawyer and her idea to dig up the audio recording, proving one of the officers wrong.

Comments are closed.