Burning Hot Scoles vs. “Scam" Sanchez

“People are frustrated,” Scoles said. “But hopefully this is a turning point for people who are trying to get change.”

Amen to that Mr. Scoles.

Thank you Mr. Scoles for standing up against the tyranny of Scam Sanchez!

Anyone who spends significant amounts of time down by the beach near Shoreline *knows* that we need more enforcement in the area for “all the crimes going on by all the drunken bums, illegal aliens and Mexican gangbangers.”

It's wonderful to see Mr. Scoles representing the neighborhood with the level of passion he does.

I would hereby like to officially nominate Mr. Scoles for Mayor of Santa Barbara.

As a longtime Santa Barbara resident, I have watched as our town degrades year after year. Whether it is political correctness or total ineptitude (i.e. Mayor Blum), the political "elite" in this town continue to run it into the ground at an alarming rate.

Before long, we will all be forced to ride bicycles to work as there will be no more available lanes for cars.

As Mayor, I know Mr. Scoles will be able to clean house a la Michael Douglas in Falling Down. I hope and expect Mr. Scoles will become a modern day super hero who will summarily and appropriately expel all of "the drunken bums, illegal aliens, and Mexican gangbangers."

Touche, Mr. Scoles, touche.

FINALLY! The true Scam Sanchez comes out! This story really exposes the weak character of SB's chief law enforcement officer. The jury obviously didn't believe much of what he accused Mr. Scoles of, which is a sad comment on our police chief who we expect to be truthful. Hopefully our City Council will now see the light and give him the long overdue boot.

WAYNE SCOLES FOR MAYOR1

A jury has ruled that Scam Sanchez is both a liar and a racist plus an abuser of police power. Translation: Our Police Chief has no scruples about intimidating a US citizen and fabricating cases against him, while defending "Mexican gangbangers and illegal aliens."

For nine years, our community has suffered under Politically Correct Scam, as escalating crime grows more violent, organized and pervasive. Now we learn he endangers citizens' liberty. Enough already!

Wayne SCOLES, you are our Hero! We need you FOR MAYOR. Please run!

My wife and I saw the whole incident, we were playing frisbee on the lawn between the parking lot and the wedding and I saw Mr. Sanchez in his dress blues, and I know who Mr. Scoles is. On the one hand this was a victory for our cherished freedom of speech because it would be rare to see a more first hand exercise. The Chief of Police is a clear representative of Government, particularly when in his dress uniform. Mr. Scoles was definitely excercising his free speech rights, at the top of his lungs. No reasonable person would or should expect to get away with what Mr. Scoles did. He was in fact yelling at the top of his voice, directly in the face of Mr. Sanchez, with a finger pointed firmly in Mr.Sanchez's chest. I know I would not expect to get away with doing that. The DA's Office certainly has nothing to be happy or proud of with its failure to prosecute the case successfully and not anticipating its failure. What a waste of resources.

I think it is honorable to stand up and fight against the system. People are wrongfully accused all the time and there seems to be a feeling of helplessness when confronted by the police. Citizens need to stand up for their rights and if they feel wrongly accused, it is their civic duty to fight the charges in a court of law. This incident, even at its worst, does not sound like a chargeable offense. If people didn't rely on the police so much to protect them, and maybe took a more civil approach and answered Mr. Scoles questions with some dignity instead of just deciding he could have him arrested because he is the police chief, then this would have been resolved without wasting tax dollars. Our law enforcement agency should be put in check for wasting time and resources prosecuting minor offenses that don't threaten society. In times of economic crisis, we need to reevaluate every dollar being spent by government, and whether it is necessary in the current climate. This example proves what a waste of money an overzealous police office can be with an agenda.

Justin Tevis '09

Here is the best part, when Scam Sanchez, and other police officers like him retire, they will get 90% of their salary. What a reward for such conduct!

Thank you, sbreader, for a sane voice in this comments section. I know who Wayne is and what he does, and it isn't all good. He makes racists comments, is full of himself, and is a bit of a loose canon. I visited a friend on the Mesa the same day this happened and her testimony would have confirmed what the witness in the car said about Wayne. He's had a beef with the police chief for awhile now and he was just waiting for this opportunity to confront him. The DA's office dropped the ball on this one. It's too bad b/c someone needs to put a lid on Wayne. Now instead he feels empowered by the verdict.

Hurrah for the first amendment and shame on the DA's office for bringing this case to trial. I hope Mr. Scoles gets repaid his attorney fees, that he lowers his voice --- and that Mr. Sanchez apologizes to him.

sbreader, what do you mean Scoles should be able to "get away with" what he did? He didn't commit a crime.

Do you mean he shouldn't be able to get away with questioning a government official?

1wahine, you say that Scoles makes racist comments and your friend could corroborate the testimony of the woman in the car. But the article states "In addition, no witnesses — including a woman who had been sitting in her car near the encounter who saw and heard at least a portion the argument — testified to hearing Scoles use racial slurs or threaten the chief."

And what do you mean someone needs to "put a lid" on Scoles? Do you mean someone should suppress his free speech rights?

Why did this EVEN make it to court? :) henry

Kratatoa: That's why I said the DA's office dropped the ball. My friend wasn't even contacted (albeit she did go out of the country for some time recently). I think she didn't even consider that it would go to trial. She and her family know Wayne. I have been acquainted with him for many years and on more than one occasion have heard him say racist remarks. Yes, he is "passionate" about his causes, yes, he has made some beneficial contributions to the area. He also goes overboard, is self-righteous and can be overzealous, and his behavior on that day crossed the line. In retrospect, I see that it was a wasteful trial and I agree it should never have gone to court. But please stop blowing the "free speech" horn. It's common knowledge Wayne went beyond that. That it was a chargeable offense is obviously debateable.

Hmmm...did it never occur to anyone, in court or otherwise, to ask what Chief Sanchez was doing in his full-dressed blues (complete with the four stars of a commanding general! -- I've always wondered about this police conceit when there are no one-star general equivalents, colonels, or even majors within the PD ranks - one jumps immediately from captain bars to a 4 star rank) at a family event? Was he on the job? Did he charge the city for the time spent at the wedding? Shouldn't he have worn civilian garb, then changed into his uniform afterward if we was working, or was he just there to strut his stuff, rooster-like, to show off his exalted status?
The fact that Sanchez couldn't handle the confrontation himself doesn't speak very well for him as either a professional or a man. Scoles may be a blow-hard and perhaps even a bully, but nothing he did (according to al witnesses of the incident) merited the chief's over- reaction. Calling for back-up was not the act of a man I would want to rely on during a crisis -- and neither should SB.

It’s Santa Barbara. Don’t think for a moment that racial arrogance is an anomaly. Think of what you hear in the recesses of workplaces and at office parties. Yeah, that racial arrogance.

And it’s on campus, too, among some students.

Thankfully, still, it’s not as bad as yesteryear. Can you imagine if Scoles was a police chief and Sanchez approached HIM that way!!!

I hate to think.

Two issues here. Wayne Scoles is no angel. He is a big mouth, disrespectful bully, who chose to challenge the chief that day. He wants it his way only, and is a racist and a bigot. I have personally heard his views on minorities, and they are hateful.

It sounds like Chief Sanchez was clearly intimidated and frightened by this guy who towered over him by nearly a foot and outweighed him. Honestly, I would be intimidated too, and I'm taller than Scoles. But, this wouldn't have happened if Sanchez had simply not worn his uniform to a private affair held in public. Had he just worn a jacket over the uniform, I wonder if Scoles would have even recognized him.

Sanchez has a tough job, made all the tougher by his own innability to talk to regular people that have nothing more than a problem he should initially address himself, rather than delegating. I know from first hand experience that he does not return phone calls, and has his secretary screen all his calls.

So the bottom line is this. This entire incident could have been avoided if Scoles acted with a lot more control and respect in contacting Sanchez, along with Sanchez acting a lot more professional by not wearing his uniform to a private affair, and being a real leader. I remember seeing him at City Council when he accepted the appointment to Chief. He stated, "I am not just the Chief of Police, I am the Chief of Santa Barbara," presumably meaning that he would be responsive to the needs of the community. Sadly, in my opinion, he has not lived up to that promise.

There is a huge double standard in accusations of racism. Scoles may or may not be a racist, but he is not in a position of power.

However, there are many Latino politicians and government officials with great influence who make openly anti-white statements and are never called on it by the mainstream media. Just google on Art Torres (last gasp of Anglo California, telling whites they will need affirmative action), or Cruz Bustamante's and Antonio Villaraigosa's involvement with MEChA (Por la Raza Todo.) Note that Art Torres was until recently state chair of the Democratic party. Chicano studies professors such as Rudy Acuna and Armando Navarro routinely denounce whites and U.S. control over the Southwest with little opposition. Again, these Professors have a great deal of influence over youth that people like Scoles do not. I do not think Chief Sanchez is a racist by the strictest definition, but I do not think he would sympathize with whites who engaged in gang activity in the same manner he sympathizes with Latinos.

Right on, SBLover35. You said it well; my thoughts exactly.

Feeling the cold.

Today, in
my heart, there's
a delicate
sorrow; outside
a melancholy tries
to forget the
sound of a
manner that
now disappears,
while a young
bird escapes.....

Francesco Sinibaldi

But please stop blowing the "free speech" horn. It's common knowledge Wayne went beyond that.

========

That's not what the jury thought. That's also not what most people here think.

All independent witnesses to the argument said Scoles *did not* make threats or racist statements.

It sounds like you're willing to turn a blind eye to Sanchez's abuse of power because of your personal dislike for Scoles.

Wayne the plumber - please run for Mayor. You've got my vote.

A jury has ruled that Scam Sanchez is both a liar and a racist plus an abuser of police power. -bellfox-
"
He testified that when he called for backup, he called in a Code 3 — police talk meaning officers in the area should respond with lights and sirens. But the two officers who responded that day testified they responded to a Code 2. That, jurors said, created some doubt as to whether the chief was revising the incident or attempting to amplify the danger of the situation." -From the above article-

bellfox: According to this, Sanchez may be a liar, but from what I read of the rest of the article, there is no evidence that Sanchez is a racist.

Also, people are claiming they were there or know specifics about the case, while refusing to sign their names and this in and of itself is suspicious.

The issue at hand is that according to this article--and it is all we have to go by--Scoles did not threaten Sanchez with violence nor did he break any other laws, and he was rightfully acquitted of the charges.

Oh, yes, all evidence is always accurately recounted and every witness is contacted and the jury is privvy to everything surrounding the infraction.
And OJ is innocent!
Cam and Wayne both made mistakes. The difference is that Cam is supposed to be a professional.

Thanks, Chris, for the explanation.
I didn't really see anything wrong with him being in uniform. Would someone question a member of the Marines who wore his/her uniform?

Always kind of sad to see that simmering racism is very much alive and well in Santa Barbara. Perhaps the plumber might want to play bully with a short person of color trained in one of the deadly martial arts? The bigger (and louder) they are . . .

One of the wisest things an individual having an altercation with someone in public can do is it raise their voice. If others (i.e. witnesses) can't hear the exchange, then it's your word against their's. And if it's against the Chief of Police... whose word is the judge/jury going to believe?

Emptynewsroom -- exactly how is it racist to point out the racism of MEChA's plan espiritual de Aztlan, and the anti-white bias of some of the most powerful Latino politicians in the state? Or do you believe that only whites can be racist? Is it just possible that Chief Sanchez's unwillingness to crack down on gangs is due to ethnic/racial chauvinism?

I'm not surprised by your comment Emptynewsroom however. In the reporting of the old News-Press, all of the social, educational and economic disparities in SB were due to those racist "Anglos" who had the gall to demand that English be taught in the schools and who questioned the desirability of uncontrolled illegal immigration. Oh yes, and schools that were 90% Latino were "diverse", while those that were perhaps 75% white were "segregated."

So has Chief Sanchez addressed Mr. Scoles original beef about “all the crimes going on by all the drunken bums, illegal aliens and Mexican gangbangers.”

What has the Chief done about these problems? Anyone care to answer? What is the crime rate these days in Santa Barbara? Better or worse than the 10 years before Chief Sanchez took office?

I've had a run in with Mr Scoles and yes he is loud,a bully and racist. One time he noticed me in the area and made sure I heard his rant to a friend about all those Mexicans who don't belong here in SB, while staring me down, looking for an argument/fight. I brown, but not Mexican, I'm American . This man doesn't distinguish between someone, illegal or legal, he just looks at the color of the skin and assumes they don't belong here.

Its a interesting article and nice reporting, seems to many axes to grind from some of the commenters. The one conclusion I came to was I dont know whether anything racist or not was said since I wasnt there and there are not enough facts to make a judgement one way or the other.

Seems a appropriate decision by the jury as such but it does make me wonder why it was worthy of the cost and length of trial. It does seem like a busy day for the SBPD yesterday with the kidnapping, bank robbery in Goleta, and at least one pursuit that went by my house last night (upper east by old st francis) and they seem to have done a good job.

Whether that has anything to do with the Chief or just good work by the officers either way Im glad they did such a good job yesterday.

The point is that the DA, publicly funded and only filing when they are sure they can win (remember the Tea Fire defendants), filed charges against an individual who was accused of using racist and offensive language to the chief of police.

It was brave of Scoles, whatever his personal qualities in general, to not just fold and settle against seemingly overwhelming odds --- it was disgraceful of the DA's office to file such charges --- and it seriously calls into question how well Sanchez can continue to do his job.

I hope someone hauls Scoles into court every time he gets in a person's face, waving his finger and screaming. No one deserves to put up with that kind of abuse, and at least time in court will keep Scoles away from the general public for three weeks at a time.

The guy who keeps boring us lambasting the plumber is so far off base, it's like comparing apples and elephants.

The point is that the Chief of Police of our City manufactured charges against a citizen. He intentionally had this citizen arrested, cuffed, thrown in a police car, taken down to the station, where he was booked and interrogated. The basis of this citizen's detention, imprisonment, and character assassination were lies, trumped up charges, by our city's top "law enforcement" officer, sworn to uphold the law. Then, this Chief of Police went to court, swore to tell the truth, and lied again. His purpose: to intentionally cause this citizen further suffering.

Is this the kind of Police Chief we want? Who can trust this Scam? Will you or family or friends be his next victim? He is a hazard, and his actions have cast doubt upon the integrity of the entire police department.

If our City Council has any ethics or morals and wants to honor the constitution and protect all who live and visit our city, Scam will be given the boot now. It's long overdue; crime has escalated under his Raza-based, PC "leadership."

As a chief of police, you need a thick skin when dealing with people with thick heads.

You are right Steve_Johnson. But unfortunately, this chief's skin is as thin as tissue.

The City Council should immediately suspend Scam Sanchez, and his sidekick in this sorry fiasco, Det. Jaycee Hunter, both of whom were shown to lie under oath at the trial to coverup their misconduct. Then a full, fair and open investigation should be conducted to verify the facts, and if proven true, both should be terminated for cause. If the Council refuses to act, then it should go on the ballot so the voters can throw the bums out. Maybe then the many good cops in our PD will be allowed to do their jobs and peace will return to SB.

Wayne Scoles is well known at shoreline park. He is a bully who literally pushes people out of his way (after all he "owns" the park). Unfortunately, this verdict will embolden him to be more proactive in intimidating innocent people who enjoy shoreline park.
There are legitimate complaints about what's going on in this town and the Chief in particular. But this isn't a guy (Scoles) to admire.

Yes I was a Juror in this case.

Here is what it came down to:
1. Wayne was wrong- he was clearly loud and quite out of line.
2. The chief was also loud and unprofessional.
3. Det Jaycee Hunter is quite a story in himself and the way Wayne was treated by the sheriffs department was very poor at best.
4. Most of the testimony supported the story Wayne gave and DID NOT go the way the Chief said.
5. While we thought that Wayne acted badly in this situation- we did not feel that he was guilty of the specific charges that were brought in this trial.
6. The DA did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wayne was guilty of the specific charges in this case.

Also personally I saw many friends and neighbors of Wayne's that sat and watched the ENTIRE trial in support of Wayne. I also went up to the park after the trial and sat and watched the goings on. Wayne seemed to be very popular and well liked in the park. While he may be loud, obnoxious and such he is a supporter of rights and safety in town. He cares deeply about our city and maybe with more people like him we may have a safer town. He really needs to tone down his act and make sure that he is respectful and can show control of his emotions.
As the jurors talked we hoped that this trial "scared" him enough for him to tame his act but still be active in keeping the mesa area and our whole town a safer place.

"Wayne was wrong- he was clearly loud and quite out of line."

Then you should have voted guilty:

California Penal Code § 415

§ 415. Disturbing the Peace

"(1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or challenges another person in a public place to fight.

(2) *****Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise.****

(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction."

Juror1, how was the `sheriff's department' involved?

Wasn't it the City Police Department, not the County Sheriffs who were involved here?

I still find it quite interesting that the police chief was in "full dress" uniform with all four stars of his rank glinting in the sun while attending a relative's wedding in a public park. I can't help but wonder why would he be wearing his uniform to a wedding -- ego, show-off, Little Napleon complex, his only civilian suit was in the cleaners, etc.?? I don't know the Chief so I can't answer that.

But, I was playing golf the other day (a weekday) at a course in the city when I saw the chief himself out on the course obviously also playing a round. He wasn't in uniform then, yet it was in the middle of a regular workday.

Does he have trouble making a decision as to when he's off duty or on duty? Or when to wear the uniform (at a wedding while off-duty) and when not (on a regular workday). It sure sounds like it. That makes me wonder about his decision-making ability on other things.

This guy Scoles is a jerk. Anyone who has had to deal with him knows this. But it does sound like the Chief made up his own story, and for him to say he didn't know who this guy was is preposterous. He absolutely knew who he was. That was a lie.

Scoop9324. The Chief's excuse for wearing the uniform was that he was late getting there because of a previous engagement and he didn't have time to change. Yeah, right. He is such a BS artist. He wore that uniform, with all the stars and flash, just to impress his family. "Look at me, look at me, I'm the top cop!"

It is gratifying for me to see that he is finally being called out. He has run the police department into the ground, and the sycophants he has promoted have just been telling him that the emperor's new clothes look beautiful.

It is time the City Council and City Administator pull their heads out of the sand and do something about this guy. When the citizens of the community feel they are no longer safe to go about their business, someone needs to be held responsible. Under Sanchez's "Leadership," programs and positions have been cut, all at the behest of Jim Armstrong and the Council. The city run parking lots are not safe to leave your car in, with cars constantly being broken in to. Gangs have grown and are gaining ground. Traffic is worse than ever (and the number of traffic officers has been cut in half.)

One area that hasn't been cut by Sanchez and the city is his personal management staff. Line level officers, civillian positions, supervisory positions, and mid level managers have been cut, but he still has his Deputy Chief and three Captains, all making over $150,000 plus benefits per year, to tell him he's doing a great job!

Who is being held accountable!?

Twelve members of the jury sat through the trial, heard all the evidence, deliberated, and found Mr. Scoles not guilty.

JayB used Google for 10 seconds and then decided the jury was wrong.

Thanks for the insightful analysis, JayB.

Another fine example of the old adage, "When you stop treating other people like human beings, you will eventually find yourself in a court of law."

you're all trippin' if you think you wouldn't feel intimidated by someone yelling at you, pointing their finger in your chest while towering a foot above you. You'd all call the cops too.... and some of you want this guy for mayor? Great, another joe the 'dumber'. Now he feels justified because he was put on trial and acquitted (watch his mouth grow bigger). Sounds like the Chief ain't perfect either, great. When can we create some programable robots to run things?

To answer you JayB- this is what you responded to me....

"Wayne was wrong- he was clearly loud and quite out of line."

Then you should have voted guilty:

California Penal Code § 415

§ 415. Disturbing the Peace

"(1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or challenges another person in a public place to fight.

(2) *****Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise.****

(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction."

Okay my response to the penal code
(1) Wayne did NOT challenge the Chief to fight- not guilty based on the hours of testimony we had to sit through.
(2)Wayne did not "maliciously and willfully" disturb the peace- yes the peace was disturbed by both Wayne AND Chief Sanchez but that part of the deal was not done out of malice.
(3)It was not proved beyond a resonable doubt that some of the words that Wayne was acused of using we actually used... but honestly I dont think that this clause was listed in our instructions.

Also as far as the chiefs uniform- he was at an academy graduation and was runing late to the wedding. That is probably the only part of the Chief's story that is actually true....

Juror1: It seems that Det. Jaycee Hunter was as much a problem in this case as Chief Sanchez. From your perspective as a juror, would you please tell us more about his role?

Well I dont know exactly what to say about him but he was on the stand for three days for various amounts of time. He was kind of just very into himself and wanting to go into great detail about everything he was saying even if it had nothing to do with the case. The way that Wayne was treated in the interrogation at the police station was awful and very unprofessional. We saw a VERY long video of this whole interrogation. They brought in Det Hunter because he is basically said to be the best investigator in the department so they say. He himself said that he is usually on murders, child molestations, rapes etc.... but because this is a "high profile case" they asked him to do this. It was kind of like overkill in my opinion. During the interrogation he used what he called "techniques". These techniques included telling Wayne that there were witnesses that said they heard him yell "Im going to kick your ass".... in the end Hunter admitted that no witnesess said that and that was just a technique to try to get Wayne to admit to it. Ummm if this is a police technique then I am afraid to talk to the police myself! That is not a technique- it is a LIE.... anyway... there were more things along those same lines.... it made the whole Jury pretty much throw out any testimony of Jaycee Hunter.... I guess I should say I do not speak on behalf of all the Jury and these posts are just my own opinion of what happened. Also there was so much detail and such over such a long period of time it is a bit hard to keep track and now days out it is becoming harder to keep all the facts straight. But this is what I believe at this time. Thanks!

Thank you, juror1, for the good explanation of Det. Jaycee Hunter's role in this case. He has mishandled cases like that before and has sometimes been called on it, such as was reported in the following: http://www.santabarbaranewsroom.com/news...
He has a history of manipulating witnesses, exceeding authority, etc. Sanchez knows it and that's probably the real reason why he was assigned to the case----to get Scoles to save face for Sanchez. It didn't work this time because Scoles stood up to them at great risk and expense to himself.
The most serious problem with that kind of shady and possibly illegal police work, in addition to victimizing people like Scoles, is that it undermines public confidence in the majority of good police officers who work hard, day in and day out, to do their jobs right.
Hunter needs further training and/or disciplinary action before he hurts more innocent people with his abuse of police power. But don't expect Sanchez to do anything about it.

I read these rages about the Santa Barbara Police Chief and his force. I can see the same people over and over shooting from the hip.

Do you know Chief Sanchez? Thought not
Do you know Detective Hunter? Thought not
Do you work with the department on felony cases, read the reports, re-investigate everything? No. Thought not.
It's my job to provide investigations about these officers; I am not a city policeman. I investigate them. I provide quality control, and I do not work for the city.

Maybe before you pop off at Chief Sanchez and Det. Hunter you come armed with some on the ground, first-hand facts. Or is that just too much to expect?

An investigator with 40 years experience doing just that.

Hahaha
what is so funny here is that you people think what the police did to this wayne idiot is anything but standard operation procedure.
Oh my god the police lied! nooooo!
this is done day in and day out the only difference here is that it happened to a middle class white guy who went to trial. on the one hand you're mad that the police used what you consider unethical if not illegal tactics by lying to wayne to get him to confess to a crime he might or might not have committed (don't jump all over me here being found not guilty is not a declaration of innocence).
On the other your mad the police aren't beating up on those "Mexican gangbangers" with questionably legal tactics often employed with the sort of gang injunction old wayne's agitating for. Do any of you folks remember the rampart fiasco in LA a few years back? Is that the sort of thing you want to bring to Santa Barbara?

Many concerned citizens have been demanding a gang injunction since the Carrillo Street murder two years ago, including a very vocal Mr. Scoles. Lead by the Police Chief, the City chose to excuse the gangsters and their families as victims. The call for a gang injunction fell on deaf ears.

We now have chaos on the streets. Within a week, there have been two gruesome gang assaults (one a murder), one involving six gangsters and the other eight gangsters. Citizens have been forced to march to get protection from gang violence. Meanwhile, the Police Chief committed perjury to quiet his main crack-down-on-gangs critic.

At no time has the City Council held the Police Chief accountable for the escalating crime and murders we see with our own eyes.

Perhaps if there were more righteously indignant Mr. Scoleses, our city would not be victimized by the gangs today. Mr. Scoles deserves to be angry and demand a new Police Chief, and so do we. Why is the City Council protecting Scam?

Amen bellefox - where is the accountability for the exponentially increasing escalation in gang crime on the watch of the mayor, police chief and council? Hopefully at the next election and it will not be a simple promotion and reward of one of two of the current councilmembers (Schneider, Falcone) to Mayor, or this will never stop. It is time for CHANGE!

Maybe before you pop off at Chief Sanchez and Det. Hunter you come armed with some on the ground, first-hand facts. Or is that just too much to expect?

===========

Well, we know a jury heard all the facts and decided Chief Sanchez was lying. Is that first-hand fact-y enough for you?

To above Volcano person: Not guilty means the jury did not find the charges to have been proved to their satisfaction. It does NOT mean everyone, or even anyone on the opposing side (our system IS an advocacy system) was a liar. To say that, especially since the clear indication is that you know nothing at all about our court system, is rude, libelous, and mean.

You are well named. You are ignorant. I suggest all the hot-heads actually learn something about this country's court system.

Discover how much Chief Sanchez and his force are doing to understand, control, and perhaps abate the gang problems. Do something. Maybe stop emoting over third and fourth person musings, and do something helpful.

Why is this so difficult for you?

P3

Why are supporters of Sanchez so willing to be blind, deaf and dumb to his failure to keep our community safe? All the rest of us can clearly see crime is out of control, and the Chief of Police is the politically correct cause of it with the aid and abetting of the City Council.

Sadly, it may take the next two or three steps up in violence, their own false imprisonment, and even more victims for these supporters to wake up to the dangers their denial of reality is causing all of us. Or maybe they'll stay content locked in denial, just like Sanchez, who doesn't seem to see the difference between the truth and a lie either.

To above Volcano person: Not guilty means the jury did not find the charges to have been proved to their satisfaction. It does NOT mean everyone, or even anyone on the opposing side (our system IS an advocacy system) was a liar.

===========

Let's try again. The article that we're commenting on points out the inconsistencies in Sanchez's story that emerged during the trial. A juror in the case even posted here and stated that they thought Sanchez was lying.

So yes, that means the jury thought Sanchez was lying.

Why is this so difficult for you?

Kratatoa

Scoles was arrested last June 27, 2008. His trial has only concluded recently. A good deal of time has passed. To automatically think that an inconsistancy in someone's story is automatically a lie is at the very least just plain ignorance. For one person to purport to be a juror on this forum and say that was their opinion is one thing. To assume that was everyone's take on the matter again proves your ignorance, even the poster clarifies that for you "I guess I should say I do not speak on behalf of all the Jury and these posts are just my own opinion of what happened". But that same person wasn't even smart enough to know that it was the Police and not the Sheriff's Department that arrested Scoles ("the way Wayne was treated by the sheriffs department was very poor at best") Is he lying then since he is wrong? By your logic that is how things go.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

InTheKnow says
But that same person wasn't even smart enough to know that it was the Police and not the Sheriff's Department that arrested Scoles ("the way Wayne was treated by the sheriffs department was very poor at best") Is he lying then since he is wrong?

Sorry sorry.... so I mispoke and said Sherriff... so it was police how is that a huge deal anyway still a law enforcement officer arrested Wayne...

InTheKnow also said
A juror in the case even posted here and stated that they thought Sanchez was lying.

Did I say that- I looked back and I dont think I said we all thought Sanchez was LYING... I dont even know if he was intentionally lying... I just know that the DA did NOT prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wayne did what the Chief accused him of... that is all...

Juror1 said "so I mispoke and said Sherriff... so it was police how is that a huge deal anyway still a law enforcement officer arrested Wayne"

So then why was it such a big deal the difference between "Code 3" and "Code 2"? Maybe he was confused and regardless the fact was that he had asked for back up? Maybe he "mispoke" after all it was awhile ago. The article seemed to weight that statement pretty greatly in trying to determine who was acurate.

"... I dont even know if he was intentionally lying... " How do you unintentionally lye then? Isn't that just being mistaken on a fact?

You seem to preach and live a different story. Plus I like how you through in the factor that Scoles family was in the courtroom for support as a factor in how you made your decision on what kind of guy he is. Seems different than how a jury was suppose to examine the facts...

The "inconsistency" between code 2 and code 3 is a pretty big one. Code 3 is an emergency call, while code 2 is not. So our police chief told the jury that he called this in as an emergency requiring immediate response implying that Scoles was violent, when in fact he was not.

You call that an "inconsistency." Everyone else calls it a lie.

You are an apologist for our lying, incompetent police chief. You probably work for him.

That's not difficult for anyone to understand.

There is no arguing with the village idiot, and Kratatoa you would seem to be that guy...

Dont let a little common sense or logical reason stop you from thinking about something... that would be just too simple.

You say
So then why was it such a big deal the difference between "Code 3" and "Code 2"?

You say
The article seemed to weight that statement pretty greatly in trying to determine who was acurate.

Yes that stament was talked about and confirmed and such.... but imo it was not a big factor in the jurors decision. The article had many facts that were not right and not supported by the evidence and things were written in the opinion of the writer who did not have all the facts.

Mr.Scoles is the self proclaimed mayor of the Mesa. No place for a racist and a bigot. If he shoots himself in the foot by pushing the system in the chest, he stands the chance of having all of his antics uncovered. The stories are rich. Free speech is our right, and the subtleties of racist remarks quoted here run deep, some rather harsh.

Yes, Hermasceifus, I am the Hunter that used to be in charge of the Explorer Post from '89 to '93 and '97 to 2000.

"You call that an "inconsistency." Everyone else calls it a lie."

I don't hear anyone else saying that except you. So that would make you a liar then wouldn't it? Hmmm. Your clamoring is the most ignorant, that is what I take exception to. You then make assumptions of who I am or what I do, another sign of your reasoning abilities being faulty. Have you ever stopped to think that I take exceptions to stupid people's postings? Hmmm that comment was right on huh?

I learned a long time ago that it is impossible to argue with an idiot, and you are displaying all those signs...

Juror #10 here. I just want to add my $.02.

First of all, everyone should understand that it's very difficult to judge a case unless you've sat through the entire testimony. It's a bit like armchair quarterbacking -- the people on the field and the coaches are in the best position to know what's going on.

Also, please remember the standard for finding the defendant guilty: beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if we suspect guilt, if there remains reasonable doubt (a rather subjective standard), then we MUST find him not guilty.

Finally, the charges are somewhat technical, and not all of the instructions were copied above. For example, in the second charge of disturbing the peace, if the defendant intended to communicate -- even if loud and obnoxious -- the charge cannot stand.

The jury was concerned with a number of inconsistencies between the chief's and various witnesses' testimonies. Generally speaking, these inconsistencies created "reasonable doubt" in our minds. I don't think any of us approved of Scole's behavior, but that's entirely different from finding him guilty of a crime.

For me, the code-3/code-2 issue was a core one in eroding the chief's credibility. The two responding officers testified that a code-2 was called, but the chief testified that he called a code-3. Why? Could be a simple mistake, but it also could be that he needed to create in the jury's mind a greater sense of danger than existed. This greatly concerned me. He testified that he was certain about calling for a code-3, and even offered a rationale for it: that he hoped that the sirens and lights would scare Scoles into settling down. I can't think of any reason why he would say this other than to inflate the danger.

I believe the event was an unfortunate one where two human beings got into a tussle. I think Scoles behaved badly, but not illegally. More importantly, I believe that the chief badly abused his discretion as a police officer. He could have simply driven away. I think that once he set the events into motion by calling for backup, he found himself in a position where he had to save face by going through with the prosecution, and then giving testimony that made Scoles' behavior sound much worse than it was. Not a single witness corroborated the threats and slurs the chief testified to. There were way too many avenues for reasonable doubt, in my view, and in the views of all 12 members of the jury.

"the chief badly abused his discretion as a police officer. He could have simply driven away."

Seriously???? I hope that the next time you call a cop and they think the situation is too hectic that they just drive away. Sounds simple enough....nobody would mock them and be angered that they left a problem. Boy it really sounds like you did some monday quarterbacking of your own for what should have happened insted of looking objectivly at the facts that you were presented with.

If the code 2/3 issue was so important in your eyes did the jury ask for the dispatch tapes, the records of the radio transmissions? I've heard them in other trials surely they would have been available. That would have proved what was said.

In the Know said If the code 2/3 issue was so important in your eyes did the jury ask for the dispatch tapes, the records of the radio transmissions? I've heard them in other trials surely they would have been available. That would have proved what was said.

Actually yes we talked about that and found we had the dispatch log in writing in the Jury room so yes it was proved that the chief said 3 but 2 was called.... and darn I skipped looking at this for a few days and it looks like you all had a fun few days... wish I could see what you all wrote that was removed... haha

juror1, apparently I'm not allowed to tell you directly what InTheKnow was saying in this thread, so I'll just say it was similar to his post directed to me in this thread:

http://www.independent.com/news/2009/mar...

"JayB used Google for 10 seconds and then decided the jury was wrong."

No, what I did was note that, according to one juror's statement of what happened, that one juror should have voted guilty according to the law. Now that juror says that Scoles' loudness wasn't malicious. I think that's a stretch, but if that's the juror' judgment, s/he's entitled to vote that way.

"Thanks for the insightful analysis, JayB."

Far more insightful than any of your opinionated rantings.

"MARK MY WORDS!!!"

People who say that rarely mean it. No matter how many times their predictions don't pan out, they won't admit fault, and the'll say it again the next time.

"More importantly, I believe that the chief badly abused his discretion as a police officer. "

I can't imagine how that's *more* important when he wasn't on trial, Scoles was. I hope you didn't let your opinion of Sanchez color your judgment.

JayB hasn't posted here in two weeks because he's 's been off investigating this case on Google and various blogs. He even watched a couple of episodes of Nancy Grace, so this guy knows what he's talking about when he says the jury was wrong.

Personal attacks on others are just a sign of a weak argument and inabliilty to prove one's point.

I agree with what JayB is posting, it seems the trial went wrong, but then again I would assume that those in support of the jury's finding would also support that OJ was innocent, yet it has been proven time and again that the only people that serve on a jury or those not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

"Personal attacks on others are just a sign of a weak argument and inabliilty to prove one's point..."

"the only people that serve on a jury or those not smart enough to get out of jury duty."

Personal attack defined = "Personal attacks are a rhetorical strategy of attacking one’s opponent personally rather than attacking their views, argument, or stance on an issue. They’re very popular in political campaigns."

Kratatoa (anonymous profile) on
March 18, 2009 at 9:46 a.m. wrote:

"JayB hasn't posted here in two weeks because he's 's been off investigating this case on Google and various blogs. He even watched a couple of episodes of Nancy Grace, so this guy knows what he's talking about when he says the jury was wrong."

Case proved.