Comments by Justice
Page 1 of 14 | Next
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on October 23 at 9:43 a.m.
The jury will be out about 10 seconds. Hopefully, the judge will impose additional time in view of the fact this sick monster not only committed these horrible devastating crimes but then took the stand and perjured himself. Thereafter, he should be removed from society for a very long time.
Posted on October 23 at 9:21 a.m.
"regardless of how critical they at times are of various city policies, they have all enjoyed considerable success painting within the procedural lines by which City Hall currently operates. They may recoil at being tagged City Hall “insiders,” but if they’re not quite “the bums” the conservative slate wants to kick out, they qualify as kissing cousins."
Well said, Nick. None of these clowns will do anything to change the way this City is run despite the fact we desperately need to do so.
Posted on October 23 at 8:50 a.m.
What a pathetic group of candidates.
I voted but it was a hollow and depressing exercise figuring out who I disliked least.
Posted on September 23 at 4:47 a.m.
Good read, John - I would say Hasta la Vista but RIP is more appropriate under the circumstances.
Posted on September 21 at 5:43 a.m.
Had this been done - immediate overwhelming response - to the Jesusita Fire, Santa Barbara might have been spared the mass evacuations and displacements, the loss of homes, animals and property and millions of dollars in firefighting expenses, etc. Hopefully, the powers that be have learned and tanker and aircraft contracts sorted out - we shall see.
Posted on September 16 at 4:13 p.m.
Without meaning to be snarky, none of it comes close to Argentine prime beef - not Lucky's, Holdren's, Ruth's Chris, etc. - and at prices not to be believed.
Posted on September 15 at 4:21 p.m.
Samuel - you seem to have overlooked the fact there was no trial. That does not mean that the public must accept this travesty of justice and remain mute about this case or the sentences imposed. Frankly, I don't really understand what your point is other than to claim we don't have enough information to criticize or question the sentences imposed, a point of view with which I completely disagree. (I apologize if I have mistakenly lumped you with buckwheat who clearly does suggest this was consensual sex). I believe that from a legal standpoint there is sufficient information to draw certain conclusions and, more importantly, to justifiably raise questions about handling of this case by the DAs office and the judge. The fact the woman was a prison inmate in the legal custody of those two defendants is enough to establish that there was no legal consent to these sexual assaults which is probably why these two animals elected not to go to trial. The question in my mind is whether the DA's office let them plead "no contest" as part of some shameful deal or whether the judge, in an incredibly poor exercise of judicial discretion, chose to impose sentences of 75 and 275 days in jail for crimes which were tantamount to rape.
Posted on September 15 at 1:55 p.m.
"We do not know enough about the case to make judgements." Samuel
Wrong. We need know nothing more than that the woman was a prison inmate in the custody and care of these two men who were responsible for transporting her. The idea of "consent" under these circumstances - which you and buckwheat suggest - is as ridiculous as it is offensive. Common sense and the law recognize the power and authority people in the position of those men have over inmates and regard it as virtually dispositive in such cases. (It is similar to but even more clear cut than the reason many colleges have completely banned sex between professors and students, regardless of claims of consent). This was little more than rape and Ochoa's sentences of 75 and 275 days in jail are disgraceful.
Posted on September 14 at 3:21 p.m.
An utterly disgraceful performance on all sides - the Santa Barbara DA's office regularly accepts "no contest" pleas when most prosecutors would insist on guilty pleas (whether to fewer charges or some other "consideration"). The distinction is important and has nothing to do with saving time or judicial resources - the DA's conduct conveys a lack of conviction in their cases and of great weakness and can be damaging and corrosive to the public over time. The judge is hardly above criticism even if, as has been suggested, the sentences were part of a plea bargain - sentencing is a matter within his control and discretion and he could - and should - have refused to accept the plea agreement if these obscene sentences were part of the deal.
Page 1 of 14 | Next
Previous Month
1 of 3 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 4 at 5:26 a.m.
KA - You are not in Kansas anymore. In fact I have no clue where you are because it certainly bears no relationship to reality in Santa Barbara. Schneider and Blum are indistinguishable for the most part at a time with this town needs to start doing something different about a host of problems - this group isn't about to bring about that change. Schneider was too gutless to take a position on B which doesn't bode well for her leadership abilities and lets not forget those who remain on the council and helped get us into this mess, fiscal and otherwise.
On Reflecting on Electing