Comments by whatsinsb

Previous | Page 2 of 19 | Next

Posted on June 20 at 8:56 a.m.

loonpt - "For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law" is not so much "passing laws which cannot be enforced." What would you say about a wanna-be king that goes around and writes orders/laws he knows Congress (the representatives of the people) would not pass?

On ‘Big Homie’ or Bumbling Gang Boss?

Posted on June 19 at 3:57 p.m.

Congratulations to Carrozzo. You don't get much better than to learn from Pat McKinley. Part of what appears to be a solid legal foundation for our newest Judge.

On Prosecutor Michael Carrozzo Appointed to Bench

Posted on June 19 at 9:27 a.m.

So, Macias' attorney would like the jury to believe Macias is simply a dumb rat-faced drug dealer?

On ‘Big Homie’ or Bumbling Gang Boss?

Posted on June 12 at 2:55 p.m.

Lawdy -

You are correct to a limited extent about my post. I have judged Bergdahl and my judgement is based on the statements of several of the soldiers in his platoon reporting it was their opinion Bergdahl deserted. Who would know better than Bergdahl's brothers in arms whether or not he left his post voluntarily or was captured by the enemy? Do you realize there is quite a difference in walking away from a post in the military at a base/post in the USA or other non-combat area versus walking out on your fellow soldiers in a combat zone?

I wouldn't convict Bergdahl until I heard his explanation for leaving his post without authorization. As a Vietnam veteran I can't think of any reasonable or logical reason Bergdahl could state as the reason(s) he left his post as reported. But, I'm willing to listen. If the evidence confirms the major allegations against Bergdahl (AWOL, desertion, collaboration with the enemy), then yes, I believe he should be executed due to the fact these acts occurred in a combat zone.

Spacey - I simply believe when in the military there are strict standards that govern a soldier's discipline/behavior and Bergdahl was made aware of these standards. It appears Bergdahl committed major violations of the UCMJ and if convicted I believe he should receive the maximum punishment.

As to the president, I could care less about the color of his skin. This issue does not involve "past presidents" but the current president that has a problem speaking truthfully and his competency in office. It is because of prior deceptive statements the president has made it is my opinion he lacks any credibility. His color has nothing to do with his lack of credibility.

On Bowe Bergdahl Was Right to Walk Away

Posted on June 12 at 8:57 a.m.

It appears Bergdahl, at a minimum was AWOL from his post, possibly a deserter; and is reported as a "traitor" by other men in his platoon that are aware of the circumstances of his "disappearance." Bergdahl also possibly collaborated with the enemy.

I will accept the word of platoon members 100% regarding Bergdahl before accepting anything Obama, Defense Secretary Hagel or anyone else in the Obama administration reports. Obama has absolutely no credibility and is a known and documented liar as are several members of Obama's staff. Since Bergdahl reportedly walked away from his post he should not be granted POW status.

If Bergdahl wants to take a position relative to his observation's and belief developed in Afghanistan he should have waited until discharged and then returned to kiss the ass of the Taliban.

Bergdahl "volunteered" and enlisted in the Army and is bound by the Uniform Code Of Military Justice. If convicted of the major reported violations I hope the death penalty is imposed!

On Bowe Bergdahl Was Right to Walk Away

Posted on June 10 at 6:14 p.m.

Entering the marina without authorization is merely an "infraction?" I didn't read anyone was acting in a hostile manner against any officer. Again, why the threat by the officer to use the taser for a citeable offense?

Stepping onto someone's boat could constitute a felony, but, I believe (intent) to commit a theft or any other felony would have to be proven and it doesn't appear, based on the minimal facts identified, any officer would be able to prove intent as required for felony burglary.

I will (jokingly) guess it is not in an officer's "DNA" to just watch a subject they have contacted on a call of this type run away from them without chasing them down. Unless unidentified facts warranted, if Denunzio was identified before he ran, why not just let him run and follow-up the investigation with a request for an arrest warrant? Not so much a "DNA" issue as a serious issue related to officer training and discipline. I will guess adrenaline kicks into high gear during a foot/vehicle pursuit which I suspect is a reason that often leads to suspects getting their ass kicked once apprehended. Again, likely due to a lack of discipline on the part of the officer unless the suspect is combative.

I don't condone Denunzio's activity and I definitely don't care to see any of our officers injured. But, until additional facts are reported, it might have been better to just let Denunzio run. I suspect the injuries suffered by the officer will be considered at sentencing if Denunzio is convicted of any violation, i.e., misdemeanor delaying/obstructing an officer in the performance of their duties.

On Cops Arrest Denunzio Again

Posted on June 10 at 11:50 a.m.

Botany -

California addresses the responsibilities of bar owners and operators in the California Business and Professions Code sections 25602 and 25602.1.

According to 25602:

“(a) Every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any habitual or common drunkard or to any obviously intoxicated person is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(b) No person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage pursuant to subdivision (a) of this section shall be civilly liable to any injured person or the estate of such person for injuries inflicted on that person as a result of intoxication by the consumer of such alcoholic beverage.”

Section 25602.1 carves out an exception to 25602, however, allowing liability against individuals who give alcohol to minors if the minor then causes injury or death as a result of being intoxicated.

The Responsibility of the Bartender:

While serving alcohol to an intoxicated person is a misdemeanor that can subject the offender to criminal charges, California law is unique in that it shields the bartender or bar owner from civil liability. This is a departure from the majority law in the United States related to bartender/bar-owner liability. In fact, according to, in 38 states, a business that sells alcoholic drinks or a host who serves alcohol to an intoxicated person can be held strictly liable for injuries caused by the drunken individual. In other words, if a bartender gives alcohol to an intoxicated individual and that person drives home and injures someone along the way, the bar can be held responsible.

Because California has prohibited imposing this type of liability, those who choose to serve alcohol to someone who is drunk will face only criminal consequences and will escape the obligation to pay financial damages to those injured or to the loved ones of those killed in an accident. California’s law has, therefore, removed an important deterrent to people from serving alcohol to those who are obviously drunk.

So, it appears all parties involved in the serving/consumption of alcohol can be held accountable for the actions.

On Cops Arrest Denunzio Again

Posted on June 10 at 9:02 a.m.

DeNunzio is going to be charged with (felony) resisting arrest? Who arrested DeNunzio and what was the charge(s) for which he was arrested prior to the time he ran? Do Harbor Patrol Officer's have powers of arrest and was either brother advised they were under arrest for public intoxication (or any other violation) before Tony ran?

All I read is that the brothers were reportedly "prowling" (a misdemeanor) and contacted by Harbor Patrol Officers. Under current law I don't believe an officer can arrest a person they believe committed a misdemeanor if the officer(s) did not observe the reported act. A "citizens arrest" by the reporting/complaining party would be required for officers to take either brother into custody for a misdemeanor offense not committed in the officer's presence.

Did the Harbor Patrol Officer know DeNunzio and was he aware of Tony DeNunzio's history with law enforcement? Why did the Harbor Patrol Officer threaten use of their taser? I can see where DeNunzio would get anxious after having his ass kicked and taser used needlessly on him in a previous encounter. Wouldn't the officers more appropriate response to Tony's (or any other citizens) question regarding the taser have been "weapons are used only when necessary" or something similar and non-threatening?

Running is likely resisting and while not condoning DeNunzio's activity I can see where this case might also have its problems.

On Cops Arrest Denunzio Again

Posted on May 23 at 8:34 p.m.

Not much class exhibited by Mike McGrew in announcing the POA's decision to endorse Wolf. I would think more respect would have been shown to Aceves since he is a retired PD officer. At a minimum, a quick phone call to advise Aceves of the POA decision would have sufficed. Then again, maybe McGrew doesn't have the cajones to face Aceves or advise him of what could be perceived as bad news. You are a real piece of work McGrew!

On City Cops Endorse Wolf

Posted on May 20 at 2:46 p.m.

Run Forest, run!

On Suspect on the Run in I.V.

Previous | Page 2 of 19 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: