Verdict: Carrillo Not Guilty

[podfish]

This post--I've deleted most of it, for brevity's sake--assumes that getting over traumatic events is an act of volition. I do not believe this is true and it is certainly not always true.

you could go further. Most of people's behaviors don't seem to be acts of volition, and certainly people's feelings aren't. You don't have the energy (in an engineering sense) for that to be true. We're on autopilot. You can train it, and override it, in most circumstances. But (sorry, I'm indulging in pop psych which I've been known to ridicule in others) a lot of the credit people give themselves for thinking through their actions is misplaced, and is nothing more than an attempt to feel in control of themselves.

We're all really good at after-the-fact rationalization when trying to explain our own actions. I've seen convincing arguments that the speed at which your brain reaches decisions is incompatible with the time it takes to apply rational processes - your body has fired off a reaction or feeling already and your brain checks it slightly later against a more thoughtful analysis, hoping you haven't already done something stupid!

Getting pretty OT, sorry.

[tomcat]

I read in the PD that around 40 people showed up at the Wednesday demonstration.

Tom

...Please join me and many other Sonoma County residents in demanding his resignation.

If you can't make it to the demonstration tomorrow (Wednesday) at Court House Square from 5-7 PM, then please phone or email all the individual Supes (including Carrillo) demanding Carrillo's resignation. Go to https://supervisors.sonoma-county.org/. And please pass this on to your friends. Thanks.

[Shandi]

If it's true what you're saying that "most of people's behaviors don't seem to be acts of volition, and that we're on "autopilot", then it would seem that none of us can be held responsible for our actions. This would have to include all actions. Even Carillo's. Obviously, he was on autopilot, acting out of lustful feelings, which of all feelings is one of the strongest feelings human beings have. Is this truly what you mean to say? So, if we aren't acting out of volition, and are truly at the mercy of our feelings, than our actions are really more or less out of our control.

I can only relate to decisions that I've made in my life that involved accepting that my abusive parents were really doing the only thing they knew how to do. And rather than prolong the agony I experienced as a child, I consciously decided to forgive them, and let go. When I received a returned Mother's Day card that said "Moved, no forwarding address", I was deeply wounded. I carried that wound, and every Mother's Day I relived it. Until one Mother's Day when I was about 20, I spoke to myself, and said "You don't have to do this anymore. It serves no purpose, and makes you feel bad." From that day forward, I no longer had those feelings that I had engaged so well for so many years. I see people doing it all the time, women especially. They allow these feelings of not being wanted as a baby (how many of us were actually planned?) to become their over-riding theme, and it sabatoges their efforts at everything they try to do. The refrain is "I wasn't wanted...." (therefore no one will want me)

Self talk is a powerful tool, and it can be used to keep us stuck, or to free us. I, personally, believe in it, because it worked for me, and continues to. There are many other methods to heal from abuses and traumas, but sometimes nothing seems to work, and the trauma is recyled over and over again. It's sad that these cases appear to be hopeless. Then I see a man with no arms and no legs, and he's smiling. How can this be? Is this just an attempt to feel in control of himself?

you could go further. Most of people's behaviors don't seem to be acts of volition, and certainly people's feelings aren't. You don't have the energy (in an engineering sense) for that to be true. We're on autopilot. You can train it, and override it, in most circumstances. But (sorry, I'm indulging in pop psych which I've been known to ridicule in others) a lot of the credit people give themselves for thinking through their actions is misplaced, and is nothing more than an attempt to feel in control of themselves.

We're all really good at after-the-fact rationalization when trying to explain our own actions. I've seen convincing arguments that the speed at which your brain reaches decisions is incompatible with the time it takes to apply rational processes - your body has fired off a reaction or feeling already and your brain checks it slightly later against a more thoughtful analysis, hoping you haven't already done something stupid!

Getting pretty OT, sorry.

[podfish]

If it's true what you're saying that "most of people's behaviors don't seem to be acts of volition, and that we're on "autopilot", then it would seem that none of us can be held responsible for our actions.

admittedly, it makes the idea of responsibility more complex. But your observation sounds like a formulation you hear from many religious believers: if you don't believe in god, then you might as well murder, rape, and pillage. Somehow I don't follow that logic either.

Of course, despite many people's hope or belief that ethics and morals are completely black and white, based on incontrovertible principles, we live in a world with a lot of ambiguity. I'm pretty convinced from all evidence and experience that indeed people are on autopilot, and that most people aren't cognizant of their own motives, and aren't able to make themselves act solely with forethought based on rational analysis. I can't imagine anyone who's actually met people can dispute that. It's just that we seem to assume it's only insignificant things that are instinctive, and we expect any serious action to be the product of a person's rational analysis and an expression of their true nature. Really, though? and who but the most fundamentalist really doesn't believe that a person is to some greater or lesser degree a product of their environment and upbringing? so the question of what "holding someone responsible" even means, is far more subtle than it might seem at first thought. (if thought's involved )

[Geoff Johnson]

admittedly, it makes the idea of responsibility more complex. But your observation sounds like a formulation you hear from many religious believers: if you don't believe in god, then you might as well murder, rape, and pillage. Somehow I don't follow that logic either.
Of course, despite many people's hope or belief that ethics and morals are completely black and white, based on incontrovertible principles, we live in a world with a lot of ambiguity. I'm pretty convinced from all evidence and experience that indeed people are on autopilot, and that most people aren't cognizant of their own motives, and aren't able to make themselves act solely with forethought based on rational analysis. I can't imagine anyone who's actually met people can dispute that. It's just that we seem to assume it's only insignificant things that are instinctive, and we expect any serious action to be the product of a person's rational analysis and an expression of their true nature. Really, though? and who but the most fundamentalist really doesn't believe that a person is to some greater or lesser degree a product of their environment and upbringing? so the question of what "holding someone responsible" even means, is far more subtle than it might seem at first thought. (if thought's involved )

Maybe the pop psych should go to a new thread, with EC just one example of whatever.

Should there be a new thread for the Supes' actions next Tuesday?

[dominus]

Recalls are expensive and it's questionable whether or not enough people would endorse such an action. There are many groups that would like to see Efren Carrillo resign. So, Efren will be confronted on a daily basis with those individuals who might respect his position but not him. He's going to be in for a rough ride. I can't help but feel sorry for him.

[Shandi]

I belong to a spiritual community on LinkedIn, and quite often involve myself in the discussions that ensue from various questions. The one I'm going to quote from is a response by someone to this question: "We are in stressful times. What do you do to calm yourself?....Do you think these are the End Times?" The response from someone I consider a very wise woman seems very relevant to the discussion here, so I thought I'd post it:

Marie Pokora
Owner, Mystic Marks: Bookmarks for the Soul

Feeling Peace
mysticmarks.blogspot.com

Our often unpredictable and mysterious subconscious drives 96% of our behavior. It is birthed from a myriad of experiences many of which have been troubling and painful and remain unreleased and unresolved.

And so we carry this enormous residue with us and, whenever it is triggered by an uncomfortable circumstance, our emotions are flooded with a download of the unhealed hurt we have been harboring in our bodies.

And it's WHAT we do with that download that is so very important.

IF we choose to do nothing with the download but endure the obstruction, we will catapult into the leaden state of depression...perhaps into anxiety and fear and, for sure, into the roadblock of numb and icebound inaction.

But what IS the antidote to being stuck in what feels like an overwhelming and sometimes paralyzing situation?

The antidote to this difficult situation is to consciously CHOOSE to go to a different place.

Consider what emotion you would LIKE to feel...and I mean feel all-of-the-time. What emotion would you choose to replace the fear or frustration or anxiety?

Let's say, for example, it's PEACE. You would like to feel PEACE ALL OF THE TIME.

So take a moment and consider what PEACE would look like to you.

Perhaps PEACE to you means a sojourn in a lovely meadow where you can inhale the fresh, dew-laden grass and hear God's woodland creatures in the forest nearby. Squirrels scampering everywhere, playing hide and seek among the leafy oaks. Gentle birds chirping in the branches overhead as they track the squirrels' frolicking about. Bouquets of lilacs blossoming brilliantly in great profusion from several nearby bushes, delicately scenting the air with their dulcet fragrance.

You are observing and listening to this pastoral scene from a grassy knoll with the sun shining boldly overhead while you sip a mimosa of pristine water and floating slices of succulent strawberries.

That's my take today...in this moment...of what peace would viscerally look like in my imagination. But what really counts is what would it look like in yours.

The place that you paint as peaceful...the description of THAT beautiful scene is what YOU need to bring fully into your consciousness so you can evoke it whenever the need arises.

And when would that moment be? It would be whenever an upsetting download appears from your subconscious.

But first, BEFORE you replace the default that is playing with a NEW setting...there is something that is very important to do. And that is to ACKNOWLEDGE the download (upsetting reaction) and THANK IT for showing up because that download represents your subconscious protecting you from fully feeling a flash of pain because you did not have the tools you needed to deal with the hurt at that time.

This thoughtful and conscious rewiring of your subconscious that you are about to undertake represents your readiness to release the issues you have been holding.

Now you have developed a SOUL VIEW of this truly loving process and you recognize the beauty of the protection you received during a time of great difficulty and are ready to input your new default setting of choice.

Your new "setting" in this scenario is a visualization of the concept of Peace.

You have greeted the subconscious "visitor" and thanked it for the protection it has provided and now you choose to place yourself right in the middle of your image of PEACE and you visit the beautiful place in your imagination that represents PEACE to you.[*]In so doing you are honoring your commitment to BE PEACE at ALL TIMES. This means you are choosing PEACE no matter what is going on. Regardless of what circumstances are occurring in your life and regardless of what you are feeling, you honor your commitment to choose PEACE.

When you freely and fully make a commitment to BE PEACE and to call up in your imagination whatever scene or choice of action would bring you the feeling of PEACE, you have set a course for yourself to flip the 96% of your subconscious out of anxiety and suffering into the Land of Peace (or whatever beautiful place you choose for yourself).

And when you are at peace and in peace, your body and emotions work in perfect harmony and serve you well and bring you joy.

YOU are now THE SOURCE...the conscious chooser of your thoughts, feelings and actions...and you have empowered yourself with the ability to live freely and fully the life you have chosen for yourself."

Her words remind me that we can only do this kind of inner work when we're "ready". I do realize that sometimes it takes a lifetime to become ready, and sometimes not ever. I apologize to anyone who has been offended by my words about conscious choice, and accept you wherever you are on your journey. I support you in your journey, whether led by
instinct, auto-pilot, or choice. It is, after all, your journey, whether painful or joyful, and it's not up to anyone to tell you what's "right". I've always said "The best way is your way".

And yes, we are all products of our environment and upbringing, but notice how differently that plays out, even with children raised in the same conditions. What causes this difference? I believe it has to do with whatever each child came in with, and of course, their choices. But, if you think you don't have a choice......it's true!

I know people who have told me that they don't want to have to choose, but would rather have someone else do that for them. One person at 18, even said that she wanted someone to "control" her. She ended up marrying a very controlling man, who gave her 3 children to keep her busy, and curtailed her friendships and kept her in the house. She got exactly what she asked for.

admittedly, it makes the idea of responsibility more complex. ...

[Thad]

Once upon a time I viewed woman as Oasis and I a camel of the desert I was fated to as my existence. I could live long in that desert but there came a time that she was needed, no other solution.

It seemed to me a lovely thought to speak and a great recognition to them, the women, how important it was that they were, as water in that desert, but the difference between romantic thinking and reality was a long process in discovering.

In another day when people lived as tribe and there were so many more intimacies as just daily fair, not clothes off, just people who new you and you them and life was fuller, but then the desert grew and many became wanderers and lost in that desert.

Why is it so difficult to understand the desperation that men can come to just to be with a woman in the clinch.

Observing nature, just for instance, the Bowerbird, or all the other gymnastics required to gain the females acceptance leaves this little question of why something so demanding by biology requires someone else's permission to resolve?

How can you not forgive someone for going haywire?

[Shandi]

I don't see lack of "forgiveness" as the problem. I believe the problem is lack of acceptance for "intrusion into one's private space" to satisfy one's desires. When we compare ourselves to animals, we're forgetting the most important thing that makes a difference.....rational thinking. However, I do realize that some or many people don't believe/think that we engage in "rational thinking", but instead act on "instinct" or "auto-pilot" most of the time. If this is true, as mentioned previously, can we be held liable/responsible for our actions? It seems that we are held liable, if we acknowledge the many laws that are broken, and the resulting punishments for those acts.

In this country, we are entitled to privacy, and if that's breached, we have recourse. We must accept the decisions made by judge or jury, or proceed to a higher court.

Whether we "forgive" or not is a personal thing, and most conscious beings know that lack of forgiveness means that we do ourselves harm. First on the mental level as in " I know that this person meant to harm me, and I will NEVER forgive him/her", then on the emotional level "I've been emotionally injured by this act, and am full of anger, and I will never be the same. I will NEVER forgive him/her", and ultimately on the physical level "I am depressed, sick, and now have a serious illness or disease that is robbing me of a joyful life, but I refuse to let go, and I will NEVER forgive him/her."

I am 4 months out of a roommate situation that lasted 10 months, and threatened to take away my sanity, my peace, and my physical well-being. It took two months for me to climb out of the pit of depression and despair, and get back on level ground. Forgiveness was the rope I used to pull myself up; it's a powerful tool to have in one's toolkit. I can't recommend it enough!

...How can you not forgive someone for going haywire?

[wisewomn]

Forgiveness is solely for the benefit of the injured party, as in "Resentment is like swallowing poison and waiting for the other person to die."

It by no means absolves the transgressor of responsibility and accountability.

[Geoff Johnson]

I belong to a spiritual community on LinkedIn, and quite often involve myself in the discussions that ensue from various questions. The one I'm going to quote from is a response by someone to this question: "We are in stressful times. What do you do to calm yourself?....Do you think these are the End Times?" The response from someone I consider a very wise woman seems very relevant to the discussion here, so I thought I'd post it:

"But what IS the antidote to being stuck in what feels like an overwhelming and sometimes paralyzing situation?

The antidote to this difficult situation is to consciously CHOOSE to go to a different place."

Right on!

Accept that something is bugging you, and avoid dwelling on it, by distracting yourself -- in this example,

by creating a pleasant place to go to, in your mind. The same effect can be achieved by reciting a mantra,

praying the rosary, or some other ritual distraction.

[Geoff Johnson]

How can you not forgive someone for going haywire?

Wtf?

He testified that he doesn't have your problem, Thad. He thinks every woman wants to make it with him.

[dzerach]

The other sups don't want to work with him.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...cles/140429531

Personally, I feel badly for what these other supervisors have been put through by this "distraction" esp when there is all of this highly demanding, important stuff on the table. County was at a well-defined crossroads of self-definition/vision for the future before all of this personal nonsense surfaced. As hard-working elected officials, they care about other people, they work hard and they deserve better, whether or not I myself have always agreed with how they have handled stuff, or w/what they say or do. There has been competence and a well-intended, appropriately directed passion. How does the 5th district feel about being ostracized. Maybe you could have your own county.

Recalls are expensive and it's questionable whether or not enough people would endorse such an action. There are many groups that would like to see Efren Carrillo resign. So, Efren will be confronted on a daily basis with those individuals who might respect his position but not him. He's going to be in for a rough ride. I can't help but feel sorry for him.

[podfish]

... The response from someone I consider a very wise woman seems very relevant to the discussion here, so I thought I'd post it:..
Our often unpredictable and mysterious subconscious drives 96% of our behavior. ...

But what IS the antidote to being stuck in what feels like an overwhelming and sometimes paralyzing situation?

The antidote to this difficult situation is to consciously CHOOSE to go to a different place.

good post; I wasn't intending to imply we were trapped by our instinctive reactions - but it may have sounded like that. People who might not share Marie's tactical approach still need to find a way to shape their behavior to match their own moral standards.

[Geoff Johnson]

I know people who have told me that they don't want to have to choose, but would rather have someone else do that for them. One person at 18, even said that she wanted someone to "control" her. She ended up marrying a very controlling man, who gave her 3 children to keep her busy, and curtailed her friendships and kept her in the house. She got exactly what she asked for.

One woman juror who was interviewed said it made sense to her that Carrillo would go looking for love from a neighbor he hardly knew, in his shorts and socks, at 3:-something in the morning. That raised an issue that I haven't seen addressed in the many comments at the PD:

As Freud said, "What do women want?" And if the subject isn't too hot to handle, What percentage of women would actually welcome a handsome stud like EC at their window in the wee hours?

[Shandi]

I would only welcome someone I knew very well, in the wee hours of the morning, and have actually had this experience many years ago, in Hawaii. Although the second time he came to the door, he noticed a pair of men's shoes on the porch, so he went away quietly....knowing someone had beat him to it. Ahh...those were my wild days....long gone.

And as for the question of "What do women want?" Any itelligent, sensitive man knows that there are many thousands of answers to that question, depending on who you ask, and how they're feeling at the moment. Most men are much less complex, and seem to operate from different brain centers, "below the waist". I say "most", because there are exceptions.

One woman juror who was interviewed said it made sense to her that Carrillo would go looking for love from a neighbor he hardly knew, in his shorts and socks, at 3:-something in the morning. That raised an issue that I haven't seen addressed in the many comments at the PD:

As Freud said, "What do women want?" And if the subject isn't too hot to handle, What percentage of women would actually welcome a handsome stud like EC at their window in the wee hours?

[wisewomn]

...As Freud said, "What do women want?" And if the subject isn't too hot to handle, What percentage of women would actually welcome a handsome stud like EC at their window in the wee hours?

Jeeze, Geoff, I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I would never call Efren Carrillo "a handsome stud." IMO, he's not even attractive. He would not be welcome at my front door, let alone my bedroom window.

I would say Chris Andrian was very careful in choosing the jury, and that the juror in question is either pretty stupid or living in a different dimension from most of the rest of us.

As for what women want, every woman is different, and Freud was foolish to pose the question. But I would venture that most females want to be free to choose what happens in their lives and to be respected, particularly by men.

[gardenmaniac]

excuse me, "What do women want?" is totally beside the point. Handsome stud or not, he trespassed on private property in the wee hours wearing inappropriate attire and committed offensive act of peeping. I believe that is against the law. I wonder what the outcome would have been if he were a dirty, smelly, skinny man of different socio-economic status?

...As Freud said, "What do women want?" And if the subject isn't too hot to handle, What percentage of women would actually welcome a handsome stud like EC at their window in the wee hours?

[gardenmaniac]

if he'd appeared at my window? (if I had a gun,) I might have exercised my legal right to defend myself by shooting him ...

..As for what women want, every woman is different, and Freud was foolish to pose the question. But I would venture that most females want to be free to choose what happens in their lives and to be respected, particularly by men.

[Imagery]

if he'd appeared at my window? I might have exercised my legal right to defend myself by shooting him ...

Too bad that would have gotten YOU in some trouble. Legally defending yourself in this state isn't like Florida, where you can go hunting him down and killing him. He might actually need to be inside your house to shoot.

[Geoff Johnson]

excuse me, "What do women want?" is totally beside the point. Handsome stud or not, he trespassed on private property in the wee hours wearing inappropriate attire and committed offensive act of peeping. I believe that is against the law. I wonder what the outcome would have been if he were a dirty, smelly, skinny man of different socio-economic status?

I raised a new point, that may call for a new thread, if there is interest.

To the previous point, EC was not charged with trespassing; and the 10 women and two men found him "not guilty" of even "attempted" peeking.

"What do women want?" is precisely the point of this new direction/thread. It may well be that the ten women who found him "not guilty" have a very different view of male/female relations than do the women here, and the few women who commented at the PD.

As I wrote, the subject may be too hot to handle ...

[oliviathunderkitty]

Please, do not make the assumption that we all see EC as a handsome young stud. As has been noted by another poster, we do not. I met him before he was in office and before I knew his name and was later surprised when I kept reading references to his "handsome" attributes.

And, personally, I would not welcome anyone at my window at any time. If you know me really really well and we have an ongoing relationship of any kind, you are welcome at my door. But if it is at 3 a.m., you better have a good reason for being there.

[QUOTE=And if the subject isn't too hot to handle, What percentage of women would actually welcome a handsome stud like EC at their window in the wee hours?[/QUOTE]

[Geoff Johnson]

I would only welcome someone I knew very well, in the wee hours of the morning, and have actually had this experience many years ago, in Hawaii. Although the second time he came to the door, he noticed a pair of men's shoes on the porch, so he went away quietly....knowing someone had beat him to it. Ahh...those were my wild days....long gone...

If I had found men's shoes on your porch, I would have tried them on; and if they fit, and were of good quality, taken them.

But seriously, these first replies say two things: "I certainly wouldn't welcome him"; and, "He's not good looking".

And that's not what I asked. See other replies below.

[Geoff Johnson]

...As for what women want, every woman is different, and Freud was foolish to pose the question. But I would venture that most females want to be free to choose what happens in their lives and to be respected, particularly by men.

My question goes to the heart of the jury selection process. I didn't witness it, but Andrian said he preferred women jurors; and I imagine he preferred ordinary, lower middle class housewives.

The last thing Carrillo needed was a jury of intelligent, educated, liberated, independent women, such as the few who left comments at the PD, and those here.

[oliviathunderkitty]

Answering your question as you originally pose it would imply agreement with its premise. Since I--and apparently several others--don't agree with that premise, I commented instead. But to get a little closer to an answer, I do not know one woman, not a single one, who welcome such a visit. I have friends of all ages, from pre-teens to 90s.

And that's not what I asked. See other replies below.

[Geoff Johnson]

Too bad that would have gotten YOU in some trouble. Legally defending yourself in this state isn't like Florida, where you can go hunting him down and killing him. He might actually need to be inside your house to shoot.

True! Even if someone breaks into your house, you may still have to show that he/she was an imminent danger to you, and you feared for your own life. And then, there's the possibility of a wrongful death civil suit by the burglar's family.

[Geoff Johnson]

Answering your question as you originally pose it would imply agreement with its premise. Since I--and apparently several others--don't agree with that premise, I commented instead. But to get a little closer to an answer, I do not know one woman, not a single one, who welcome such a visit. I have friends of all ages, from pre-teens to 90s.

My question was, "What percentage of women would actually welcome a handsome stud like EC at their window in the wee hours?"

You replied that "I--and apparently several others--don't agree with that premise" -- the premise being that some women "would actually welcome a handsome stud like EC" -- and you personally "do not know one woman, not a single one, who welcome such a visit."

I think these first replies somewhat confirm what I was curious about: that the women I described as "intelligent, educated, liberated, independent women, such as the few who left comments at the PD, and those here" don't know, understand, or empathize, with what may be the majority of American women.

As I wrote previously, that goes to the heart of the jury selection process in this case.

"The 10-woman jury helped Carrillo's case, Andrian said. Women jurors are more reflective while men are more judgmental, he said."

And:

"Barbara, 63, a west county resident who spoke on condition her last name not be used, ... said she didn't like Carrillo's behavior or his testimony but was persuaded he was innocent of peeking by evidence he was going to the woman's house to drink beer and 'see what would happen after that.'

'That just made sense to me,' she said. 'Why would he bring beers over?' "
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...0429469#page=0

[oliviathunderkitty]

There's an unspoken premise, as well, i.e., "a handsome stud like EC," that makes it impossible to answer your question without agreeing to this premise. That's the primary point I was trying to make. Setting that part aside, I still know of no women who would welcome such a visit, whether or not the visitor is perceived as handsome, which is a big SO WHAT? in this context.

My question was, "What percentage of women would actually welcome a handsome stud like EC at their window in the wee hours?"...

[Geoff Johnson]

There's an unspoken premise, as well, i.e., "a handsome stud like EC," that makes it impossible to answer your question without agreeing to this premise. That's the primary point I was trying to make. Setting that part aside, I still know of no women who would welcome such a visit, whether or not the visitor is perceived as handsome, which is a big SO WHAT? in this context.

Premises, premises ...

Feel free to disregard them.

I think he's a weird looking dude; but others have called him handsome, and he certainly thinks so.

No doubt he gets a little better looking in his own mind, with every drink he takes.

[rossmen]

it's always interesting to shine a mirror... what do you want early in the morn? a built powerful political climber into your space? we write from our own perspective, consciously or not. i experience you as playing all sides, perhaps a bit of control and insider development is what you desire? just trying to figure out you ;)

I raised a new point, that may call for a new thread, if there is interest.

To the previous point, EC was not charged with trespassing; and the 10 women and two men found him "not guilty" of even "attempted" peeking.

"What do women want?" is precisely the point of this new direction/thread. It may well be that the ten women who found him "not guilty" have a very different view of male/female relations than do the women here, and the few women who commented at the PD.

As I wrote, the subject may be too hot to handle ...