Printable View
Amazingly enough, seems as though Efren will have his day (or two) in court, whether he wants to or not!
The woman must have been very resistant to bargaining and appears to be willing to give testimony. Good for her!
We just might find out what actually happened, or at least 2 very different, yet each very well supported, versions of what happened that night.
The PD article is here.
It's curious that the victim, who has remained unidentified, shortly hired a lawyer, and has remained silent to date.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
According to the published accounts, all she experienced was a rattling of her window blinds; later EC came to her door, and then ran away.
The most recent reports suggest that she may have known him before.
Is that all there was to it? We'll see ...
It does not matter if the victim has remained silent. Good for her. Articles that focus on the victim's life are inappropriate. Whether she had met the perpetrator before is of no consequence. No one has the right to harass/scare someone in their own home, whether they have a drinking problem or not.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
"On Wednesday, Andrian said he was prepared to go forward. He told the judge he was reviewing new evidence that suggests Carrillo and the woman had met twice before, including one time in a bar accompanied by other people. He said outside court the second meeting was at her home.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by GardenGoddess:
Andrian seemed to be laying the groundwork for testimony that the two were not total strangers.
The woman's lawyer, Rosanne Darling, cautioned against speculating that the two were well-acquainted. But she declined to discuss details of any contact, citing the looming trial.
'Seeing somebody in passing on a couple occasions doesn't mean you know them,' Darling said. 'It's just not what it seems. People try to insinuate one thing or another. The evidence will come out next week. All the speculation will end.'
Prosecutor Joyce Blair also warned against making assumptions about the nature of any meetings. She told the judge the two recognized each other as neighbors at the bar. She also requested the woman be referred to as 'Jane Doe,' despite the lack of sex crime allegations.
Medvigy is expected to decide that and other issues, as well as settle on a jury questionnaire, on Friday."
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
Correct, and the PD spinning, bias and favoritism has been deplorable. The PD first reported how Carrillo was actively plea bargaining for 2 full days, followed by a spin that he was too ethical a guy to seek a plea bargain.
Plea negotiations continue in Efren Carrillo's peeking case | The ...
Feb 14, 2014 ... Plea bargaining continued Friday in Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo's misdemeanor peeking case but a pre-trial settlement remains at least a week away.The two sides appeared in court and have exchanged offers to resolve the charge stemming from Carrillo’s early morning arrest last summer outside a Santa Rosa woman’s home.
Attorney: Efren Carrillo peeking case headed to trial | The Press ...
April 15, 2014: Embattled Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo will go to trial rather than seek a plea bargain in his misdemeanor peeking case, in part to dispel any notion that he is receiving special treatment as an elected official, his lawyer said Tuesday.
“Whatever settlement he might make would be looked upon as a backdoor deal,” attorney Chris Andrian said. “Efren would rather put it out to a jury of his peers and let them decide. That way he's clear of that.”
I agree that thankfully, likely, the plea bargaining failed because the victim refused to give in to the attempted obfuscation/manipulation. I suspect there will still be whitewashers and fantasy scenario excusers in denial and not being willing to admit how right the ones whose common sense called it correctly from the start were even after the ugly details are officially on the table.
See the link for an interesting article about Plea Bargains printed in the PD.
Makes me think that the prosecutor and the woman's lawyer might be in this for a bit of fame and fortune, as most cases this minor are Plea Bargained away to probation rather quickly.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...421#post178421
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:
Or could it be that Efren refused to cop to a plea that inflated the seriousness of the case. My guess is this is much ado about not very much and has more to do with Efren's celebrity rather than a real crime. After all Efren did knock on the door and identify himself but the woman still freaked. We'll find out next week.......Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:
your cynicism is showing. efren seems to be drinking again (just following your lead!). i don't think adrian is behind him. his former neighbor, who receives council at county expense, will have a day at court. can county supervisors get off by trashing those living close who they harassed? i don't think so, but then i also thought efren would resign by now out of embarrassment...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:
or your guess could be sexism. i also enjoy male privilege.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
“In retrospect I should have had my pants on,” Carrillo told the officers.
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...0419480#page=0
Yesterday, I wrote on the PD comment board that:
"I am glad that this is going to trial. We have heard much talk of two sides of this story. But Efren and his lawyers have done nothing to advance their side of the story. I honestly want to hear Efren's defense.
A few people have speculated what it might be, and that I would be surprised. That he may have thought he was returning to a different but identical, house that he had been in earlier, where he had left his clothes, etc. But this is all uninformed speculation. Until next week. I am also looking forward to hearing the 911 calls. It will be challenging for Efren's defense to disprove this reduced charge. Time will tell…"
Today's PD presented Efren's legal defense argument, which puts to rest the speculation that this was in fact a case of mistaken identity/being lost. Efren knew whose home he was trying to get to, unannounced, at 2:30 am, in his underwear.
His defense is surprisingly weak, in my view. It does not present significant mitigating circumstances at all. This was terrible judgment in his case, and an illegal imposition upon a woman that a court cannot, in this day and age, accept as a new normal, or acceptable, because he was drunk (or "inappropriate). The hypothetical argument I have heard simply does not pan out.
This was not "bad judgment" from someone with too much too drink. It is an unwanted, provocative, and intrinsically illegal imposition on a woman.
This is not going to end well for Efren.
I say this without anger, or vindictiveness; instead, with sadness that yet another man has allowed his career to be ruined by a sexist, illegal, male privilege induced sense of boundaries. It is as bad as many of us sensed.
Is this decision to go to trial part of a continued delay tactic that is pension-related?
The PD's failure to self-restrain was their teenaged, down-home need to be irrelevant and name the brand of beer. I wonder if RR Brewing appreciates that or not. Either way, it's clear the PD has thrown its hands up in the air and gone all out to join this hopeless, endless burlesque:
"Still, he said he wanted to socialize. So he told police he grabbed two beers — Pliny the Elders from Russian River Brewing — from his refrigerator, "
Aside from the usual heavy bias in PD editorials (on any and all subjects) I fail to find any bias in their treatment of this case.
My first response after reading that article -- yes, it's just sad. A lost soul. It's clear that what Supervisor (!) Carrillo honestly believes is a reasonable explanation is to the majority of us: deeper digging into more poo. He could have used a mentor long ago? What cultural or community set of values does he think he is representing? They come across as his stone-headed esoteric interpretations of how to be in this world with others, alcohol-fermented or not. And they leave me feeling... sad.
Among the many things that leaped off the page as striking, or as anything from strikingly awkward to directly intrusive and gross (to say the least) --
- He brought her a bottle of wine after she moved in. As soon as she moved in?!
- The first place he goes to as an entrance that evening is not to her front door but to her sliding glass door near the back porch -- does she use it as her front door? Or is this admission suppose to be an improvement upon going to the bedroom window?!
- Police asked him why he wasn’t fully clothed but he gave no clear answer. YET this clarity gem:
- Carrillo said he dropped the two beers and his phone when he saw police because he didn’t want them to think he had a weapon.
- Police asked him why he wasn’t fully clothed but he gave no clear answer. At one point he explained he had been getting ready for bed.
- In closing, “I saw her light on and wanted to say hello."
- And the previously mentioned, immediately notorious -- “In retrospect I should have had my pants on,” Carrillo told the officers."
- The penultimate revelation that she was with a man in her home.
- There were other police reports involving Carrillo that apparently we will never know the contents of. I for one am relieved.
So that PD article presented aspects of his defense?
By the way, in response to the string as a whole, unless you live underground like a mole, in modern human society, people do not get to choose their acquaintances. Yet somehow we are held responsible for knowing them?? Most people who you meet, you don't choose to meet, they are just unwillingly met up with. This is true wherever -- you don't have to -- for example -- live in an apartment complex or work for a large company for it to be so.
I think we're beginning to get a fix on what is about to happen in court.
I'm starting to suspect that Andrian will argue it as her word against his -- especially as to whether anyone actually saw him jimmy the window, and perhaps reach in.
If not, then the jury may have to accept that the worst he did was to go to her doors, half-drunk, in his underwear -- no "peeking".
I completely disagree with you!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:
and
I completely agree with you!
:waccosun:
It most definitely was " 'bad judgment' from someone with too much too drink"
and
It also was most definitely: "unwanted, provocative... imposition on a woman."
The question for the jury will be whether it was "intrinsically illegal". It seems to be to me, based on what I know so far, but there is a fuzzy spectrum that goes between what's appropriate, what's in bad taste and what's illegal.
:waccosun:
[Edited by Barry 5:51 April 20th]
I think that an extraordinary amount of attention will be placed on the 911 tapes - every nuanced teased out. Not that she couldn't "fabricate" the calls, but that too will be determined. Their having been previously acquainted is (almost) a moot point. Whether they've chatted in a bar, as neighbors, or at kindergym, it does not matter. In most rape cases (and I acknowledge this is not a rape case) the rapists know their victims.
You forgot the "underwear" part...Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
Because it is NOT a "minor" case...Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:
Sorry, but "peeking" is a minor misdemeanor, however important this case may be to you.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Victoria Street:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
"What's illegal" will be quite clearly defined.
For some reason, I'm left wondering about any women on this board who've had similar experiences. Although, we don't have all the facts, yet. But as women, have we ever met anyone in a bar or any social gathering, and were attracted to them, and maybe even felt excited about the potential of spending the night with them, (or at least a few hours?) and either took them home, or went to their home? I'm just spinning a story here, for purposes of getting us into a place of personal recall. (Kind of like, remembering that you once were a teen, when you have teenagers to deal with.)
Since both parties were possibly affected by alcohol, I guess we could say that neither one was in their "right" mind, and maybe did some things that they wouldn't have otherwise. Maybe she got angry about something "he" said or did, or vice versa. Remember, when you don't know each other, anything's possible, from an intimate encounter with a stranger. Sometimes it's exciting, and sometimes it's scary. But if you both made the decision to spend time together, this meant stepping into potentially dangerous territory. Can anyone relate to this story so far?
Only you know about your own experiences, and how you handled them. Did you take responsibility? Or did you look to blame the other person? So many details between two people will never be brought out. You may have been raped, but never reported it. You may have consented to sex, and then called it rape. Only you know, and only "they" know. What Efren did was expose himself, in more than one way, as a result of impaired judgement. The woman, on the other hand, could claim anything, and probably will. We don't know what she did; we only know what he did. What if she threatened him with a weapon? Remember, anything can be a weapon. Why would he have left her house in his underwear? Was he in her house previously? Or did he walk to her house in his underwear? Do they both have a drinking problem? Will the truth come out in court? I have my doubts.
Silence is the better wisdom in this situation. Nice to have that choice. I'd take it, too.
I don't see how this act isn't "BAD JUDGMENT", (it's obviously not GOOD JUDGMENT) which most times accompanies drinking alcohol, and sometimes without drinking any at all.
I find it hard to believe that there are no men on this board who haven't at some point in their lives:
"pushed their agenda of unwanted, provocative, and intrinsically illegal imposition on a woman."
It's so much easier to focus on the actions of others, whether other men's or other women's. I'm not saying "Dont Judge". By all means, we must judge; it's our survival mechanism, and also need to inflict punishment, where it's due. I'm so glad to have made it this far, in spite of so many acts of "BAD JUDGMENT". How about you?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:
They're having trouble finding jurors that are un-aware of this case. It's possible the case may be moved out of county.
It will be very interesting to see the gender makeup of the jury.
10 women, 2 men according to the PD online.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
The charge is minor; the case isn't.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
Yes; a jury has been selected. Barry, the issue with jury selection is not whether twelve jurors can be found who never heard of the case, but whether 12 jurors can be found who have formed no clear opinion of the case. A lot easier to do--and they did it today.
Ten women and two men; perhaps reflecting the demographic of the jury pool, and, in my view, that men, typically, are more opinionated than women, so more of them self-selected out during questioning ("have you formed an opinion?").
The article is here:
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...cles/140429956
Tomorrow, the trial will begin. We will hear the defense attorney, the prosecutor, and the chief witness, the woman whose safety was reportedly violated. By tomorrow evening, there will be a lot more clarity as to what the law says, and what the verdict, by the end of the week, is likely to be.
I find both the pro-Efren apologists, with their hypothetical allegations against the woman whose home and safety was violated, as well as the anti-Efren people who are calling him names and making a farce of his actions, to be unnecessary and unwarranted.
I am hoping for, and predicting, a teachable moment happening from this incident, and trial. In which our society, through this jury, expresses what is permissible, in terms of male conduct toward women, and what is illegal. It is a lesson that so many men, whether in the Air Force, or Senate, or County Government, need to hear more often. :heart:
Yeah, but at least no one can accuse him of drinking shitty beer.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by dzerach:
Video:
Efren Carrillo's Peeking Trial Day One (Part 4) by the Press Democrat on YouTube.
At about 28:00 "Jane Doe" describes what she heard that night at her window.
In case anyone's interested...
Added by Barry:
Here's a link to a playlist of all the videos from the first day of the testimony:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...JIQWjUIpKBuJIO
Here's link to part 4. Unfortunately, when viewing this link on the WaccoBB website, our software doesn't seem to be supporting the start time option at the moment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh4t8EOUwsw&t=27m51s
I invite everybody who is watching the extensive videos to highlight specific sections of the video to go along with your comments posted here.
The PD has three videos, with opening prosecution and defense arguments, here:
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...cles/140429900
It does not look any better for Efren. His sense of social conduct is astounding, It is hard to imagine how a juror can find that what Efren did is not criminal. If it is not illegal, than any person can approach a woman's apartment (the daughter of a juror, let's say) in the middle of the night, in his underwear, and try to remove a screen, and not be charged with a crime,
It strikes me that the very statute of peeping was created to criminalize the very type of intrusive social, or anti-social, behavior, that Efren enacted that night.
We will see what the jury thinks.
PD: Carrillo testifies he was hoping for sex
Carrillo's own words today - exactly what those with common sense suspected and expected.
Ravitch knew exactly what happened and let him off of what was clearly attempted breaking, entering and sexual assault by whitewashing it with a stupid, minor and obscure charge that cannot be proven.
I hope to god a jury can change the charge and find him guilty of what he's really guilty of, like I've noticed they can change murder 2 to murder 1, etc. if they feel appropriate. At the minimum, I hope they find that it reasonable to assume you can't tear a screen without looking at what you're doing and seeing thru it by default.... but having that be the only thing convicted of is ridiculous. Do you really think any other 33 year old drunk and half naked mexican tearing a screen at 3:40am would not have been charged correctly quickly???
The worst thing about it for me is that to have this obfuscation and favoritism in my face says that I cannot assume I will be treated truly honestly and fairly by local law enforcement either - especially if a drunk elected official in his underwear looking for sex at 3am broke my screen trying to get into my bedroom while I was sleeping. Proof of Ravitch's sell-out and contempt for truth and justice may be the more frightening and shameful thing that happened.
SANTA ROSA (KCBS) – A Sonoma County supervisor charged with peeking into a neighbor’s apartment in the middle of the night clad only boxer shorts testified that it was his hope to have sex with the woman.
Supervisor Efren Carrillo took the stand Thursday to defend himself against a misdemeanor charge that could land him in jail for up to six months.
Carrillo, 33, admitted entering the private courtyard of the woman’s apartment, knocking on her sliding glass door, then pushing through her open bedroom window, tearing at the screen. He said he then knocked repeatedly at her front door until he heard what he thought was a man’s voice. Police arrested him several blocks away.
On cross examination, Carrillo denied looking into the victim’s home.
Carrillo took the stand today, and admitted all kinds of bad behavior -- stopping short of any behavior for which he could be convicted of "peeking".
The evidence to date is tenuous and circumstantial, and probably not enough to support a conviction.
See and play the YouTube video of his 11:28 testimony at the PD website:
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...news/140429759
(Frankly, the reactions I saw on WACCO after the incident happened tapped into my existential sense of hopelessness. The environmental, civil rights, anti-war, and especially the feminist movements have all failed. And, here on Wacco, where I believed I would find empathetic souls, misogynistic interpretations of the events from the get-go sent me into a personal cocoon. No woman wants anyone within 20 feet of her window while she sleeps. I just don't get anyone thinking anything else ...) Peggy
Below is from a comment in today's PD.
Thomas Bonfigli I'm back from attending the trial. And I have to tell you that in my nearly 34 years as a Certified Court Reporter, that Deputy D.A. Brad Hunt's cross-examination of our disgraced golden boy was absolutely one of the most brutal cross-examinations that I have ever witnessed or heard! In fact - and I sure hope that you are all sitting down for this - it was so tough and shot E.C.'s "credibility" so full of buckshot holes that it actually was evincing of a bit of sorrow from this perennial Carrillo critic - but just a LITTLE bit. Why on earth did Andrian allow this defendant to take the stand knowing that there were SO MANY documented inconsistencies which could be used against him to impeach his testimony? Permit me to speculate as to why:
They were trying to use the "sympathy factor." And, let me tell you something, folks: IT FELL FLAT. Why? Here's why:
1. He has now ADMITTED to damaging Jane Doe's window screen.
2. He has now ADMITTED walking through her garage unannounced and without her permission.
3. He has now ADMITTED that he was hoping to have sex with her.
4. He has now ADMITTED that his "girlfriend" dropped him off after attending Club 25, and then she left. (!)
5. He has now ADMITTED that he had his cell phone with him.
6. He has now ADMITTED that he went to her back door.
7. He has now ADMITTED that he saw her light on.
8. He has now ADMITTED that he thought it was a "man's voice," even though there were NO MEN inside Jane Doe's apartment.
9. He has now ADMITTED that he "had" an overinflated ego and thought that he could get any woman he wanted.
10. He has now ADMITTED telling the police a different story than what he testified to on the stand today - and, believe me, there were so many inconsistencies in his lengthy testimony that I do now have enough fingers and toes upon which to count them!
When my parents and I went to trial for the second time in their real-property lawsuit, the case came down to two things: the proper law being applied to the case (in the second trial, as directed by the California Court of Appeal) and the truthfulness - or veracity - of the witnesses. I am proud to say that my family members and I - as well as our other witnesses who were called to the stand - told the honest-to-God's truth, and the jury's verdict and the comments which they made afterwards reflected that.
Let us now hope that the jury - who, as far as I could tell, was really taking their sworn duty seriously - returns a verdict which will not only give Jane Doe some justice, but one which will make Lady "J" smile proud in Sonoma County once again so that our faith in our system of criminal jurisprudence will be at least somewhat restored.
It is not pleasant to watch Efren squirm. However, don't be fooled. The eleventh hour called for a stellar performance on his part, and I dare say he ventured to deliver. In the end, though, it just became ridiculous. Admitting to the obvious - wanting to have sex with her, knocking on her door, trying to get her attention, sticking his hand through her bedroom window while juggling 2 beers and a camera phone (huh?), but, of course, he DID NOT PEEK! Such an unfortunate game this all is...Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
Tonight I watched Efren's testimony, then the lucid cross-examination
Check our this video 6, forward to about 6 minutes into it to hear him answer what he was doing there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snvU...GicMDnBzdteosw
It is a sober and sad spectacle. Efren comes off as a little boy, repentant, aware what he did was bad, and about to cry. I do not think he is acting. I feel empathy for him, and sadness.
BUT this does not mitigate his guilt. Nor does it suggest that he will not return to his insanely egomaniacal, sexist, ways when he leaves the courtroom. It was a sad spectacle. And rare. I hope it does not sway any jurors, as it was intended. There is no disputing, in my mind, that what he did was a crime, and that he needs to do his time. It seems to be that this EXACT type of situation is what anti-peeping laws were enacted to prevent. His defense, that he was there and reached in a bedroom window unannounced at 3 a.m. dressed in his underwear, hoping to have sex with her, BUT he did not look in, so it was technically not peeping, seems absurd to me.
It would be a travesty if either the jury lets him off, the judge does not sentence appropriately (jail time), OR he stays on the Board. Any of these outcomes will tell our sisters, mothers, daughters, partners and friends that this behavior is condoned by our community. IT IS NOT!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:
A few corrections:
Ravitch knew exactly what happened and let him off ...
Ravitch recused her office, because EC is an elected County official. The prosecutor is from Napa, I believe.
I hope to god a jury can change the charge and find him guilty of what he's really guilty of ...
They may find him guilty of "attempted peeking".
I hope they find that it reasonable to assume you can't tear a screen without looking at what you're doing and seeing thru it by default ...
Inside the window were blinds, which Jane Doe heard rustling.
Many aspects of the criminal justice system seem absurd to me too.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:
Surely EC was guilty of something. But unfortunately, the prosecutors couldn't think of a more appropriate charge (Trespassing? Vandalism?). Andrian's defense strategy appears to have been an abject apology -- to show that he's learned his lesson -- while not admitting to the specific charge of "peeking".
I stand corrected. It was Cody Hunt, Napa DA.Do I think there was zero backroom colusion, no.The singluar minor charge was ridiculous considering the gravity of the situation and the charges he was arrested for. The police should have given him an alcohol test and the multiple charges should have been:Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
1. Public Drunkenness
2. Breaking and Entering
3. Attempted Sexual Assault
I said:
I hope they find that it reasonable to assume you can't tear a screen without looking at what you're doing and seeing thru it by default ...
You responded:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
Correct, but I have not read how open or closed the blinds were, and in either case they are easily spread for peeking. However, luckily the charges do not specify what window. I hope this jumped out at the jurors as it did me:
Minute 1:02 from EFREN CARRILLO DAY 3 VIDEO (Part 3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAHFZziGxwo
Prosecutor: "....at any time, did you look inside that front window....."
Efren: "Ya."
That sounds like it might have been a reasonable charge in this case. It seems negligent for the cops not to have alcohol-tested him.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:
I had the impression from earlier discussion here that Efren's actions don't meet the legal criteria for breaking and entering. Maybe trespassing? And if he damaged the screen (not sure that's been established), perhaps vandalism?Quote:
2. Breaking and Entering
I don't know where you're getting this from. Yes, he behaved wrongly, intrusively, in a way that would be scary for the woman (though it appears he didn't realize that at the time). Yes, he was hoping to have sex with the woman. But I see zero indication that he would have sexually assaulted her, as opposed to hoping/expecting that she would willingly participate. Speaking as one who, like most heterosexual males and many females, has hoped to have sex with thousands of women over the years, and has even gone to their homes late at night on a few occasions (though always with both an invitation and pants), I don't feel very safe living in a community wherein some folks seem to equate horniness with a desire/willingness to commit sexual assault.Quote:
3. Attempted Sexual Assault
I am basing both these 'should have been charged' purely on lifelong observations of what charges have been brought on people for what, and frequently being surprised about how something seemingly little was seen as something so big in the eyes of the law. What Efren did was much bigger. In this case he really did 'break' something however small (the screen) and by putting his hand inside 'entered'. I recall cases where the whole body didn't have to enter to be called breaking and entering, and has to do with the reasonable assessment of what intention the action indicated. In Efren's case, a reasonable expectation of ill intent far exceeded a benefit of doubt.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
There's no equating going on here. I don't think anyone is drawing any similarity whatsoever between average horniness and public booty hunting, and this situation of someone showing up at 3am unexpected and with pants already off at a sleeping woman's bedroom window drunk and ripping the window screen.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
If you're basing your concern about equating having to do with observations of attempted sexual assault being levied for seemingly much, much less like in other cases, then granted - but the police obviously do it because though hardly anything has happened to our eye - they know what the signs are of likely intention and where it frequently ends up.
Ask any officer (and me) how many assaults start with someone drunk asking nicely. Point being, the situation turns quickly upon being rebuffed, and if the person was arrested with anything way off base to start before getting far - like the time, screen and Efren having no pants already, that's a huge indication that it would have gone bad fast upon getting disappointed. This situation of drunk + things way off base + sexual overtones seems way more than they usually need to call it attempted.
I also wonder if because it's so out of the realm of possibility for you to be that creepy or violent, you really don't get how close to that line many more men are than you think, especially with alcohol.
So then, it actually has been established that Efren tore the screen, rather than its having been torn before he ever arrived?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:
Re: your other remarks--of course it's not implausible that the combination of horniness and alcoholic disinhibition could conceivably result in a sexual assault. Such situations often do end up that way, but even more often they don't. The fact is that nothing Efren did constituted sexual assault or even attempted sexual assault, so suggesting he be charged with such on the basis of fantasies about what might have happened seems to show a cavalier attitude toward justice.
Jury in Efren Carrillo peeking trial to resume deliberations Monday | The Press Democrat
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...qXob5-6Y.email
I agree with you and Alexia on this first one. If Carrillo has been an alcoholic since high school -- some 15 years -- he probably can be legally drunk and hardly show it. That would also explain (but not excuse) how he could close a bar at 2am, come home, take his clothes off, and then go calling on a neighbor at 3am. The prosecution didn't file the more serious charges, probably because they knew they couldn't prove them -- and perhaps, because Carrillo wouldn't plead to a lesser charge.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
He was vague about that, saying something like it is "evident" that he must have, or "evidently" he did.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
I believe it remains unclear whether he went first to her bedroom window -- supporting the charge of "peeking" -- or first knocked at her front door, suggesting that he had a "lawful purpose" in going to see her (even though his admitted purpose was to put the make on her).
She woke at the noise at her window, and later saw him from the living room. I'm not aware of any evidence other than his word, that he knocked at the front, before going to her window.
If Carrillo gets away with this offense, the next time an innocent women will be raped. The man is sick.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Victoria Street:
This was such a blatant product placement endorsement after the fact; it's sick for someone supposedly out of rehab to essentially pitch support for a brand.
I appreciate all the good community work that brewer does; just wish they had done something to distance themselves from the perpetrator and his creepy actions done with their product in tow.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by photolite:
BIG mistake to have it heard here! Only glad I did not have to travel far to witness this fiasco.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
Unfortunately my response to this topic has been re-directed; does Barry, or ? want to deny the readers of this thread my truth and opinions?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
Thread hijacking is not OK, it's a form of censorship so un-west county-like.
Please take a look at the last post on the "Colleen's Blog" thread for deeper insights to this travesty in our midst. Thanks!
www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?99690-Colleen-s-Blog&p=178844&highlight=#post178844
Granted, it was wrong for Carrillo to intrude upon this woman, but muddying the waters with your rape fantasies when there is no real reason to believe that Carillo would ever sexually assault anyone is not a constructive contribution to the discussion.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Beverly Schenck:
And what evidence do you have to support that Efren Carrillo would not engage in any type of sexual assault or misconduct? You just assume it.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
I have heard too many statements from too many people to draw any conclusion other than he is a sexual predator; how far that line extends was clear the night he was caught in underwear tearing a window screen where the victim was sleeping.
What may have happened if Efren had not thought he heard a man's voice and "bailed", or been caught by the cops that night is unknown.
What is known is that treatment for substance abuse is not intended for those, as Efren admitted on the stand are sex addicts & exhibit intruder behavior. He needs the full force of the law AND sex addict counseling to even begin to rehabilitate himself.
He should not be our Supervisor. If Filner can be fired from Mayor of San Diego for just groping, Carrillo should be forced to go, one way or another.
I am sick that the folks in the business of elections don't think a recall would succeed, nor that anyone here is strong enough to run in it. Really makes me wonder about the political power players operating outside of Bosco's team.
Calling anther's statement on this a "rape fantasy" causes me to have concerns about you Dixon. Disturbing choice of words.
When you say,
I don't know how you can say nothing he did constituted attempted sexual assault: IF I showed up at your house at 3 am, drunk & wearing only bra & panties, fiddling around your window - what would you think? I understand that women are less likely to force themselves on men, in general - but in this case, men have got to be able to empathize with women (& the frequency of sexual violence against women) for justice to happen.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
However, luckily the charges do not specify what window. I hope this jumped out at the jurors as it did me:
Minute 1:02 from EFREN CARRILLO DAY 3 VIDEO (Part 3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAHFZziGxwo
Prosecutor: "....at any time, did you look inside that front window....."
Efren: "Ya."
"Ya" meaning Yes?
This comes back to the question of which window he looked through, and when.
I believe Andrian wanted to make the legal point that Carrillo first went to the front door, to establish that he had a lawful purpose in mind: beer and sex with the neighbor.
If his purpose was lawful, it would be reasonable for him to look into the living room, if possible -- as opposed to sneaking into her yard, and peeking into her bedroom window.
This is mysogynistic, Dixon. To attribute "rape fantasies" to a female writer is akin to Freud attributing to little girl's thoughts jealosy of boys because of what Freud considered to be a preferable genital configuration. Criminal behavior analyists have been writing for at least 30 years that this type of behavior (stalking, peeping) is part of a pathway to becoming a rapist (assuming Efrin is not already one).
Rapists in America (probably everywhere) have become serial rapists because of the hidden crisis, so- called by Corey Yung (How to Lie with Rape Statistics - Utah Law Review). Your point of view is disturbing becuase it is part of an ethos that denegrades and degrades women, an ethos that has perpetuated and persisted -- even throughout the Women's Movement.
It bothers me that you identify with the man in this case when the victim, a woman who experienced trauma that involved fear that she had been, though no fault of her own, in danger of being raped. Men don't sneak into women's homes at 3 am in order to establish an equal relationship. It bothers me that Efrin thought she would welcome his presence so much that she'd have sex with him. This is how at leasty 60 percent of rapists (FBI's National Crime Victim's Survey) think when they begin what they consider to be seduction but turns out to be an acquaintance rape.
Up to 85% of women are not reporting rape, only 40 percent of reported rapes in Sonoma are solved by the police, oly 25 percent in Marin. Women are still being treated like criminals themselves by both men and women police investigators because of the false, repeat false meme that only a "real rape" happens 1. by a stranger, 2. outside and 3. with a weapon.
Please, Dixon, try to look at this from the victim's perspective ... at least for the sake of discussion, if not for the sake of genuine human compassion.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
The reasonable expectation of privacy in one's home and in public places such as restrooms is unquestioned. Further, is it not against the law for someone to cross the barrier of your home uninvited. (So be careful to whom you open your door -- that is the general idea. Look out the window first.)
Interesting that the content of peeping, an actual non-controversial (!) crime of sexual predation, worthy of many a civil lawsuit, would require a modicum of stealth. Something "Bigfoot" did not indulge in?! Or? Without the effect of substances, this whole subjective experience he relates seems to ride along the edge of a psychosis.
What's amusing to me is to think of some who are actually comparing this event and his narration to "a normal peeping" event.
Such has the objectification of women's bodies as objects and property been the norm. So, yes, this trial seems to be a teachable moment. It's really wonderful in that way. Come to find.
But just a reminder that he is one of the highest elected officials in Sonoma County. And how that means something? As in, the most immediately fresh and relevant way to focus on what is going on?
For people who live in the county, how can this trial not be about an elected official, and be witnessed that way by the witnessing public. YES, for Efren and the media (!), the trial is about him personally. He wanted us to hear his story. And so we now have a trial, possible mistrial, on and on and on. Oh, what will become of his political career? Yammer yammer yammer.
It's all called abuse/misuse of power. Personally, I can't think of this circus without recalling the Dutra Asphalt plant vote and Schollenberger Park. Okay? ETC.
Or more directly, the problems I personally had -- excuse me, I'm not an elected official but a highly vulnerable peon -- problems with the county in gaining assistance with a clear-cut "case," both legal and otherwise, when a low income senior citizen / landlord abuse case effected my family member. Amid a seeming abundance of services for seniors (vulnerable but not helpless population), there is also an ineffectual bureaucracy interwoven with the fact that all of the social services are maxed out. Sonoma County is a euphemism for waiting list. Meanwhile this enabled deluded soul.
Since it seems that many assume that Carillo would have raped Jane Doe if he'd had a chance, I'm wondering about other women he may have succeeded in raping, since it's a pretty obvious assumption, by now that he's an alcoholic and a sexual predator. I assume and expect that other women will come forward, who haven't been as lucky as Jane Doe. At 33 years old, he's had plenty of time to rape many women, so it will be interesting to see who shows up to tell their tale.
"Assuming" that Carillo would have raped her is more likely, than "assuming" that he wouldn't have....or is it? If I were on trial, I'd be glad that assumptions aren't part of the evidence considered.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peace Voyager:
I'm just gonna assume your assumptions are presumptuous, preposterous, a little pompous and best kept private, Shandi.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
I will now predict the future: You and Peacetown Jonathan going toe to toe in a race to take Efren's seat on the Board but neither getting enough votes to win. Efren beats you both.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peace Voyager:
i know of a whom has been dating efren for couple years now. She often attended political parties with him, and they drank alcohol very often together. He promised to help her with some domestic court issues and she believed he was telling the truth.
Anyhow, i wish she would stand up for herself at this point, to let the courts know what a creep he can be...
So many teachable moments, both here on this thread and the subject of the thread.
I have been reading with interest the opinions, conjectures, accusations, laced with anger, fear, assumptions...
I'll go in a bit of a different direction with this.
I wonder if Efren was raised with constant praise to boost his self esteem? If whatever he did got positive feedback? Did he feel he could do no wrong? How was he taught to relate to women? What was he taught about Winning and Power?
Let's face it, Efren is a very successful, intelligent and knowledgeable guy. It must have been pretty heady stuff to win a seat on the Board, twice, at such a young age with everybody telling him how great he was, calling him a 'Golden Boy', donating money to his campaign, people asking for favors and HE deciding who would get them...
As Lord Acton once said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Do we see some of that idea in this case?
It seems that running for public office and winning can help one develop a rather huge Ego.
Power mixed with Ego and fueled with alcohol often causes terrible problems for politicians, as we have seen in the past and in this case as well.
I wonder if, when this sad chapter in his life is over, Efren will be able to do the internal work necessary to become a better person? He seems to understand that he needs to do it, and I really hope that he makes the commitment and follows through. That part is up to him. Nobody can do it for him. All the words in the world mean nothing without the true desire for and doing the work to change. Perhaps this very public incident is the catalyst he needs to change his life.
Perhaps we can all use this time to look into ourselves and see what changes we might personally want to make to be better persons?
I would like to see him succeed in life. I would like to see us ALL succeed in life.
Peace
Tom
tomcat wrote: [/QUOTE] I wonder if, when this sad chapter in his life is over, Efren will be able to do the internal work necessary to become a better person? He seems to understand that he needs to do it, and I really hope that he makes the commitment and follows through. That part is up to him. Nobody can do it for him. All the words in the world mean nothing without the true desire for and doing the work to change. Perhaps this very public incident is the catalyst he needs to change his life.
Perhaps we can all use this time to look into ourselves and see what changes we might personally want to make to be better persons?
I would like to see him succeed in life. I would like to see us ALL succeed in life.[/QUOTE]
I think it is good that the topic of a very visible local incident is evolving into a more general discussion of our values and attitudes as a society.
I see the discussion as currently involving the human right not to be used as an object, the right to be secure in our person and our belongings, along with the reasonable boundaries society should expect people to honor, and the consequences that should happen when a person abridges the personal freedom of another.
These are weighty social issues that must be discussed in a non-emotional, logical manner. I truly hope a valuable discourse ensues from this. It is my personal opinion that speculation on what would've or could've happened or what may or may not have been thoughts in a given person's mind should be left out of it.
Perhaps this discussion could be moved to a more appropriate category and renamed something like: Exploring human rights issues as related to changing ideas about gender in an evolving community.
(I experienced a peeking incident a few months ago that left me quite rattled; so, my plea for logic and facts, as well as my willingness to discuss personal and societal attitudes around gender and power, are both heartfelt and peaceful in intent.)
Comments at the PD have downplayed his drinking as just self-indulgence. But I'm beginning to think that his admitted alcoholism (since high school, some 15 years) and hubris are closely associated.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
His drinking may actually be self-medication for a bi-polar condition; or simply compensation for an inner understanding that he's been pushed too far, too fast. If there is a significant psychological component to his alcoholism, then he may not just be overly arrogant when drunk, but delusional.
When this is over, he probably should see a psychiatrist, before any further treatment for alcoholism.
If the prosecution thought such testimony would be admissible, no doubt they would have solicited it.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by miss tyfied:
I like this sentence: "He promised to help her with some domestic court issues and she believed he was telling the truth." As in, "I'm a Supervisor, party with me, and I'll fix it for you"?
I'm guessing he was constantly pushed beyond what he thought were his limits; and that he acquired only a juvenile understanding of the quality of "macho"Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:
As a County Supe, Carrillo is not "great", nor is he entirely bad. But he was working at it.
You can't prove a negative.Quote:
]And what evidence do you have to support that Efren Carrillo would not engage in any type of sexual assault or misconduct?
photolite wrote:Yeah, but at least no one can accuse him of drinking shitty beer
This was a joke. Please lighten up.Quote:
This was such a blatant product placement endorsement after the fact; it's sick for someone supposedly out of rehab to essentially pitch support for a brand.
.
"Anybody who sees a psychiatrist should have their head examined"
Yogi Berra
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
Colleen, that's a straw figure argument. I have not taken the position that Efren would never engage in sexual assault--only that there is no evidence I've seen that he would. For all I know, he may have intended to rape, torture, kill and eat the woman. But in the absence of any evidence that he intended anything other than consensual sex--and keeping in mind the principles of "innocent until proven guilty" and benefit of the doubt--I insist that condemning him on the basis of people's speculation about what he might have intended is a harmful, not helpful, response.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peace Voyager:
What statements have you heard that have convinced you to make such a serious public accusation?Quote:
I have heard too many statements from too many people to draw any conclusion other than he is a sexual predator...
One of my main points is that Efren's intentions are not nearly as clear as some of you would like to think. I hate to deprive you folks of the self-righteous rush of condemning someone on the basis of poorly founded assumptions, but tolerance for uncertainty is a hallmark of maturity and rationality, and a prerequisite for real justice.Quote:
...how far that line extends was clear the night he was caught in underwear tearing a window screen where the victim was sleeping.
Exactly! So I guess you agree with me that referring to his actions of that morning as attempted sexual assault is inappropriate given the lack of information.Quote:
What may have happened if Efren had not thought he heard a man's voice and "bailed", or been caught by the cops that night is unknown.
Hmmm...so you're not disturbed by people (including yourself) loosely slinging around words like "sexual predator", "rape" and "sexual assault", but when I accurately refer to someone's rape fantasy as such, that disturbs you. Just to be clear: I was not using the term "rape fantasy" in the erotic sense (though some people do have erotic fantasies of being raped). I was referring to the fact that, absent any evidence that nonconsensual sex was intended, assumptions of rape being involved are merely fantasy. There's nothing at all wrong with hypothesizing that Efren's intention was that dark (and, again, it could be true), but to jump from those speculations--fantasies--to public accusation and a call for indictment is, to put it politely, irresponsible and nonconstructive. And for you to suggest that my pointing out the lack of evidence for any intention of rape is "disturbing" says nothing about me and quite a bit about you.Quote:
Calling anther's statement on this a "rape fantasy" causes me to have concerns about you Dixon. Disturbing choice of words.
Everything I've heard so far is consistent with Efren's story that he was seeking consensual sex. Of course, we don't know for sure that that's true, but how have you reasonably ruled out that interpretation? And do you see that if you haven't really ruled out his claim (with evidence, not assumptions), it's inappropriate to jump to the more negative interpretation? This is, among other things, a Golden Rule issue.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Nevermind:
I'd think "Hallelujah!" I'm available just about any night at 3 AM! Should we make an appointment?Quote:
IF I showed up at your house at 3 am, drunk & wearing only bra & panties, fiddling around your window - what would you think?
Now that we've shared a little chuckle, here's my more serious response: Did you not see in my earlier posts that I acknowledged that Efren's behavior was wrong, intrusive, and would reasonably scare a person? It still wasn't sexual assault. If that's unclear to you, here is a definition of "sexual assault".
Do you think that accusing people of sexual assault in the absence of any evidence for it is an indication of empathy for women? Or that my insistence on not assuming people's guilt based on our fantasies about what might have happened indicates a lack of empathy? What does your willingness to make false public accusations of vile things like sexual assault say about your empathy, or lack of it? Sheeeesh!Quote:
...men have got to be able to empathize with women (& the frequency of sexual violence against women) for justice to happen.
.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by daynurse:
Anyone who knows me well, male or female, would laugh at your attribution of misogyny to me. But ironically, I'm getting the impression that you may be afflicted with misandry. I say that because of the ugly picture you have created of me, based on grossly inaccurate and unfair interpretations of my statements. For example:
As I've explained in my post #65 in this thread, I wasn't using the term "rape fantasy" in the sense of erotic fantasies. I was simply pointing out that, absent any evidence that rape was intended, speculations about it in this context are just that--speculation, i.e., fantasy.Quote:
To attribute "rape fantasies" to a female writer is akin to Freud attributing to little girl's thoughts jealosy of boys because of what Freud considered to be a preferable genital configuration.
Even if we assume that's true, it doesn't follow that most peepers would ever rape anybody. Learning to fly a plane is part of a pathway to flying a jet into a skyscraper, but most pilots don't do that. Are you suggesting that it would be appropriate to assume that if someone is found to be a peeper, they would rape? I hope you're more intelligent than that.Quote:
Criminal behavior analyists have been writing for at least 30 years that this type of behavior (stalking, peeping) is part of a pathway to becoming a rapist...
This is a very serious accusation that is pretty much impossible to respond to because you haven't specified what you mean by "Your [my] point of view". I really am not clear on what ugly "point of view" you're attributing to me. Is it my insistence that people not be assumed guilty of horrible things based on others' fantasies about their intentions that bothers you? Or what? Really, daynurse, it's now incumbent on you to clarify what you mean by my "point of view" and make a case for its harming women, or else publicly apologize for publicly insulting me.Quote:
Your point of view is disturbing becuase it is part of an ethos that denegrades and degrades women...
It bothers me that you distort my position into something ugly and stupid. I have not identified with the man any more than I have identified with the woman in this occurrence. Did you not read my posts in this thread wherein I condemned his actions and validated her feeling of fear? If you equate my insisting that we refrain from nasty, poorly founded accusations with identifying with the guy--well, that's just crappy logic on your part, isn't it? It's also gratuitously insulting to me.Quote:
It bothers me that you identify with the man in this case...
Having said that, I do think it's fair to say that you're identifying with the woman in this case. I'm trying to embody a more balanced approach.
Was he sneaking into her home, or was he rattling the blinds to get her to wake up and let him in? Are you giving the benefit of the doubt, or looking for a male sacrificial animal to atone for the sins of men in general? If he was trying to sneak into her home, why did he knock on her front door? Also, note that you contradict yourself. First you say he wasn't seeking an equal relationship, then you acknowledge that he expected she'd welcome his presence and choose to have consensual sex--an equal relationship!Quote:
Men don't sneak into women's homes at 3 am in order to establish an equal relationship. It bothers me that Efrin thought she would welcome his presence so much that she'd have sex with him.
If you think it follows from this that Efren intended rape, you need to take a basic logic class.Quote:
This is how at leasty 60 percent of rapists (FBI's National Crime Victim's Survey) think when they begin what they consider to be seduction but turns out to be an acquaintance rape.
Yeah, all of this is horrible. But why are you lecturing us about rape? Do you imagine that anyone involved in this discussion endorses or tries to justify rape? I'm really feeling that you're not talking to me at all; instead you're addressing some stereotypical sexist male boogie-man that you've projected onto me.Quote:
Up to 85% of women are not reporting rape, only 40 percent of reported rapes in Sonoma are solved by the police, oly 25 percent in Marin. Women are still being treated like criminals themselves by both men and women police investigators because of the false, repeat false meme that only a "real rape" happens 1. by a stranger, 2. outside and 3. with a weapon.
Your notion that I'm not already doing that indicates that you haven't read my posts closely, or that your perception of me is grossly distorted by your stereotypes and projections. Now I invite you to look at this from a perspective that doesn't equate empathy for the victim with victimizing someone else by attributing to him crimes for which there is no compelling evidence. I have shown empathy for everybody in this situation, while I see you having empathy for only the woman. Again, I'm not misogynous, but you may be misandrous.Quote:
Please, Dixon, try to look at this from the victim's perspective ... at least for the sake of discussion, if not for the sake of genuine human compassion.
Bingo! That's what I've been saying all along. In response, I've been accused of misogyny, of lacking empathy for the woman, etc. It'll be interesting to see if those who've been slapping me around for taking this position now level similar accusations at you. I'm guessing that they reserve their nasty, distorted critique for males and will be gentler with you...Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by GardenGoddess:
:thumbsup:Quote:
(I experienced a peeking incident a few months ago that left me quite rattled; so, my plea for logic and facts, as well as my willingness to discuss personal and societal attitudes around gender and power, are both heartfelt and peaceful in intent.)
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png GardenGoddess wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.png
These are weighty social issues that must be discussed in a non-emotional, logical manner. I truly hope a valuable discourse ensues from this. It is my personal opinion that speculation on what would've or could've happened or what may or may not have been thoughts in a given person's mind should be left out of it."
dixon wrote: "Bingo! That's what I've been saying all along. In response, I've been accused of misogyny, of lacking empathy for the woman, etc. It'll be interesting to see if those who've been slapping me around for taking this position now level similar accusations at you. I'm guessing that they reserve their nasty, distorted critique for males and will be gentler with you..."
Historically, my opinions are extremely unpopular, especially at social gatherings. Since I don't take sides and insist on facts, many people become uncomfortable. They demand I play a game and conform to the idea that all discussions are able to be polarized into two distinct sides of an issue. (This polarization is illogical in itself and cannot lead to a useful discussion.)
Also, I don't follow the course of trying to find an entity to blame for a situation or make up stories of what others are thinking. I can't know what's inside another person's head. Since I can't be put into a box or quantified, I find that I am distrusted, given a blank stare or laughed at as being ignorant. I was actually expecting to be blasted for my post....Thank you to all who expressed gratitude.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
I think you missed her point.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
et demonstrandum bonum quoqueQuote:
Posted in reply to the post by daynurse:
ratione demonstratum, non praeiudicius.
to be clear.
That's the sort of evasive cop-out response we see from people who cannot refute the other discussant's points but are unwilling to acknowledge that they may be mistaken.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by daynurse:
Efren has been judged to be NOT GUILTY.
Please direct further discussion to the new thread:
Verdict: Carrillo Not Guilty