Efren Carrillo not prepared to resign at this time

[pbrinton]

Strident open-endedness? Unyielding about limitless possibilities? Do I really need to point out the absurdity here?

If I am to be counted among those you are complaining about, you are seriously misrepresenting my views, and those of others who have posted in a similar vein. The examples you seem to be referring to of people offering alternative (and less criminal) explanations for the events in question were responding to the unyielding assertions put forward by the accusers as to what "obviously" happened, with references to "unrefuted" evidence, some of which, as I have pointed out before, are probably libelous.

In answer to these allegations, it was pointed out that first, there are a number of other, less criminal explanations, second that all the accounts we have so far are from law enforcement and prosecution sources (thus very unlikely to be cast in a manner sympathetic to the accused); we have, for obvious and normal legal reasons, not yet heard from the defense, and third that under the customary presumption of innocence principle we should withhold out judgment until the proper time. I realize that the presumption of innocence is a legal concept intended for application in the courtroom, and that you are quite entitled to your own opinion as to the guilt of the accused, but a fair minded person at least bears in mind the possibility, however remote, that they may be wrong. All three of these cautions are still in force.

What the accusers here have been doing is to keep up a constant barrage of ever-escalating accusations falsely represented as clear and obvious facts, reposts of every letter to the editor that agrees with them (though not the ones that don't) and repetitive demands for political action. This is where all the stridency and unyielding assertions have been coming from. I have seen no stridency on the other side, just suggestions about what might have happened in response to absolute assertions about what did (allegedly) happen. None of us knows what happened, it's just that some of us admit we don't, while others claim they do know. On this topic I would turn to the great Bertrand Russell, who said, "The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

So my message to the accusers is: if you want to pursue a recall, get out there start collecting signatures. In the meantime please present your opinion as simply your opinion, and not as established fact.

Patrick Brinton

Just curious if anyone on here who read that article, and read what the prosecution-side said, now feels an impulse to even just briefly apologize for their extreme open-endedness...? It's a question, not a request. The deliberate, strident accumulation on here of strong, unyielding assertions regarding the alleged "limitless possibilities" concerning the nature of what happened? (And anyone professing anything else is a politically-motivated, full-on lynch mob.) Despite overwhelming "circumstantial evidence" that certain things could be ruled out completely. No, she didn't call 911 to get help for Efren, as one of many examples. I'm not going to argue and will end it there except to point out that some people don't have a problem eating their hat, however tiny of a nibble was required.

[Shepherd]

For those who do not read the PD daily regularly, following is today's letter on Supervisory Efren Carrillo. No comment from me.

Aghast at Carrillo
EDITOR: I read with shock, again, about Supervisor Efren Carrillo's poor decision to even think that he would be a welcome committee member at the county's Family Justice Center in Santa Rosa. Hello, we are talking about battered, sexually and emotionally abused women here (“Carrillo told to avoid crisis center,” Thursday).

Then, he has the audacity to say that he “didn't need to be told” that he was not welcome and that “he decided on his own” not to return. This is a man whose ego is still so inflated, who displays sociopathic, addictive behavior in that he places blame on others and credits himself for decisions that others need to make for him to keep others out of harm's way.

This supervisor needs to be fired since he cannot make the right decision to do the right and just thing to step down and to get out of everyone else's way.
ANNIE DELGADO, Penngrove

[dzerach]

I realize that the presumption of innocence is a legal concept intended for application in the courtroom, and that you are quite entitled to your own opinion as to the guilt of the accused, but a fair minded person at least bears in mind the possibility, however remote, that they may be wrong. All three of these cautions are still in force.

I agree and am glad to hear it. You make many fine points throughout. However, we DO now know something, we know how the victim feels in this "the wide range of human possibility" regarding what actually happened. This is the phrase or theme that I was alluding to earlier with my expression "limitless possibilities." Neither are absurd reflections of what has been asserted prior. Both unfairly and equally strip the actual incident as reported of any meaningful context, as if we knew nothing at all -- and can believe nothing at all. I am not accusing you, but do you not see in your response to this new development an unintended, yet direct implication that the victim is not only full-out lying, but doing so to the manipulative extreme of having certain very strong feelings that I guess she doesn't in truth have -- were I to accept your full explanation. If so, this is making the victim guilty in advance.

I truly appreciate and did learn from your logical, articulate explanation here. In accord with your explanation, I wonder if this alleged lack of fair-mindedness that you refer to here wouldn't better be paraded out in public by offering a direct demonstration of its living contrast: moderation and reason. Instead of many hands slamming down an equally opposing counterweight --- as I understand you to have partially explained, done mostly out of necessity for balance.

I think this counterweight as constructed on here over time unintentionally yields a lack of fair-mindedness and compassion for not only the other party in the incident, but the entire county that is on the receiving end of this.

In the request to not judge in advance, people are also implicitly being directed to make no distinctions, to exercise no sense of discernment whatsoever, not even in a situation that will soon become a county crisis in governance with one-fifth of the decision-making hamstrung. A (fair?) price paid for the well-intentioned feelings of wanting to take away one person's pain --and prove a point--- possibly at the expense of hundreds of thousands of other people.

Strident open-endedness? Unyielding about limitless possibilities? Do I really need to point out the absurdity here?

If I am to be counted among those you are complaining about, you are seriously misrepresenting my views, and those of others who have posted in a similar vein. The examples you seem to be referring to of people offering alternative (and less criminal) explanations for the events in question were responding to the unyielding assertions put forward by the accusers as to what "obviously" happened, with references to "unrefuted" evidence, some of which, as I have pointed out before, are probably libelous.

In answer to these allegations, it was pointed out that first, there are a number of other, less criminal explanations, second that all the accounts we have so far are from law enforcement and prosecution sources (thus very unlikely to be cast in a manner sympathetic to the accused); we have, for obvious and normal legal reasons, not yet heard from the defense, and third that under the customary presumption of innocence principle we should withhold out judgment until the proper time.

What the accusers here have been doing is to keep up a constant barrage of ever-escalating accusations falsely represented as clear and obvious facts, reposts of every letter to the editor that agrees with them (though not the ones that don't) and repetitive demands for political action. This is where all the stridency and unyielding assertions have been coming from. I have seen no stridency on the other side, just suggestions about what might have happened in response to absolute assertions about what did (allegedly) happen. None of us knows what happened, it's just that some of us admit we don't, while others claim they do know. On this topic I would turn to the great Bertrand Russell, who said, "The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

So my message to the accusers is: if you want to pursue a recall, get out there start collecting signatures. In the meantime please present your opinion as simply your opinion, and not as established fact.

Patrick Brinton

[pbrinton]

I prefer the term "accuser" to "victim" to describe the person making the accusation. Calling her a victim presupposes that she is honest and accurately perceived what happened, and that the conduct described was criminal. None of these conditions is known for certain. Saying that Carillo's conduct could have non-criminal explanations does not automatically imply that the accuser is a liar (though that possibility cannot be ruled out); it could simply be that she misread the circumstances. (There was a recent incident in which a person trying to get help after an accident frightened a householder so much she called the police in panic, and when the police arrived they shot and killed the accident victim.) Neither does it say that Carillo is definitely innocent of criminal conduct or intent. It simply says that we do not have enough information on which to make a judgment.

As far as I know we have not in fact heard directly from the accuser; we have had a statement from her lawyer. This gives rise to the further question: why does she feel she needs a lawyer? Her interests in the criminal proceedings against Carillo are properly and adequately served by the prosecution. I think it is worth bearing in mind that when the case, if there is one, comes to court, it will not be called (name of accuser) vs. Carillo, but rather People vs Carillo. One possible explanation of her need for a lawyer may be that she is considering some kind of civil suit against Carillo. Again I do not say that this is so, but it is certainly a possibility. In this case the lawyer would have a strong interest in portraying his client as having been severely wronged whether or not that was actually the case.

So unless you are willing to contend that women never make false or mistaken accusations against men, a contention that I believe you would have a very hard time proving in the face of multiple credible and even proven examples of both having occurred in the past, you are not entitled to state as a fact that we have enough evidence to form an opinion on Carillo's culpability.

As to the state of affairs concerning the Board of Supervisors, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The County of Sonoma will no doubt manage to carry on just as functionally (or disfunctionally) as usual in the face of these circumstances. Districts have suffered in the past and will suffer in the future from representatives that through sickness, family difficulties, laziness or plain incompetence have not been able to be all we might wish, and somehow we have survived, and we will survive this. I think there are often more dangers (not to mention expense) in intemperate and unconsidered action than in waiting for things to take their normal course. Let us all take a deep breath, calm down and realize that things are seldom as important or urgent as they might be portrayed by people who just may have other agendas (finding a good excuse to get rid of a politician that they already opposed) than simply concern for the accuser (not yet proven to be a victim.)

Patrick Brinton

I agree and am glad to hear it. You make many fine points throughout. However, we DO now know something, we know how the victim feels in this "the wide range of human possibility" regarding what actually happened. ...

[pbrinton]

I am not sure why it is any concern of yours how I spend my time, but you may rest assured that I have many better things to do than count peoples' posts, which is why I am pleased that it is so easy and takes so little of my valuable time to do so. I expressed no desire to limit the debate; I wrote to support and encourage Shepherd in his declared intention, which he seemed to be having some difficulty fulfilling.

No doubt the debate will continue, and I will choose to continue make my views known or refrain from doing so with or without your approval or blessing.

Patrick Brinton

And Sebastacat would ask YOU to find something better to do than to count the number of times that someone has posted on a particular subject.

The debate will continue, Patrick - with or without your approval or blessing.

[sebastacat]

Maybe you believe that she should be referred to as a mere "accuser," but I and many others with whom I have spoken do not.

I will continue to refer to the woman who called 9-1-1 twice on the morning of July 13, 2013 at 3:40 a.m. as the victim.

I think we should all make an effort to familiarize ourselves with Proposition 9, which was the Victim's Bill of Rights -- which is also known as Marsy's Law -- which was passed in 2008 by the People of the State of California, which gives victims of crimes certain important rights.

And these rights are considered to be so important by the people of California that this landmark law amended some portions of the California Constitution so that victims of crimes would be guaranteed certain rights.

The law also has provisions which ensure that the victims of crimes will not be left out of the judicial process.

The reason given in the latest Press Democrat article as to why the victim retained a lawyer was so that her Marsy's Law rights would be protected and enforced. And I applaud the victim for doing so. If I were a victim of a similar crime, I would do the same thing.

And since I have been a victim of a different type of crime in the past at the hands of another, I share in the victim's outrage and hope that she will avail herself of every avenue which may be available to her in her personal pursuit of peace and justice.

And I will continue to speak out and pray for her now and in the future - just as I have in the past - with or without anybody's approval, criticism or blessing.

I prefer the term "accuser" to "victim" to describe the person making the accusation. Calling her a victim presupposes that she is honest and accurately perceived what happened, and that the conduct described was criminal. None of these conditions is known for certain....

[pbrinton]

It is not a matter of belief that makes me refer to her as the accuser, it is the only description we know to be true. She may indeed establish the fact that she is a victim, but she may not. If she does, I will willingly acknowledge her as such. Until she does, I will not.

You do not even address what seems to me to be the defining question: do you assert that accusers never lie and are never mistaken? If you do not, and it is hard to see how anyone could make such an assertion, then you must admit to at least the possibility that one or other is the case here, in which case she is not a victim in the sense that you are using the term. Therefore calling her that now is at the very least, premature.

It may not have occurred to you that those of you putting forward this point of view may actually be helping Carillo. If his attorney can show that it is likely to be difficult to find an unbiased jury, he can ask for a change of venue, almost always beneficial to the defense.

Patrick Brinton

Maybe you believe that she should be referred to as a mere "accuser," but I and many others with whom I have spoken do not.....

[sebastacat]

Since I saw absolutely no mention of any effort which may have been expended by you researching Marsy's Law, I am going to conclude that you did not bother to read it and familiarize yourself with its many applicable provisions.

Regarding your assertion that the victim could be lying, I will remind you and others that the laws for lying and for filing false police reports about matters of a serious nature such as this are quite stiff. I recently heard on the news that one woman was sentenced to a year in jail for doing just that.

But if you wish to dwell in a castle built of such possibilities and euphemisms (i.e., that the woman in question should be referred to as the "accuser" and not the "victim") I certainly can't prevent you from doing that -- and I won't.

However, I find it quite sad that you have cast such a dim light upon so many people who simply do not deserve it -- the victim, the police, those who have spoken out in favor of the victim -- but not the one person whose reprehensible conduct has gotten us to this wretched discussion in which we now find ourselves engaged: Efren himself.

And Sebastacat finds THAT to be the most disturbing thing of all.

No, I have much better things to do with my very limited time than to engage in an eternal, hair-pulling game of literary Ping-Pong with you, Patrick, so this will be my last post in reponse to your many posts on this subject.

It is not a matter of belief that makes me refer to her as the accuser, it is the only description we know to be true.

[dzerach]

Saying that Carillo's conduct could have non-criminal explanations does not automatically imply that the accuser is a liar (though that possibility cannot be ruled out); it could simply be that she misread the circumstances....simply... we do not have enough information on which to make a judgment....I prefer the term "accuser" to "victim" to describe the person making the accusation.

Yes, I'm glad you pointed out the grey space. However, wouldn't it make more sense in your line of reasoning to call this alleged accuser, "the other party." ? If her temporary role at this juncture is not that of victim --- as would indeed normally be the case in a truly civilized society (regardless of biological sex) ---how does the Default Designation then become "accuser" ? Maybe this is a neutral word in the legal sphere, but not in the shared language/dictionary. She has been made guilty of some pretty severe stuff in your attempt to remain objective.

So, that's fine to leave all of this for the courtroom to figure out --or to dismiss the case altogether. A private citizen's guilt or innocence. I guess he's now -- slowly -- well on his way to a full recovery, personally -- eliminating the probability for more suspicious or obstructive events for the county.

On an ironic note, if the other party turns out to be this ambitious and spectacular liar that you are leaving the door open for her to be....And it comes to pass the supervisor had been engaged in an ongoing attempt to personally associate with this type of person.... Again, "out of the courtroom stuff " does bear upon the public's ability to trust sound decision-making in the public sphere.

While I found your reply to be exemplary clear-thinking throughout, if not slightly too narrow in scope, it does leave me behind with two loose pebbles (in my shoe, that is).

As fellow inheritors of the tradition of Western civilization --and the court system -- I believe it was podfish who left a concise post ( half a Russian novel ago) that beautifully cut to the chase: Caesar's wife. In other words, it doesn't matter if Caesar's wife (Efren) did or didn't. Likewise the placing in brackets of the other party as victim or accuser:

Efren "ought not even to be under (THIS DEGREE OF) suspicion." You and your cohorts cannot blame it solely on politics, although you likely will.

As to the state of affairs concerning the Board of Supervisors, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The County of Sonoma will no doubt manage to carry on just as functionally (or disfunctionally) as usual in the face of these circumstances. Districts have suffered in the past and will suffer in the future from representatives that through sickness, family difficulties, laziness or plain incompetence have not been able to be all we might wish, and somehow we have survived, and we will survive this. I think there are often more dangers (not to mention expense) in intemperate and unconsidered action than in waiting for things to take their normal course.

Keep in mind that when these types of distractions transpire at the national or state level, they are no less damaging but better absorbed by the populace. When they happen in smaller confines, at the town, city, or county level, they have a greater, genuine impact, as they well should. There is nowhere else for the buck to stop.

There's a good reason why certain proverbs have not disappeared over time. I don't think this Caesar one, with its untenable extremes, remains solely because people love a good misogynistic tale. Pompeia: her mere "energy," if you will, and maybe a short-sighted decision-making, apparently opened the door wide enough to allow for doubt of her character. Which not only reflected on Casesar personally, but Caesar understood that good governance itself cannot thrive with these types of distractions and ongoing impressions.

Some might argue the instruction is outdated. Even while we slog through the age of " internet footprint" redaction, and a pragmatic concern for how others might interpret us...I guess there are two different standards, one for the elite -- voila, its' opposite for the serfs! This schism is: corruption in government.

Footnote recklessly culled from Wikipedia wherein the Supervisor of the Fifth is compared to Pompeia (and not to Clodius), and Casear to the electorate -

A young patrician named Publius Clodius Pulcher managed to gain admittance disguised as a woman, apparently for the purpose of seducing Pompeia, Caesar's wife. He was caught and prosecuted for sacrilege. Caesar gave no evidence against Clodius at his trial, and Clodius was acquitted. Nevertheless, Caesar divorced Pompeia, saying that "my wife ought not even to be under suspicion."

[pbrinton]

I have much better things to do with my very limited time than to engage in an eternal, hair-pulling game of literary Ping-Pong with you

I can sympathize with your difficulty. Were I arguing your side of the debate I would have given up some time ago.

this will be my last post

Works for me.

Patrick Brinton

[pbrinton]

Yes, I'm glad you pointed out the grey space. However, wouldn't it make more sense in your line of reasoning to call this alleged accuser, "the other party." ?

I call her the accuser because that is what she is. I do not see that this is any kind of slur, even in common parlance, and certainly does not imply any guilt on her part. If you prefer "the other party" I suppose that is acceptable, though it is a little non-specific (there are a number of "other parties" to this controversy).

if the other party turns out to be this ambitious and spectacular liar that you are leaving the door open for her to be....

Who said she had to be "ambitious and spectacular" if she is making a false accusation? She may have said things in the heat of the moment that she then felt she could not back away from. And as I pointed out there is an equal chance she may have misread the situation entirely, and honestly described what she mistakenly thought was happening. I repeat that simply keeping an open mind about whether or not a criminal act took place does not imply any malice on anyone's part, and these repeated attempts to use escalatory language to portray my views as being in some way insulting to the "other party" are inappropriate appeals to emotional response at the expense of reason, and misrepresent what I am saying.

Caesar's wife. In other words, it doesn't matter if Caesar's wife (Efren) did or didn't. Likewise the placing in brackets of the other party as victim or accuser:

Efren "ought not even to be under (THIS DEGREE OF) suspicion." You and your cohorts cannot blame it solely on politics, although you likely will.

It is unwise to base any part of your case on these kinds of sayings. If we are to seriously take the point of view that anyone in public office accused of anything is automatically to be condemned because he should not even be suspected of anything, then all you have to do to get rid of someone would be to make a sufficiently serious allegation against them. And I do not blame the fact that he is under criminal suspicion on politics, I blame the tendency to proclaim him undoubtedly guilty without even the benefit of a trial on politics.

Patrick Brinton

[sebastacat]

"Difficulty"? No.

Frustration? Yes.

When someone with whom I am trying to have an intelligent conversation simply ignores relevant, pertinent information which I am politely bringing to their attention -- as was the case with my penultimate post -- Sebastacat becomes frustrated.

And, unfortunately I find that severing communication with such people who refuse to even acknowledge such pertinent information is the only viable alternative.

If you wish to take another swipe at me, you are free to do so.

Have it your way, Patrick.

I can sympathize with your difficulty. Were I arguing your side of the debate I would have given up some time ago.

[pbrinton]

I did not find the information you provided either relevant or pertinent to the present discussion, except perhaps for providing a possible answer as to why she hired a lawyer, which was not really the central point at issue. We could, if you like, have a debate about victims' rights, and I do have opinions about that, but that is not the discussion we have been engaged in, and I would prefer not to muddy the waters.

The present discussion concerns what I see as your and others' habit of presenting what are at present allegations as established fact, and publicly declaring Carillo as "obviously" guilty of criminal conduct; in some cases of conduct and motives that even the prosecution has not publicly accused him of. In the course of this discussion the question arose of whether it is proper to refer to the person making the allegations as a victim before this fact has been properly established. My view is that this designation is prejudicial. What rights she has as a victim depend on her being able to show that she is indeed a victim (i.e. that actual criminal conduct took place) so I fail to see what their relevance is to this discussion.

I apologize if you perceive me as "swiping" at you; compared with some of the "discussion" that takes place on this forum I consider my occasional light-hearted pokes pretty mild, but if they are wounding to you I will try to refrain.

Patrick Brinton

"Difficulty"? No.

Frustration? Yes.

When someone with whom I am trying to have an intelligent conversation simply ignores relevant, pertinent information which I am politely bringing to their attention -- as was the case with my penultimate post -- Sebastacat becomes frustrated.

And, unfortunately I find that severing communication with such people who refuse to even acknowledge such pertinent information is the only viable alternative.

If you wish to take another swipe at me, you are free to do so.

Have it your way, Patrick.

[photolite]

...
No, I have much better things to do with my very limited time than to engage in an eternal, hair-pulling game of literary Ping-Pong with you, Patrick, so this will be my last post in response to your many posts on this subject.

Sebastacat clearly lacks the courage of his/her convictions. And there is nothing literary in this silly game Sebastacat plays. When Sebastacat says, "this will be my last response", we should hear no more from Sebastacat on the subject.

[sebastacat]

Please stop the insults, Photolite.

And please be advised that I do not take direction from you.

I will post as many times as I want - with or without your blessing or permission.

""No, I have much better things to do with my very limited time than to engage in an eternal, hair-pulling game of literary Ping-Pong with you, Patrick, so this will be my last post in reponse to your many posts on this subject".

Sebastacat clearly lacks the courage of his/her convictions. And there is nothing literary in this silly game Sebastacat plays. When Sebastacat says, "this will be my last response", we should hear no more from Sebastacat on the subject.

[rossmen]

the woman carrillo frightened into calling 911 twice has a lawyer because the court system provided her with one. the courts have gotten lots of public feedback about how these kind of cases are prosecuted and a law was passed named for a woman murdered by someone she had accused of harassment. this lawyer is probably responsible for the napa da still considering charges and will also be involved in any plea deal, the most likely outcome. carrillo has admitted much culpability, probably against the advise of his lawyer, but hey he is a politician trying to keep his job and used to taking public opinion risks. the facts of the night are not in dispute. we all get to speculate why? it is extremely common for friends and admirers of someone caught with their pants down to think,"thats not who i know, there must be an excusing explanation." even when that someone admits their pants were down and sometime drinking is a problem.

it is not intemperate action to discuss the suitability of a elected official, it is a citizens responsibility. take your blinders off, take another look at your man, and quit chastising those who are interested and care about how we are governed.

...I think there are often more dangers (not to mention expense) in intemperate and unconsidered action than in waiting for things to take their normal course. Let us all take a deep breath, calm down and realize that things are seldom as important or urgent as they might be portrayed by people who just may have other agendas (finding a good excuse to get rid of a politician that they already opposed) than simply concern for the accuser (not yet proven to be a victim.)

[tomcat]

We know very few "facts of the night". Why does it upset you so that many people want to know all the facts before a judgement is made?
What's your big hurry?
Could it be that you just don't like Efren's political decisions and you would want him out quickly no matter what?
Well, go ahead and blast away. You're probably not changing anyone's mind, but if it makes you feel better...

Tom

... the facts of the night are not in dispute. we all get to speculate why? it is extremely common for friends and admirers of someone caught with their pants down to think,"thats not who i know, there must be an excusing explanation." even when that someone admits their pants were down and sometime drinking is a problem.

it is not intemperate action to discuss the suitability of a elected official, it is a citizens responsibility. take your blinders off, take another look at your man, and quit chastising those who are interested and care about how we are governed.

[rossmen]

as far as i know the only thing disputed by efren or his lawyer that was reported in the pd was the intention of efren. the rest he apologized for. and we probably will never know more without a trial, which is highly unlikely. so the facts are in. efren's action were not serious enough to win a felony trial against adraian, probably the best criminal defense lawyer in sonoma county. carrillo will either plead to a misdemeanor or the case will be dropped.

what upsets me is ostriches like you who think this doesn't seriously impact 5th district residents and the county in general and just kick sand at people trying to figure out what to do. i voted for efren the first time, in the runoff, not for his second term. the biggest factor in my voting choice was who else was running. i agreed with some of his vote decisions and admired his hard work and appreciated preventing preservation r.i.p. my biggest disappointment was when i asked for help with the prmd. while i might have voted for efren again, depending on his opponent, now i think he is a lame duck creeper, ineffective and in the way. and from his current actions and public statements, it seems like he agrees!

We know very few "facts of the night". Why does it upset you so that many people want to know all the facts before a judgement is made?
What's your big hurry?
Could it be that you just don't like Efren's political decisions and you would want him out quickly no matter what?
Well, go ahead and blast away. You're probably not changing anyone's mind, but if it makes you feel better...

Tom

[tomcat]

I do not believe that "the facts are in". You can spin it any way you want, but I just don't see that as true. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

Since you think I'm an "ostrich", Please enlighten me on exactly how you think that the 5th district in which I live, and the county in general, is so seriously impacted that we can't wait for all the facts to make our decision.

If I have "kicked sand at people who are trying to figure out what to do", I sincerely apologize to them! I had no idea I was doing that. This sandbox can get a little rough at times, but I always try to be reasonable and polite.

If you want to have a politician in office who does everything YOU think they should do, you have two choices that I can see.
1. contribute mega bucks to a candidate and hope you own them so they will do exactly as you say.
2. get elected yourself and do whatever you think is best, despite what your constituents and contributors might think.

As for Efren being a "lame duck" or "ineffective"... we shall see about that after this case is concluded... and I'll bet he wouldn't agree with you at all.

Tom
(again, sorry about any unintentionally misdirected sand)

as far as i know ...

[rossmen]

yes your head is in the sand and your feet are flinging it every which way. i could share more reasons why i think we will learn nothing more about the night in question but you don't address the ones already written. and where do you think efren's head is at, given his quotes in the pd concerning the family justice center gaff? i'm concerned about forestville, and roseland, and my kids school up the street. the bos decides things like roads, water, and now power. we need a supervisor who can solve problems and bring people together, not awol.

I do not believe that "the facts are in". You can spin it any way you want, but I just don't see that as true. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

Since you think I'm an "ostrich", Please enlighten me on exactly how you think that the 5th district in which I live, and the county in general, is so seriously impacted that we can't wait for all the facts to make our decision.

If I have "kicked sand at people who are trying to figure out what to do", I sincerely apologize to them! I had no idea I was doing that. This sandbox can get a little rough at times, but I always try to be reasonable and polite.

If you want to have a politician in office who does everything YOU think they should do, you have two choices that I can see.
1. contribute mega bucks to a candidate and hope you own them so they will do exactly as you say.
2. get elected yourself and do whatever you think is best, despite what your constituents and contributors might think.

As for Efren being a "lame duck" or "ineffective"... we shall see about that after this case is concluded... and I'll bet he wouldn't agree with you at all.

Tom
(again, sorry about any unintentionally misdirected sand)

[Valley Oak]

I would like to underline an astute observation that Ross has made regarding the unlikely possibility that anything else will come up in some future "trial" or court date. Although I think it is still possible that some new information or evidence could still surface in this mess, I believe it to be minimal or nearly impossible. Or at least that anything "new" will come up that will suddenly turn things around one way or the other. Folks who are obsessed with using legal due process as an argument to defend Efren are making the colossal mistake of overlooking the probability that it won't even go that far. They are overlooking the myriad of different scenarios that can result from all of this.

Sure, everyone has a Constitutional right to due process, but focusing exclusively on that scenario alone is a "single story" or a kind of stereotype because it does not take into consideration all of the other possible events that can take place. For example, the scenario that there won't be a trial is just one among many other possible outcomes. Insisting, like the "Efrener's" do, that this is strictly a trial case that needs to unfold is an extremely limited view of reality. There are many different ways that this whole blunder can play out. It is not exclusively about a trial that might never take place, etc.

I understand that apologists for Efren are insisting on his Constitutional rights but that is focusing faaar too much attention on just one aspect of a legal process resulting as a consequence of Efren's actions (actions to which Efren has already admitted to). Remember what they say when the police read you your Miranda rights, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law..." And the fact that Efren has repeatedly and publicly admitted guilt is just an aside to the whole fanfare.

Again, it is unlikely (but not impossible) that this will go to trial. Efren has THE BEST criminal defense attorney available in Sonoma County. He is not going to screw things up. If there is going to be a trial, and if there is going to be new evidence, fine then, let it unfold as it should. But that is ONLY ONE possible scenario. And insisting on only one possible outcome is trite, to say the least, and it is excruciatingly narrow minded, to be more accurate. The attitude of Efren's apologists clearly denotes a head-in-the-sand mentality with blinders to either side, just like the ones put on horses, so that they can't see anything else going on around them.

yes your head is in the sand and your feet are flinging it every which way....

[photolite]

I've yet to see any Efren "apologists" on this thread. I've only seen those that acknowledge the possibility that there might be information that is yet to be revealed and those who believe otherwise.

...I understand that apologists for Efren are insisting on his Constitutional rights but that is focusing faaar too much attention on just one aspect of a legal process resulting as a consequence of Efren's actions (actions to which Efren has already admitted to)....

[meherc]

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I'm sure you are not perfect.

Magick's presentation was excellent and the other dozen speakers asking Efren to resign were also persuasive. I was also surprised that Efren's supporters, including PR people, were not there. No one spoke on his behalf. Perhaps his PR people did not plan to come, as someone suggested. Another possibility is that they realized that people were planning to come to ask him to resign, so they decided not to come. They definitely have a strategy of some sort. Following is a letter from today's PD, "Orchestrated Campaign?" about that. Yesterday's PD had an excellent letter by Yannick Philips from Sonoma Valley about the Carrillo Controversy.

Orchestrated campaign?
EDITOR: Don't you think it odd that there appears to be a constant flow of letters congratulating Supervisor Efren Carrillo on how he's working so hard to fix his demons and how good everything will be once he's recovered and back on the job?
The guy manages to get himself arrested twice, the latter in particularly concerning circumstances (not my fault, must have been the booze), and his heroic recovery is lauded while the potential crime is played down.
Are we seeing a PR handling campaign in action? The one where you delay until the public forgets, apologize without admitting guilt, blame the problem on a disease, then orchestrate your supporters to send letters saying just how brave, talented and a role model you are?
MARK TOMLINSON
Petaluma

[Dixon]

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I'm sure you are not perfect.

Every time I see someone judging someone for judging, criticizing someone for criticizing, shaming someone for shaming, or throwing stones at someone for throwing stones (and I see these things a lot), I just have to laugh.

[meherc]

Yes, I am well aware that you are perfect Dixon as are your opinions and that gives me a good laugh.

Every time I see someone judging someone for judging, criticizing someone for criticizing, shaming someone for shaming, or throwing stones at someone for throwing stones (and I see these things a lot), I just have to laugh.

[Dixon]

Yes, I am well aware that you are perfect Dixon as are your opinions and that gives me a good laugh.

Sheeesh! Of course that's not my opinion of myself.
I make a point about the irony of people's criticizing others for criticizing, and you respond with a snotty ad hominem attack. You can do better than this, Marilyn. Or maybe you can't.

[Dorothy Friberg]

Oh, by the way Dixon, I think the "elephant fart" station you were looking for originated in the 'recall Effren campaign'.

Sheeesh! Of course that's not my opinion of myself.
I make a point about the irony of people's criticizing others for criticizing, and you respond with a snotty ad hominem attack. You can do better than this, Marilyn. Or maybe you can't.

[Barry]

Efren was charged with the misdemeanor of "peeking" today. I have started a new thread called "Efren charged with "misdemeanor peeking" in General Community to discuss this. I am closing this thread.