Efren charged with "misdemeanor peeking"

[rossmen]

it wasn't a couple of blocks, it was less than 100 feet, the same apartment complex. just paying attention to the reported details, why don't you? don't really want to think?

I had thought of this scenario myself, but hesitated to write about it. What brought me there was trying to imagine someone leaving his own apartment in his underwear carrying a cell phone, and walking a couple of blocks like that. ...

[rossmen]

yes the police say he had been drinking and was not highly intoxicated, they did not test. the calls were just before 4am, the arrest after 10am, bailed out by 12. the cops took their time and followed all procedures with appropriate backup, probably because it was a smoken hot potato. you can spin, or sit with the superviser with his pants down, your choice...

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Patrick! But who knows? Perhaps it was the Butler... In the lLibrary... With a Candlestick! ( Now I'm dating myself...) It was my understanding that he was indeed intoxicated when the paddy wagon showed up. Probably just my over active imagination again...

[Victoria Street]

Wait! That's it! rossmen, I think you're on to something - Efren Carillo has an EVIL TWIN. It's all coming together for me now...

it wasn't a couple of blocks, it was less than 100 feet, the same apartment complex. just paying attention to the reported details, why don't you? don't really want to think?

[rossmen]

perhaps you are on to something here, his behavior could be related to a bit of bi-polar tendency. i can totally relate, though i have avoided legal trouble, my emotional swings are full spectrum : )>

Wait! That's it! rossmen, I think you're on to something - Efren Carillo has an EVIL TWIN. It's all coming together for me now...

[Shandi]

Actually, we are all "free" to run amok as we choose. It becomes a problem for us when we face the consequences of getting caught (in the act) or with circumstantial evidence. If we're financially powerful, our chances are pretty good that we can get "off the hook" even if we commit murder. Some Examples: OJ Simpson, Zimmerman, Gelhaus, etc.

I wasn't indicating that anyone who's proven guilty of a crime should get off because others of us have committed crimes and not been caught; however it was just a way for us to consider that none of us is immune from criminal behavior. It's much easier to point the finger at others than to acknowledge our own behavior. Blame and excuses have become a way of life.

The other thing to consider is that it's not too far fetched to realize that those of us who are financially unable to defend ourselves even when we're innocent, do end up in prison, sometimes for a lifetime. Those who are able will do everything they can to stay free to "run amok". Wouldn't you?

all right, let's not stone him. But no way he's off the hook just because I've been bad too. Or am I now free to run amok 'cuz of his bad behavior???

all right, let's not stone him. But no way he's off the hook just because I've been bad too. Or am I now free to run amok 'cuz of his bad behavior???

[Ted Pole]

"The people" are a mob that you agree with.

I am puzzled by those who would dismiss opinions about Mr. Carillo's behaviors, yet quickly pre-judge the cop who allegedly killed Andy Lopez. And before you even start assuming I am making light of this poor child's murder, I am not, nor am I assuming the cop is innocent. But, are we to also wait until the cop's trial before we form an opinion or, worse, express it? Doesn't "the community" have a right to voice its disapproval of the stated infraction and the behavior of individuals and institutions as they seek justice?

My unfavorable opinion of Mr. Carillo is based on his actions after his arrest, as much as his alleged offenses. The couched legal-speak, the secrecy, the apology-without-action lead me to think that he is assuming that he is not "technically" guilty. And of course, I have no idea what Mr. Carillo is thinking or assuming, but since he is undoubtedly "acting on the advice of his attorney" rather than in what my opinion is a honorable way, I am thinking the worst.

If it comes out that the whole thing was just a horrible misunderstanding, and that the victim/spurned lover is okay with that interpretation, I will happily retract my opinion and admit that I was wrong. In public, and out loud.

[Shandi]

Maybe we shouldn't "pre-judge" the fact that the cop fired 7 bullets into Andy Lopez. However, this is not "circumstantial evidence" as in Carillo's case. These bullets are actual facts that show extreme reaction on the cop's part.

And unfortunately, people will always have opinions, and be inclined to express them. That's the beauty of free speech. And having one opinion usually pre-cludes having an opposite opinion, until later when those opinions might change, based on alleged facts.

And as for acting on the advice of an attorney, rather than being "honorable"; I don't see how using an attorney means that a person isn't "honorable". I bet many Wacco members have used an attorney when necessary.

"The people" are a mob that you agree with.

I am puzzled by those who would dismiss opinions about Mr. Carillo's behaviors, yet ...

[Ted Pole]

Assuming, of course that he did, in fact, "fire those bullets". And based on whose account(s)? And can they be trusted? And can there be a reasonable doubt that he was, in fact in fear of his life before he "fired those bullets"? Who are you to judge what is "extreme"? Were you there? I didn't think so. Ah, but we should all wait until the trial happens before we form an opinion, yes?

What you call "unfortunate", I call natural, and a welcome proof of human cognition. That you may not agree with it does not negate its value.

There is nothing dishonorable in using an attorney to defend oneself in legal proceedings, but giving the appearance of filtering every public utterance and action for optimum ass-covering brings more suspicion and loss of credibility, not less.

Maybe we shouldn't "pre-judge" the fact that the cop fired 7 bullets into Andy Lopez. However, ...

[boB Phelps]

"The people" are a mob that you agree with.

I am puzzled by those who would dismiss opinions about Mr. Carillo's behaviors, yet quickly pre-judge the cop who allegedly killed Andy Lopez. And before you even start assuming I am making light of this poor child's murder, I am not, nor am I assuming the cop is innocent. But, are we to also wait until the cop's trial before we form an opinion or, worse, express it? Doesn't "the community" have a right to voice its disapproval of the stated infraction and the behavior of individuals and institutions as they seek justice?

My unfavorable opinion of Mr. Carillo is based on his actions after his arrest, as much as his alleged offenses. The couched legal-speak, the secrecy, the apology-without-action lead me to think that he is assuming that he is not "technically" guilty. And of course, I have no idea what Mr. Carillo is thinking or assuming, but since he is undoubtedly "acting on the advice of his attorney" rather than in what my opinion is a honorable way, I am thinking the worst.

If it comes out that the whole thing was just a horrible misunderstanding, and that the victim/spurned lover is okay with that interpretation, I will happily retract my opinion and admit that I was wrong. In public, and out loud.

First, let's keep these issues separated. There are threads for both and the scenarios do not match up.

With regards to Mr. Carrillo and this is just one example. Some time ago, Effren made a public apology for his obvious impropriety and potentially illegal acts. When it came time to face up to that same impropriety, in court, he pleaded NOT GUILTY. If he states that he's not guilty, then what was he apologizing for? Effren is an excellent "spin doctor" with highly qualified coaches. I will not consider retracting my opinion of his guilt, until after a functional adjudication is reached, to my satisfaction.