Anaheim Insider here.
There was a strong turnout last Thursday at Lucille Kring’s mayor campaign fundraiser at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse in the Resort area, out on the patio with the results of 20 years of bond-financed investment in the Resort in full view.
Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackackaus headlined Kring’s fundraiser. He talked about the great work being done to crack down on criminal gangs in Anaheim, praising the city’s police department as “one of the best” and originators of the GRIP (Gang Reduction and Intervention Program) program that is now used county-wide. He talked to the crowd about using gang injunctions, cracking down on the worst perpetrators, and working hand-in-hand with the Anaheim Police Department to do some very hard and needed work to protect neighborhoods and families.
“I don’t like to be negative,” Rackauckus told those in attendance, “But I’m sorry to say that in this effort we have gotten no help from the office of the Mayor.”
For her part, Kring focused on the bustling activity of Anaheim’s tourist mecca, pointing out that $500 million in bonds were proposed in 1996 to create the Resort area, and how Tom Tait joined in a unanimous and historic vote that changed the face of Anaheim. She contrasted that to his lone dissent when the she and her colleagues voted to expand the Convention Center.
Kring described the Mayor’s resistance was wholly based on his personal disagreement with the city’s Finance Department with revenue models based growing TOT revenue and the addition of more hotel rooms. She pointed out that new projections from Disneyland alone bear out the city’s projections, and noted the half a dozen new being built or renovated, illustrating how out of touch with reality the Mayor’s arguments are.
“We can’t afford another four years of Mayor NO, taking us backward,” Kring said. “We need a mayor who will say yes to opportunity and take Anaheim forward.”
maybe it’s because of what I mentioned to the ex-city manager of Anaheim in 2012
I wonder if the DA expounded on the illegal nature of some of those injunction policies. Something tells me . . . no. Sure seems like something a good mayor should oppose, right? Illegal obstructions to the first, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendment?
ANYWAY.
Anyone know if the DA had a comment regarding the infamous “Saved us a trial, that’s always a good outcome.” debacle?
Now that’s what I’d call not helpful. But hey– maybe that’s what Tony has in mind. A real live District Attorney who endorses candidates who willfully walk into the community and claim that shooting people and saving trials is a good thing. That ought to go over real well.
What will they think of next? It simply boggles the mind why the DA doesn’t prosecute bad politicians.
For whom are you voting, Ryan? T-Rack or Greg Diamond?
[edited to reduce creepy crackpot content]
Oh, is this “Reveal Private Information Day,” Matt? Great!
That’s less secret information that one’s privayr ballot choices OR the membership of a 501)c)(4) organization.
You first.
That’s easy. Rackauckas.
Now your turn.
Right, like I’m going to let you off that easy.
As a Conservative, please explain to me why you’re voting for Rackauckas, specifically why you’re casting a vote for him when he . . .
1) Had a cornerstone of his legacy in Orange County overturned as unconstitutional. This should bother you as a Conservative. We don’t take kindly to people’s liberties being abused.
2) Wasted taxpayer money demanding municipalities enact his unconstitutional policy. This should bother you as a Conservative. We don’t take kindly to wasting the people’s time and money.
3) Wasted taxpayer money defending his unconstitutional policy. Again, this should bother you. Same reason. Every dollar spent defending the stripping of our liberties is a dollar that could have gone to prosecuting a criminal. He wasted a lot, and I mean A LOT, of the people’s money defending bad laws he made happen.
4) Had a SECOND cornerstone of his legacy in Orange County overturned. This should bother you. Same reason.
5 and 6) Repeats of 2 and 3.
7) Supervised an office that failed to disclose critical information regarding jailhouse informants to defendants, which could potentially lead to reduced sentences or new trials for convicted felons. This should offend you as a conservative. We don’t take kindly to letting criminals off the hook due to incompetence.
8) He endorsed an appointed Democrat judge who earned himself a unanimous vote on an admonishment for blaming a woman’s private parts for not putting up a big enough fight as an excuse to give a convicted rapist a more lenient sentence. That judge has a qualified challenger in his race who is also endorsed by the OCGOP. That should offend you as a conservative. We don’t take kindly to men who blame women for being raped or those who pal around with ex-Governor Gray Davis’s friends.
So, easy? THAT WAS ALL IN ONE YEAR.
T-Rack hasn’t won a case in over 23 years. He failed to even get an excessive force conviction in the Kelly Thomas case and he’s probably got a 25% chance of completing this term as DA alive regardless if he retires . . . because he’s already passed the life expectancy for a male in his generation.
No, Matt. It’s not easy. I hope you take a little more thought to your other votes.
I’m not voting for T-Rack. I’ll decide if I’ll vote for Greg when I’m in the booth tomorrow, but I sure respect him for at least having the guts to give us a choice in tomorrow’s election.
Cheers.
I asked you who you were voting for, Ryan. Not, why. Just which person. You said, “You first.” So I did. Now you can’t even own up to what you promised.
I have plenty of reasons to vote for Tony. But there’s one that easily suffices: Greg Diamond is utterly, utterly unqualified for the job, and anyone who knows anything about Diamond and still votes for him, ought to have their head examined.
And, apparently you can’t read.
I answered your question.
If you don’t want to play the game, fine– but don’t be bitter about it.
I have always seen voting as choosing the lesser of two evils (at least in most cases). In this case, t rack is it for me.
While certainly valid, I’d suggest that “no vote” ought to be one of your considerations when choosing between two evils.
You mean not choosing either candidate?
Correct.
If I utilized that option, I’d rarely vote. And I always tell people that if you don’t vote, you lose the right to complain.
If so many see T Rack as a poor choice, why didn’t we see a better selection of candidates running against him?
(Keep in mind that I usually throw away my vote of Independant candidates).
Great question. No answer, but I bet raising over $400,000 in one night without an opponent like T-Rack did has something to do with it.
Thank you for being thoughtful with your vote.
Is your thoughtful comment serious or sarcastic?
Believe it or not, that’s a sincere comment. My ballot doesn’t need to match yours for me to respect your process supporting your conclusions.
That you put thought into what you do is something I appreciate.
I’ll take that compliment 🙂
Ryan- certainly you don’t agree with everything your allies say and/or do? If I voted for only those persons that agreed with me on every issue, I’d never vote.
Of course not. At the moment, I disagree with most positions. 🙂
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. You’ll have to connect the dots for me on this one.
You’re chastising t rack for supporting Kring based on the commentary she expressed about saving a trial. His endorsement isnt analogous to agreeing with her statement but rather an endorsement of her political policies. Or maybe he just sees her as the best of the three candidates.
That’s about 80% right. He endorsed her without commenting (and disavowing) the one statement she’s made that actually addresses the core of what the DA is supposed to do . . . bring criminals to a trial. So you’ve got the majority of my complaint, but really I need our DA to explain to me why he feels comfortable ignoring her really quite stupid comment.
Kring: Avoiding a trial is a good thing.
DA: Justice REQUIRES a trial
These two statements aren’t compatible. TRack endorsing Kring without even addressing her comment doesn’t give me the warm and fuzzies about his feelings on the later.
Still waiting for you to answer my question.
Good. I’m waiting for you to publish it!
When did injunctions become illegal?
Not all, but our DA has been known to really spend a lot of money defending his screw up.
http://witnessla.com/gangs/2013/admin/9th-circuit-slams-oc-das-unconstitutional-use-of-gang-injunction-la-opinion-nixes-new-term-4-baca/
They can be illegal or legal, depending on how well they’re done — which in turn depends on how well the person seeking them WANTS them to be done. Racky seems to prefer illegal ones, maybe to keep in practice.
That does it! I’m voting for this guy’s opponent!
Least biased opinion I have seen from CATER
Support Anaheim’s Law Enforcement Professionals. Do not sympathize with criminal street-gangs. Work with the East Street Community Renewal Initiative and help to save Balsam Avenue Kids from Travelers criminal street-gang. Thank you. This has been a public service message from James Robert Reade.
If I may, the criminal shot and killed by Anaheim PD did shoot a K9 Anaheim police officer and held a gun to the head of a ten year old boy after threatening the family. Are the police supposed to hold fire after having been shot at by a suspect?
Exactly.
Exactly? Hardly. That’s just a red herring.
No one here, absolutely no one, is stating a LEO shouldn’t defend him or herself or a ten year old member of the public.
Dan just making his life easier through oversimplification. Even so, his question is more interesting than you might think:
“Are the police supposed to hold fire after having been shot at by a suspect?”
The important word there is “after.” If “after” means “right after,” at a time when the suspect is still armed, then they’re justified in shooting. If “after” means the next week when while driving around they happen to see the guy walking down the street carrying grocery bags, then they don’t get to shoot him unless he takes some additional action.
In between, there’s the case where the person throws away their gun and surrenders. Are the police supposed to hold fire, in such a situation, after having been shot at by this subject. Yes, Dan — yes, they are. They’re supposed to arrest him, but they’re not supposed to shoot him until and unless he once again threatens their lives.
Lucille Kring disagrees, saying that shooting them is good because it “saves us the cost of a trial.” It sort of seems like Dan agrees with her, given how he phrases the question, doesn’t it? Maybe he just misworded it.
Greg, if “ifs and buts were candy and nuts, it’d be Christmas every day.” You can create any scenario you want, but there is no evidence the suspect surrendered his gun and put his hands up. There seems to be plenty of evidence the suspect shot at police and since Bruno lacks the ability to pull a trigger, his human partner returned fire. All evidence seems to suggest it was a by the books case. As a candidate for DA, you seem to express more concern for the shooter — a gang member who probably shouldn’t even have had a weapon to begin with — than you do for the family terrorized by the shooter, the K9 officer who was shot at and the Anaheim PD who were shot at.
Here’s the OC Weekly account again Greg: “The incident occurred shortly before 2 p.m. on Lodge Street near Mayfair Avenue. *****Children walking out of nearby Horace Mann Elementary school were on lockdown.***** Anaheim police arrived to search for the suspects. As a K-9 unit drove into the area, a standard warning sounded from the helicopter hovering above that a K-9 dog was going to be released. Police cleared residents off to the side of La Palma and Mayfair Avenue.
Around 3:15 p.m., a sudden volley of gunshots that sounded like firecrackers being set off in a trashcan were heard. Residents took off running in both directions. After 20 months of relative quiet, Anaheim police shot a man dead. “During the search of the original suspect in the original shooting, officers found him,” Lt. Schmidt told the Weekly. “The suspect shot the K-9, also ****shot at the officers and the officers returned fire.” *****
“Moreno, being remembered on Facebook by his street name, Lil Clumsy, has a long rap sheet: misdemeanor guilty plea for failing to register as a gang member, felony convictions for unlawful taking of a vehicle, drug possession, evading and resisting arrest, with felony criminal street gang enhancements that sent him to two years in state prison. But Moreno wasn’t under any warrants or probation violation as of yesterday, so why he decided to shoot at a probation officer who wasn’t even checking up on him remains a mystery.”
So we have a convicted felon in possession of a gun shooting at Police who dies when police return fire all around 3:15 PM..not next week, not hours later.
Rather than see Moreno as the biggest reason for the incident, Greg, you see Lucille Kring is really the bad guy here. What she said was completely insensitive, but she’s not the problem here.
Go back to fiction writing. Make up any situation you want to make Kring the bad guy here. In your world Greg, does Moreno bear any responsibility for this situation? Maybe if he held a gun to your step-daughter’s head, you’d feel differently.
I bet you don’t get a single vote from anyone in Law Enforcement today
Dan, we’re talking about a guy who thinks the outcome of today’s DA election could turn on Anaheim Insider’s post about what Rackauckas said at Kring’s fundraiser. We’re not talking about someone who is in touch with reality.
Lucille Kring disagrees, saying that shooting them is good because it “saves us the cost of a trial.
That’s BS. She thinks no such thing. That is you presenting your imagination as fact. But it is a good reminder of why you should never, ever be entrusted with the power to prosecute anyone. Not that we have to worry about that insanity ever coming to pass.