Comments by InTheKnow
Page 1 of 8 | Next
2 of 3 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on September 10 at 4:42 p.m.
Is it just me or does Ashaw go off on a tangent and over post?
Posted on September 7 at 7:29 a.m.
Haha Archer, "Oh it is not illegal to take pride in your neighborhood". Yeah that is what the gang bangers are doing, taking pride!!!! What a joke.
Posted on August 31 at 6:51 a.m.
Boy the reporter Caitlin Crandell must be paid by the defense for this one sided chop piece. Is she that new of a reporter or has she ever sat in a courtroom before?
So a witness only wants to identify the people that he knows already are caught... and this is important because???? You think maybe he is unwilling to dime out his homies? Hmmm maybe huh?
Yeah according to Archer more areas should be searched, there might be another body out there and it won't be found until the area is searched. If you find a murder weapon between where the body lies and where the suspect is do you think maybe that is a clue????
Of course the defense attorneys are going to attack the police, that is all they have left to do. After all the defendant confessed to killing the other kid, demonstrated on tape how he did it, and a witness pointed him out to the police moments after it happened. The cops find a knife between where the defendant was stopped (less than half a block away) and where the other kid was killed. Yeah let’s go canvassing the rest of the city and see what we find in the dumpsters. Maybe that knife beyond Madam Lu's was used too. Why not? We have 5000 cops in this city with nothing better to do.
About the questioning of Kassity, how many witnesses were shown a lineup? And only one person, Kassity, ID's a different person as being the "kicker"? Hmmm big win there Caitlin Crandell, HUGH!!!!
This is not TV or the movies, the total picture needs to be looked at and realized. Archer is not doing anything but trying to mimic the OJ defense, meaning throwing any little bit of doubt that she can so maybe they can persuade one juror of a little bit of doubt. That is after all, all that they can hope for since their client already confessed.
I looked at the past article in the Independent, I don't seem to see the same type of headlines when the "Prosecution deals death blow to defense when defendant admits to killing victim!!!" HMMM seems like a chop piece to me.
Posted on August 27 at 12:20 p.m.
wikipedia is not a source, I can write anything I want on that website and then you can change it!!! What a joke
Posted on July 8 at 3:21 p.m.
Pardallchewinggumspit,
The Laney murderer, Thor Nis Christiansen, was actually a Goleta resident during the murders. He was born in Denmark, moved to LA and then Solvang when he was 5. Don’t know if that actually qualifies him as being a “nice boy from Solvang”. He murdered 3 women total from IV, not “3 other IV women” as you state, Laney was one of them. He killed another woman in LA and attempted to kill another in Hollywood. The person he tried to kill then saw him in a bar and called the LA cops who arrested him. That was how they “figured it out”. Kind of easy to do when you have a woman who got shot in the head see the person in public.
Since your posting is full of inaccuracies it is hard to put any weight behind your opinion. IV is what the residents want of it. It is a growing and learning area, but otherwise disgusts the normal population. People there are filled with talk and rhetoric but are easily distracted with beer and pot. For most it is the first time away from mommy and daddy, and they prove their immaturity. Don’t think of IV as something that it is not, it does serve its purpose in the big scheme of things as an area, separate from normal people, where kids can do some growing up. I lived there for three years ago many years ago, I know.
Posted on July 8 at 6:50 a.m.
"rotten person".. sticks and stones....
Posted on July 8 at 6:40 a.m.
santabarbarasand I'm sorry you find me hostile, that was never my intention. I know I can be brash and curt but I was not trying to offend you. Now I see why you were so stuborn in your opinion, it wasn't so much what I was telling you. It was how you thought I should have said it nicer. I stand behind what I have told you as the truth, I hope somehow I have changed your assumptions.
Posted on July 7 at 5:22 p.m.
To respond to MAJORDEAN, no, you missed the point. My problem with SANTABARBARASAND’s original posting was she was blaming the police for doing something that they legally can not do. They can not search a person solely based on what they are wearing, absent some other legal justification. This is from the state law, the Constitution, and case law. Just because they can look at someone and know they are or suspect they are a gang member is not illegal. People, including the police, are entitled to their opinions. It is when they act solely on those suspicions that the court has ruled the searches bad.
You are also wrong on your assumption that merely “mad-doging” someone is a crime. Sorry it takes more then a mere look to be a criminal act. I don’t disagree with a lot of what santabarbara or you are saying; it is just when you are wrong about something and blame others that I feel the need to correct you. Oh and FYI the police can not “suspend” or “expel” a kid from school, only schools can. They are two separate entities. I really think you think the police have a lot more power then what they really have.
Now to santabarbarasand AGAIN. Being a gang member by itself, as I said before, is not illegal. Acting in furtherance of a gang by committing a crime is. That is what they were arrested for. I know the law, trust me, I know it a lot better then you do. They were arrested for 186.22 of the Penal Code. In part it states (in plain English for you) that if someone commits a crime (which are listed in the section) and is part of a recognized organized gang they have committed a separate offense in and above the original crime. Please look it up and not assume based on what you read here online for being the basis of your opinions. Merely being an associate or a member of a gang is not a crime, there is no section of the law for that, hopefully there will be not now. So again, the police can not (and I am not saying I support this, it is just the way it is) search someone based on solely the way they dress.
You “pay their salary” tirade is trite and irrelevant. Again I find fault with your assumptions that they should “be more aggressive” as you put it but what you are really advocating is for them to do something illegal. Educate yourself; support the police, talk with them and ask questions instead of criticizing. They are part of the community, they care deeply about this problem, and people like you that just blame ignorantly are not helping build anything. All you are doing is dividing amongst people trying to fix the problem. Don’t be so stubborn that you can’t admit that your initial idea or thought was wrong. I’ve proved it several times. Again I wish the police could search the gang bangers based on their style of dress, BUT LEGALLY THEY CAN NOT.
Posted on July 6 at 4:45 p.m.
santabarbarasand how do you know how old trick1 is? Is he/she your kid? Then more ignorance is spewed...
His post is full of errors and not just grammatical, I mean factual as RForsyth points out about Goleta. He knows nothing about what is going on, but way to team up with him. Brownie points to you LOL!!!!
Page 1 of 8 | Next
Previous Month
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on September 21 at 11:13 a.m.
To geeber, I don't think "most rational Americans" debate this way.
On Artist Wants Liberals to Turn Other Cheek on McCain