Plans, pledges and prayers

"I know what I'm gonna do tomorrow, and the next day, and the next year, and the year after that."

----George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart), It's a Wonderful Life




"Back where I come from there are men who do nothing all day but good deeds. They are called phila... er, phila... er, yes, er, Good Deed Doers."


---The Wizard, Wizard of Oz




"The idea of an election is much more interesting to me than the election itself."


---Chris in the Morning, Northern Exposure





Dateline: Riverside, California

December 2007



Three new city council members. Three new elected officials with their own plans with what to do in their wards first, according to the Press Enterprise. It looks like in the wake of Election 2007, they can't wait to get started. Not surprising, given what a marathon session this year's election turned out to be. No amount of carbo-loading could have prepared city residents for what marathoners call "the wall" that inevitably hits before the finish line.


Ward One Councilman-elect Mike Gardner and Ward Three Councilman-elect William "Rusty" Bailey are planning to address issues that have elicited much concern in their respective wards including parking and traffic problems. Will Gardner dodge the potholes that struck his predecessor who had also launched a grass-roots campaign and won in a squeaker of a runoff election? Will Bailey prove to be his own man and not the puppet that some worry that he was recruited and endorsed to be?


Only time will tell.


Chris MacArthur, from Ward Five, who spent much of his campaigning hitting his rival Donna Doty Michalka over the head with his xenophobic views on undocumented immigrants has put that issue on the side while he said he would focus on ward concerns and the city parks. So apparent plans to conscript the local police department to be an arm of ICE or any similar endeavors are on hold at least temporarily. MacArthur was seen at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce luncheon in recent weeks probably hoping for a less chilly response than he received at its candidate forum several months ago. Maybe next time.

Some speculate that a full-page advertisement allegedly taken out against him by the Riverside Police Officers' Association in the Press Enterprise may have impacted the direction of that union's leadership more than it did his election. Did that impact that union's election as some have said? What lies next for Ward Five?


In Ward Seven, Councilman Steve Adams who was reelected by only 16 votes over a candidate he outspent tremendously seems oblivious to that fact and is carrying out the same agenda that of course naturally swept him into office in the first round of Election 2007. He plans to continue with the high-density projects in his ward as if the election never took place at all.


The swearing in of city council members will take place at its meeting on Dec. 11 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall.




The Friends of the Hills of Riverside have prevailed once again as a Riverside County Superior Court judge ruled in its favor that two ordinances approved by the city violated two growth-control laws passed by voters.

The city council continues to willfully violate Measures C and R which control how much development can take place in certain areas of Riverside. This organization of local activists sues them as a reminder to abide by the city's laws including those passed by the ballot initiative process.

That's the same process which was utilized by Ken Stansbury and Riversiders for Property Rights only in their case, the city council dispatched its legal team from City Hall and Best, Best and Krieger to file a law suit, better known as a SLAPP suit, against these city residents hoping to discourage them by threatening to have a judge enforce legal costs on them to the tune of thousands of dollars. So for all those who wish to circulate petitions to collect signatures to put initiatives on the ballot, it's best to hire yourself a team of attorneys to respond to any SLAPP suits filed by the city's lawyers filed in a local court. Unlike what happens in most cities, this one sues the proposed initiative before it is on the ballot rather than after it passes, on legal grounds. Instead of suing after the initiatives are passed, the city government just appears to ignore the ones it doesn't like, as witnessed with the growth control measures and Measure II, passed in 2004 to place the Community Police Review Commission in the city's charter.

To pay their legal fees, these activists hold yard sales. The city just takes more money out of the city's general fund, which appears to be unlimited these days to sue community organizations.





The policy recommendations listed in the latest approved draft of the public report on the Lee Deante Brown shooting that will be released by the Community Police Review Commission are interesting, particularly that involving a proposal to "purchase and deploy yellow tasers".

Taser International does produce yellow tasers for the X-26 model at about $1,000 apiece. The company does not sell them in bulk for a reduced price.

They are being advertised as easier for officers to identify in low-light conditions where approximately 80% of all officer-involved shootings take place. The police department's goal is to equip its entire patrol force with the black version of the X-26 tasers. Currently about 55% of its field operations division is equipped including officers assigned to various positions in the special operations division. The department is split in half in terms of whether officers are equipped with either the X-26 taser or the older M-26 advanced model which even more closely resembles a handgun.

That aside, this policy recommendations does deserve some scrutiny. On one level, it makes some sense. On the other hand, it seems like the odd recommendation out of the bunch for several reasons.



Why? Because even though Brown was allegedly shot by police officers while holding a taser in his hand several feet away from them, the commission is concerned more about those cases where a person might be holding a taser from 30 feet away and be shot by police officers who mistake the taser for a gun.

What's interesting is that the commissioners (except Peter Hubbard, who apparently believes they simply belong to the noncredible class of people) disregarded the civilian witnesses' statements because they believed that the civilians even those within 10 feet of Brown were too far away to even see an object at all in Brown's hand let alone a taser. However, if officers can see an object in someone's hand from 30 feet away and mistake it for a gun which was a concern raised by this report, do they just innately have better eyesight? I'm surprised that none of them pointed out the obvious if opportunistic contradiction in this situation.

Here are two statements also to consider.



(excerpt, report pg. 4 of 9)



Although neither officer has recalled making the statement, "Drop the gun." (pg. 10 footnote), the belt recorder picked up the statement (Section C, p. 14, line 1) which the Commission believes infers that Mr. Brown had something in his hand resembling a gun. The Commission observes that the taser, in this instance, based on its shape, color and materials, resembles a hand gun.


And right after it, comes the following statement



Officer [Terry] Ellefson reasonably believed that Mr. Brown had possession and control of the taser.



What is interesting about what was written? What is being stated? What's the motivation behind this particular policy recommendation, given the fact that unlike the others, it appears to have not as much relation to the case?

The statement, "drop the gun" was initially said to have been made by Ellefson, even though he never brought it up in his interview with investigators, which is odd given that it would have greatly bolstered his version of events to have a statement like that on an audio recording. Later, after the Riverside Police Department had provided this statement to FBI investigators, according to former CPRC investigator, Butch Warnberg, the designation "unknown speaker" appeared on a transcript that was created many months after the shooting and signed by Ellefson in February 2007 as being an accurate representation. No longer, was this statement being attributed to Ellefson at all.

Then there's the contradictory assumptions being made that are more specific to Ellefson's judgment of the situation and beg the question, did he confuse the two? He of course was standing within two feet of Brown according to his statement, first behind him when he first said he saw Brown holding the taser, then in front when he moved around to shoot him. It's interesting because this theory never arose during the CPRC's discussion of the case. What's it doing here?

In San Francisco, the police officer who was the focus of the Videogate scandal has filed a law suit against the police chief and city's mayor according to KTVU News. If you recall, the courts there backed his union's decision not to support him so the next step appears to be, suing the city.





Bolingbrook Police Department investigators believe that former sergeant, Drew Peterson may have approached truck drivers for help according to the Chicago Tribune. Several said that he asked them to move a package to an undisclosed location.


(excerpt)



The alleged incident took place at a Bolingbrook truck stop around 3:30 a.m. on Oct. 29, Trooper Mark Dorencz said in a written statement.

The man said to be Peterson was accompanied by a white male in his early 50s with salt-and-pepper hair and a stocky build, the statement said.


One of the truck drivers identified one of the men as Drew Peterson to authorities, said Illinois State Police Master Sgt. Luis Gutierrez.

"The men obviously declined the request," Gutierrez said. He declined to comment any further about the alleged incident.



Peterson's third wife, Kathleen Savio who died in 2004 allegedly in an accidental drowning, was acquitted of criminal charges for striking Peterson's fourth wife, Stacey.


Stacey has been missing since Oct. 28. Savio's death is under investigation, this time as a homicide.


(excerpt, Chicago Tribune)


Police responded to 19 calls for help in less than two years involving fellow officer Drew Peterson, Savio, his ex-wife who was found dead in 2004, and Stacy Peterson, his current wife who is missing and feared slain.

The calls show the three were embroiled in a bitter custody battle. No charges were ever brought against Drew Peterson, but he twice persuaded prosecutors to charge Savio with domestic battery. She was acquitted both times.

Savio called police in December 2002 to notify them she had sent Stacy Peterson a certified letter advising that she could be arrested for trespassing. Savio also claimed in September 2003 that Stacy Peterson had called her "several derogatory names" while Drew Peterson dropped off the children.



Eric Zorn, a columnist with the same publication wrote that he doubted the account told by Peterson's step-brother about helping Peterson carry the blue plastic barrel that has attracted a lot of scrutiny out to the car.




(excerpt, Chicago Tribune)



My skepticism is narrowly focused here: I simply doubt very much that Peterson, if he had anything to do with his wife's disappearance as police say they suspect, would have been so clumsy as to have committed such a flagrantly suspicious act in front of someone who was ultimately bound to tell investigators about it.

As a veteran police officer, Peterson has known for years exactly how spousal disappearances are handled: The microscopic search of the marital home and vehicles; the inspection of computer files and phone-call records; the trooping and tramping of citizen searchers through nearby fields and woods; the dredging of local bodies of water; the interviews with everyone in the community and in the family.

He's also known for years that the reason most evil-doers get caught is that they somehow let others in on their secret -- they show or say too much to people they think they can trust, word gets around and , ultimately, they're busted.

I believe a big reason this particular case has ignited so many conversations and continues to hold such an interest for the public is the possibility that we might be dealing with a "perfect crime" case -- a real-life murder mystery that, due to the wiles of the perpetrator, will never be formally solved; a macabre battle of wits.



The minister who Stacey allegedly met with to discuss her concerns about her husband explains why he didn't come forward to the Chicago Sun-Times.



(excerpt)


"Any time you have issues of people disappearing -- and we did -- that's a reason for concern," said the minister, who asked that neither he nor his church be identified.

After talking to the 23-year-old Peterson, the suburban minister advised her to seek help but said he didn't know if she approached authorities or family members before vanishing Oct. 28.

"Ultimately, it was her call because it was her situation," the clergyman said Friday, adding he didn't take any action himself because of concerns that doing so could put her at risk.

"If I think it would hurt someone's situation, I wouldn't," he said.



What comes next is not clear. The search for Stacey continues but was called off in anticipation of a huge winter storm making its way across the country. Over 100 people engaged in the search which has been going on for weeks held a prayer vigil in return for the safe return of a woman missing for far too long.