City Council March election hopefuls at "L.A. Clean Sweep" public forum Saturday

SATURDAY AFTERNOON IN HIGHLAND PARK- for the public

The March 2011 city election nears, just a bit over five months away, and here is the first event featuring the candidates for the even-numbered City Council District seats. Well, even though the incumbents have been invited to attend, Bernard Parks of CD-8 is apparently the only one who feel secure enough to show up.

"Clean Sweep Presents LA's First All-City Council Candidate Forum from 1 to 4 p.m.. Details at: http://ronkayela.com/2010/09/clean-sweep-presents-las-first.html

This is a free event, with a registration requested to ensure the seating requirements can be met.

The location is the American Legion Hall at 227 N. Ave. 55, between Figueroa and Monte Vista.

This city election offers an opportunity to unseat several from their reign over the city where you see that honesty in government is a lost concept.

Some of the signs of that, if you are a non-believer or maybe simply a fan of these elected officials is that they had their voting machines set to generate an automatic "Yes" vote for motions, showing that really no one opposes another's motions or there's payback. "You vote for my motions or your motions will not pass," is an unspoken rule, and where there's no response to meaningful discussions or just no meaningful discussions to begin with, you have a dictatorial environment operating.

It's all very corrupt to say the least. Sometimes a "Yes" vote would be registered and the Council Member was NOT EVEN IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. (That had them scrambling for excuses when the L.A. Times revealed this set up.) I've heard Eric Garcetti ask for corrections from time to time on the vote as incorrectly registered and I suspect they still have not set the auto-pilot "Yes" vote control to "off."

The other thing that this automatic voting setup tells you is that there is really no need to read or study whatever comes before a CM. If they aren't interested in the particular topic- why should they read it? They are voting "Yes" anyway, right?

This seems to have happened with that ballot measure B on solar power- totally distorted by Garcetti and they all voted to put it on the ballot only to find a lot of manipulations and self-serving provisions (of course) inserted that would have you thing the IBEW local union itself
wrote it. Maybe they just dictated it. The CMs were changing their opinions when the public complained and it was Garcetti trying to find some way to avoid blame. Fortunately, Measure B was defeated at the polls by the people for the phony setup that it was.

There was a calculation of the votes taken in Council's motions that showed they voted UNANIMOUSLY in over 99% of the votes taken.

So when you see people in Public Comment speak against a motion in front of the Council and then see that the vote taken right after those comments is a unanimous "Yes," it looks like those speakers were totally ignored. And that's just what happens.

The speakers might have had more success in persuading the public out on the street by saying the comments out on Spring Street instead of inside the Council Chambers.

The other fact often presented is that while Public Comment goes on, the CMs have their own conversations with aides, chat with each other, or simply leave the room. It's so bad that often the person at the podium has to ask that they please pay attention to what they are saying.

There's lots more to show that tells you we need an overhaul in City Council, but if you are in the groups getting an inside connection and are having your interests addressed, then you have an interest in keeping that CM in office with so much invested in making campaign contributions and deals. Or maybe you are on the staff and in that case I can see why you would like to stay employed aside from the CMs worthiness or lack of same. That's just about job survival, not anything to do with a CMs actual merit.

More to be shown by candidates, for sure, before the elections, but at that $15,000 a month salary and perks on top of that, you know it's taking nearly a demolition team to get those incumbents out of their seats.

Too often we have acquiesced to the political double talk and allowed the career politicians to control major decisions that have taken us perilously close to a city bankruptcy filing.

Politicians at other levels are as bad, if not worse- check the State level and see that even Mayor Villaraigosa's cousin, State Assembly Speaker John Perez is caught clearly with more political-speak than substance in the news clips of the last few days, but it "sounds" important. Mostly it's all for the public to think something productive is happening with a state budget that's nearly permanently overdue.

It's time for change all around, but starting at the local level is a very do-able action to get better government.

"Shoot to kill" policy for NYPD is claimed and changes sought

The item from yesterday should have had some other things to be complete. The NYPD had critics for shootings, especially the Sean Bell shooting in 2006. LAPD's currently being criticized by many about shooting an armed-with-knife suspect by person's denying that shooting was an overreaction, that there was no knife, that a non-lethal response needed to be attempted first, and that there was no knife present at all.

Here's the story on the NY side, "Proposal to change shoot to kill policy for cops,"
Tuesday, May 25, 2010, Joe Torres, WABC, Ch. 7, New York,
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=7461450

The story on video is brief and direct.

What started criticism was was the shooting of Sean Bell by undercover officers after coming out of a bachelor party on November 26, 2006, when police believed there was gun drawn by someone in the car Bell was in, causing officers to fire 50 shots immediately.
The police were found not to have violated the law, but I think that was not true, that it was a CYA situation with mistake upon mistake happening to result in this fatal outcome.

The Wikipedia entry has many details and background, but is a version presented by assorted contributors who may themselves be in error, but it's still very helpful to see so many things happening to cause this to occur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell_shooting_incident

Police are supposed to apprehend or stop suspects, not to be the executioner, so assuming a shoot to kill policy in the first place in contrary to what the legal system supports.

ABOUT DEADLY OR LETHAL FORCE, IN GENERAL, What is it? and What happens because of it?
If deadly force was justified, as where a suspect's own actions rise to that level, then the death of that subject by a responding police officer who is trying to stop the suspect from carrying out his action that is reasonably believed to be an immediate threat to the officer or another innocent person is justified.

Once that stopping the actions that posed the threat occurs, the continued use of deadly force not longer is justified since the threat employing deadly force has ended.

So the cops can't then kill the suspect. However, if the suspect then dies from wounds inflicted in the justified use of deadly force, that is within legal and moral limits since the suspect created that situation.

Again, as in the doctrine of retreat where self-defense is claimed, a fleeing person is not usually ripe for shooting (deadly force) since the necessity to stop the threatened harm has ceased by his withdrawal. There still may be a crime, but it’s not one that supports a lawful use of deadly force as a response at that point. (In certain situations, shooting a fleeing suspect can be proper, but that is in specific conditions.)

Also, where is it the law that a police officer MUST use non-lethal force to respond to a deadly force situation? If there is truly deadly force used by a suspect, why should the police risk their own lives or the life of innocent persons where the suspect can literally kill them?

Police are supposed to have an acceptable casualty level of “zero” in doing their jobs. You may find military actions where deaths are expected outcomes of various choices where the military operations occurs, but that's not police work.

Sometimes you have to recognize what's there is all you have to work with, and not pretend that any different outcome is possible. But neither can you indicate permission for police to kill anyone anytime they shoot.

Once the threat ends, you don't continue to guarantee death. The death as a consequence of "stopping" (shooting for center mass) instead of a "wounding" result (some wishful thinking on marksmanship) is a permissible outcome of the justified use of deadly force, and that it’s the suspect himself who decides and causes that condition to materialize by his own choice of actions that precipitate such responses.

Now, this is something of a discussion that I put together very quickly and there may be some vagueness that needs narrowing but I think you can see there's more here than what most people don't or refuse to consider or understand. And let's not forget that the outcomes can change with a change in what the facts happen to be. Not all situations are equal, but the principles to use remain consistent.

And when state Senator Gloria Romero proclaims, "We are not in the Wild West," you have a lot going on for police to handle to show she's wrong and she should see that.

State Senator Gloria Romero Shoots off her mouth on "Shoot to Kill" policy of LAPD-

State Senator Gloria Romero must be totally ignorant of the law, and the factors affecting marksmanship and just plain common sense notions to have spoken about a need for LAPD to change their "shoot to kill" policy. First off, there is no policy in place. Sen. Romero made her comments in reference to the recent shooting and death of a man with a knife by LAPD bike patrol officers. She referred to the need to use alternatives to shooting in disarming the suspect.

Well, there appears to have been an immediate threat to the officers by this man but she would have had the officers put their own lives at risk by using non-lethal force as a response to the man. That could have resulted in some cut up or dead officers but Romero is not looking at the whole picture.

In trying to preserve life, you don't just throw out long established principles regarding the use of lethal force and then put the officers' lives on the line as some sort of sacrifice of a trade.

No, none of it makes sense. Maybe to Romero. Let's see, is she up for election again? Maybe she should put some time in a simulator or on the range to see it's easier to make charges than to actually perform as she expects. Those who know all this can see she hopelessly ignorant on this- or maybe not. She could be enlightened by trying my suggestions and then re-think her proposals.

BELOW: NEW YORK P.D FROM WABC TV Ch. 7 . in May charged with a shoot to kill policy that they should change.
The idea was to have the police use their guns to "not kill" really. The NYPD doesn't have a shoot-to-kill policy. Here, they DO want some feats of consistently amazing marksmanship to replace some established and rational, as well as legal, principles that have been taught.

The story is about having cops shoot in the arm or leg- you know, like in the movies. More sheer ignorance on marksmanship and the law. The training for officers has them aim for the largest part of the target, or "center mass" where there are vital organs to ensure a "stop"- remembering that shooting a gun is an act of "deadly force" that is to be used as a response to a an immediate deadly force threat.

I will examine this a little more, only because a "colleague" at a meeting over the weekend was vehemently denying that "shoot to kill" is a forbidden policy and I have to examine this for myself to see that the world is not upside down on this.

So the idea is to save lives by the cop responding to the situation that, by definition, means the officer or another innocent person in in immediate danger of loss of life or crippling injury. That now puts the officer likely to "take one for the team" to carry that idea out if the non-lethal response does not stop the perpetrator.

And as for choosing the spot to hit, it's insane. Most shooting done by police results in more shots missing than hitting. But these are cops TRYING to hit the subject and they miss entirely most of the time. So expecting a leg wound or some precision result is lunacy. Further, you are treating the situation dangerously from a liability standpoint: "He killed the suspect instead of hitting him in the leg." Now cop says "I tried that but missed that part of the body. I meant to hit his leg." OK, sounds like a lawsuit coming up for NOT doing what he was "intending" to do and causing the greater harm to the subject.

All that is a crazy scenario. For anyone to support that is to ignore legal principal of justifiable use of lethal force and when it is proper and when it is not.

Shooting or any infliction of other deadly force AFTER the suspect has stopped his threat is NOT justified, otherwise you'd have the police as the executioner. Some think that already is the case but there's a legal basis to determine all that.

SEN. ROMERO'S COMMENTS SET OFF SERIOUS RESPONSES FROM POLICE
You can check a story on the LAPD response in Earth Times, "LAPD Officers Furious About Senator Romero's Inflammatory 'Shoot to Kill' Remarks," LOS ANGELES, Sept. 20, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) .
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/press/inflammatory-shoot-kill-remarks,1467868.html

Lincoln Alumni Meeting tomorrow, Lincoln at Belmont tonight

There's an alumni meeting tomorrow at the Cafe in the Heights on North Broadway across the street from the campus beginning at 9:30 a.m.

There's also a varsity football game tonight (Away game) at Belmont, at 7pm- and this is the old Belmont that we all know, not the "new"Belmont that became "The Edward R. Roybal Learning Center."

FACULTY, ALUMNI OR NOT, WELCOME TO MEETINGS
And like I said, maybe not to precisely, but the Alumni Association tries to help students and address what it can for assistance, but maybe teachers think it's only alumni that can come to meetings and even at that, there's still only the same very small hard-working faculty contingent attending meetings and handling activities.

Faculty members don't have to wait for a need to make a request from the organization for equipment, money or other materials to make an appearance at a meeting or two, but the observation is that this situation happens to be the only certain time that a visit happens.

All faculty members (you who don't have to be alumni) are also welcome to attend, maybe just to check in to let us know what's changed in the school, or to tell us how we can all work to help them do a better job handling the job of educating students.

Too often the opportunity for expanded involvement of willing people is overlooked when the job could be shared among many in trying to achieve a goal of helping students of Lincoln High obtain a better education.

------------------------------------------------------------
An earlier photo posted here showed a shot of LHS from City Hall- to compare the view, here's ths same view in a wide angle shot. But to most people away from our area, we are located "downtown."

LHS Alumni Association Meeting This Saturday

It's time for the September editiion of the LHS Alumni Association meeting happening this Saturday, 9:30 am, at "The Cafe In The Heights" across the street from LHS on North Broadway. If you remember where the old fire station was that used to provide us with the 10 am, last-Friday-of-the-month, air raid siren function exercises, done city-wide similtaneously, then a few doors away from there you will find the Cafe.

(photo at right is telephoto view of LHS from City Hall tower)

Linocoln has been in session a month already and most of the LAUSD started this past Monday. That 5 day shortening of the school calendar is one reason for a short Fall semester.

There's not much to tell about the LHS experience at the moment, but there's lots going on with the teachers' union and the District concerning test score significance and teacher evaluations. All that is for a separate blog entry but as for Alumni matters, you will have to check the LHS Alumni link in the sidebar.

One matter that's been an ongoing condition with the Alumni Association is the sparse membership or even contact with teachers here who are alumni, and there's a lot. Of course, things get busy for teachers, but there might be a better condition produced for all if there was a little more presence of current alumni faculty in the association. Just an observation that's not anything new.

We do have several teacher alumni who DO attend meetings and give another perspective to the needs and conditions that school environment produces, and that one very postive feature of faculty participation. This participation would not even have to be as a member but an occasional visit to give us all some idea of what the current LHS is all about.

As usual, the meetings are open and anyone is welcome to attend, give comments and share ideas, or just hear what others have to provide. There's a football season underway with the food concession stand on the Visitor's side operated by the Alumni Association. Volunteering to help is always very useful for before, during and after the games.

Dodgers' divorcing owners were No O'Malleys- More like the Bell City Manager.

Frank and Jamie McCourt were no angels when it came to buying the Dodgers. The story that's coming out in the pretty entertaining divorce is showing how they used the Dodgers like a cash cow to bring in money with very little of a plan to return value to the fans. Dodger fans being exploited is what it looks like, all to make the owners lots and lots of money with that the main goal. Winning championships maybe did not cross their minds as often and probably not part of the plan.

"McCourt: Plan was to cut Dodgers players’ salaries," Sep 1, AP,
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-dodgers-mccourts-salaries is interesting in showing comments that reflect some views of some bitter fans.

A much longer article on the same topic is loaded with datails, "McCourt Divorce Trial Reveals Dodgers' Massive Debts, Payroll Deductions," 9/02/2010 1:20 PM ET By Jon Weinbach, Sports Business Writer, http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/09/02/mccourt-divorce-trial-reveals-dodgers-massive-debts-payroll-de/

The player development was not a concern and one part of what got into some full speed ahead action was the increase in ticket prices. There was a time Tommy Lasorda used to say about Dodger Stadium, "Where you can bring a family of 4 for ten dollars.' That WAS a long time ago and the seat were in the upper deck or pavillion but it was true. Parking alone jumped to $15- was it any wonder that the Dodgers (the McCourts) did not want to contribute to any shuttle busses? There's shuttle service now from Union Station, but guess where that money comes from? Like when city council waived extra expenses for added officers to control traffic during the playoffs- the public paid for helping the business operate.

The McCourts had an arrangement where the Dodger Stadium property and the team were treated separately according to the reports. They were charging the team rent where you did not have that in earlier ownerships. The idea was to be able to have the property as an asset in case the team's future turned into some financial downturn.

Remember Walter O'Malley who brought the team to L.A.? Probably not, but back in those days and then with his son, Peter, there still was a "Dodger Family" sense about their operations. As people grew older and some died or moved to other organizations, the team aura changed and that's what it looks like to me, a forme avid fan, maybe beginning to lose that interest back when Steve Garvey left to the Padres and broke up the long-time infield.

The idea that baseball is a business is what you have to recognize and this is what the McCourts did, and that's all they did. I don't think you should feel any sympathy for either of them as more and more of the story is coming out that all they appear to have as a common goal is the cointinued accumulation of wealth and they did keep the team going but not with any passion for the game or the team.

If this team gets sold, I hope it gets some owners who don't "use" the operation like the McCourts did, but work to have some restoral of tradition. Anybody remember such long gaps between World Series appearances as these more recent years haven't changed?

The loss of Manny as the story linked here says, saved them over $3 million on payroll, and the fact that he really did not produce after that first year didn't help to keep him. But that was an exciting short time that you have to give Manny a lot of credit for generating.

I have to admit, I don't follow major league baseball anymore, but the time I did see Dodger Stadium after many years since the last visit was when they dedicated Mannywood, and then the small matter of taking steroids was revealed and a few days later, no more Manny on the field. I used to know all the Dodger roster years ago- not too hard since they had a pretty stable situation, but now when I hear the names of the players there's only a few I recognize as Dodgers from the current crop that seems to change as there's more and more millionaires in the game- on the field, that is.

So this is the short post here just to criticize the owners of the Dodgers now that their business plans were revealed, using the fans who would pay higher ticket prices anyway, even if the team was not a contender. That's got to tell you a lot of how the McCourts handled their ownership responsibilities. Now they've turned on each other and the exposure of all the behind the scenes plans they were using is more than interesting.

I usually write about the city hall politicians, but these folks appear to have about the same need for power and have it coming at the expense of others. It's coming out that the purchase of the Dodgers was done without really an actual presence of cash on hand. Just a lot of leveraging to pull off the deal.

They got the Dodgers and were working on their plan and now it's divorce time, with all the dirty linen aired out on both sides. Bell's city manager Rizzo is being discovered in more ways to be ripping off the city of 40,000 residents (the entire city population would fit in Dodger Stadium- just an observation) and so were others in their city structure. Were the McCourts ripping off fans? It's all a matter of opinion, and this was mine as the revelations tend to support a very different picture than what they presented to the fans.