Sunday, January 06, 2008

Flare gun test target is 'brilliant'

Dear Editor,

Kudos to Bob Hansen, of McKinleyville, for his brilliant and practical suggestion (in Letters to the Editor, Dec. 28, 2007) that District Attorney Paul Gallegos should volunteer to be the target of test firings of a flare gun and, should he be unwilling to do that, the police indictments should be dropped immediately.

From the time he first came to office, Paul Gallegos has squandered resources -- money, morale and reputations. It’s high time the people of Humboldt County come to their senses and throw him out. The sooner, the better.

Susan Dodd, Eureka


Then it looks like Salzman shows up in the comments: Humboldt county elected and then defended Gallegos in the recall, the people have spoken. The untouchable good 'ol boy network of coverup might be coming to a end and it appears some people just dont like that idea.

Funny since "untouchable" has been his word for Gallegos. The "Good Old Boy Network" has nothing on this virulent "New Little Boy Network" and, the people are stuck with Gallegos as a result of Salzman's lies and dirty tricks.

39 comments:

  1. With all due respect, Rose, I totally disagree with you on these letters being "brilliant". These letters should not have even been printed! The letters suggest violence against a publicly elected official.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Publishing any letter espousing or suggesting violence makes the publisher complicit in any resulting violence. People will think and say what they wish, but in journalistic terms these are big editorial mistakes. I hope the ER will see this and address the situation.

    Publishing the first letter told the community such letters are okay. Publishing the second letter indicates a certain approval, or at least comfort with, the content of the letters.

    If these letters were printed in the Lumberjack there would be hell to pay. Violence and the suggestion of violence against elected officials diminishes and can destroy the rule of law.

    I hope some folks will back up a bit on this and take another look. Some things are bigger than simply taking sides.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Carol is right, but even more specifically, the letter suggests violence against a Law Enforcement official (like him or not). Not cool. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well maybe someone could pump nine rounds of bullets from a rifle into any police officer as a test to determine what Cherie Moore felt when officers prematurely entered her apartment without knowing that they were going to kill her.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah advocate for violence,that's what society needs.With Greg and Carol in being disappointed in your advocation for violence against Paul.I knew you didn't like him,but wow.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Carol, again, the title was set by the newspaper. "Brilliant" is not my choice of words.

    But the point, Greg, is that those who seek to diminish the threatening nature of a flare gun ought to think twice. It would indeed cause serious harm, and you can bet your boy Gallegos knows that. It's a rhetorical suggestion, designed to make that point. At least that's the way I took it.

    Mark, I hope you are forming a group of volunteers to go deal with the next 'off their meds' person who gets so bad Mental Health has to call the cops. A groups of people willing to go in and cater to that persons whims and requests. I don't know what you're going to do when the 'patient' threatens you with a gun or is threatening to burn the apartment complex down, but I'm sure law enforcement would happily let you take control of the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And for the record, NO, I do not wish Gallegos harm. I just want him to step down and return to being a defense attorney. He's done enough damage.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Greg and Carol, you do the community a disservice by not letting the community voice its anger and frustration at an unreasonable situation created by your progressive District Attorney. You jump on Rose as if she had written the brilliantly pointed piece of writing, but your gang mentality shows your political bias that has nothing to do with protecting government officials and everything to do with protecting Paul's image.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good enough, Rose. You know my concerns are for the safety of public officals and the public's right to run for office and serve without fear of violence.

    Stephen, sorry, but this is not about politics or even about Paul Gallegos' performance. My comments were directed at the editorial decision to allow the letters. I certainly did not think Rose meant Paul personal harm.

    Gang mentality? Nonsense. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Greg and Carol, Husband and wife, tag team. Wow. Maybe they should try out for the WWF? They sit at the computer and take turns bagging on Rose. Or do they have two side by side computers so they can both put out there phoney leftist progressive drivel?

    Maybe Carol and Greg should have read the paper before they responded? Maybe they should take a class on reading comprehension. And Greg's Mom was an English teacher, he should know better.

    A real "law enforcement official" carries a gun and at times has to confront criminals and make arrests.

    Gallegos was elected. Nifong was elected too. Even Bernie DePaoli was the DA ! What a crook he turned out to be.

    Basically my advice to Carol and Greg is to STFU. That's just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Greg's concern for the safety of public officials ? !

    Concern for what public officials? The Public Defender? The Wharfinger. The head of Cal Trans? The Tax Collector?

    Greg you are such a ass.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's the magic of a wireless router, 12:09. But if you think I am a leftist progressive, you are in for a shock.

    12:13, yes all of those, but especially law enforcement. Name calling? Oww..

    ReplyDelete
  13. Okay,Rose, we are cool. I think the idea suggested in the letters was way out there on the fringe. I apologize for thinking you thought the idea was brilliant, too.

    I did take Critical Thinking at HSU, anon, and know how to read a newspaper.

    Anon, I feel like I am a moderate.

    Yes, sometimes Greg and I blog together in our kitchen. I have my laptop and he uses the family home computer.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I feel better knowing about the Critical Thinking class.

    And Greg, more of a description than a name.

    Do you guys also blog with Mark?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I heard another low level political hack say he wasn't aganist builders or development while he voted to screw the project just because it was deveolpment. Like you Greg only words to soften the blow or ease his own mind. When you walk,quack,wattel,and shit all over yourself like a duck---- well you do the math.

    ReplyDelete
  16. No, Mark doesn't live with us. We have only met Mark twice in person, and mostly know him from blog comments.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I must agree that Gags is a jerk. He is, however an elected and re elected jerk which says more about the voters of Humboldt County than his jerkiness. As for the flare gun issue, there were lots of commenters on these blogs that ridiculed such a device as a weapon before the Greek pointed out that such a weapon is indeed formidable. The letters in the TS merely called attention to this fact. No reasonable person expects that the referenced experiment would ever transpire. The authors were merely utilizing irony to drive home their point and greg and carol would appear to be bright enough to understand this. To advocate that the authors should be silenced is a rather heavy handed attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  18. There were even comments threatening the EPD officers - wasn't it on Buhne or heraldo?. Some of the worst comments were on the Times Standard site.

    I agree that the rhetorical question is intended to be ironic and speaks to the nature of the threat and the issue of justification and self defense.

    At no time should we advocate violence - I don't think the letter does that - the letter suggests a VOLUNTARY experiment.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Okay, this discussion is good.

    I recoiled from the comments that transpired on Buhne's that I couldn't even go there for a period of time. The suggestion of threat of violence whether it is voluntary or not creates a viseral discomfort when reading letters from our community members. If it was intended to be humor, I couldn't find anything funny about it.

    Well, tonight Stewart/Colbert will be back on Comedy Central. Maybe they will crack jokes about waterboarding? I don't always find their sense of humor funny, but then sometimes it is hilarious. The writer's strike has gone on too long - I am losing my sense of humor . . .

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sure, the letter says "voluntary". It also says "should". Semantics. I did not see irony or humor when reading either letter. What I saw was the possibility some goofball would think the idea was funny and act on it to impress his buddies or fulfill some sick mental trip.

    Paul Gallegos is law enforcement. His office deserves respect regardless of whether you voted for him or not, and regardless of his job performance. This respect is due anyone who holds such an office and goes with the office rather than the office holder.

    Gallegos still does not seem so bad that we should let some Texas corporation kick him out. When the people of Humboldt decide he's done, and another candidate steps up, he will leave the DA's office. Otherwise, he'll leave when he wants.

    We all live with the threat of violence, but public officials moreso than others, and their families live with the threat, too. Judges maintain very private personal lives for a reason. My cop-son carries his weapon most of the time, and keeps track of his partner on and off-duty. We need to encourage respect for the law, not "irony".

    ReplyDelete
  21. His office does deserve respect. Do you think he respects it?

    I think you're oversensitive, Greg. The altercation between Glass and Arkley, for example, was not a threat to national security, as some would make it out to be, and this letter was simply bitter irony - I wouldn't call it humor, but maybe the author would - both of them are free to weigh in here.

    To paraphrase, 'We'll keep Paul because we hate Maxxam.' Makes alot of sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I just read your response to Greg -he admits that he is oversensitive at times, and so am I. But is that a bad characteristic? I don't think so.

    With Greg growing up as son of a judge and now his son as a police officer, he does worry about his son's safety.

    As far as the Glass/Arkley glass incident, please listen to the KHUM interview again. We talked with Larry the day after it happened, and advised him to report the incident. He was also encouraged to write down everything he could remember. It is going to take time to sort out the sordid affair.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Gags is no "law enforcement." He is a wannabe. He is so far from progressive, that it is pathetic.

    Greg and Carol, you threw in with a corrupt idiot when you blindly supported Gags and now you get what you deserve.

    And Greg, I notice that your "son" sure isn't a cop in Humboldt and for good reason.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Were there two KHUM interviews? 'Cause the one I remember he said he was only filing the report so there would be a record in case anything happened. Exactly as Hank says in his latest column that "heraldo" is all over.

    Then came the miraculous "change of heart" and the decision to push it further. It's ludicrous. Makes Larry look like a baby.

    And I say that as someone who LIKES Larry. I listened to that first interview and he sounded reasonable - UNLIKE the affiliation with CREG and the filthy Salzman stickers and dirty tricks. I think Arkley was within his rights to be pissed at all of that - minimize it if you will, but you know what was happening just in the blog chatter to demean the man, spit on his family and threaten his daughters - I remember it - it did make you cringe and rightfully so.

    Larry should be embarrassed to have anything to do with Salzman.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Shouldn't people have freedom of association?Larry knows Salzman and they agree on some things,so what?Regardless,that has nothing to do with what may have happened at the Avalon.And the stickers existed a LONG TIME prior to the incident,and Larry removed them promptly after talking with the girls,again a LONG TIME prior to the incident.
    And why does Hank automatically assume that no one is coming forward simply because he isn't be told so?What does Hank personally know about the incident?
    It was really kind of a lame article to write as nothing new was revealed and its only purpose could be to further stir things up.I like Hank's a cool dude and I like his stuff,but this was one of his worst pieces.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 9:32, my boy is an investigator with the Santa Rosa Police Dept. He would love to live in Humboldt, but he can't afford to raise his family on the wages.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Greg: I would wait and hear from your son on that one.

    1) not only is the pay bad; but
    2) the anti-police sentiment would drive him bonkers;
    3) people are leaving with their kids because this place has gone in the toilet; and
    4) many of the cops I know have left or have plans on leaving with their families asap or as soon as they hit 50 and can.

    But thanks for weighing in with your interpretation of someone else’s mindset.

    As for you being apPaul-ed at this letter...are you for real? I found the satire amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 11:23, my son and I speak regularly. His situation is hardly unique and is very clear -no "interpretation" needed.

    If you found the LTE in question to be "amusing satire" one can only imagine what makes you laugh out loud.

    Hey, maybe I am too sensitive. Off to work.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Most leftists are humor challenged, especially when their sacred cows come under fire (pun?).

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sorry Greg: I won't take your word for it that the only thing that keeps him in SR is the money.

    I happen to also have a sense of humor and had a good laugh at that letter. Whats the matter? You can only laugh when its someone you don't like?

    Get a grip brother.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 1:49, my grip is fine, thanks. Meanwhile, beginning pay for Santa Rosa police officers is $2200 per month MORE than it is in Eureka.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Actually, your grip is not fine, but why bother arguing with you on that point.

    So what that the pay is 2200 more per month. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that this place is out of control and good cops are/have been leaving in droves - which was my main point.

    BTW - the pay for professionals and tradepersons in SR and the Bay Area far exceeds here in almost every (if not all) catagories. I would speculate that your son (isn't it Brad?) stays in SR less because of the pay then because of the fact that the lunatics are running the asylum up here.

    But thanks again for weighing in Greg.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Greg's grip is plenty fine, Anon, and I would know!

    His son can't leave Santa Rosa because of the pay and his seniority. He keeps track of what is going on "up here".

    ReplyDelete
  34. No actually, Greg is as looney as they come.

    And I am sure that he tells you that. The fact is that I do know people in SR that are in law enforcement and have been heard saying "Humboldt Sucks!" I don't think your son would subject his career and the well being of his kids to moving anywhere up here, but if you want to blame it on the pay, so be it. That is NOT the reason that lifelong Humboldt families are leaving the area. They are leaving because whacko's like you and Greg who evidently can't make any sense of reality have ruined this place.

    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Of course Sonoma law enforcement officers say Humboldt sucks.

    Wonder what they would say if the pay was better?

    12:12, you are becoming less coherent with each comment.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Sorry but they would say the same exact thing 11:50. That is because it is not about the money. If I am getting incoherent to you, might I suggest putting the doobie down for a while and quit killing what little brain cells that you have left.

    It is obvious that you don't know many people in law enforcement.

    ReplyDelete
  37. and its typo time again - make that 1:50 and not 11:50.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Humboldt. Does it suck. Well, let's see. How are the schools? What's the median income? How are we doing for new businesses, green or otherwise? What percentage of H.S. graduates can stay here, get good jobs, raise families? How are the stats for crime, registered child molesters, drug use, drug overdose, suicides? What's the ratio of doctors to population? Nurses? How'm I doing, Doc?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Greg,

    We await more pompous verbosity from you, you gaseous bag of wind.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.