Comments on: Yolo DA won’t charge officers in UCD pepper-spraying

By: Wendy Holmes

Wendy Holmes — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:01:46 +0000

The criterion of appropriate is not the perpetrators perspective, but the law. If the DA continues to use this criterion, Yolo County will be a great place to commit crimes.

By: Alan Miller

Alan Miller — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:51:55 +0000

There is no surprise here. YOLO DA writing what they had to write technically to avoid having a seriously messy trial and conflict with UCD. If the logic of DA Report seems odd to you, it only means you are sane. ¶ The one thing that I am surprised they were able to so easily dismiss is the use of a non-approved weapon, a larger, higher-pressure can of pepper-spray. The person who allowed that into the arsenal of ‘non-lethal’ weapons of the UC Police Department, and anyone who used it knowing it was not approved should all be removed and prosecuted. ¶ In parallel, imagine if officers at UCD were carrying larger-than-approved guns rather than approved guns as part of their lethal weapons. Police carrying unauthorized weapons — lethal or non-leathal — should be of great concern to us all.

By: crank

crank — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:10:09 +0000

The Kroll report most emphatically does not provide support for the cops’ belief that they were facing a hostile mob. It says the opposite, all but mocking the officers for their claim to be afraid for their own safety. It’s clear that the DA is far more interested in remaining popular with his police friends than in enforcing the law.

By: shielda

shielda — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:39:55 +0000

“from the perspective of a ‘reasonable officer,’ not a reasonable person.” BIG difference there. NO law enforcement person will EVER find any other law enforcement persons guilty of ANYTHING,ever.

And the DA. being part of that particular crowd, goes hand and glove.

What..? You expected a different ruling…???
TSK! naive.