Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Feb 3, 2014
This is yet another story about some gunman that obviously thought that he was a big man with the pistol and shooting some innocent party. However does he realize that he was no more than a complete idiot and shall have plenty of time to think about his wrong doings.
Why didn't they arrest the woman who left and then brought back her personal gunman? I'm sure she was expecting some kind of violence in her "honor", and probably was well aware that the guy was armed. What a stupid thing to fight about and kill over.
Still waiting for the Palo Alto online to do a story on the child pornography case involving [portion removed due to potentially defamatory content needing verification.]
Who's minding the store in Silicon Valley? - I hope that you're not holding your breath! You make excellent points. Note that the E. Palo Alto city manager is interested in outsourcing our police needs to the Sheriff's Office. Big bummer that PA Online is in such PC/lockdown mode that they keep editing my comments about that, as well as the possibility of PAPD taking over our police responsibilities, even pro-racial profiling stance of the the last chief and many PA residents. But when it comes to a Caucasian bad apple of prominence and means - nope, nada, nothing, zilch.
[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]
Incomprehensible and others who are interested - I posted this on The Almanac's Town Square. Any bets on whether they'll honestly respond vs. delete my post?
[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]
PA Online - you write: [portion removed due to potentially defamatory content needing verification.] Fine, but if you'd been doing your job as journalists, you'd know already that there's plenty of verification on this case. How come you haven't done a story?
An editor and reporter for the Almanac are working this story, but since this individual is not a local resident in our circulation area it wouldn't normally be covered. The posts you and another individual have made are highly defamatory if not true, and it is you (and the other poster) that are being protected by the removal of these posts, since you are legally liable for libel made in an online forum like this. There are many stories we don't cover because they don't have anything to do with our coverage area, which is the case with any news outlet. If you Google this person's name, there is nothing that has been written by any news organization on this allegation, so we are hardly alone in being cautious. Whatever the Post ran, it is their legal risk and not available online. We will report on this if and when we can verify the facts.
Thank you for your response, Town Square Monitor.
Another question, while we're at it: Why do you keep removing parts of my post about Sheriff Munks and former Chief Lynn Johnson?
Your comments about the EPA police were edited because you confused the Sheriff's officials who were arrested in Las Vegas as having a connection with the Palo Alto Police department, which they did not. Our edits were intended to eliminate this inaccuracy, while preserving your point that the option of EPA going back to being policed by the Sheriff's office involved the Las Vegas episode wasn't appealing and that the previous chief of police in Palo Alto got into a controversy over racial profiling. Hope that helps.
No, you misunderstood. I was posting that BOTH of those law enforcement organizations aren't pristine, and posted the evidence supporting my opinion. The evidence: The sheriff and undersheriff being busted and detained in LV (both are PAPD "alums), AND the former PAPD chief, who wanted PAPD officers to racially profile black males in Palo Alto. She said it with many witnesses, and it was videotaped, so it's not hearsay. I posted my opinions about both organizations in various ways, which you kept deleting portions of. Please remember that Johnson did NOT order her officers to stop and question white males, even though one of the suspects (and who was apprehended), was a white male.
We had no problem with your separate criticisms relating to the Sheriff and the Palo Alto Police Department, only your attempt to link the two. San Mateo County Sheriff Greg Munks was with the Palo Alto Police department more than 20 years ago. To suggest that is relevant, and without stating it was that long ago made that part of your post misleading.
Misleading, really? He's also a Palo Alto native, and Bolanos is a PAPD "alum" as well. Munks also lived in Palo Alto for many years, as an adult, and local officer. Why is any of that misleading? I was pointing out, from my POV, why neither agency is the best choice to head up law enforcement in E. Palo Alto.
It seems to me that you're holding my potentially controversial opinions to a higher standard than many other, less controversial opinions.
I do appreciate this dialog, and your willingness to answer honestly. I don't want to repeatedly waste your time, so I'll let this be. Again, thank you for your time and honesty.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Engagement Rings: Myths and Options
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 2,524 views
Opening alert: Go Fish Poke Bar in Redwood City
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 2,026 views
Talking about baby
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 945 views
Open Food Letter to Donald Trump
By Laura Stec | 3 comments | 916 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Palo Alto
Send News Tips
Express / Weekend Express
Circulation & Delivery
Mountain View Voice
© 2017 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.