For those of you following the Alex Sanchez case, Tom Hayden has a story in the Nation that gives more of the details of the hearing that took place earlier this month.
Hayden describes how Sanchez’ attorney, Kerry Bensinger, makes some intriguing legal points. I don’t think Judge Real will buy them, but Real seems to enjoy defying the expectations of others, so who can say?
PS: Be forewarned, Hayden weaves into the story the issue of the controversial fatal shooting of Manuel Jaminez by an LAPD officer in Westlake, which I think mixes apples and oranges. But whatever. Read the Sanchez material. His remains a very painful case—but also an ever more interesting one.
Hayden is an idiot trying to find a conspiracy here, a police controversy there (where it doesn’t exist) and apparently misses the days when people would read his words as if they mattered.
They don’t, he’s just a second string player with an ego that can never be satisfied.
Well…
“Meanwhile the recent shooting death of a Guatemalan day laborer, Manuel Jaminez, by a Los Angeles police officer has reignited a controversy over police reform that is at the root of the current courtroom drama.”
– True.
“The shooting at the Sixth and Union corner was an embarrassing development for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Chief Charlie Beck,”
-Some conjecture there… attempts to speak for Mayor V and Chief Beck. Were they truly “embarrassed”, as Hayden puts it? They’d never admit it if they were. And do you think they’re not both wishing to themselves right now that the officers had waited longer to pull the trigger?
(explaining why Mayor V and Chief Beck should be embarrassed) “the Rampart division was showcased as the center of police reforms which were used to justify ending the federal consent decree that was imposed after the Rampart scandal.”
– Hayden couldn’t have said it better.
It seems to me Hayden is merely asking the question as to whether there’s a link between the vilification of Alex Sanchez and the harsh manner in which Jamenez was dealt with. Hayden has found that most Latinos in Los Angeles feel the police treat them unfairly, so he’s asking the question on their behalf. I think it’s solid journalism. Progressive and radical by the standards set by our corporate media, no doubt, but still journalism, nonetheless.
Tom Hayden saw Jane Fonda naked in her prime – that’s good enough for me, and I’m guessing he was allowed proactive interchange- which boggles actually.
GJ! HA! Well said.
I adore Tom. We agree on many things, and not on others. But friendship doesn’t always require agreement.
In that same vein, SF and Script, the two different points of view are appreciated.
People really hate Tom Hayden. I’m kind of a youngin’ so I was really never too familiar with him. I did a little research on him to find out just what he did to make so many people hate him. He’s a liberal, obviously. Believes gangs can work together to form peace and end gang violence. I can understand that causing some frustration amongst the “lock ’em up!” crowd. But such solutions are nothing new. Similar solutions have been offered by several other politicians and activists over the years. I just can’t find what it is that so many people truly hate about him, because in a lot of circles in LA, he’s hated like Osama Bin Ladin. I guess it’s the Jane Fonda thing. He was married to a woman whose gesture in Vietnam was viewed as traitorous by many Americans. If there’s anything else, enlighten me. Because I can’t find anything.
I grew up liberal, my older brother covered much of the anti-war movement, Panthers and other hot topic issues while in college in the late 60’s. I chamged my mind on issues as I got older and looked for the truth, and saw it as it unfolded during events in my life. Hayden is a race baiter, just like many of out Hispanic politicians on the left, they play that card like it’s the only way to do business. Loretta sanchez and Gloria Romero have both done it recently, they are both shameful.
Even seeing Jane Fonda naked or doing her in her prime wouldn’t be enough for me cause eventually I would have to had a conversation with her.
No thanks.
It’s funny you say that, Sure Fire. And I’ve heard a lot of conservatives say that…that they were liberal when they were younger, yet became conservatives. For me, it was the opposite. When I was a kid, I possessed a lot of the materialistic, “zero-sum” values you seem to see in most Republicans today. I used to mock the poor. I used to think life was all about fitting in, getting along to go along, being one amongst many. Being a part of something popular and strong, and devastating to anything that got in its way. And I had a constant fear of falling off of the wheel. Did everything I could to keep on. As I got older, I started to believe in myself more, and started to have more confidence in my own views on life, and started to make decisions for myself. Most importantly, I started to THINK for myself. When I was younger, I would convince myself of something that I knew wasn’t true just because it’s what MOST OTHERS believed. Even though I didn’t go to Church, I was a Christian in theory…because everyone else was. You know who your daddy is because your momma told ya, isn’t that what they say? That’s how I approached life in my formative years. I avoided those who were strange or feeble minded, not because I felt they were any kind of a threat to me or anyone else, but because I was afraid of being seen with them, even though I thought some of them were great people. The first time I heard the rap group Public Enemy, I thought they were nuts. How could the United States be so racist if there’s so many black athletes, I thought? LOL. That’s how dumb I was. I see a lot of Republicans and conservatives today saying things that I would have said when I was like 12. So I guess in a way, everyone’s political views are formed through maturity.