Monday, June 27, 2011

city junkies

Peter Lance's self- investigative DUI series ends with a thud...

Dear City of Santa dare you arrest the well-heeled drunk driving members of upper crust Santa Barbara! you need to concentrate on the homeless and leave our drunken royalty alone!!

so Peter Lance wraps up his investigation of DUI officer Kasi Beutel with a defense of realtor/lawyer and now poor little victim John Thyne, who everyone knows tried to run for city council, but kept drinking and driving and getting caught! I mean, this is beyond silly now..I've already pointed out that Peter's story has NO CREDIBILITY as he uses other drunks to support his assertion that drunk drivers who are wealthy should not be pulled over...and used a "handwriting expert" who was expelled from his professional association for ethics violations!!

the pictures you see are of a drunk who crashed his truck a few years ago into a residential area where kids play...look at this guy... I missed the actual crash but I watched him wobble and weave when the cops got him out of the truck.... shall we feel sorry for him and coddle him....maybe Wendy will do a story on the poor fellow!

the new Travis!

and to support the series, Wendy and Nipper tried to justify it in an opinion piece editorial calling the cops guilty of arresting wealthy drunk drivers... and they say the articles were not biased but acted like a "disinfectant" to expose DUI officers who do their jobs..
..which includes arresting some of Wendy's friends...Wendy, put the bottle of Jack Daniels down and clear your mind, dude!! that's why I pay taxes to keep the cops busy arresting your drunk firiends!!!

however according to Lance and the News-Press, some folks should be given special consideration because of their rank in society?? total bullshit and delusional and typical of an alcoholic enabler..

so... Wendy "Miss Sunshine" is all of a sudden interested in police corruption because her buddy Peter Lance got busted driving drunk?? and why isn't Peter's mugshot on the front page?? I think Peter is the new Travis!! he writes, he drives drunk, he's probably gay and who knows maybe he's an Indian, too!

John Thyne is enlisted to discredit officer Beutel...Thyne complained to Lance that Beutel arrested him and said he wasn't really drunk, his eyes weren't really bloodshot and that Officer Beutel could not have smelled alcohol on him.. but here's a quote from Thyne in Noozhawk during the campaign: “It’s been a long and winding road that led to here,” Thyne said of his decision to run. It was a road that detoured into a 2007 DUI conviction after he was stopped while driving home from a fundraising “bachelor auction.” He pleaded guilty, paid the fine and performed the community service.
“It was an incredible mistake,” he said. “I wish I could go back and and change it, and I’m glad I didn’t hurt anyone.”

and now Lance is interviewing him... blaming the cops for his woes?? Thyne had drunk driving convictions, violated his probation and got caught..... his campaign manager, James Kyriaco, was busted for drunk driving..and who outed Kyriaco's drunk driving history? Travis Armstrong in the News-Press!! oh the humanity.....oh the irony!!

geez, all you gotta do is google the word "drunk" and all these guys names come up!!!

at what point do people realize that this series by the News-Press and Peter Lance is a farce..these guys are what point do people see through this about RIGHT NOW!!

I won't discount the entertainment factor the News-Press provides...especially to me..but they will be held accountable when they lie about public servants to protect their employees who break the law...... nice try trying to get more subscribers with this latest hootenany...

I look forward to the next overblown series from Lance and Wendy and all the courthouse trials paid for by you and least we're getting our money's worth! and Peter..get a life and a designated driver next time..


Anonymous said...

I find the articles in the News-Press far more balanced than your politically biased, one-sided hysterical response to this story. It is obvious you hate the News-Press and its owner and are blinded by your rage toward them. I have read the series, and I think there is enough corroborating information there to warrant an independent investigation. Why should I believe the police. Do they not have a financial incentive to arrest drivers for DUI's. Even if there is only a small chance these allegations are true, the idea that we may have rogue cops falsely arresting people and throwing them in jail is truly frightening. You seem willing to unconditionally believe the police, because the News-Press does not conform to your extreme liberal views. Why not err on the side of caution and have an independent commission take a look at this. If you're right the police will be vindicated, and then Officer Beutel can sue for libel or slander. At this point, no one can be certain who is telling the truth, including you. So let's get to the bottom of this, unless your afraid of where this might lead.

Mick Von Caw said...

first of all , I'm a conservative who is sick of the party being hijacked by jackasses like you...yes, there is a financial incentive for the's called a paycheck..if you've ever worked for a living, you might know what one is...Lance's use of three drunks and an ethically challenged handwriting expert is hardly call for an investigation..Lance is on trial, not the cop...but you can investigate her all you want...and keep swallowing the dogfood they feed you at the News-Press, Wendy likes her mutts...

Anonymous said...

It's kind of like walking into thr Pulitzer awards banquet escorting a 12 year old after writing a series on sexual abuse of children. Don't fail to cover his trial!!

Mick Von Caw said...

hey...good one! I'll cover the trial/settlement hearing unless he wiggles out of it somehow

Anonymous said...

You got an anger management problem. I think most people can read your stuff and determine who the jackass is. Is this blog some form of therapy for you? Don't give me the "I am a conservative" crap. I looked at your nonsense and you are hardly a conservative.

Mick Von Caw said...

"I think most people can read your stuff and determine who the jackass is"..yeah YOU!!

Anonymous said...

putting another reporter on the story would have been the thing to do, if anything. the writer of the series strikes me less as someone on a fishing expedition and more like a fish flailing after getting hooked. whoever decided this was a good idea should be out of a job. if he is indeed a friend of the writer, then it's a double fault. there are so many worthy things to investigate in santa barbara. this is not one of them. not by a long shot. mrs. mccaw, please hire a media professional to take the reins. that one step would make a world of difference.

John Thyne said...

Mr. Mick Von Caw,

Although it is generally inadvisable to respond to comments like yours online or otherwise, you have maligned me without provocation. Some of what you said is incorrect.

For example, you are incorrect that I was "enlisted" to do anything with respect to these articles. I simply agreed to be interviewed and I honestly answered Mr. Lance's questions as I have done with every other reporter who has requested it. During the election I invited anyone who had questions to contact me and I answered them. That invitation remains, I am not difficult to find but you can email me at: if you would like to have a serious conversation.

It appears you have mistakenly crossed your wires regarding my actual DUI and Officer Beutel's stop of me on May 15, 2009, which was not a DUI. This was almost 2 years following the bachelor auction on 8/25/2007 that resulted in my one and only DUI conviction and that incident is what was discussed in the Noozhawk story you quoted. You refer to "convictions" implying more than one which is untrue.

Your reference to me as a "drunk" is curious as I have not been drinking since the night Officer Beutel stopped me in May, 2009 (and obviously her subsequent stops). When I was cited by Officer Beutel during the election, I was unaware of the new law in January 2009 (I do not practice criminal law). I was not cognizant (no excuse and I do not make one) of the 3 year prohibition against any alcohol (even a legal amount) when driving. Drinking was not a big part of my life so it was easy for me to give it up. Although there were certainly times that I was not sober before quitting, I never drank alone, never had an urge to drink, did not drink during the day and do not think I was, or am, a "drunk" as you claim.

Rather than posting controversial but unfounded accusations, it would be more interesting for you to constructively contribute to the conversation regarding the delicate balance between public safety and individual liberty, even in the context of a crime as admittedly despicable as DUI.

My comments to Mr. Lance were true as were my many compliments through the years of our police department, our dedicated officers, and my honest gratitude that we have a drunk driving unit in Santa Barbara. I have friends, clients and relatives who are police officers and they are all a credit to their profession. Interestingly, Officer Beutel thanked me for being polite during both the stops in which we interacted and I would hope she still remembers that.

I anticipate you might publicly rant against me for this post but I wonder if we have ever met or whether you have ever invited me to talk with you about these matters. I will not engage further with you here for all to see but I am, as always, willing to talk.

Lastly, I have been told more than once that my experience, which has been relentlessly publicized, convinced others not to drive after they drank alcohol. That, to me, is a silver lining. - John Thyne

Mick Von Caw said...

ok John...I was just trying to win an Emmy..but I have no patience for adults who drink and drive and expect me the taxpayer to babysit them.."unaware of the new law"..please, I as not born yesterday, John..
but thanks for the clarifications which were not evident at all in Lance's low sell high!

Anonymous said...

In a study where all attorney generals of the United States and it's territories were surveyed, it was conservatively estimated that 0.5% of all felony convictions are in error. In other words, of every 1000 people convicted of felonies, about 5 are probably innocent. The frequency for error is higher for less serious misdemeanor cases.

In 1998, approximately 14.5 million people were arrested in the United States, and assuming conservatively that 50% of all arrested are convicted, 0.5% wrongful conviction rate would mean 36,250 people were probably wrongfully convicted!

The source of this information is from the third edition of the college course textbook "Introduction to Criminal Justice", (Robert M. Bohm. Keith N. Haley). part of the cirriculem in Allan Hancock Community College's "Administration of Justice" program.

Fraud, prosicutorial misconduct and collusion happen every day in Lompoc division...