.
.
.
Among the many council candidates’ mailers, one with a picture of the fairly new Chief of Police caught my attention. My first reaction was that it was tactless or perhaps naïve of the Chief to allow his picture to be used by one of the city’s most polarizing politicians. I waited for the end of the campaign to see whether his picture would be in the flyers of the opposing candidates. I’m pretty sure it never happened.
As an important local figure, Chief Quezada must have pictures taken with many folks. Nobody can control how a picture is going to be used. One of my friends doesn’t like having his picture taken because he fears that it may fall into the hands of a bad “santero.” If his woman gets mad at him, his picture may end up full of needles, placed to cause him pain and suffering. This friend of mine is pretty old-fashioned, and most of our circle don’t believe in superstitions… but just in case we avoid Facebook, and we also keep the names of good santeros and sobadores.
In this age of digital photography people don’t generally worry about their pictures in the way my friend does, but public figures are subject to the power that images convey. Chief Quezada’s picture with a politician who symbolizes many of our city’s most abusive policies sends the wrong message, especially to the community affected by these policies. Let’s assume that Quezada was not aware that Kris Murray had inserted his picture in one of her flyers (given how irresponsible and insensitive some politicians can be.) Still the political use of the chief’s image hinders the progress being made to establish a trusting relationship with the police, in the mostly poor Latino neighborhoods.
The swift capture of two suspects in the recent fatal gang warfare brought a much needed sense of confidence in the police, and a renewed attention to deal with the gangs’ activities. In doing so, the natural tendency is to propose harsh measures against the individual criminals and /or paint in the same brush an entire section of the community. The OC Weekly presented an interesting conclusion on this tragedy:
“But the biggest tragedy of Ximena’s early death is that Aquino and Cruz shouldn’t have been roaming free at all — especially not together. Instead, California’s Byzantine sentencing laws and a lenient court let the cholos escape jail time despite violating the law and their probation again and again, a Weekly investigation has found.”
The word ” cholos” tends to have a negative connotation, especially in this context. I understand it is used by Gabriel and Gustavo to specify the two individuals and not all the people culturally identified as cholos. In the words of a cholo friend, the two presumed killers of young Ximena are “Pinche Putos,” to be punished to the maximum extent allowed by the law. And the idea of California having Byzantine sentencing laws and lenient courts is belied by efforts like the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project, which “seeks an end to excessively harsh crime policies that result in mass incarceration and stand in the way of a just and equal society.”
We all share the pain of Ximena’s family. There are plenty of studies dealing with the causes of crime, criminal justice and prison reform. Anaheim has a Gang Detail unit, which scope and current statistical information is from the 2008 calendar year. Many cities actively involve the community to deal with this problem. Recently the San Diego city council members approved a three-year strategic plan that addresses anti-gang initiatives. The city has a Commission on Gang Prevention and Intervention. Members are made up of clergy, schools, law enforcement, social work and non-profit groups who studied for years gang prevention, intervention and suppression.(1) No matter where we live in the city, we all condemn gang violence. In Ximena’s memory, a commission could be set up to assist crafting comprehensive policies for our city.
1)http://www.cbs8.com/story/26659877/anti-gang-initiative-fights-back-targets-young-kids
I doubt the Chief knew the photo would be used for campaign purposes, since public safety staff are not permitted to appear in those images in their issued uniforms or with vehicles owned by taxpayers. However, if he values his job he is unlikely to say anything or lodge a protest of any kind for this type of use of his picture.
Gail Eastman is even worse, she uses photos of those poor kids who are bussed to her “Gift of History” event (coming again this Thursday) and then the photos of kids basically held captive for a school event are used for her political campaign, which I find disgusting. Did their parents sign off on images of their minor children being used in this manner? Even if attendance at the event involves permission to use photos for the school district or non-profit hosting the event, nobody in their right minds gave Eastman permission to use those images FOR HER POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.
These people do not care, they think the rules do not apply to them, and that they may do as they please without consequence. That character flaw makes them unfit for office. Thankfully voters saw one out the door, sorry the worst of the bunch is staying.
And for the true purpose of the post, we are all VERY grateful to the APD for capturing Ximena’s killers, and we will continue to pray for her family, they must be utterly heartbroken. I cannot imagine a greater pain.
On the other hand, on all those OTHER flyers (unsuccessful HAHAHA) using Anaheim cops to try and elect klepto-authoritarian Kring as mayor, if you look closely, they’re not really wearing an APD uniform but some phony uniform they created for that purpose alone that says “Anaheim Police Association” (their union.) Hat tip Fitzy!
That’s what I figured. Typically, civil servants are forbidden from politicking. Of course, that still doesn’t stop some from finding loopholes wherever any can be found. But in this case, it may be safe to assume Chief Quezada didn’t authorize Kros Murray to use his photos in her mailers.
Maybe maybe not, but afraid to complain about it you can bet. He knows who butters his bread.
By the way Ricardo, this is an excellent idea, and as always, beautifully expressed, I wish we could get you to the keyboard more often than we do.
In light of Mr. Toro’s view or perception of such picture, I do not see the distinction of Latino propaganda or a strong endorser of Kim Murray? What is the dilemma with that picture? Portrait of a snap shot of two public figures?
The real issue is what will the New City Counsel and Chief of Police do? What course of action will they take? There are Neighborhood Meetings in place and my understanding is that they meet to address ongoing problems such as the GANG issue that has been wrestled with for quite some time now. Politics are over! It is time to come together as one entity and formulate a strategic plan to further beautify Anaheim to its Glorious Days!
The History of Anaheim is rich and its humble beginnings. From the German Founders and its winery inception to a more of a Metropolis rising to further grand standing. It is the duty of every resident of Anaheim to learn to fight crime and evil! Take a stance and fight for the goodness of Anaheim! Gangs did not pioneer Anaheim! They are and ill addition of this time capsule which we are in. The modern era!
Few will know but many who have grown with Anaheim know that Gangs are like a virus in dire need of a cure! The new Chief and Counsel will need to take time and stop, gather some strategic structure, and leave the politics aside, leave the lobbying aside, and formulate a plan before one succumbs to a CHOLO at hand! Whether it is in Anaheim Hills while you withdrawal money from your ATM or in the GANG zone in need of more policing!!!
Truly yours,
Luchador!
Luchador, the dilemma of that picture is that the Chief of Police is a public servant. It gives the impression he is supporting the positions of the candidate. Although politics will not be over, we should come together on the issues that affect us all.
So if a cholo calls a cholo a cholo– it’s OK? Like the N word for the bruthas?
I did not realize the term was such a slur. Is it ?
I didn’t either. Everybody is so touchy…
“The N Word” is a good comparison here. That’s also the case for “The Other F Word” and “The T Word” in the LGBTQ community. (If you followed any of the drama during the last season of “RuPaul’s Drag Race”, you know exactly what I’m talking about.) And let’s not forget women have differing opinions on “The B Word” and “The (Other) C Word”.
There are just certain words that ignite so much controversy. And yes, that word that rhymes with “YOLO” is one of them. Proceed with caution.
Wikipedia provides a good background on this term: ” Cholo (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈtʃolo]) is an ethnic slur created by Hispanic criollos in the 16th century. In sociological literature, it is one of castas,[1] and refers to individuals of mixed or pure Native American ancestry, or other racially mixed origin. The precise usage of “cholo” has varied widely in different times and places. In modern American usage, it most often applies to a low-income Mexican-American sub-culture and manner of dress…
…Despite, or because of, its long history of denigrating semantics, the term Cholo was turned on its head and used as a symbol of pride in the context of the ethnic power movements of the 1960s.[8]”
The term nowadays is also used to refer to gang affiliation : … Most cholos are youths between 13 and 25 years old who generally do not finish school beyond the eighth grade.[17] These groups mimic the organization of gangs found in the United States, especially California. Cholos have their own style of dress and speech. They are known for hand signals, tattoos and graffiti. Groups of cholos control various territories in the city. Most of the violence among these groups is over territory.[19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholo
Why the fuss over Quezada’s photo? It’s instructive. Liberals in Anaheim fawned over Chief Welter before him. This election cycle showed that for all of Welter’s public relations skills, he was and is in league with the corporatist clique. Murray will keep Quezada’s cops well funded with new hires.
Gabi apparently sees no difference between Raul Quezada and, oh, Craig Hunter as Anaheim Chief of Police. I sure do. It’s the difference between some hope for improved police policy and none.
A police chief is always going to be a cop, and therefore will always face institutional pressures to adopt policies with which critics of police abuses will disagree. (These will tend to be amplified in times of crisis.) But to fail to distinguish between those who basically want to serve the public from those who want to suppress it, and from those who basically play things straight from those who do not, is appalling intellectual laziness at best; cynicism and perversity from one without “skin in the game” at worst.
Bloviating apologist.
Thanks to the leaked Incident Action Report for the weekend of July 29, 2012, we know that Quezada was positioned as an Incident Commander,,,the same title that Hunter signed off as for the purposes of that police mobilization!
That was then. After the Ximena Meza killing he invoked ‘gang injunctions’ to residents as a possible solution. This is now.
I loved that ex-Chief Welter showed his truest colors supporting Kring and crew during this last election cycle. It showed what ‘easy wins’ folks in the ‘community leaders’ crowd were. Just like Quezada will (and has).
But what else can I expect from a blog of gabachos pilfering false dichotomies and wild conspiracy theories thinking the Rojas arrest was an election ploy and not about intimidating a leader of a “hot” neighborhood for police?
San Poseur,
It so happens that I ran into Craig Hunter that day (for the first time in my life). I was looking for the person who seemed to be in charge so that I could identify myself as an Occupy legal observer and civil liaison, who could be called in the event of trouble to defuse situations. (He refused to identify himself, but I got a card from the officer standing with him.) This was right outside the police station, south of the parking lot. So if you’re implying that Hunter wasn’t part of that effort or that he wasn’t on the scene, you’re wrong. If you’re implying that Quezada was equally (or are you saying that he’s more?) culpable based on the label that he had that day, you’re basing that on evidence that is ambiguous at best. Yes, like all of the other cops there, he was implementing policy dictated from higher-ups, but that doesn’t mean that he was designing policy rather than implementing tactics. Yes, I reject the tactic of “kettling” in such a situation, but I don’t expect a cog in the policing machine to throw his body (ineffectually) into that set of gears. After all, the effects of kettling are reversible and compensable — unlike, say, the effects of shooting someone and planting a gun near their corpse, which I do expect every honest cop to resist.
And yes, like pretty much every other cop in the country, Quezada will reflexively promote “gang injunctions” and adding more cops and more immunities to make the job of the police easier. He’s representing institutional interests when he does that, like an attorney representing a client — and if he believes in all of that, that means he’s the same as all but a few iconoclasts in the profession. Imputing as you do that he is the equivalent of Hunter because they both favor gang injunctions is shallow and intellectually lazy. (It’s easy, though, so I can see why you like doing it. And, more importantly, it totally excuses you from complicity, allowing you to enjoy the OC nightlife in peace.)
I rarely expect a police leader to promote a progressive (or liberal or radical) candidate over someone else who’s running a massive and slobbering pro-police campaign. It comes with the territory. To make it easy for you, we don’t have to argue that Quezada would prefer to promote policies as liberal as those of Lorri Galloway or Dr. Jose Moreno or Theresa Smith or Sonia Hernandez. We just have to argue that he would be wiser, more honest, and more humane than someone like Craig Hunter. I think that that’s obviously so; if you want to argue that there’s no difference between them, up your game a little (or a lot.) Who DO you think should lead the Anaheim Police Department? Or do you think it should be disbanded or something? (Would Sandra Hutchins be a huge improvement?)
“San Poseur: for nothing remotely achievable and no one remotely appointable or electable, in the pursuit of evading any moral responsibility for policies. It’s posturing you can believe in.”
The devil is in the documents. Your response is the typical drivel devoid of anything worth noting.
Have you ever been racially profiled by Anaheim police? I have. Have you ever been hit up by gang members? I have.
The questions are rhetorical ones.
Yes, you have more melanin than I do. (Hell, so do swans.) So what? It doesn’t mean that you know a damn thing about what to do about these problems. What you’ve done is hitched a ride on your friendship with OC Weekly’s Editor to get a decent gig that helps give you access to OC’s great food and entertainment opportunities, while moving out of Anaheim and swooping back in when it’s a useful backdrop for your preening and posing.
And do you know why the powers that be support you in doing this? It’s because your “pox on both their houses” air of smug superiority and dismissiveness, where improvising liberals are interchangeable with fascists, serves their purposes quite well. So long as you piss on activism — except when it comes to charter school advocates like Roberto Baeza, for whom your admiration seems sincere — you’re serving them well. So don’t ask for respect, San Poseur, you useful idiot.
(See you here soon to protect your remora, Gustavo.)
Ha! I can see who is pulling the puppet strings by your follow up comments. How pathetic.
And the casual dismissing of your own whiteness in these matters is growing bigger than your bloviating!
My initial comments were for Ricardo, the author of the post, but you couldn’t help yourself. The chain of command charts for Quezada that weekend-where unrest in Mexi neighborhoods was to be quelled-speaks for itself. He was fast tracked by corporatist chief Welter.
But if this shit blog wants to engage in fantasies that Quezada/Harvey represent “reform” and are on your favored politicians side, by all means indulge away!
No one’s pulling my puppet strings, poseur. (I’m not even sure who you mean.) So I guess that this is another one of those spectacularly wrong inferences of yours that prevent your being a real journalist.
“Casual dismissing of my own whiteness”? Oh, brother. I believe that individuals of any race can be good or bad, self-serving and other serving, and one sign that they are bad and self-serving is when they demand that others bow to their positions due to their subject status, even when those who share that subject status do not. You’re a coddled academic living the good life, San Poseur, and you show little sign of understanding or making real sacrifices, much like your restaurant critic friend.
So let’s see if I can get your mealy mouth to take a stand. If you were given the option of voting to confirm Raul Quesada, after Welter’s departure, or Craig Hunter, which way would you vote? Would you have bet on one or the other — remember that this is right when attacks were coming from within the department on Quezada (and maybe Harvey as well) for being too soft on Anaheim’s Latinos. This is the sort of choice that actual adults faced with policy and personnel decisions have to make — so where would you have come down? Or would you be equivocal between them — boldly abstaining because neither one of them were Angela Davis (or maybe Roberto Baeza)?
Come on — take a stand, chickenshit.
I’ll tell you what’s up the next time I see you around.
“Next time”? I don’t recall ever meeting you (or Gustavo) in person.
You missed a good dinner, by the way.
Greg, there is NO DIFFERENCE between Quezada and Welter/Hunter. Where do you get your info?
I disagree, Donna. Quezeda is not in the same league as Tony Rackauckas’s investiator.
The invasion from the south has brought so many complications to our society. It has only greatly exaccerbated the racial strife that we already had. And now it will only get worse as more and more demands are made. This used to be one helluva country. The very best around, bar none. Now we have become a joke worldwide. And we’re falling apart brick by brick. Look at the extent of the problems in our cities that we never had before. Sad. Especially for our kids.
Thanks for not using, in my opinion, so many insulting terms in this thread. Population growth and demographic changes impact the economic and political fabric of any society, even culturally. A local example is the Mendez v Westminster’s decision, in 1946, which made this country better for more people. As you said, we have new problems and the future for our kids is not as good as past generations. The challenge is how to manage the economic resources to provide a quality of life to every human being,
But population growth and demographics are generally controllable events. What we have witnessed, especially in the last 20 years, is what appears to be a fully intentional and willful effort on part of the US government to destroy the quality of life and standard of living for the American middle class. When a government intentionally allows the importation of massive amounts of poverty when poverty is already an abundant and costly reality in American life – something doesn’t smell right. Going from bad to worse is not a successful formula for prosperity. Anyone with unbiased eyes could see this. It’s not brain science.
I get your point about the declining quality of life/standard of living for the middle class. I disagree about its causes, including the immigration element. Studies have shown the overall long term impact of immigration, such as the one below.This thread may not be the most appropriate to discuss the disagreements at length of what you consider “importation of massive amounts of poverty”. You have stated your points and the readers are welcome to consider them.
“The president’s announced executive actions on immigration will bring big economic benefits to the nation, raising wages for all workers, creating jobs, increasing tax revenue, growing gross domestic product, and reducing the deficit.”
by Patrick Oakford and Philip E. Wolgin | Friday, November 21, 2014″
https://www.americanprogress.org/tag/immigration-reform/view/
‘AmericanProgress’? Are you joking? All I need to do is drive through East LA, Santa Ana or from San Diego south to the border and I can see all the ‘AmericanProgress’ that I need to see. The US government is saturating us with massive amounts of poverty, diluting the middle class. All you need to examine is the disproportional distribution of wealth and the widening gap between the rich and the poor to see what’s happening. I don’t need some liberal economist to tell me that my own eyes are lying to me. Sorry. I graduated from that class a long time ago.
Gabriel, I did not realize that your first comment was addressed to me. I don’t mind if the OJB editors or anybody else respond. The fuss over Quezada’s photo is that many people do not make the connection between the police and the political powers. See the reaction of commenter Luchador.
I’d like to think that Chief Quezada may arrive at the same conclusions as the Seattle’s former Police Chief, Norm Stamper. At the next election cycle we may get rid of the corporatists in the council, which would facilitate a transformation of the APD. In the meantime I hope he’d support the creation of a city commission on gang prevention and intervention.
On another note, could you explain what you and Gustavo mean by “a lenient court”, how these two guys escaped jail time ?
For Quezada to arrive at the same conclusions as Stamper, he’d have to resign like him. Stamper wasn’t a big reformer while in uniform. This two-fold notion is fantasy twice over.
As for city hall, the corporatists appointed Quezada. It was unanimous. (Unlike the notions put forth by this blog that Quezada was somehow aligned with Tait and in jeopardy of becoming chief because of it. Wrong!)
You’ll have to do a better job of explaining how electing different council members is going to produce a “transformation” of the APD.
Lastly, Aquino and Cruz had a prior rap for assault with a deadly weapon as gang members. They were stopped a year ago and had a billy club. The max sentence for their crimes was seven years, but both of them got three years probation instead–whose terms they violated all the time.
If I were in their shoes, I’d be like, “Damn, I got off easy on that one.”
And they did.
San Poseur, do you recall the attack that came from an Anaheim cop prior to the vote, about destroying morale and all? The proof you offer for your assertion that Quezada’s appointment was never in jeopardy is … your own assertion. And that’s a flimsy foundation. It is in keeping with the common OCW practice of not making predictions to which one can be held, but waiting for a result and then yelling that anyone who ever doubted it would happen as it did was crazy. It’s cowardly and boring.
That attack on Q was also passed along by none other than MJ Cunningham, a real good indication that the Kleptos were not in favor of Q.
However I think Cunningham was just playing footsie with the cop union in lieu of any direct instructions from K Central, like he did when he set the teddy bear on fire and put votive candle next to it. Everybody else knew Q was the man for the job.
Zenger —
I agree with part of the Sgt.’s critique. Quezada was the hand picked successor of Welter going quickly from captain to chief. It was the last PR move from the ex-chief and did run parallel with charges of the PD under Welter in the piece. Had there been a similar political process on the dais from the likes of Pringle allies, all would be howling foul.
Speaking of Pringle allies: Welter.
I guess that we’re close to hearing San Poseur say that he would indeed have preferred Craig Hunter to Raul Quezada, even if he can’t yet quite pull the trigger (and plant the gun.)
This is quintessential GSR: Quezada was the “hand-picked successor” and therefore must have been the continued expression of Paul Welter’s will. Just as Mikhail Gorbachev was the same as Konstantin Chemerenko, Teddy Roosevelt was the same as William McKinley, F.W. de Klerk was the same as P. Botha, and so on. Lazy and feeble thinking.
Here’s what I propose happened instead: the City Council and/or City Staff (probably “and”) wanted to appoint a Latino as the next Chief. This is for understandable reasons: partly PR (although not necessarily in the nefarious sense) in that he might be more “relatable” to the City’s majority of Latino residents, and partly because he might actually have a better idea of how to relate to the Latino community. Does this make him soft and fuzzy? No: he still had to have the qualities that most traditional civic leaders expect in a police chief: fight gangs and quell unrest. But, ideally, it would have meant that he was less of a sadistic asshole about it than another gung-ho militarized force white guy (or even some other Latinos) might be.
In other words, Quezada was chosen — hustled up the ranks and eventually deployed perhaps a bit earlier than expected — because he’d provide continuity in the sense that pretty much any candidate would, but also because he’d represent useful discontinuity in background, tone, and perhaps more. GSR may consider this cynicism (or God knows what); there’s an element of that, perhaps, but largely it’s simply admirable to seek diversity in leadership as well as on the street and to see a match between the police and the policed.
Quezada’s going to do some things that piss off Latino leaders (and those of us who sympathize with them) because that’s pretty much what his job is seen by his bosses to require. That may get his department rightfully sued sometimes, but if it’s what he’s tasked to do — and it was especially so prior to his being Chief — then it doesn’t count much for or against an assessment of his personal character. The question is not whether he disappoints (or worse) due to the institutional demands of his position; it’s what does he do with the latitude that he has in his position.
“He was a hand-picked successor!” is not even an argument when it comes to answering the question of whether he is as good as could be expected given the City Council that appointed him. It is an appeal to prejudgment without analysis. It just exists to make a Poseur’s job, as a source of contempt for reformers who fall short of being revolutionaries, that much easier.
“Instead, California’s Byzantine sentencing laws and a lenient court let the cholos escape jail time despite violating the law and their probation again and again, a Weekly investigation has found.”
–“A LENIENT COURT” ???? WTF kind of investigation is THAT? WHO made the decision and TOOK THE ACTION to change the sentencing and release these guys? WHO? That “COURT” has an office, a title, and a NAME, but you WON’T see ANY of THAT information ANYWHERE in OC “News” media. Particularly galling when you also see in the same week, what, a DOZEN or so Judicial positions were on the Ballot, ALL rolling to EASY victory, with NO background info in the “News”media, other than a resume, and the cryptic OC Bar Association “Ratings” which, though described as from evaluations of multiple factors, say NOTHING about the ratings IN THOSE FACTORS. SO unless you follow Court Proceedings all week (WAIT! DOESN’T OCW have 1 or 2 guys that DO THAT?), you can choose between rubber stamping the OC Bar’s “Quick Picks” , or using the old “roll of the dice / coin flip” method. Even Derek “Shredded Vagina” Johnson slid to easy re-election! How will anything improve without informed voting, and WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM? Otherwise we are just re-enacting Einsteins definition of insanity ( Repeating the same action, expecting different results) The only OTHER place that is ENCOURAGED, is the LOTTERY!
WAIT! Maybe THAT’s it! I’ll just SURRENDER to my cynicism! I’ll bet a good part of OC’s ‘zombie voters’ are also Lotto players, so WHY NOT give them (US) something in the Electronic Voting Booth they are ALREADY comfortable with? WHY NOT PUT IN A “QUICK PICK” BUTTON THERE, TOO? ——- “What, me Worry?”