Tag name:westlake

Knife Weilding Angelino Woman Not Charged; Why?

09/26/2010 / No Comments

 

Here is my letter to the editor for a recent article in the L.A. Times about a mysterious woman who ranted around with a knife, was arrested and is not going to be charged OR NAMED by the police; I want to know why:

I certainly hope there will be more follow-up on this story; the little here raises more questions than it answers, despite Carla R filling up a third of her space with what seems to be an excuse for treating this woman like a stray child instead of a responsible adult.

“brandishing a knife in a Westlake doughnut shop… was acting erratically, [in parking lot]she refused orders[from police] to drop the knife… The officers feared that she would charge at them.”

Sounds straightforward to me; unless this woman is legally incompetent surely she should at least be charged with drunk and disorderly.

 ”She was hit in the midsection and fell to the ground and taken into custody without incident.”

Having to be bean-bagged twice and have a weapon taken from you by force is not an incident in itself? If this is not a white-wash should that not at least read “further incident”?

“A folding knife was recovered.”

Could that be less informative; was it a pen knife; was it a 3-inch jackknife; was it an 8 inch Buck knife; or was it a 9-inch balisong or switchblade?  I think this information is rather significant to the story.

“she[is] undergoing a mental health evaluation…”

…and? Was she deranged from missing meds and then got drunk? Is she under someone’s guardianship? Why are there no charges for taking the time of the police and hospital and scaring civilians at the coffee shop with a deadly weapon while drunk?  If I did that KNOW that I would end up in County Jail and charged up one side and down the other!

“It was later found that she had been drinking.”

So, isn’t that usually seen as a REASON to charge someone with a crime, rather than an excuse to be forgiven criminal behavior in public?

“Police did not release her name.”

Why not? Surely they owe the public an explanation of the REASON for shielding her from legal disclosure that another miscreant, charged or not, is subject to as regards privacy; 35 is a lot of years past being a juvenile.

 ”They determined that there was no robbery attempt and said she was not likely be charged with any crime.”

A little more information would be nice! Just HOW did they determine this; witnesses; did shop staff declining to file a charge and state the robbery “impression” from 911 was false; was there a desire to not to “provoke” the locals into another riot; was it the precinct Capt.’s personal decision?

  • Recent Posts
  • Recent Comments
  • Archives
  • Categories
  • Meta