I was finishing up my interview and began talking about various subjects on my KSCO/KOMY radio show, based in Santa Cruz and the Central Coast.
My producer and the station's news and traffic anchor, Dave Michaels, was busy manning the computer inside the studio. He was silent.
I asked if something was going on. Dave indicated that, yes, there was some "police activity" and "shooting taking place" in Santa Cruz. He didn't sound particularly worried and I had thought nothing of it other than it sounded unusual because Santa Cruz isn't known as a violent town--more a beach resort, although in recent months there'd been a noticeable increase in crime, including a murder, numerous assaults, and most recently a woman/student being attacked at UC Santa Cruz.
All that said, I thought nothing of Dave's report and immediately after I signed off at 4 PM, I met a friend for coffee and returned home hours later and had seen that 2 Santa Cruz Police officers had been gunned down and a suspect shot and killed in an incident only hours earlier I had heard about when concluding my show.
Needless to say I was shocked. Numb really. It brought back memories of the Oakland Police tragedy almost four years ago when 4 OPD officers, (one of whom I had known well and a good friend, John Hege), were all shot and killed in multiple ambushes.
After learning of the Santa Cruz incident I immediately went to Facebook and posted a "Condolences to SCPD." Minutes later a few people began writing gun-control spiels --pro and con--I was irritated and angry. The bodies of the victims had not even been taken away from the scene and already a few clueless wonders already began spewing political rants. Unbelievable. But nothing surprises me anymore.
I have said lately that the idea of talking about gun-control on radio is the equivalent of talking about abortion--worthless, because both sides are dug in and the mere idea of trying to have a reasonable dialogue with civil discourse is a waste of time. It is simply impossible. Common sense has been pushed aside to the act of a lot of screaming and yelling. The "2nd Amendment" and "law-abiding citizens" are the new code words.
One of the Facebook posters--a frequent commenter on this site--took me to task because she indicated that I'd bring up the police tragedy to my Santa Cruz listeners. Well, yeah, I might bring it up. Ignoring it would be kind of insensitive and professionally absurd. That's hardly getting involved in the gun debate because both sides don't know how to have a civil debate. How uncivil, how senseless.
Just like what took place in Santa Cruz on Tuesday afternoon.
*Follow me on Twitter
Good for you!!
ReplyDeleteHow is this a "personal story."
ReplyDeleteAnd isn't this just another case of Rich passing judgment on the way other people choose to react to the news?
Maybe you should read the story again and might be able to discern how it's personal.
DeleteSeems like Rich tends to make everything ABOUT HIMSELF.
DeleteWe all agree this is a tragedy; two public servants were senselessly killed, just doing their job.
But why must Rich introduce himself into the story? Why does he desperately insist on taking partial ownership of this tragedy? I'm sorry that someone he once knew suffered a similar fate. But most adults have been touched by one tragedy or another. Why is Rich so needy for attention when this really has nothing to do with him!
You are a horrid case for professionalism and talk radio. Being a blogger is not far off.
DeleteDon't worry about your continual censorship. I've already detailed this to Eric Rhodes, Tom Taylor, Radio Online, and a half dozen others, including Perry Simon at All Access. You "dish" it out but you can't take your own criticism.
You are horrid. Even your "friend" Michael Savage was on Alex Jones show on KSCO yesterday. Not even on your show. What's that tell you? No sponsors? No calls?
Just make sure to spell my name right, ...It's : L.I.E.B.E.R.M.A.N. and thanks for the plug, "Mr. 'Anonymous". (Brave)
DeleteAnonymous at 4:38, you are totally right about Lieberman's continual censorship. He will not tolerate serious criticism.
DeleteThank you.
DeleteSad to see what a "hippy" town like Santa Cruz has become. Violence can hit anywhere. The harder part is when the area isn't use to it or ready for it, granted nobody is ready for violence. But in larger metro areas the police and public in some ways take it as part of their every day life. In Santa Cruz (and Newtown) that's not the case. You could see it in the pictures last night officers running around trying to get a hold of the situation. The SCPD like many smaller agencies prepares for things to happen, but more often they'd be expecing a large fire, an earthquake, an event at UCSC. But 2 officers doing an investigation not really expected to turn into a murder scene.
ReplyDeleteThe scenes that hit me were watching TV and seeing CA State Park rangers with their rifles in hand and vests on. So many of us look at the State Park Rangers as someone who tells you where you can park, that you can't light a fire in that area etc. This time they were helping find someone who had murdered a fellow law enforcement member. They were protecting the poor kids in the schools that were on lock down. Not something any of the childen or officers were expecting as they went off to school. Makes me think of the lyrics from POD Song Youth of the Nation
"Last day of the rest of my life I wish I would have known cause I'd have kissed my momma good-bye
I didn't tell her that I loved her; how much I cared...Call me blind but I didn't see it coming
And everybody was runnin But I couldn't hear nothin, except
Gun blast, it happened so fast "
Yup, disgraceful facebook activity. Let the tragedy be a tragedy...bury the dead, honor their accomplishments, celebrate what made them "them", console their loved ones, investigate the circumstances, etc.
ReplyDeleteIf you can't deny yourself...and after a reasonable period of respect, consider how the tragedy fits into your per-conceived ideas of gun control without making the problem fit the solution...either way.
My condolences to the police community and the families of the slain.
You are right about gun control being one of those topics that, like political and religious debates, will never be won. All I know about gun control is this; whenever I see some of these Oakland/Richmond gangbangers turn in their guns in one of those police buybacks, THEN, I might think that gun control is something worth talking about. It amazes me that people actually think gun control is something that will make us all safer. It will not. Has anyone out there actually SEEN any criminals turn in their guns in a buyback? NO! The criminals are laughing their heads off, at the thought of more gun control. The only ones who will benefit with gun control are the criminals...
ReplyDeleteWere the officers shot with their own weapons? Or is it too early to inquire?
ReplyDeletehttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/gunman-took-weapons-of-slain-santa-cruz-officers-police-say.html
DeleteNo. Shooter had a weapon, shot the officers, took their weapons and body armor. Was seen wearing it as cops caught up with him. He stole one of the officer's cars.
Sorry to hear that Rich tried to lure you into a pissing contest on his KOMY show today, Christine. Glad you had the respect not to go there with him.
DeleteYeah, better to come here on my blog and post.
DeleteSeems like Rich has more than his share of detractors. Wonder why? What goes around comes around.
DeleteWhy, Christine! With your vaunted experience as a "reporter" vs. being a teleprompter reader, I'm frankly surprised you don't know the answer! This is a first!
DeleteI was a telvision reporter for several decades in several markets as well as an anchor. I've covered rape, murder,mayhem, trials, presidents and more from the field, often editing my own pieces as well. Are you saying that I didn't?
DeleteOfficer's murdered with shooter's weapon. He then took the officers weapons and body armor and strapped on. Stole one of the officers cars before being shot and killed by Santa Cruze police.
ReplyDeletehttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/gunman-took-weapons-of-slain-santa-cruz-officers-police-say.html
well you won't actually know which weapons were used for which purposes until you have autopsies, which are public records.
DeleteINteresting on another matter, that the actual autopsies of the slain Sandy Hook victims have not been acquired or apparently even sought by reporters for major news organizations. The claim that all victims were shot with the same weapon needs documentation to be shown true, not just wishful thinking.
Christine, you are not a defense attorney or a criminal attorney. Your line of service has nothing to do with criminal evidence. The story, including the LA Times, showed that the officer's weapons were not used, as the shooter's weapon struck the officers down. The shooter then retrieved the officer's weapons and body armor to strap it on. Goulet took a dead officer's car and fled. He was shot and killed by Santa Cruz police.
DeleteI have never claimed to be a "criminal defense attorney" I don't know what "line of service" you are talking about. The analysis I'm applying in this matter have to do with years of being a reporter,not representation of injured California workers and the disabled.
DeleteIn any event, you need to do some re-reading of the LA Times reporting. They make it very clear, that the precise sequence of events involving service weapons,body armor etc. has not as yet been determined.(see latimes.com)
10:50 am You write like someone under the misimpression that going on a police ride-along is journalism. It isn't, it's public relations.
DeleteI just bet it's been a long time since you were on a police ride-along. Probably didn't shut up and too busy putting on pancake makeup to learn anything. It isn't 35 years ago, baby. Times have change. I'm betting you couldn't find a door handle on a police cruiser.
DeleteHere comes the whaaaam-bulance with lights and sirens for Christine. Please pull to the right.
Delete7:05. Your bet is misplaced. I don't and didn't do cop car ride-alongs. Any citizen can sign up for a cop-car ride along. It is a public relations gimmick,designed to make doofus"reporters" and the public kiss up to the police. A reporter's job is not to be a pr flack.
DeleteAs for your naive assertion that I am an ambulance chasing lawyer,I'm not a personal injury lawyer. PI lawyers are the ones who face the "ambulance chasing" ridicule,typically undeserved.
Should anyone here ever need a prime on police car interiors, we will know who to consult.
y'all got some anger issues. so he makes the story about himself, so what? it's his blog! jesus effing christ. - dw
ReplyDeleteDamn right! It's just stupid to manufacture crap to make it seem like you "own" the story. Get a grip, David, you're not much better. Moron. KB
DeleteAnd yet here you are.
DeleteBut I sense you know that I'm better...than you.
Whoah, how personal for you. I too thought of the four Oakland officers for a minute there, so I guess it was a personal story for me too.
ReplyDeleteAnd I *live* in Oakland. And I breathe some air from time to time that probably wafts this way from Santa Cruz.
Really, really personal.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/santa-cruz-police-shooting.html
DeleteLess conspiracy theory, less unsubstancive fact, please.
He disarmed the officers, murdered them stole body armor and officer Baker's car, shot up a fire engine and was killed.
Why so much conspiracy theory, Christine? Keep to elder law. Lieberman did you wrong by trying to drag you into his mininformed and disgusting three hour tirade and rant which was annoying and cloying at best.
what conspiracy theory? Do you know what the word "conspiracy" even means?
DeleteI raised no "conspiracy" issues. The simple fact is that the question of when and how the shooter disarmed the officers is being determined. The easiest assumption is that he shot both officers with his own gun and then disarmed them. But, he could have ambushed one of them, taken his or her gun and used that gun in the killings. YOu don't know yet, nor do I. It has nothing to do with either "conspiracy" or "elder law".The initial fb post which I received, opined that if "only police had weapons" nothing bad would happen. I posted that I thought that specific opinion lacked thoughtful analysis, which triggered rich's outrage at me for "starting a gun control thread " that was somehow "undignified". In this case the officers were disarmed and their own guns were employed in the tragic incident. We, as yet, don't know how specifically.
It merely means that until autopsies reveal which bullets were fired at the slain officers, we won't know.
I am blissfully unaware of any tirades or rants on the radio.
Dear Christine:
DeleteKeep doing and say what you say. You have the right like anyone else. Good job Christine.
Christine, you don't know what truth means. You are a way out of touch liberal with fantasies in your old age. Stick with elder law and injury work. You're way off base on this one. You're right to say what you want, but as proven here, maybe sometimes you shouldn't. You're trying to hijack a thread for publicity (again.)
DeleteThe guy was, first, in conversation with the officers for just over 10-12 minutes. He then walked away from the officers while in his home. The officers, in plain clothes, had no thoughts of gunplay, A few moments later, the shooter shows up from another direction, opens fire hitting both offers in an ambush, killing them instantlyy, using a 45-mm handgun.
He pulls their two service revolvers, leaves the premises and steals Officer Baker's car. When police close in on him, she shoots up a fire engine causing substantial damage. The shooter is killed, three weapons recovered, two beloning to the SC Police Department. Never a word about if either service revolver had been discharged.
You can't be right about everything, Christine, and on this, you're not. You need to retire and what have left. You are as proven here, annoying and always looking for a "slant" that has so many times not been proven. No wonder you're not on the air anymore.
Others have the same rights, too, correct? Thanks, just checking the Constitutional Freedoms meter on Free (and responsible) Speech.
Deletedear 6:58.
Delete"She shoots up a fire engine"....She do? do She?
And it's your argument that I'm too shriveled up to opine on this matter?
As for you admonition that I "need to retire and what have left", I conclude that your tortured syntax is the product of an ill-educated mind. Perhaps an adult ed class in basic elementary school grammar would make you appear smarter,or not.Good luck!
an addendum for 6:58..Please note your claim that"Never a word about if either service revolver had been discharged".....really?
DeleteYou must have missed the part about the shooter firing from different weapons at Santa Cruz PD and a sheriff's deputy in their final duel. He was found with his own 45 and the two police weapons. ...thus, at least one of the officer's guns had been discharged.
Are you too young and vital to figure that out? Not too much experience yet in analytical thinking?
Where was I wrong that you claim "so many times" about. Let's see, it wasn't Ross Mirkarimi, was it? No, I was right about that. Was it the election? I predicted Obama would win both electoral and popular vote. So it can't be that. Was it perhaps the gun control debate which I predicted would lead to lots of laws passed and challenged on constitutionality grounds, creating a bonanza of work for lawyers, and no change in violent gun crime? I still see that as inevitable So you'll have to school me on the myriad of specifics you claim, so annoying to you that you just can't count them all. Please be thoughtful and try to at least get your genders right. Faster pussycat! Your extraordinary youth should make it easy for you.
Tony wants to claify, 45's are not 45 mm's and cops no longer carry revolvers, they carry semi automatic pistols(not 40mm).
Deletehttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/gunman-took-weapons-of-slain-santa-cruz-officers-police-say.html
ReplyDeleteRead this one, Christine.
http://www.sourcenewspapers.com/articles/2013/02/28/news/doc512fdc96824b1178210478.txt
You are so afraid of being called out as wrong - and yet, you are.
wrong about what specifically? POint precisely to what you are alleging . What did I say that you are calling out as wrong?please quote directly what I said and directly what you allege proves it wrong. can you do that?
ReplyDeletePlease show the direct quote about the officer's weapons being discharged, Christine. There is no such quote. Maybe he used it shoot up the fire truck, but that's not mentioned. He killed the cops with his own weapon. Count on it. Your way above your prime.
ReplyDeleteplease see www.sfgate.com late yesterday which describes the final shoot out. Please indicate where I said I knew which weapon(s) were used in the killing of two officers. I said clearly that I didn't know. Tell us more about the fire truck you say was badly damaged.Were there direct witnesses to the killing of the officers? Witnesses who heard, but didn't see? Do you know? At first the SCPD chief said there was a "twenty minute" conversation between the shooter and the officers. Later that was corrected to 'a few minutes".
DeleteWas it a solid door? or a screen door? Is it your belief that the shooter who was described by police as using multiple weapons in the final gun battle,didn't use the police weapons he had acquired? that the police are mistaken on that point?
How did you get inside the minds of those slain officers?
You can also "count" on this. "Your" is an adjective. Have you not yet learned the difference between "your" and "you're" ie: conjunctive form of You are. I'd venture that you're not going to have much of a "prime" time, ever.
dear 6:58, your additional assertion that I am "hijacking" this thread for "publicity" is quite funny. The thread, started by Mr. Lieberman, and I'm told which continued on his radio program was specifically directed at me. I suggest you read it again.
ReplyDeleteSince this blog is read and used by people who work or who have worked in San Francisco media, did you think the outside world ever even sees it? I only ever comment here on things that interest me and will continue to do so,when inspired.
As for the idea that I'm not on the radio anymore and you know why, I filled in a couple of weeks ago on the 50,000 watter and also do shows elsewhere.The fact of life in broadcasting is that no one ever knows what could be their last program. Did you think you were immune? Sometimes when a broadcast entity which makes its money by appealing to the largest audience possible, goes from number one to number 16 in a very short time, changes happen. The notion that young talent is always better hasn't proven true in this specific instance, has it?