This bank robbing, it really tears me up inside

Maybe it was the guilt over taking, and not giving, this holiday season. Or some last-minute remorse knowing that once the score goes down, you’re in big trouble.

It was the most unique part of a Thousand Oaks bank robbery this week: witness reports that the thief-at-large began crying as he made his escape.

Now, I don’t recall Robert De Niro getting all misty eyed following the big bank heist in “Heat,” but that’s Hollywood, and this is Ventura County.

And this is a thief who doesn’t sound, from police reports, like he’s a hardened professional who’s done this sort of thing before. In fact, according to officials, when he made his demands for cash, the man said he was a former employee that the bank owed money to.

“Sympathy for the Burglar” would be the criminals’ rights-endorsed Stones reworking as a theme song for this robber, who understandably has fallen on hard times. Unemployed, broke, no opportunities, maybe even starving for Thanksgiving, we’ve all heard of people turning to acts of crime in times of sheer desperation.

The man’s tears symbolize that feeling we’ve all had at one point or another of hitting the bottom with no apparent way out. The sensitive criminal, so to speak.

But in the same vein, if you apply a song like “Breaking the Law” to the situation — that mighty, metallic justification of a life of crime against a world that’s turned its back on someone — it becomes clearer that this man is like any other criminal … using force and the threat of violence to steal and get their way.

That’s why we shouldn’t be swayed into feeling sorry for anyone who makes excuses for why they turn to a life of crime, whether they cry crocodile tears or not. Let’s hope this guy’s guilt at the scene leads him to turn himself in.

Luckily, nobody was hurt during the incident. But imagine the stress and fear bank patrons were forced to endure, thinking they could be taken hostage, hurt, or worse.

I wouldn’t want to imagine a simple checking account deposit during my lunch break turning fatal because some foolhardy thief blew me away for my trouble.

It’s something for anyone else thinking about robbing any banks to reflect on this Thanksgiving.

Taking the easy way out

“Deadly Force” sounds like the title of the next Dirty Harry movie, with an 80-year-old Clint Eastwood wielding his familiar .44 Magnum against a gang of hoods littering the city streets.

Last week that scenario wasn’t too far from the real-life truth when a SWAT team shot and killed an armed gunman who refused to surrender after a standoff in a Ventura industrial complex.

There’s been an outrage online as people are battling each other on both sides of the issue. Did police use too much force? Or did the gunman, who had a history of violent outbursts, give the cops just cause?

Daniel Chilson, 34, was said to be a threatening person, served with restraining orders from his family, and combined with his troubled past, antagonized police with a pellet gun that looked damn real when compared side by side with a 9mm, as displayed in a police photo released yesterday.

Police had no way of knowing from several yards out that Chilson’s weapon wasn’t a real handgun, and that’s why some people believe that pumping 10 bullets into him, courtesy of three SWAT officers, was a bit too much firepower.

After all, three on one doesn’t exactly sound like a fair fight, even if Chilson was armed with a high-powered assault rifle.

Some may say that the cops, given their reputation in U.S. history for police brutality, took the easy way out. Shoot lots of rounds first, and ask questions later … that is, if your assailant is still breathing.

But if you ask me (and if you looks at the particulars of the story), Chilson was the one who took the easy way out. He had it coming, and he was asking for it.

Call it “suicide by cop.” Chilson not only egged police on, evading them for hours and taunting them by cell phone, but he threatened to kill himself and basically let police do it for him. There was no way he was going to surrender that day.

Given the fact that his BB gun wasn’t even capable of inflicting major harm, Chilson knew that if suicide was his goal, the only way to do it was to get himself shot.

And that’s exactly what he did when he spun around and began raising his weapon in the direction of police at the scene; officers who presumably have families, lives and personal safeties that they have to defend, too, responded in the only proper, procedural way they were trained.

Chilson killed himself … he just had somebody else do it for him.

Be careful what you sign for … you might just get it

It's not how you sign, but what you're signing for.

With Election Day now passed, we’ve had a few quiet weeks devoid of a boggling alphabet of ballot measures, a myriad of candidate speak, and an inundation of campaign literature enough to drive you crazy.

But just as quickly as one election season ends, another has begun, and it starts with petition takers you may see at grocery stores and other retail locations were foot traffic is likely to generate at least a few John Hancocks in favor of a certain cause.

I encountered such a petitioner this past weekend and thought I knew what I was signing for … and what I was getting myself into.

I was pretty sure after I left the polls two weeks ago that I had cast each of my votes  carefully, without any errors. It’s the post-election OCD that commonly afflicts many a concerned voter: Did I vote for the right candidate? Oh no! I voted no when I meant yes, and now if the measure fails, it’s all my fault.

On Saturday, I didn’t exercise the same measured care with this petition I usually carry out at the ballot booth.

The sign at the table asked people to endorse a ballot measure legalizing marijuana. Informed by our paper’s recent and ongoing coverage of the issue, I decided to sign because it’s been proven that marijuana, in many forms, is medicinal and beneficial for many patients of serious and terminal illnesses. THC is not the evil drug despised by masses of the uninformed.

In our conservative-minded Ventura County, I noticed my signature was one of few — very few. Try 3 at 3 o’clock in the afternoon.

Yet just as I’d dotted the ‘I’ in my last name, the page was flipped over to another page which I was asked to endorse … and another.

Mid-autograph, I stopped and hesitated to wonder, then to ask, “Are these all for medical marijuana?

No, the woman told me, and quickly rattled off that my additional two signatures were to endorse two separate, and completely unrelated, potential ballot measures. I think one was for auto insurance reform, I don’t remember. I may have even supported one or both of them had I been a student of the issues at hand.

But that’s besides the point. The point is that petitioners will try to take advantage of signers who endorse their first, major cause by quietly getting you to sign for other matters you may know nothing about … or even realize you’re blindly signing for.

So be careful when you go to vote or if you sign a petition that you have a good, working knowledge of the issues at hand. A poor grasp of some political matters have no doubt caused ballot measures to fail (or pass) at the polls when they shouldn’t have because people weren’t better acquainted with information.

And that goes for anything you may sign your name to: you could be getting ripped off.

I could have been signing over my soul to Satan, for all I knew.

Get out of your contract, you say? When hell freezes over.

DUI vs. non-DUI accidents: Which is more stigmatized?

I’m still reeling from the intensity of last week’s local DUI summit, and I wasn’t able to stay for the whole event, which was undoubtedly impactful and eye-opening to the dangers of drinking and driving.

The summit was held at the eve of a time of year when people are partying, drinking, and driving home from said parties, drunk.

Of course, as we all learned, not everyone who drives drunk dies.

So why is it that DUIs seem to have a more public stigma attached to them?

Case in point: our local daily paper published two auto accident stories within the last 24 hours.

In the first, a Thousand Oaks woman was arrested for driving under the influence after she crashed her car, seriously injuring herself.

In the second, 3 young Oxnard men were all killed in a brutal car accident. The driver of the car was also seriously injured. Alcohol is not being ruled as a factor in the crash at this point.

Considering the severity — and the number of fatalities — in the second crash, why is it that the paper has barred readers from submitting online their comments to the Thousand Oaks accident?

Rumors have circulated that the woman has indeed passed away since the story hit the WWW yesterday afternoon; yet nonetheless, locking the comments section on a free Web site indicates to me that this confirmed DUI story is being more … guarded by the powers that be.

It’s especially noteworthy because the story of the second crash relayed such a terrible vulnerability on part of the deceased: all in their late teens, and one a father who leaves behind a young family.

Shouldn’t both reports be open for public comment, for condolences and for discussion? Trolls will always abound on the ‘Net and insensitive comments will always be attempted, but that’s what Web moderators are for: to moderate the suitability of what should be published.

But by closing off that avenue of conversation for a drunk driving story, we do the opposite of raising awareness to the problem. It’s more akin to pushing the problem away than acknowledging it and discussing it.

We should have that freedom of speech just like we have the freedom to drink. But just as it’s against the law to drink and drive, it shouldn’t be prohibitive to talk about it before another fatality happens again.

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/nov/11/3-oxnard-men-die-in-solo-crash/?partner=popular

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/nov/11/major-injuries-in-to-crash/?partner=popular

A sobering summit

Sometimes, we don’t fully grasp the gravity of tragic situations until we learn about them in vivid detail from someone who’s experienced one firsthand … or until we experience it ourselves.

A drunk driving prevention summit today in Ventura was full of explicit detail, no doubt; but it was the kind that we don’t like to see or hear.

The event struck that middle ground — more like a chasm, actually — between what is enlightening and what is uncomfortable. If you can believe that can be achieved, after hearing the professionals and doctors speak at the summit, you would never, ever consider having a drink and starting that ignition again.

ER and trauma specialists often experience high burnout rates because of the pressures and severities, and maybe even the carnage, their job constitutes almost every day, according to Dr. Javier Romero.

We read about DUI fatalities all the time … and maybe we become a bit desensitized to the news. But hearing Drs. Romero and Kimbrell go into lucid detail about the inuries sustained to some of the drunk driving victims they’ve treated, makes one realize that cars truly are deadly weapons when we operate them under the influence of alcohol.

The damaging effects of alcohol are not just limited to roadway incidents, either. According to Dr. Romero, CDC data shows that fire deaths and drowning explain 30 percent of alcohol-related deaths, accidental falls 40 percent.

And they’re not accidents, either, he says … they’re preventable deaths.

But people need to be aware of the dangers of alcohol for injury and death to be prevented, especially now that we’re entering the holiday season, the season of parties when drinking is in abundance.

Because of that increase, Dr. Romero believes that the numbers he cited are, sadly, inaccurately *low* for this time of year.

Don’t drink and drive!

You have to care first before you vote

What does this empty room remind you of? You guessed it, a Ventura polling center.

During the primaries last June, I walked into Ventura’s downtown polling place on Santa Clara Street expecting the line of dedicated, vocal Americans to be stretched out the door and around the block.

What I got was something resembling more an Old West ghost town. What was that? The faint sounds of Ennio Morricone? Was that a tumbleweed that just went by?

I could hear my voice echo as I asked the polling volunteer, “Are you open?” It was late morning, the prime of the day, and I thought they had already closed.

Not so. Either everyone showed up early to vote, or nobody cared.

I like to think it was for the former reason, but every indication I get seems to point to the latter.

I’ve attended a lot of forums this season: city council candidate forums, school board candidate forums, ballot measure bickering session forums, Q&A forums. It’s part and parcel of this job to understand what’s up for vote this election, and to know, like the back of one’s hand, the ins and outs of each important issue and the people behind them.

Yet I’ve lamented at the lack of interest — and the abundance of apathy — especially from the younger (read: under 50) crowd, at any one of these important election events.

There was a statistic I recall enumerating that about 60-70% of people in any given American town don’t know the name of their own mayor.

I believe it, especially after all the news coverage we’ve afforded to everything this election season, that people still don’t understand that Measures A, B, C are more than just the first three letters of the alphabet.

Measure C, for example, won’t stop only a Wal-Mart from setting foot in the City of Ventura. (It won’t stop a Wal-Mart at all, actually.) But after some scrupulous news hounding on behalf of us at the Reporter, and vigorous campaigns from both ends of the ballot issue, you’ll still find a hearty amount of misinformed residents who don’t know Measure C from Measure Z from a hole in the ground.

And it’s not enough to close your eyes and vote for the first candidate or two your finger lands on. Each of the 15 people running for our city council stands on different issues with wildly different opinions, policies and personalities. Get to know them all … they’re all unique in more ways than you may think.

The Reporter endorses Measures A and E, and opposes Measures B and C. We also support electing Neal Andrews, Brian Brennan and Mike Tracy for City Council, and Mary Haffner and Velma Lomax for school board. Plus, we like the idea of enacting a temporary parcel fee to help out Oxnard schools.

Check out all of our election coverage at www.vcreporter.com … and get out there and vote on Tuesday!

I’ll take a Red Bull and vodka with a twist of literacy, please

I would never personally drink this stuff ... but go buy it in Thousand Oaks, and prepare to encounter a warning first.

It must either be a slow news day, or people care about drinking alcohol just a bit too much in these here parts of Ventura County.

Daily paper coverage of new regulations in Thousand Oaks, requiring liquor vendors to post signs in their establishments warning of the dangers of alcohol-energy drinks, has amassed the most reader comments than any other story today.

And that’s about on par with another story of a murder indictment.

I’m not a fan of those hybrid alcoholic energy drinks — think Monster or Red Bull with a 9-percent alc/vol — but walk into a Thousand Oaks liquor store from now on, and you’ll find signs warning that the drinks, apparently from the unique combo of alcohol with heart-amping energetics, are not only impairing, but in bold, INCREASE YOUR RISKS OF INJURY.

It’s all good, right? So then why are some people so irate? Says one reader:

Just another form of Nanny Government. Last time I checked the City had a major deficit and the economy is in the toilet so why are they even discussing this issue when they have zero authority over it. This is nothing more then the council pushing its moral beliefs onto others. What a waste of taxpayers money.

Unless you may think signage is an infringement of your personal rights, I don’t really see how it’s any more harmful than suffering the impairment and injury local authorities are looking to prevent by warning consumers.

Hell, it’s not like the T.O. brass is prohibiting alcohol altogether.

It’s like any other warning, on a pack of cigarettes, for example, or Yield signs on the road … you don’t have to stop your car into oncoming traffic, but if you heed the warning, you just might be better off.

This reader posted their ideas with a bit more consideration to the dangers of alcohol:

I can’t believe it, there was an article on drunk driving and every one was for hanging the guys, the city passes a law to help keep them off the streets, I don’t see how anybody can be against that, the signs do not infringe on anyone they just inform. I have attended to many funerals of drunk driver victims.

And like the root of the word, to inform is to relay information, which never killed anybody before. But drinking and driving has, all too often on Ventura County’s roads. And there’s no doubt there’ll be a lot of it happening on Halloween this weekend, once again.

Here’s hoping for a safe holiday, and that people will learn to read before they drink.

Let’s give an A to Measure F

With all the talk of the need for affordable housing in the City of Ventura, we sometimes seem to overlook other local cities, and no other city is focusing on that need than Fillmore.

Fillmore has had a rough year, coping with the exodus of several city officials — some of them under fire for questionable acts — and now, a dispute over rent control and senior citizens rights in Fillmore’s low-income, mobile home tenant community.

This is the basis of what Measure F proposes for Nov. 3: a mobile home exclusive zone,  rent control for mobile home tenants, and easier conversion of mobile home rentals to ownerships.

And with all the talk of Measures A, B, C and E, it’s become like Alphabet City around here … with the exception of F.

Since our paper doesn’t predominantly cover Fillmore, this blog provides a good opportunity to endorse Measure F.

Like allegations that seniors in Ventura had been treated unfairly by code enforcement rules, the heart of Measure F is really all about senior citizens. Whether working or retired, many don’t have a lot of money; renting a mobile home in their twilight years is often all they can afford. Where can they turn to if landlords keep jacking up their rents?

Some people on online message boards posited that many seniors can move in with family. But why should they if one is still capable of independence at an old age? Greed has displaced one too many low-income people one too many times. It’s harder when someone is over 65 and not upwardly mobile any longer.

Measure F would establish better rent controls in Fillmore, specifically, at the El Dorado Estates, for those who qualify.

One reason why it’s called the Fair Rent and Home Ownership Initiative is because Measure F also looks to adopt better, easier standards for renters looking to purchase their mobile homes. Stabilize rent for those who do, and allow better ease of purchasing that same rented home.

Within all this, Measure F’s focus on mobile home exclusivity is another, third factor: to change Fillmore’s zoning laws so certain areas in town are zoned specifically for mobile homes.

It’s one of the most important parts of Measure F because it ensures that mobile homes aren’t squeezed in wherever there’s a random parcel available.

Let’s hope Measure F passes so we can see similar initiatives across Ventura County in the future.

Three ballot measures that could change the face of Ventura forever

Last year’s presidential election set a precedent for change in these harsh economic times. People demanded some major changes from the status quo when voting in Obama, the polar opposite of GW.

In the year since, it seems like nothing that arrives on ballots is a small or insignificant item; in 2009, the standard is to enact big-time change.

It’s none so more evident than in Ventura, where we’ll be faced with voting on three ballot measures that could forever alter the city forever.

City officials have asked voters to approve a half-percent sales tax called Measure A to supplement and add to their budget weakened by the economy and state cuts.

Measure B, a citizen-driven initiative, looks to impose a 26-foot height limit on buildings across the entire city.

And Measure C, the “big box ballot,” looks to prohibit superstores by limiting the amount of square footage a retailer can expand to.

Here are what some proponents and opponents have said so far, summed up:

-Measure A is good because the city needs funding for services like public safety. Without the revenue, they could be cut further or deleted altogether.

-Measure A is bad because it gives people less incentive to spend. People are spending less in this economy anyway.

-Measure B is good because it preserves ocean views and halts rampant development that makes every building in town a skyscraper.

-Measure B is bad because it prevents growth.

-Measure C is good because it stops larger corporate retailers from coming in and squashing smaller stores. Plus, it curbs traffic and crime.

-Measure C is bad because it prevents growth (and a free retail market).

Without taking an official stance yet, my take is that the measures are intertwined … and any combination of pass/fail could yield different, permanent results.

If people are less compelled to spend with higher sales taxes, businesses could, in effect, be discouraged from coming here. They could be discouraged further if they’re prohibited from building to certain heights or expanding to certain lengths. Profitable retailers may forever rule out the Ventura coast as a viable location.

However, in regards to measures C & A, a series of big box retailers could crop up around town and put out of business other smaller stores, producing a boycott reaction from people who are once again less compelled to spend because their favorite stores have fallen by the wayside.

It’s double-edged, in a way and there’s little in between. Ventura could easily become the new Los Angeles, or the town resistant to anything remotely metropolitan and urban.

Whether or not these results are good or bad are in the eyes of the voting public.

We need to find that balance, though any combo of votes on measures A, B or C will have effects that, once in place, can change the face of this town forever … fiscally and culturally.

The thing is to just get out and vote … and vote wisely.

Where have all the young, politically active people gone to in Ventura?

Or did they ever exist to begin with?

Aside from myself, some student camera people, and one or two stragglers, there didn’t seem to be a single person under the age of 50 at last night’s candidates forum at Ventura College.

The forum, hosted by the local branch of the League of Women Voters, was a question-and-answer panel between all 15 candidates for the Ventura City Council: 4 incumbents and 11 challengers.

It was well attended in the campus’ sizable Guthrie Hall, by the most dedicated, passionate members of our middle aged and senior citizen communities. Women sitting on either side of me were keeping what looked like scorecards on each candidate, scribbling down answers and notations, while exchanging some important, election-themed, whispered banter between themselves, listening intently to each word, each campaign promise, spoken by the 15-member panel.

Maybe evening classes were in session. Or maybe there was some party or downtown bar to be at. Whatever was the priority at hand, there were no young people at this forum to voice their opinion on how they want their city to be led.

It’s another bad sign that this is a terribly apathetic town. It’s a shame; for all of the issues facing Ventura this year, caring community involvement is what we need now.

We’ve faced millions of dollars in cuts leaving our city’s budget in the hole. The crime rate is not going down. Our homeless problem: it’s unacceptable to have so many people living on the streets.

Not to mention the fact that we have choice in so many matters because we’re allowed to vote, not just for four of 15 candidates, but for three ballot measures that will determine how much we pay in sales tax, how high our buildings can be built, and how large some corporate retailers can expand to.

There are voter registration tables set up at many of these forums for the younger residents who may not have done so. And there’s plenty of opportunity; the LWV is holding two more forums next week (Oct. 13 & 15) at the same location on campus.

Heck, at least stand in the back of the room and pretend like you care.