Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Traffic Cop Questioned in Encinitas
All the deputy has to say is that this is the best vantage point and safest location to catch speeders. They are granted exceptions for enforcing the law. Might not like it, but that's the reality.— July 16, 2012 11:56 p.m.
Traffic Cop Questioned in Encinitas
Actually, this isn't correct. Private property open to the public carries no prohibition against police using it for enforcement purposes. And no probable cause is required for him to enter upon property open to the public. Also an officer is allowed a fair amount of leeway in enforcing the law, which can include violating vehicle code sections the public is subject to. Meaning, he can likely block the sidewalk. Now, If the owner or his agent doesn't want the officer there, I suppose he could demand he leave. However, a lessee of a business on the premises doesn't have the same authority over the entire parking lot.— July 16, 2012 11:54 p.m.
Officer Chris Wilson’s Memorial Draws Thousands to the Rock Church in Point Loma
Editing note: Officer Dan Walters was shot in the neck by a suspect, not injured in a traffic collision.— November 4, 2010 9:18 p.m.
Police Officer and Rapper -- One Kills a Man. One Gives Away Cars.
This is similar to Ofc. Frank White (in Oceanside) who shot the kid in the car AFTER the danger had passed. When it comes to deadly force, Police have to be held to an even higher, standard than the average, untrained person. They are always armed and face dangerous situations every day. They need to be extremely clear on where the line is that enables them to use deadly force. Also, I think a lot of times police shoot people and it can be perfectly legal but not necessary. Its like not being at fault in an accident but having the ability to prevent it. Absent missing facts, it seems like they might have been able to not shoot him in this case.— September 9, 2009 4:30 a.m.
Military/Flag News Stories (and yes, Michael Jackson)
"for those of you that don't know, there are strict rules about flying the flag." You're right in the sense that they are guidelines but not enforceable "rules." Part of federal law includes the "Flag Code" however its written in such a way as to not be legally binding. It says "should" instead of "shall" throughout. You might already know this, but many people don't. I saw a news report a couple of months ago about a guy flying a flag "improperly." The reporters kept saying that its a violation of federal law and even cited the code. There are no flag police.— August 7, 2009 1:27 p.m.
Movie Pet Peeves
--Poor research into basic military customs and courtesies, uniforms, etc. like you with music, I love it when they get it right. But I can barely watch if they get it wrong. I've noticed that there are no bad movies that have perfect military stuff. It seems like if they've taken the time to get this small element right, they've taken the time to write a good, plausible story. All they need to do is hire a good technical consultant or do some basic research. "A Few Good Men" is a good example. There's a scene where a Marine salutes indoors uncovered (without a hat). Just doesn't happen. The rest of the movie is outlandish too but I don't expect them to make a movie about the banalities of military investigations and courtroom procedure. I just want them to get the easy stuff right. --Background (Also). I was an extra in the movie Pearl Harbor. It was shot in Rosarito in the same huge tank as Titanic. It was a great gig. 100 bucks a day (sometimes for just a few hours), plus free hotel room. I was in the military at the time, so this was like having somebody pay me to go on vacation. Anyway, the funny thing was how eager everyone was to be in the movie. The Assistant Director would call for 6 guys and about 20 would jockey for position to get in. The water was cold and many were in full costume. My costume was underwear. I laid on a beach chair and got a tan. They would tell them "ok your getting shot" and these guys would WAY overdo it. You can't even see them in the movie though. Some shots were probably ruined because of it. If it got hot or they needed everybody, I'd get in so I got killed in 3 or 4 different scenes. Which leads to another point that I agree with you on, and that's romance. When we were doing this movie, Michael Bay (cursed be his name) told us that this film was about honoring us and telling the true story of Pearl Harbor. We spent about 2 weeks doing this. There were so many scenes and explosions and stunts shot, we thought it would be the bulk of the movie. I would have walked out of the theater if I hadn't kept looking for myself. I've only seen part of it 1 time since. He absolutely destroyed that movie with the romance. That movie wasn't even about Pearl Harbor. I won't ever pay to see another Michael Bay movie.— August 6, 2009 3:05 p.m.
Helping the Homeless
josh: I don't think cliff brown or the other place on Park are that bad. Probably middle of the road. A dealership would probably have charged $70 just to look at it. Its certainly convenient. I could drop my car off and walk a half a block home. I love this neighborhood. I used to live in Carlsbad where you couldn't walk anywhere. I love the idea that if I'm out of milk, I can just run up to the store a block away. Or walk to get fish tacos at El Zarape. Yum.— August 6, 2009 2:38 p.m.
Helping the Homeless
Yup. I went to my neighborhood shop--Cliff Browns on Park in University Heights and they charged me $20 just to look at it and said it would be $190 and I needed 2 new tires. I thought they fit my requirements but I guess even they are a little fancy. Now, this wasn't a ripoff, I don't think but just a thorough job. Instead, I just went down to Edie's on University in City Heights (I guess he couldn't afford the extra "d") and they charged me $40 for one tire, out the door. He said the other tire was fine. I showed up at about 4:30 in the afternoon (I don't think they don't take appointments) and there is no waiting room so I stood on the sidewalk for 20 minutes. I've never really stood on the street like that in that part of town for a long time. Very interesting scenery. They literally take up part of the sidewalk to repair cars. No paperwork, no signature. They guy I paid my money to was the guy who fixed my car. That's my kind of place. Everybody's broke down there (or dangerous) so they know they can't overcharge!— August 6, 2009 12:43 a.m.
Bad Cops and a Bad Bank Teller
"I like to think pointing anything...a cell phone, a pencil, pen, or your finger, at a cop, should result in you getting shot." Come on, a finger? Its easy to knock down this argument. Maybe you're just being facetious but consider the consequences if you're not. This gives the cops an excuse to shoot anybody, even you if they choose. All they would have to say is "He pointed his finger (or pencil) at me,." even if you didn't. That was the point of my last argument. An average citizen's life isn't any less valuable than a cop's. "Officer Safety" is not paramount to every other value such as preservation of life and protection of liberty. Cops too often justify everything just so they "can make it home at the end of the shift." "A cop shouldn't have to wait, and try to figure out if you have a gun, or you're just messing around with your hand. Yes, they should. The law already is very lax for cops in this area. It says that an officer may use deadly force in a situation when a reasonable and prudent person would fear for their life. They already use the lame "waistband" excuse way too often. If everybody who messed around with their hands or pointed something at cops got shot, you'd see a lot more hatred and possibly dismantling of the police system. "A person that plays games like that, is someone I don't want alive in society." Good thing you don't get to decide! Some people who don't cooperate or do stuff like this have mental problems or don't speak English. Summary execution is not in order for these people or anybody who doesn't pose a true threat.— August 4, 2009 6:27 p.m.
Bad Cops and a Bad Bank Teller
Josh: The problem is that just as all cops are lumped together, so are those who are critical of cops. That's why it seems that you're calling all of them idiots. There are some people who hate cops, no matter what. I know people who were brought up to actually hate the police. They are idiots because they've never tried to think critically about the police. Then there are others, like me, who see a trend of behavior. I think it started with the "officer safety" movement in the 70's. Its a good cause but its used to excuse all sorts of bad behavior and unnecessary use of force. Then, after 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security started giving tons of money to police departments for "anti-terrorism." They used it to outfit SWAT teams and militarize the police. Now, SWAT "conducts operations" on "targets." The number of SWAT raids has gone way up in the past 6-7 years. This attitude has filtered down through the ranks and in training. But this doesn't make me dislike individual officers. Its systemic. There was a great show on about the LA Sheriff's academy. It was a reality/documentary show. They had a simulated incident where a guy pointed his cell phone at the recruits and they "shot" him. When the instructors asked why, they just replied "Officer Safety." Even though it was the wrong answer, the instructors had already trained them that the only thing that is important was their perceived safety.— August 4, 2009 2:16 p.m.