tryond
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
Filner, Goldsmith slated to meet tomorrow
Very enigmatic. Perhaps you mean to ask, when is due process an untimely hinderance so we can get this recall over with? I don't know, I'm just guessing at your meaning. I don't mind if you think he should resign or be recalled but it seems perfectly obvious that there has not been due process and sometimes thems the breaks in politics. There's no need to conflate the two. It appears to me that you don't wish to be understood, only agreed with. But I could be wrong. I see very good people on both sides, pro and anti Filner that lend their respective credibility to their positions, that is a very important bit of confusion. I am taken back by the rather nefarious elements sidling up to the recall which should give anyone pause about hopping onto a bandwagon. It's a tough read because corroborating witnesses have not been reported in any of the reporting I've read. I thought the second complaint would have produced something but I haven't seen anything and that seems odd. I've handled many salacious cases involving allegations of sexal misconduct sometimes representing the accused and sometimes the accuser. A righteous case with corroborating evidence is always easier and satisfying. Defending someone with no evidence is frustrating and often heartbreaking. False accusations make one's blood boil. Defending some a&$hole makes for intense one-on-one conversations which hopefully lead to better behavior in order to redeem any kind of worth. More often than not, it's somewhere murky and grey, where at the end I walk away wondering WTF really happened. Even the murky grey one's generally go through due process so at the end you're dealing with a result for good or bad, as I said, not always justice. I know none of this is as salacious as sex and public uproar and high stakes political maneuvering but I'm glad there is some part of our society that attempts to sheild us all from the (sometimes too often) chance that popular opinion is wrong. So, what don't I understand?— August 20, 2013 1:45 p.m.
Filner, Goldsmith slated to meet tomorrow
Randy, I'm kind of blown away by this question. I hope as a journalist you are familiar with some of the basic principles of Due Process (the right to be made aware of the charges against you, the ability to review and refute the evidence against you, the right to choose representation and counsel in defense of your interests, and subject to a judgement passed by a non-involved party are just the basics in even the most informal of settings). The thing about Due Process is that it is based on the idea that these rights do not depend on individual or group feelings or opinions of them outside the legal setting. In fact, these rights are specifically afforded to even the most offensive of persons for the express purpose of protecting the rights of all. That is Due Process in our current framework. You are trying to conflate our opinions of a legal standard with the legal standard itself. They have nothing to do with each other. Whether he should quit is an opinion that anyone can have regardless of Due Process. Whether he should be removed is a political question, not a legal one. I find the current popular rush to judgement to be the opposite of Due Process. That is not necessarily bad because politics does not and should not stick as closely to the principles of Due Process. I hope responsible journalists would respect and educate the public as to the difference between public opinion and due process. They can be at odds. The current settlement talks are very much in keeping with Due Process as it gives a chance for those who actually know first-hand what did or didn't happen an opportunity to make decisions based on their "chances". Now chances may or may not be in either favor and those very same chances may or may not lead to justice. I hope you will at least understand that soliciting public opinion regarding a legal principle is pretty much the opposite of our legal system. Hopefully you never have to learn the hard way. Why not try a respected defense attorney or judge?— August 19, 2013 10:07 p.m.