Re “Bye-Bye, Bill Bratton,” by Jill Stewart (August 12):
Bratton would have made a great mayor. But I don’t believe he’s running away from anything, maybe just not happy with the energy that’s left in town, an enervating instead of an energizing, forward-thinking team if your scenario is true.
Still, I don’t believe he’d be leaving if he didn’t think that the depth of LAPD’s reforms was strong enough to carry on without him. Unlike many strong egos, he’s trained really strong people to serve under him, ready to step up to the plate.
—Comment by Lincz, Woodland Hills
Maybe — just maybe — Bratton didn’t want to continually have to deal with meddling City Council members over his realm of authority. I’m speaking specifically of his rather rational plan to NOT have overweight retired police officers impersonate officers on duty when they are working film jobs. It made sense to have them (and all other non–police types) wear something other than the uniform of the active-duty police officer. Yet a dum-dum council person saw the opportunity to kiss up to the movie industry and fought it all the way. Who needs it? Bratton has demonstrated time and time again that he has the skills and competencies to do his job. Would they let him? No. Wonder what kinds of jobs council people get when they retire? Oh, I remember, they have to rely on political cronies to appoint them to something or the other. They have no marketable skills! The council, to a great extent, represents one of the biggest and highest-paid pools of unskilled labor in the city.
—Comment by Melvin Mills, L.A.
The Truth About Earl Krugel
Re “Why Was Jewish Radical Earl Krugel Slain in Prison?” by Tibby Rothman (August 5):
Irv Rubin did not commit suicide … he was murdered with the complicity of the United States Government. On the morning of his murder, he was scheduled for a bail hearing and it was generally felt that bail would have been granted. Isn’t it strange that there were no guards present, no surveillance tapes and no witnesses when Irv supposedly cut his throat and threw himself over the tier? Earl Krugel was a Jewish activist and a gentle man. Earl’s assassination was also planned, and his murderers knew he was coming before he arrived in Arizona. Irv and Earl held secrets, which, if ever revealed, would cause shock waves throughout federal law enforcement and the State Department. These men were framed, entrapped and incarcerated to keep their mouths shut. Out of fear for the welfare of their families, they did keep quiet. There was, however, always the possibility that they would reveal the information that terrorized those in power. They were silenced … end of story.
—Comment by Bill Maniaci, Reno, Nevada
Re “Losing Lily Burk,” by Christine Pelisek (July 29):
The actions of the victim in this murder remind me of the Sarai Ribicoff case. Ribicoff was killed in what was termed a “botched” robbery. Do people remember that the killer’s defense was that Ms. Ribicoff brought on her own death because she didn’t give up an heirloom necklace? It was classic “blame the victim” — and it almost swayed the jury. My gut tells me the public defender for Samuel will use this defense to get him off a first degree–murder charge. I hope the prosecutor is prepared for this defense.
—Comment by Lynn, Riverside
Lily’s murder was random. She was abducted during a routine errand in broad daylight. Everyone is trying to find a reason — she was in a dangerous area, she was too trusting of strangers, her parents’ “philosophy” — but the truth is that it was just random, and she wasn’t doing a single thing that any 17-year-old doesn’t do every single day. I know that’s hard for people to hear, because it means it could happen to them. Finding a reason makes it seem less random, and makes us feel safer, but it’s not the truth. My heart goes out to her family in this difficult time. I hope that people stop trying to blame them for this horrible tragedy.
—Comment by Jenny, L.A.
Re Patrick Range McDonald’s L.A. Daily post “Queer Town: Did Equality California Pull a 2010 Switcheroo?” (August 14):
I’d like to clarify some key facts: Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. has been working on behalf of Equality California since May’s Supreme Court decision, and from the very beginning EQCA’s field staff very clearly and deliberately instructed us not to have canvassers make any representations regarding when it would advocate for a ballot initiative. No canvassing script has ever made reference to a 2010 effort.
The “dozen” exceptions to this message referenced in the article happened within the context of more than 500,000 conversations statewide — many of them initiated by inexperienced canvassers who were new to their task, motivated by the chance to be a part of restoring marriage equality. After hearing of these problems, our local canvass directors immediately followed up with individual canvassers and — partly at the insistence of Equality California — ran a series of trainings and briefings to ensure that everyone understood the organization’s position at the time: to gather more information and speak with supporters and community members before deciding on 2010 vs. 2012.
The suggestion that Equality California organized a fundraising or volunteer recruitment effort around the pretense of holding a position that it did not hold is completely inaccurate.
Further, I can personally attest that Equality California’s staff, members and volunteers started early and have been working tirelessly on the organizing and outreach that, along with work done by community allies, will eventually result in overturning Proposition 8. We’re proud to assist them in the effort, and I hope that, despite whatever disagreements may exist here and there about strategy, everyone now focuses on the enormous task ahead.
—Wes Jones, National Canvass Director, Grassroots Campaigns, Inc.