Recent Changes for "Halema Buzayan" - Davis Wikihttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_BuzayanRecent Changes of the page "Halema Buzayan" on Davis Wiki.en-us Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2011-05-21 10:40:41JabberWokkyHave there been any updates? At the WikiPikinik, it was mentioned. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span>Halema Buzayan, a ["Davis Senior High School"] Honor Student and President of her school's Muslim Student Association (MSA), is a central figure in a June ["2005"] [http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&amp;id=4000500 incident] that was finally covered by the media in March ["2006"]. </td> <td> <span>+ '''</span>Halema Buzayan<span>'''</span>, a ["Davis Senior High School"] Honor Student and President of her school's <span>["</span>Muslim Student Association<span>"]</span> (MSA), is a central figure in a June ["2005"] [http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&amp;id=4000500 incident] that was finally covered by the media in March ["2006"]. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2011-05-21 10:39:22JabberWokky <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Halema Buzayan, a ["Davis Senior High School"] Honor Student and President of her school's Muslim Student Association (MSA), is a central figure in a June 2005 [http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&amp;id=4000500 incident] that was finally covered by the media in March 2006. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Halema Buzayan, a ["Davis Senior High School"] Honor Student and President of her school's Muslim Student Association (MSA), is a central figure in a June <span>["</span>2005<span>"]</span> [http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&amp;id=4000500 incident] that was finally covered by the media in March <span>["</span>2006<span>"]</span>. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2010-06-08 10:16:18JabberWokkyRevert to version 260 (JW reverting SW's deletion. ;)). <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- deleted</span> </td> <td> <span>+ Halema Buzayan, a ["Davis Senior High School"] Honor Student and President of her school's Muslim Student Association (MSA), is a central figure in a June 2005 [http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&amp;id=4000500 incident] that was finally covered by the media in March 2006.<br> + <br> + It has been alleged that the ["Davis Police Department"] and ["Yolo County District Attorney"] pursued the case far beyond normal due to the fact that Buzayan is a Muslim. She was arrested for an automobile accident that she was allegedly involved in, after her family had agreed to pay damages to the other driver. Dean Johnson, a former San Mateo County prosecutor and legal analyst for ABC 7, alleged that the Davis Police overstepped their bounds in the following three ways:<br> + <br> + * The police violated Halema's constitutional rights by entering the home without saying they were there for an arrest.<br> + * They treated the girl as if she were an adult accused of a felony.<br> + * The police violated their own policy against filing criminal charges in a minor hit and run, if it's been settled civilly.<br> + <br> + Another possible point not brought up by Johnson is that the media did not cover the most serious charges, which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of her Miranda Rights and denial of the right to an attorney.<br> + <br> + The case was dismissed by the ["Yolo County Superior Court"] on April 17, 2006. In June 2006, the family filed a claim of unlawful arrest and several other allegations against the city and district attorney. The full text of the claim can be found at: [http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2006/06/davis_hit_run_d.html ABC News].<br> + <br> + On November 3, 2006, the Buzayan family, filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Davis, the Davis Police Department, the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office, The Davis Enterprise and individual members of each organization. In its lawsuit, the family is claiming intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress stemming from Halema’s arrest, prosecution and the subsequent attention from the Davis City Council and reporting in The Davis Enterprise [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2006/12/10/news/021new1.txt click for story].<br> + <br> + In June 2006, the lawsuit against the Davis Enterprise was dismissed under California's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. Since the Enterprise had acquired the tapes of the police interviews of the juvenile legally the Court determined that it was not liable for posting the recordings on the newspaper website. [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/06/27/news/190new2.txt click for story]<br> + <br> + == Different Accounts ==<br> + <br> + * The ["/I-Team Investigation" KGO I-Team Investigation] report<br> + * ["/Annis Sury" Another account by Annis Sury]<br> + * A post dismissal information release by the ["/Yolo County DA's Office" Yolo County DA's Office]<br> + * ["/PORAC" Peace Officer’s Research Association of California]<br> + <br> + == Public Comments ==<br> + * ["/Police Chief Jim Hyde" Police Chief Jim Hyde's] comments early on in the case<br> + <br> + == Involved Persons ==<br> + <br> + * ["Davis Police Department"]<br> + * ["Dave Henderson"] -- Yolo County district attorney, pressing charges<br> + * ["Ruth Asmundson"] -- Mayor, commented on the case<br> + * Officer ["Pheng Ly"] -- Arresting Officer. See also [http://www.officerly.com/ his website]<br> + * [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2006/05/09/Opinion/Letters.To.The.Editor-1923347.shtml?sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com&amp;MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com Letter to the Editor from Officer Ly - Cal Aggie 5/9/06]<br> + <br> + == Media Coverage ==<br> + * [http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/v-print/story/14234344p-15055948c.html Sac Bee 3/24/06]<br> + * [http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/14236753p-15057654c.html Sac Bee Editorial 3/30/06]<br> + * [http://www.sacbee.com/content/community_news/yolo/story/14237199p-15057982c.html Sac Bee 3/31/06]<br> + * [http://www.sacbee.com/content/community_news/yolo/story/14239694p-15059700c.html Sac Bee 4/06/06]<br> + * [http://www.sacbee.com/content/breakingnews/story/14244354p-15062890c.html Sac Bee 4/17/06 Charges Dropped Against Muslim Teenager]<br> + * [http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&amp;id=4013294 KGO]<br> + * [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2006/12/10/news/021new1.txt Davis Enterprise 12/12/06]<br> + * [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/06/27/news/190new2.txt Davis Enterprise 6/27/07]<br> + <br> + [[Comments]]<br> + <br> + So far only the Buzayan family's side has been publicly presented. The police cannot comment on the situation because of the lawsuit and pending court trial. ["EMOSNAIL"] operatives have confirmed that there is a [http://emosnail.livejournal.com/218115.html gag order] in effect on this case.-- ["Users/KrisFricke"]<br> + * ''Is the city council held to the same legal bindings?''-- Someone Else<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-03-23 10:06:32'' [[nbsp]] It is sad that a sixteen year old girl has to have a wiki page made about her over this topic. This case is going to get real messy (and maybe expensive). I brought it up at the city council candidate's forum this last Monday and there were a lot of people in the audience that had no idea what I was talking about because the local press has ignored it. I'm sure ["The California Aggie" the Aggie] will do something with it, come the beginning of the spring quarter, because they are a lot less biased than the ["The Davis Enterprise" Enterprise]. --["Users/RobRoy"]<br> + I don't know about "less biased" but certainly differently biased! I try to read both papers so I can get more sides of a story. :) --["Users/CindySperry"]<br> + <br> + There's usually more than two sides to a story. Truth is closer to a dodecahedron. But yeah, I had no clue this was going on before the Wiki. --["Users/JesseSingh"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-03-23 13:48:18'' [[nbsp]] Can anyone fill in those dates so we can get a clearer picture of how it happened? Also, does anyone know what cause it to suddenly be propelled back in the media this past week? I'm guessing because of the hearing this Friday. --["Users/AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-03-23 13:59:32'' [[nbsp]] Well, it hit the media in the bay area, not locally. However, the filing of the lawsuit and release of the tapes of the officer talking could be the cause. --["Users/JamesSchwab"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-03-23 14:01:38'' [[nbsp]] Officer Ly once gave ["Users/KristyHeidenberger" Kristy] a ticket for an illegal u-turn - she had in fact made an illegal u-turn, but Ly wrote down on the ticket that her car was the wrong colour, and that it all occured at an intersection a block or two away. So thats all I have to say about Officer Ly. What is Buzayan actually charged with anyway? --["Users/KrisFricke"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-03-23 14:38:00'' [[nbsp]] I think she is charged with hit and run. --["Users/AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"]<br> + --------<br> + ''2006-03-27 09:33:53'' [[nbsp]] Both Mayor Asmundson in the KGO story as well as Councilmember Souza in the March 24th Sacramento Bee article "Davis prosecution sparks bias claim"(Metero Section, B1 and B5) have supported the police on this issue. --["Users/JamesSchwab"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-03-28 12:05:06'' [[nbsp]] First of all, some of the sense of racism charges have to do with the nature of some of the comments that Officer Ly makes to himself. Secondly, the news media has made much of the story about the arrest which is a bit baffling because I have seen both cars and not only does the height of the vehicles not line up, but the damage doesn't match. Now normally the law is that once damages (civil) are accepted by the victim, legal action is not allowed. That did not happen here. Third, the victim herself in this case is outraged. Finally, the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney. --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-03-30 15:55:27'' [[nbsp]] This outrageous: Page A9 of the Davis Enterprise shows a picture of Jim Hyde congratulating Pheng Ly who received the David PD's Officer of the Year award on Tuesday. Ly is the cop being implicated in Buzayan case. --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-03 22:36:58'' [[nbsp]] Today, after 10 months since the incident took place, 7 court sessions, God knows how many hours of work from city personnel, yolo county personnel, and "understaffed" Davis police department officers, and after thousands of dollars (I hope not millions) of tax payers' money this issue has not been resolved yet. As a matter of fact Halema's trial hasn't even been started yet. So far, all that has been done in court is submition and discussion of motions, which brings up the following questions:<br> + <br> + 1. How much longer time will it take and how much more of tax payers money will be spent before this case is over?.<br> + 2. What are the residents of Yolo county and those of the city of Davis gaining from spending all this money and efforts when we know that even if the judge rules that Halema is guilty she will not be paying the so called victim a single penny more on top of what her parents had already paid before the charges were even filed?.<br> + 3. Why are thousands of tax payers' money are being spent on a case that Mr. Buzayan resovled 10 months ago with only 870 Dollars?.<br> + <br> + If this is the way all hit-and-run cases are handeled, both the Yolo county and the city of Davis will go bankrupt just after a hand full of similar cases. What money do they save to investigate, prosecute, and try bank roberries, burglaries, homicides, drive-by-shootings, and other criminal activities that are more serious than a minor misdemeanor such as a hit-and-run. How about using tax payers' money for other important issues such as schools, healthcare, water resources, environment, flood protection, affordable housing, etc. In conclusion, I strongly believe that since the damages were paid for to the satisfaction of the so called victim, the charges should be dropped immdediately so that no more tax payers' money will be wasted on this case and a better chance will be given for spending on just causes. -["Users/AnisSury"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-07 18:57:28'' [[nbsp]] I think the police certainly acted inappropriately here, but I don't see any reason to conclude that it has anything to do with the family being Arab. To assume so anyway, and for the Arab Council to become involved, will only exacerbate side issues that shouldn't exist in the first place. I think that the real explanation for this is that some people in Davis want to have an incident of police brutality so they can feel outraged, and they think this is it. I think the real solution is to have a smaller police department that doesn't have time for stuff like this instead of a police review board. This way the same problem is solved with less people and a smaller government.<br> + <br> + ["Users/AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"] says below, "Davis cops have a history of making work for themselves where none exists", and the solution to this is reduce the police department so they are busier with real work. There wasn't just one "mistake" here, this was the police repeatedly pursuing this case after it had been resolved civilly and there was not any life or property at risk. Is that what a police force that is too busy would do? Ultimately, treating people badly wastes more time for the police than it will benefit them and they will realize this sooner with a smaller department.<br> + <br> + I don't think the city council, city manager, and city lawyer care one way or the other except for however can make the least trouble for them. So I think that if they treat the Buzayan family badly, it is because they are trying to cover for the police department just because they think that will be easier than fixing it. That may or may not be true, but I suspect it comes down to just what they, maybe arrogantly as you say, think is easiest and most convenient. As for the police, you are right that the family may have been personally targeted, but that could be for lots of reasons (and I am not saying there are good reasons). Maybe Officer Ly has a grudge with the family. I don't know, but I really don't want to assume that it is racism or a similarly broad-based discrimination. I think it would be a very bad idea to jump to conclusions about that and if it ever becomes explicit it will look that much more ridiculous. -["Users/NickSchmalenberger"]<br> + <br> + * The main reasons to think so, as far as I can see, are a) that there don't seem to be any other reasons why the police would pursue this case, let alone pursue it so aggressively, and b) the arresting officer (Ly) 's comments about Halema Buzayan and her mother's head scarves. --["Users/KenjiYamada"]<br> + <br> + * Racism could definitely be a factor, and it doesn't matter what the police new before the investigation: take for example racial profiling data. A survery of the CHP found that their was no real disparity in how the CHP pulled over different ethinicities, the disparity occurred in the punishment that was given out. Blacks and latinos were more likely to receive tickets and have their property towed. The investigation was not inappropriate it was everything that happened after the act. -["Users/JamesSchwab"]<br> + <br> + * So because an incident of police misconduct occurs, it only occured in a vacuum with no externalities and because people wanted it to happen? That makes sense. --["Users/JamesSchwab"]<br> + * What is that better solution? --["Users/KenjiYamada"]<br> + * Less police. -["Users/NickSchmalenberger"]<br> + * An inflated size of police department could be a budget issue, if city officials determine so, but I don't think it would lead to repetitive misconduct. I believe that Regardless of the size of the police deparment, absolute authority and lack of accountability is what makes police officers cross their boundries. On your doubts of it being a case of discrimination, May be it is not a case of discirimatnion against muslims in particular. May be it is one of the cases of discrimination against any one outside the "norm", as Mr.["Users/AbdolhosseinEdalati"] put it below, which does not make it any less worthy of public attention and call for correction. As far as the NCA involvement, The ["The National Council of Arab Americans" NCA] is an Arab American organization and not a Muslim American organization. That means the NCA is interested in issues concerning all Arab Americans including muslims, christians, Atheists, and all other colors of the spectrum. I don't understand how would their involvement "exacerbat side issues that should not exit in the first place". If you would please give examples of such side issues that could be exacerbated by NCA's involvement. and also please give examples of past cases where NCA's involvement exacerbated side issues that should not exist. Personally, I don't know about NCA except from what I read on their website and from what I heard in today's meeting. --["Users/AnisSury"]<br> + * This is an absurd argument. If anything, less police will make the police more likely not less likely to make mistakes. They are spread too thin as it is. They are unable to adequately respond right now. We really need to hire more police for the load that they have to bear. Decreasing the number would mean more stress, more anxiety, less rest, which will increase frustration and the number of mistakes that are made. I really wish people would think their solutions through. --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]<br> + * The NCA just got involved yesterday where the issue has been going for 10 months. Jamal gave the police department and the city of Davis many chances to correct their mistakes through contacting the chief of police, the city council, and the city manager through their own self correcting procedures. They were so arrogant and ignored his complaints. also the city lawyer theatened him in one of the meetings, as jamal explained during yesterdays meeting. That means, the arresting officer, the chief of police, the city manager, and city council are all involved (according to your argument all of these guys have nothing more important to do except to creat work for themselves by harressing tax paying residents of the city of Davis. I am not arguing on this issue). To go back to the discrimination issue, and given the above, it is the police department's reponsibility now to explain to every one why are they treating the Buzayans this way. The police department used a totally different procedure with the Buzayans than what their standard procedure lays out, therefore, they must come up with good reasons for why they did that in order for me not to believe that Jamal and his family are personally targeted. If the police department fails to come up with good reasons then, in an indirect way, the police department admits that Jamal and his family are personally targeted, and therefore it is a discrimination of some kind. I leave it up to them to pick up what basis of discrimination it is. Never the less, if there is doubts of discrimination on any basis, as there is many in this case, all civil society organizations that work to promote and protect civil rights can and should act including CAIR, NCA, NAACP,ACLU, and all the others to make sure that no discirimination is involved or to call for corrections if discrimination is proven to have taken place.--["Users/AnisSury"]<br> + * Nick, you have a good point there. However, the failure of coming up with good reasons from the part of the police department and the city officials over the last 10 months only strengthened doubts, made possibility of discrimination more believable to be valid, and made situtation worse. After reading your discussion above and thinking more about what has been going on, I could not recall that the Buzayans have ever claimed that they were discriminated against. Even in their civil litigations, they claimed violation of constitutional rights but they did not make any reference to any kind of discrimination. I do recall though, that they have been very consistant in demanding explanations from the city officials for what they have been subject to. Having said that, I still think that it is very appropriate for the NCA and CAIR to get involved at least to investigate possibilities, clear doubts, and lead their public bases to take the right stand. Until today, as far as I remember, neighter the NCA nor CAIR have made any statement with any references to discrimination claims.--["Users/AnisSury"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-07 22:46:45'' [[nbsp]] I do not think that this is an incident of racial profiling per se. Davis cops have a history of making work for themselves when none exists, but what Davis cops definitely need is some cultural sensitivity training. From personal experience I have seen how Davis police's lack of cultural sensitivity can exacerbate a normal, harmless situation. Sure if you have the talk and the walk of a white suburban resident you will be fine, but throw an immigrant, person of color, or even a young teenager and a little bit of misinterpretation and you get a nasty situation. They are inadept at handling such circustances. In fact, it seems that any profile outside the "norm" evokes Police paranoia and suspicioun as in this case. As if the Buzayan's were trying to pull the wool over the cops eyes by playing off the mother as the daughter...psh give me a break. --["Users/AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-08 19:20:52'' [[nbsp]] In the NCA emergency meeting that was held on Saturday April the 8th, and during his account of his experience with the ongoing criminal charges against his daughter, Jamal revealed to the meeting that in one of the 7 court appearances they had, the judge asked Patricia Fong, The DA deputy that is prosectuing Halema, "Why are you prosecuting this case?". "Your honor, we must convict Halema because she is suing the City of Davis" Patricia responded in front of every one in court.<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-08 21:50:15'' [[nbsp]] Anis: Good seeing you tonight at the meeting. Just want to add this is not the only time Patti Fong has said this. She said this back in either late January or early February. Right after Gonzalez-Leigh took over for Jamal. Whitney Leigh told me this back in early March before the gag order and he was just stunned at her audacity. --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]<br> + Thank you David. Now we have two people confirming that Patti Fong made that statement. I really hope that some serious investigations be conducted to uncover all facts surrounding this claim and hold all responsible people accountable regardless of their position. --["Users/AnisSury"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-12 22:36:03'' [[nbsp]] There was an [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2006/04/12/news/263new3.txt article] in the Enterprise yesterday. --["Users/GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-13 22:07:26'' [[nbsp]] It must be tough being a police officer. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. You guys are probably the same people who complain that there is never a police officer around when you need one. Yet, when the police do their job you complain they should stay out of your business. A hit and run occured whether or not restitution was paid. Just because this rich girl was able to pay for the damages she caused does not mean she did not commit a crime. A crime still occured. Please reserve your judgment until both sides of the case are heard. I know more about this case then I can say at this point, but I can tell you that there is very strong evidence that this "honor student" is lying through her teeth. --["Users/NancyGrisby"]<br> + <br> + ''This supposition without evidence isn't very helpful to anyone, rather it is simply demeaning to the student. Agreed on the police point though; they must respect the established laws while striving to maintain law and order at the same time.'' --TR<br> + <br> + What other side can there be when the only two parties involved (the Buzayans and Adrienne Wohof) both consider the matter settled to their satisfaction? --["Users/KenjiYamada"]<br> + <br> + In the words of Melville..."Ah, my dear fellow, you can't fool us that way- you can't fool us. It is the easiest thing in the world for a man to look as if he had a great secret in him." It must be tough being a police officer in Davis, what with virtually no real crime and no way to use all that training and equipment.--["Users/GrumpyOldGeek"]<br> + <br> + ''Well, that depends on what you do and what you don’t. If you are a police officer and you “do” abuse your authorities and taxpayers resources that are entrusted to you, then you should be damned. And if you “don’t” use your authorities and taxpayers resources that are entrusted to you to do your job in enforcing law and maintaining order then you should be damned.<br> + <br> + “a hit and run occurred whether or not restitution was paid”, “a crime still occurred”, “<br> + .does not mean that she did not commit a crime.”, “I know more about this case then I can say<br> + <br> + <br> + .there is very strong evidence that<br> + .is lying through her teeth.” Can you tell me specifically, with no need to get into details, which of the case documents did you see to come to these conclusions including your judgment that “the honor” student committed a “crime”. From Dan Noyes reports there is not a single person that was involved in the case testified that he or she saw a hit and run. The so-called witnesses stated clearly in their statements to your “cop of the year” that there was no physical contact between the two cars (review Dan Noyes reports linked above). Also a registered mechanical engineer and a reputable expert on car collisions wrote his report testifying that the damages on the two cars don’t match (review Dan Noyes reports linked above). Well, I don’t have as much access to evidences about this case as you seem to have, but if what you know is as critical as you claim it to be then please bring it out so at least I can make sure that I stand on the right side of the issue. From what I know though, it is a clear-cut case.<br> + <br> + As for the girl being rich, that does not have anything to do with the case what so ever. You do not need to be rich to pay 870 dollars of restitution, as a matter of fact, all what you need is to be a law obeying driver that carries the minimum liability insurance required by the law. What takes a lot of money and courage though, is to refuse diversion and to choose to fight for your constitutional rights even when your opponents are as powerful as the city and the county in which you live.''--["Users/AnisSury"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-17 08:25:15'' [[nbsp]] New Girl makes allegations against Officer Ly but does not file complaint, takes diversion, and will not sue. Just wanted to get her story out: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&amp;id=4089871 --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-17 11:22:14'' [[nbsp]] THE JUDGE HAS DROPPED THE CASE! --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]<br> + ------<br> + By "The Case", Mr. Greenwald means the Judge has dismissed the case against Ms. Buzayan. The case filed by her family against the police is still going. Please start your rhetorical ownage of the DPD below:[[BR]]<br> + (--["Users/BrentLaabs"])<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-17 18:06:26'' [[nbsp]] See ["Juvenile Justice System"] --["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-17 18:22:42'' [[nbsp]] KGO Story: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&amp;id=4090553 --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-18 10:31:51'' [[nbsp]] Does someone happen to know the case # of either the original hit &amp; run case or the case now against Ly? --also the comments to this page are out of control and in extreme need of refactoring. --["Users/KrisFricke"]<br> + * I would urge restraint in any reformatting of this page. There's lots of twists and turns and I'd prefer a little confusion to a rewrite of history --["Users/GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> + * Refactoring involves moving comments into a more orderly fashion, not rewriting them. Unless one moved comments at random I don't see how it could damage the editorial intent and/or "rewrite history" - ["Users/KrisFricke"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-20 16:31:05'' [[nbsp]] FOR MORE INFORMATION ON OFFICER PHENG LY, PLEASE VISIT [http://www.officerly.com/ WWW.OFFICERLY.COM]. I URGE EVERYONE TO HOLD JUDGEMENT UNTIL BOTH SIDES OF THE CASE HAS BEEN HEARD. THANK YOU! --["Users/NancyGrisby"]<br> + * ''2006-04-20 16:46:56'' [[nbsp]] I think its a bad sign when an police officer needs an entire website to himself to support the claim that he is human. --["Users/JamesSchwab"]<br> + *''2006-04-20 17:06:44'' [[nbsp]] James, I think it is a bad sign when a whole blog is dedicated to defaming a great officer, especially by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about. Talk about racism...wonder if the criticism would still be as loud had Officer Ly been white in predominantly white Davis. --["Users/NancyGrisby"]<br> + * Before I start, Nancy, I would like to point out that '''I''' was editing this page. You need to wait when someone else is editing the page. Please be courteous. Second, officer Ly, as far as I can tell from his pictures, ''is'' white. He is not however, Caucasian. Actually, it isn't even worth talking to you. I can see that you are completely biased towards Officer Ly's point of view. Now I have to attend an ["ASUCD"] meeting, which is higher in my list of priorities than this. So, for future reference, '''wait when someone else is editing the page!!''' --TR<br> + * ''206-04-20 20:47'' It might also be nice to know why officer Ly couldn't just put up a page on daviswiki.org instead of using a domain name registered in Nova Scotia with the administrative contact cloaked.--["Users/GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> + * ''2006-04-20 16:53:50'' [[nbsp]] From his website, it seems like he is dedicated to his job, has a nice family and many friends. However, this has nothing to do with whether he made errors or not on the job. It is interesting to note (from his website) that he has recently been selected to field train all of DPD's new hires. --["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> + * ''2006-04-20 17:08:30'' [[nbsp]] Sharla, have you ever been a ride along with Office Ly? Have you personally seen him on a daily basis doing his job? Then be quiet. His colleagues will vouch for him, and that is a great sign of respect. --["Users/NancyGrisby"]<br> + * ''2006-04-20 17:38:19'' [[nbsp]] Nancy, Please see [http://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Ethics Wiki Ethics] --["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> + * I believe Sharla was stating the obvious, there was no need to personally attack her. --TR<br> + * ''206-04-20 19:17:00'' NancyGrigsby, you made the statement earlier that "I can tell you that there is very strong evidence that this "honor student" is lying through her teeth." Assuming for a moment that the statement is true, then I have to suspect that you had access to confidential police documents and/or information and that you knowingly disclosed a portion of that information to the media.--["Users/GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> + * Nancy's edits have all come from somewhere on the Sac State campus. It seems unlikely that this person works for the Yolo County Courts or the Davis PD. Any evidence he/she has that isn't public knowledge probably came from somewhere else. Perhaps Nancy is really Ly's brother that attends Sac State?--["Users/WilliamLewis"]<br> + * Nonetheless, if someone within the department had knowledge of the information and gave it to her, that would still be, minimally, a breach of ethics. I am not a lawyer so I can't speak for the legal implications, but I'd like to know what they are. On the other hand, if NancyGrisby's comment were untrue then it wouldn't be a breach of ethics. (Grumpyoldgeek smacks his head) Or would it? --["Users/GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-20 20:05:18'' [[nbsp]] Wow. This is getting really intense. I find it so strange seeing this happen to someone I know.. especially Halema. I see her in the Drama room everyday, and I would really have to say, In response to the comments left about the validity and truthfulness of Halema's story are entirely false, and show that those who made them have obviously never met her. Sorry about the bad grammar, if there is any.. --["Users/JulienBiewerElstob"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-21 00:45:18'' [[nbsp]]Commenting on the case dismissal based on “civil compromise”, to me, the out come means three things<br> + <br> + 1) Halema is innocent, that is a fact. I do not have any kind of legal experience, but I believe that this fact is based on Halema’s very basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Before the judge had dismissed, Halema was a suspect but she was never guilty, however, now that the judge has dismissed, Halema is innocent PERIOD. People who still try to cast doubts on her innocence are, in my opinion, in a way disputing her basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.<br> + <br> + 2) The dismissal was based on civil compromise. That means that the judge determined that the government had no business interfering in this case beyond the point where the police had facilitated the exchange of information.<br> + <br> + 3) By his dismissal of the charges against Halema, the judge neither exonerated nor convicted the police, city officials, and/or DA. That is simply because none of these public officials was on trial, therefore, exonerating them or convicting them was beyond the scope of the court in that session. However if the Buzyans decide to file civil lawsuits or criminal charges against these public employees for any reason such as constitutional violations, law violations, or any other misconducts or criminal activities, then these public employees will be on trial, and only the outcome of their trial is what is going to determine whether or not they are guilty as charged.<br> + <br> + Picking up from comment number 3 and reflecting back on comment number 1 above, my guess would be that if Halema is entitled to the basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty, then the public employees should be entitled to it as well. However, regardless of any court ruling and aside from the matter of innocence and guilt, “public employees” bear an additional burden of providing good explanations and justifications to the public when authorities and money are used in controversial ways. In this “fender bender” issue, the continuous failure from the part of the involved public officials in communicating with the public in a convincing and transparent manner is one of the major factors that drove the public concerns to become so serious, and drove the public comments to be so critical.--["Users/AnisSury"]<br> + * The statement "innocent until proven guilty" isn't a basic human right. It is the status attributed to suspects on trial in the United States. Indeed, in some other countries it is the reverse: guilty until proven innocent. --Tushar<br> + * Tushar, please review Article 11 under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted and proclaimed by the UN General Assembly resolution 217 A(III) of 10 Dec 1984. ---["Users/AnisSury"]<br> + * I see. Interesting how our own country violates most of the Articles set forth in said resolution. Specifically Articles 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 23, 28 and 30. Also, I don't think you can put a formal definition on "human rights" because that requires assumption and agreement, and you can never have absolute agreement. --["Users/TusharRawat" Tushar]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-05-02 16:12:34'' [[nbsp]] Is there still a gag order on this case? I'm just curious. If there is, can Officer Pheng Ly still have a website defending himself and his actions. The website is www.officerly.com. Oh, by the way, NancyGrisby is really Officer Pheng Ly's sister named Nancy Ly. She's hiding her identity and is defending her brother. I received some emails from people in Sacramento that Nancy is trying to rally up her community to support her brother on May 2nd at the Davis City Council meeting. My understanding is that their Hmong commuinty doesn't support them because they feel it's not about racism but about an individual who violated another citizens rights. --["Users/PattyShire"]<br> + * That just lowers her credibility even further. You don't defend someone by hiding. Good for the Hmong community, they have the right mindset. --["Users/TusharRawat" TR]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-05-09 09:14:58'' [[nbsp]] Per Officer Ly's letter to the Editor - Cal Aggie 5/9/06, the tapes that were posted on the Davis Enterprise website were removed at the request of the family. We need to remove confidential information that was posted here as a result of the release of the tapes, I believe. --["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-05-09 10:05:27'' [[nbsp]] question --["Users/BrendaRodgers"] I'm confused about the confidentiality issue. If the parents willingly went to the media (Their daughter's name and face were shown on TV) why are they now seeking confidentiality? I'm not being argumentative, I'm really wondering.<br> + <br> + --------------------<br> + Brenda, Please see the discussion re: juvenile confidentiality that I've moved here from another page. Also see [http://www.daviswiki.org/Juvenile_Justice_System Juvenile Justice System] - specifically "Local Rules" of the Yolo County Court. ["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> + <br> + '''Discussion:'''<br> + <br> + ''2006-04-29 01:47:26'' [[nbsp]] I read the information (["Users/DavisPublicServant"]) posted on the Halema page (See [http://www.daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan/Yolo_County_DA%27s_Office Halema Buzayan / Yolo County DA]) and also listened to the police tapes on the Davis Enterprise. I understood that Judge Warriner had ordered that the adults involved in Halema's case were to follow the law regarding juvenile confidentiality. Can the Yolo County DA's office decide on its own that these laws no longer apply to a particular juvenile? What's to keep this from happening to other kids in Davis? --["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-29 01:49:08'' [[nbsp]] Maybe we should now remove the Halema page or at least edit out all reference to her identity. --["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-29 08:31:50'' [[nbsp]] I believe that Halema and her family waived their right to confidentiality. --["Users/WilliamLewis"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-29 08:55:41'' [[nbsp]] I don't believe a parent can waive that right for their child and the Court ordered that the Defense and the DAs office were to follow the confidentiallity laws. Juvenile files are not to be even acknowledged. This does not bode well for juveniles in Yolo County. I think that they should rotate out the DAs assigned to juvenile cases and reassign them to adult criminal cases where confidentially is not something that needs to be grasped. --["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-29 15:43:13'' [[nbsp]] I'd imagine that parents, since they legally represent their children, and that children have no legal rights (short of against abuse and other direct criminal acts) against their parents unless "emancipated" (that is to say, given their own legal identity), are wholly qualified to waive confidentiality rights on behalf of their children. Furthermore, if the parents weren't of the same party (ie representing their children fully), THEY would not have access to the confidential files either. Suffice to say, I would say unless someone cites something authoritative that says otherwise it is not safe to fiat "I don't believe a parent can waive that right." --["Users/KrisFricke"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-29 18:43:37'' [[nbsp]] Even if the parents give their permission for the release of information, Juvenile Court has to approve it. There is a process. See [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=3607458072+0+0+0&amp;WAISaction=retrieve California Code - Welfare and Institutions Code Section 825-830.1] Releasing confidential juvenile information to others not on a very specific list and for very specific purposes is a misdeameanor. From what I read in the paper, the DDA made a request to be allowed to release information about the case and it was denied by Judge Warriner. The order was for everyone to follow juvenile confidentiality laws. Information that the DDA released is extremely confidential and, it is assumed, damaging to the child, including the juvenile's birth date, where she goes to school, her drivers license number, description, names and birth dates of her 3 siblings. Why the DDA did this, I can't fathom. Essentially, she is asking the community to become a huge "police oversight" body. Or, maybe the DDA just disagrees with the Judge's adjudication and hopes that this will result in something that approximates her sense of justice in this matter. That is something to think about --["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> + I can't access the link provided but this is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard! So parents can't release confidential information about a child but somehow if the government asks a public school for possible military candidates the school must release such information?<br> + * I am not referring to the parents or the juvenile releasing information. The District Attorney did. The child and her parents can do anything they want, but the Officers of the Court cannot. What is so dumb about that? Here's the website to find the code: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Search for "Juvenile confidential" under Welfare and Institutions Code. Look for Section 825-830.1 - ["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> + * Oh, wow. My bad. I completely agree with you on that. I must have read it wrong or something... sorry. --["Users/TusharRawat" TR]<br> + * Hey I just read sections 825-830.1 and I didn't see anything that answers the specific question at hand -- could you provide a more specific citation? Also, as per your restatement above "''I am not referring ... The District Attorney did.''" I think that mischaracterizes the subject at hand, as the subject is the parents or juvenile authorizing the DA to release information, which essentially is in fact essentially equal to ''the parents or the juvenile releasing information''. -["Users/KrisFricke"]<br> + * See section 827.9. It is not clear that the DDA petitioned the Court to release confidential juvenile police records to the Davis Enterprise and received authorization from the Court after an objection period prior to doing so. The DA/Halema page says "Yolo County District Attorney’s Office has determined that...the office can now talk about the facts of the case with the public." I don't think that the DA's Office has the power to go against a Court Order to follow juvenile confidentiality laws, regardless of whether they anticipate an objection from the parents or not. I am not trying to divert attention from the issue of whether Officer Ly acted in good faith or not. As a parent, I am just alarmed that the DDA can release very personal information about a juvenile without permission from the Court. This is really important. I don't think the DDA has followed the law here. If they release the information to the juvenile and she released it to the press, that would be different, much as I find that equally alarming. -["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> + *Sharla, you are correct. First, the family always has the right to release any information they want. The laws are set up to protect the juveniles, not to protect the police (note that was in one of the KGO reports from their legal correspondent. Second, the DA was not released from this agreement when the case was dismissed and in fact, there is a possibility the family could file for sanctions. They are most concerned with the fact that the DA's office apparently never removed personal information such as phone numbers, birth dates of minors, driver's license numbers, etc. from the family from the tapes. That's a serious breach of privacy.-["Users/HenryBianco"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-05-12 23:14:22'' [[nbsp]] Contrary to what has been suggested, the family's side has not been publicly presented. The family's lawyers have declined to provide specific responses to Pheng Ly and the District Attorney's comments, on the grounds that the judge has not given them permision to do so. --["Users/LawJuvi"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-06-13 16:30:42'' [[nbsp]] In September 2003 I wrote to Police Chief Hyde congratulating him on being named to his new position and I told him I hoped he would clean up the Davis Police Department. As someone coming in from outside the organization, I hoped he would make some positive changes and get rid of some of the individuals who did not measure up.<br> + The “Hit and Run” case demonstrates that Mr. Hyde has done very little to improve the performance of his staff. The fundamental problems are-<br> + there is too much dishonesty coming out of the department<br> + there appears to be no review of the officer actions,<br> + supervision is sorely lacking and<br> + there is an obvious tendency to bully young people.<br> + The complaint, described above,mentions Officer Ly’s “bizarre conspiracy theory”. This is not the first time Davis Police Officers have arrived at bizarre conclusions – they dream these things up and no one up the chain of command bothers to determine if the conclusions make any sense. --["Users/SteveHayes"]<br> + ------<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-07-19 19:55:33'' [[nbsp]] Federal civil rights law suit filed last week. Actually only the first part of it. --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2008-09-11 00:13:17'' [[nbsp]] ["3 Degrees of Davis" Welcome To Davis] --["Users/StevenDaubert"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2010-03-26 00:52:50'' [[nbsp]] Why did Officer Ly feel the need to create a personal website to defend himself? This doesn't speak "professionalism" to me, why should he be ashamed/need to explain anything if he simply "did his job." That should be enough. This whole situation is very upsetting. --["Users/ArianeMetz"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2010-06-08 09:58:32JabberWokkyPage deleted (Deleting unprovable allegations of racism, as per DonShor's guideline.) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Halema Buzayan, a ["Davis Senior High School"] Honor Student and President of her school's Muslim Student Association (MSA), is a central figure in a June 2005 [http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&amp;id=4000500 incident] that was finally covered by the media in March 2006.<br> - <br> - It has been alleged that the ["Davis Police Department"] and ["Yolo County District Attorney"] pursued the case far beyond normal due to the fact that Buzayan is a Muslim. She was arrested for an automobile accident that she was allegedly involved in, after her family had agreed to pay damages to the other driver. Dean Johnson, a former San Mateo County prosecutor and legal analyst for ABC 7, alleged that the Davis Police overstepped their bounds in the following three ways:<br> - <br> - * The police violated Halema's constitutional rights by entering the home without saying they were there for an arrest.<br> - * They treated the girl as if she were an adult accused of a felony.<br> - * The police violated their own policy against filing criminal charges in a minor hit and run, if it's been settled civilly.<br> - <br> - Another possible point not brought up by Johnson is that the media did not cover the most serious charges, which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of her Miranda Rights and denial of the right to an attorney.<br> - <br> - The case was dismissed by the ["Yolo County Superior Court"] on April 17, 2006. In June 2006, the family filed a claim of unlawful arrest and several other allegations against the city and district attorney. The full text of the claim can be found at: [http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2006/06/davis_hit_run_d.html ABC News].<br> - <br> - On November 3, 2006, the Buzayan family, filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Davis, the Davis Police Department, the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office, The Davis Enterprise and individual members of each organization. In its lawsuit, the family is claiming intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress stemming from Halema’s arrest, prosecution and the subsequent attention from the Davis City Council and reporting in The Davis Enterprise [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2006/12/10/news/021new1.txt click for story].<br> - <br> - In June 2006, the lawsuit against the Davis Enterprise was dismissed under California's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. Since the Enterprise had acquired the tapes of the police interviews of the juvenile legally the Court determined that it was not liable for posting the recordings on the newspaper website. [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/06/27/news/190new2.txt click for story]<br> - <br> - == Different Accounts ==<br> - <br> - * The ["/I-Team Investigation" KGO I-Team Investigation] report<br> - * ["/Annis Sury" Another account by Annis Sury]<br> - * A post dismissal information release by the ["/Yolo County DA's Office" Yolo County DA's Office]<br> - * ["/PORAC" Peace Officer’s Research Association of California]<br> - <br> - == Public Comments ==<br> - * ["/Police Chief Jim Hyde" Police Chief Jim Hyde's] comments early on in the case<br> - <br> - == Involved Persons ==<br> - <br> - * ["Davis Police Department"]<br> - * ["Dave Henderson"] -- Yolo County district attorney, pressing charges<br> - * ["Ruth Asmundson"] -- Mayor, commented on the case<br> - * Officer ["Pheng Ly"] -- Arresting Officer. See also [http://www.officerly.com/ his website]<br> - * [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2006/05/09/Opinion/Letters.To.The.Editor-1923347.shtml?sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com&amp;MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com Letter to the Editor from Officer Ly - Cal Aggie 5/9/06]<br> - <br> - == Media Coverage ==<br> - * [http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/v-print/story/14234344p-15055948c.html Sac Bee 3/24/06]<br> - * [http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/14236753p-15057654c.html Sac Bee Editorial 3/30/06]<br> - * [http://www.sacbee.com/content/community_news/yolo/story/14237199p-15057982c.html Sac Bee 3/31/06]<br> - * [http://www.sacbee.com/content/community_news/yolo/story/14239694p-15059700c.html Sac Bee 4/06/06]<br> - * [http://www.sacbee.com/content/breakingnews/story/14244354p-15062890c.html Sac Bee 4/17/06 Charges Dropped Against Muslim Teenager]<br> - * [http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&amp;id=4013294 KGO]<br> - * [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2006/12/10/news/021new1.txt Davis Enterprise 12/12/06]<br> - * [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/06/27/news/190new2.txt Davis Enterprise 6/27/07]<br> - <br> - [[Comments]]<br> - <br> - So far only the Buzayan family's side has been publicly presented. The police cannot comment on the situation because of the lawsuit and pending court trial. ["EMOSNAIL"] operatives have confirmed that there is a [http://emosnail.livejournal.com/218115.html gag order] in effect on this case.-- ["Users/KrisFricke"]<br> - * ''Is the city council held to the same legal bindings?''-- Someone Else<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-03-23 10:06:32'' [[nbsp]] It is sad that a sixteen year old girl has to have a wiki page made about her over this topic. This case is going to get real messy (and maybe expensive). I brought it up at the city council candidate's forum this last Monday and there were a lot of people in the audience that had no idea what I was talking about because the local press has ignored it. I'm sure ["The California Aggie" the Aggie] will do something with it, come the beginning of the spring quarter, because they are a lot less biased than the ["The Davis Enterprise" Enterprise]. --["Users/RobRoy"]<br> - I don't know about "less biased" but certainly differently biased! I try to read both papers so I can get more sides of a story. :) --["Users/CindySperry"]<br> - <br> - There's usually more than two sides to a story. Truth is closer to a dodecahedron. But yeah, I had no clue this was going on before the Wiki. --["Users/JesseSingh"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-03-23 13:48:18'' [[nbsp]] Can anyone fill in those dates so we can get a clearer picture of how it happened? Also, does anyone know what cause it to suddenly be propelled back in the media this past week? I'm guessing because of the hearing this Friday. --["Users/AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-03-23 13:59:32'' [[nbsp]] Well, it hit the media in the bay area, not locally. However, the filing of the lawsuit and release of the tapes of the officer talking could be the cause. --["Users/JamesSchwab"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-03-23 14:01:38'' [[nbsp]] Officer Ly once gave ["Users/KristyHeidenberger" Kristy] a ticket for an illegal u-turn - she had in fact made an illegal u-turn, but Ly wrote down on the ticket that her car was the wrong colour, and that it all occured at an intersection a block or two away. So thats all I have to say about Officer Ly. What is Buzayan actually charged with anyway? --["Users/KrisFricke"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-03-23 14:38:00'' [[nbsp]] I think she is charged with hit and run. --["Users/AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"]<br> - --------<br> - ''2006-03-27 09:33:53'' [[nbsp]] Both Mayor Asmundson in the KGO story as well as Councilmember Souza in the March 24th Sacramento Bee article "Davis prosecution sparks bias claim"(Metero Section, B1 and B5) have supported the police on this issue. --["Users/JamesSchwab"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-03-28 12:05:06'' [[nbsp]] First of all, some of the sense of racism charges have to do with the nature of some of the comments that Officer Ly makes to himself. Secondly, the news media has made much of the story about the arrest which is a bit baffling because I have seen both cars and not only does the height of the vehicles not line up, but the damage doesn't match. Now normally the law is that once damages (civil) are accepted by the victim, legal action is not allowed. That did not happen here. Third, the victim herself in this case is outraged. Finally, the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney. --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-03-30 15:55:27'' [[nbsp]] This outrageous: Page A9 of the Davis Enterprise shows a picture of Jim Hyde congratulating Pheng Ly who received the David PD's Officer of the Year award on Tuesday. Ly is the cop being implicated in Buzayan case. --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-03 22:36:58'' [[nbsp]] Today, after 10 months since the incident took place, 7 court sessions, God knows how many hours of work from city personnel, yolo county personnel, and "understaffed" Davis police department officers, and after thousands of dollars (I hope not millions) of tax payers' money this issue has not been resolved yet. As a matter of fact Halema's trial hasn't even been started yet. So far, all that has been done in court is submition and discussion of motions, which brings up the following questions:<br> - <br> - 1. How much longer time will it take and how much more of tax payers money will be spent before this case is over?.<br> - 2. What are the residents of Yolo county and those of the city of Davis gaining from spending all this money and efforts when we know that even if the judge rules that Halema is guilty she will not be paying the so called victim a single penny more on top of what her parents had already paid before the charges were even filed?.<br> - 3. Why are thousands of tax payers' money are being spent on a case that Mr. Buzayan resovled 10 months ago with only 870 Dollars?.<br> - <br> - If this is the way all hit-and-run cases are handeled, both the Yolo county and the city of Davis will go bankrupt just after a hand full of similar cases. What money do they save to investigate, prosecute, and try bank roberries, burglaries, homicides, drive-by-shootings, and other criminal activities that are more serious than a minor misdemeanor such as a hit-and-run. How about using tax payers' money for other important issues such as schools, healthcare, water resources, environment, flood protection, affordable housing, etc. In conclusion, I strongly believe that since the damages were paid for to the satisfaction of the so called victim, the charges should be dropped immdediately so that no more tax payers' money will be wasted on this case and a better chance will be given for spending on just causes. -["Users/AnisSury"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-07 18:57:28'' [[nbsp]] I think the police certainly acted inappropriately here, but I don't see any reason to conclude that it has anything to do with the family being Arab. To assume so anyway, and for the Arab Council to become involved, will only exacerbate side issues that shouldn't exist in the first place. I think that the real explanation for this is that some people in Davis want to have an incident of police brutality so they can feel outraged, and they think this is it. I think the real solution is to have a smaller police department that doesn't have time for stuff like this instead of a police review board. This way the same problem is solved with less people and a smaller government.<br> - <br> - ["Users/AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"] says below, "Davis cops have a history of making work for themselves where none exists", and the solution to this is reduce the police department so they are busier with real work. There wasn't just one "mistake" here, this was the police repeatedly pursuing this case after it had been resolved civilly and there was not any life or property at risk. Is that what a police force that is too busy would do? Ultimately, treating people badly wastes more time for the police than it will benefit them and they will realize this sooner with a smaller department.<br> - <br> - I don't think the city council, city manager, and city lawyer care one way or the other except for however can make the least trouble for them. So I think that if they treat the Buzayan family badly, it is because they are trying to cover for the police department just because they think that will be easier than fixing it. That may or may not be true, but I suspect it comes down to just what they, maybe arrogantly as you say, think is easiest and most convenient. As for the police, you are right that the family may have been personally targeted, but that could be for lots of reasons (and I am not saying there are good reasons). Maybe Officer Ly has a grudge with the family. I don't know, but I really don't want to assume that it is racism or a similarly broad-based discrimination. I think it would be a very bad idea to jump to conclusions about that and if it ever becomes explicit it will look that much more ridiculous. -["Users/NickSchmalenberger"]<br> - <br> - * The main reasons to think so, as far as I can see, are a) that there don't seem to be any other reasons why the police would pursue this case, let alone pursue it so aggressively, and b) the arresting officer (Ly) 's comments about Halema Buzayan and her mother's head scarves. --["Users/KenjiYamada"]<br> - <br> - * Racism could definitely be a factor, and it doesn't matter what the police new before the investigation: take for example racial profiling data. A survery of the CHP found that their was no real disparity in how the CHP pulled over different ethinicities, the disparity occurred in the punishment that was given out. Blacks and latinos were more likely to receive tickets and have their property towed. The investigation was not inappropriate it was everything that happened after the act. -["Users/JamesSchwab"]<br> - <br> - * So because an incident of police misconduct occurs, it only occured in a vacuum with no externalities and because people wanted it to happen? That makes sense. --["Users/JamesSchwab"]<br> - * What is that better solution? --["Users/KenjiYamada"]<br> - * Less police. -["Users/NickSchmalenberger"]<br> - * An inflated size of police department could be a budget issue, if city officials determine so, but I don't think it would lead to repetitive misconduct. I believe that Regardless of the size of the police deparment, absolute authority and lack of accountability is what makes police officers cross their boundries. On your doubts of it being a case of discrimination, May be it is not a case of discirimatnion against muslims in particular. May be it is one of the cases of discrimination against any one outside the "norm", as Mr.["Users/AbdolhosseinEdalati"] put it below, which does not make it any less worthy of public attention and call for correction. As far as the NCA involvement, The ["The National Council of Arab Americans" NCA] is an Arab American organization and not a Muslim American organization. That means the NCA is interested in issues concerning all Arab Americans including muslims, christians, Atheists, and all other colors of the spectrum. I don't understand how would their involvement "exacerbat side issues that should not exit in the first place". If you would please give examples of such side issues that could be exacerbated by NCA's involvement. and also please give examples of past cases where NCA's involvement exacerbated side issues that should not exist. Personally, I don't know about NCA except from what I read on their website and from what I heard in today's meeting. --["Users/AnisSury"]<br> - * This is an absurd argument. If anything, less police will make the police more likely not less likely to make mistakes. They are spread too thin as it is. They are unable to adequately respond right now. We really need to hire more police for the load that they have to bear. Decreasing the number would mean more stress, more anxiety, less rest, which will increase frustration and the number of mistakes that are made. I really wish people would think their solutions through. --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]<br> - * The NCA just got involved yesterday where the issue has been going for 10 months. Jamal gave the police department and the city of Davis many chances to correct their mistakes through contacting the chief of police, the city council, and the city manager through their own self correcting procedures. They were so arrogant and ignored his complaints. also the city lawyer theatened him in one of the meetings, as jamal explained during yesterdays meeting. That means, the arresting officer, the chief of police, the city manager, and city council are all involved (according to your argument all of these guys have nothing more important to do except to creat work for themselves by harressing tax paying residents of the city of Davis. I am not arguing on this issue). To go back to the discrimination issue, and given the above, it is the police department's reponsibility now to explain to every one why are they treating the Buzayans this way. The police department used a totally different procedure with the Buzayans than what their standard procedure lays out, therefore, they must come up with good reasons for why they did that in order for me not to believe that Jamal and his family are personally targeted. If the police department fails to come up with good reasons then, in an indirect way, the police department admits that Jamal and his family are personally targeted, and therefore it is a discrimination of some kind. I leave it up to them to pick up what basis of discrimination it is. Never the less, if there is doubts of discrimination on any basis, as there is many in this case, all civil society organizations that work to promote and protect civil rights can and should act including CAIR, NCA, NAACP,ACLU, and all the others to make sure that no discirimination is involved or to call for corrections if discrimination is proven to have taken place.--["Users/AnisSury"]<br> - * Nick, you have a good point there. However, the failure of coming up with good reasons from the part of the police department and the city officials over the last 10 months only strengthened doubts, made possibility of discrimination more believable to be valid, and made situtation worse. After reading your discussion above and thinking more about what has been going on, I could not recall that the Buzayans have ever claimed that they were discriminated against. Even in their civil litigations, they claimed violation of constitutional rights but they did not make any reference to any kind of discrimination. I do recall though, that they have been very consistant in demanding explanations from the city officials for what they have been subject to. Having said that, I still think that it is very appropriate for the NCA and CAIR to get involved at least to investigate possibilities, clear doubts, and lead their public bases to take the right stand. Until today, as far as I remember, neighter the NCA nor CAIR have made any statement with any references to discrimination claims.--["Users/AnisSury"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-07 22:46:45'' [[nbsp]] I do not think that this is an incident of racial profiling per se. Davis cops have a history of making work for themselves when none exists, but what Davis cops definitely need is some cultural sensitivity training. From personal experience I have seen how Davis police's lack of cultural sensitivity can exacerbate a normal, harmless situation. Sure if you have the talk and the walk of a white suburban resident you will be fine, but throw an immigrant, person of color, or even a young teenager and a little bit of misinterpretation and you get a nasty situation. They are inadept at handling such circustances. In fact, it seems that any profile outside the "norm" evokes Police paranoia and suspicioun as in this case. As if the Buzayan's were trying to pull the wool over the cops eyes by playing off the mother as the daughter...psh give me a break. --["Users/AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-08 19:20:52'' [[nbsp]] In the NCA emergency meeting that was held on Saturday April the 8th, and during his account of his experience with the ongoing criminal charges against his daughter, Jamal revealed to the meeting that in one of the 7 court appearances they had, the judge asked Patricia Fong, The DA deputy that is prosectuing Halema, "Why are you prosecuting this case?". "Your honor, we must convict Halema because she is suing the City of Davis" Patricia responded in front of every one in court.<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-08 21:50:15'' [[nbsp]] Anis: Good seeing you tonight at the meeting. Just want to add this is not the only time Patti Fong has said this. She said this back in either late January or early February. Right after Gonzalez-Leigh took over for Jamal. Whitney Leigh told me this back in early March before the gag order and he was just stunned at her audacity. --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]<br> - Thank you David. Now we have two people confirming that Patti Fong made that statement. I really hope that some serious investigations be conducted to uncover all facts surrounding this claim and hold all responsible people accountable regardless of their position. --["Users/AnisSury"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-12 22:36:03'' [[nbsp]] There was an [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2006/04/12/news/263new3.txt article] in the Enterprise yesterday. --["Users/GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-13 22:07:26'' [[nbsp]] It must be tough being a police officer. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. You guys are probably the same people who complain that there is never a police officer around when you need one. Yet, when the police do their job you complain they should stay out of your business. A hit and run occured whether or not restitution was paid. Just because this rich girl was able to pay for the damages she caused does not mean she did not commit a crime. A crime still occured. Please reserve your judgment until both sides of the case are heard. I know more about this case then I can say at this point, but I can tell you that there is very strong evidence that this "honor student" is lying through her teeth. --["Users/NancyGrisby"]<br> - <br> - ''This supposition without evidence isn't very helpful to anyone, rather it is simply demeaning to the student. Agreed on the police point though; they must respect the established laws while striving to maintain law and order at the same time.'' --TR<br> - <br> - What other side can there be when the only two parties involved (the Buzayans and Adrienne Wohof) both consider the matter settled to their satisfaction? --["Users/KenjiYamada"]<br> - <br> - In the words of Melville..."Ah, my dear fellow, you can't fool us that way- you can't fool us. It is the easiest thing in the world for a man to look as if he had a great secret in him." It must be tough being a police officer in Davis, what with virtually no real crime and no way to use all that training and equipment.--["Users/GrumpyOldGeek"]<br> - <br> - ''Well, that depends on what you do and what you don’t. If you are a police officer and you “do” abuse your authorities and taxpayers resources that are entrusted to you, then you should be damned. And if you “don’t” use your authorities and taxpayers resources that are entrusted to you to do your job in enforcing law and maintaining order then you should be damned.<br> - <br> - “a hit and run occurred whether or not restitution was paid”, “a crime still occurred”, “<br> - .does not mean that she did not commit a crime.”, “I know more about this case then I can say<br> - <br> - <br> - .there is very strong evidence that<br> - .is lying through her teeth.” Can you tell me specifically, with no need to get into details, which of the case documents did you see to come to these conclusions including your judgment that “the honor” student committed a “crime”. From Dan Noyes reports there is not a single person that was involved in the case testified that he or she saw a hit and run. The so-called witnesses stated clearly in their statements to your “cop of the year” that there was no physical contact between the two cars (review Dan Noyes reports linked above). Also a registered mechanical engineer and a reputable expert on car collisions wrote his report testifying that the damages on the two cars don’t match (review Dan Noyes reports linked above). Well, I don’t have as much access to evidences about this case as you seem to have, but if what you know is as critical as you claim it to be then please bring it out so at least I can make sure that I stand on the right side of the issue. From what I know though, it is a clear-cut case.<br> - <br> - As for the girl being rich, that does not have anything to do with the case what so ever. You do not need to be rich to pay 870 dollars of restitution, as a matter of fact, all what you need is to be a law obeying driver that carries the minimum liability insurance required by the law. What takes a lot of money and courage though, is to refuse diversion and to choose to fight for your constitutional rights even when your opponents are as powerful as the city and the county in which you live.''--["Users/AnisSury"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-17 08:25:15'' [[nbsp]] New Girl makes allegations against Officer Ly but does not file complaint, takes diversion, and will not sue. Just wanted to get her story out: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&amp;id=4089871 --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-17 11:22:14'' [[nbsp]] THE JUDGE HAS DROPPED THE CASE! --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]<br> - ------<br> - By "The Case", Mr. Greenwald means the Judge has dismissed the case against Ms. Buzayan. The case filed by her family against the police is still going. Please start your rhetorical ownage of the DPD below:[[BR]]<br> - (--["Users/BrentLaabs"])<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-17 18:06:26'' [[nbsp]] See ["Juvenile Justice System"] --["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-17 18:22:42'' [[nbsp]] KGO Story: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&amp;id=4090553 --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-18 10:31:51'' [[nbsp]] Does someone happen to know the case # of either the original hit &amp; run case or the case now against Ly? --also the comments to this page are out of control and in extreme need of refactoring. --["Users/KrisFricke"]<br> - * I would urge restraint in any reformatting of this page. There's lots of twists and turns and I'd prefer a little confusion to a rewrite of history --["Users/GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> - * Refactoring involves moving comments into a more orderly fashion, not rewriting them. Unless one moved comments at random I don't see how it could damage the editorial intent and/or "rewrite history" - ["Users/KrisFricke"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-20 16:31:05'' [[nbsp]] FOR MORE INFORMATION ON OFFICER PHENG LY, PLEASE VISIT [http://www.officerly.com/ WWW.OFFICERLY.COM]. I URGE EVERYONE TO HOLD JUDGEMENT UNTIL BOTH SIDES OF THE CASE HAS BEEN HEARD. THANK YOU! --["Users/NancyGrisby"]<br> - * ''2006-04-20 16:46:56'' [[nbsp]] I think its a bad sign when an police officer needs an entire website to himself to support the claim that he is human. --["Users/JamesSchwab"]<br> - *''2006-04-20 17:06:44'' [[nbsp]] James, I think it is a bad sign when a whole blog is dedicated to defaming a great officer, especially by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about. Talk about racism...wonder if the criticism would still be as loud had Officer Ly been white in predominantly white Davis. --["Users/NancyGrisby"]<br> - * Before I start, Nancy, I would like to point out that '''I''' was editing this page. You need to wait when someone else is editing the page. Please be courteous. Second, officer Ly, as far as I can tell from his pictures, ''is'' white. He is not however, Caucasian. Actually, it isn't even worth talking to you. I can see that you are completely biased towards Officer Ly's point of view. Now I have to attend an ["ASUCD"] meeting, which is higher in my list of priorities than this. So, for future reference, '''wait when someone else is editing the page!!''' --TR<br> - * ''206-04-20 20:47'' It might also be nice to know why officer Ly couldn't just put up a page on daviswiki.org instead of using a domain name registered in Nova Scotia with the administrative contact cloaked.--["Users/GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> - * ''2006-04-20 16:53:50'' [[nbsp]] From his website, it seems like he is dedicated to his job, has a nice family and many friends. However, this has nothing to do with whether he made errors or not on the job. It is interesting to note (from his website) that he has recently been selected to field train all of DPD's new hires. --["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> - * ''2006-04-20 17:08:30'' [[nbsp]] Sharla, have you ever been a ride along with Office Ly? Have you personally seen him on a daily basis doing his job? Then be quiet. His colleagues will vouch for him, and that is a great sign of respect. --["Users/NancyGrisby"]<br> - * ''2006-04-20 17:38:19'' [[nbsp]] Nancy, Please see [http://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Ethics Wiki Ethics] --["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> - * I believe Sharla was stating the obvious, there was no need to personally attack her. --TR<br> - * ''206-04-20 19:17:00'' NancyGrigsby, you made the statement earlier that "I can tell you that there is very strong evidence that this "honor student" is lying through her teeth." Assuming for a moment that the statement is true, then I have to suspect that you had access to confidential police documents and/or information and that you knowingly disclosed a portion of that information to the media.--["Users/GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> - * Nancy's edits have all come from somewhere on the Sac State campus. It seems unlikely that this person works for the Yolo County Courts or the Davis PD. Any evidence he/she has that isn't public knowledge probably came from somewhere else. Perhaps Nancy is really Ly's brother that attends Sac State?--["Users/WilliamLewis"]<br> - * Nonetheless, if someone within the department had knowledge of the information and gave it to her, that would still be, minimally, a breach of ethics. I am not a lawyer so I can't speak for the legal implications, but I'd like to know what they are. On the other hand, if NancyGrisby's comment were untrue then it wouldn't be a breach of ethics. (Grumpyoldgeek smacks his head) Or would it? --["Users/GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-20 20:05:18'' [[nbsp]] Wow. This is getting really intense. I find it so strange seeing this happen to someone I know.. especially Halema. I see her in the Drama room everyday, and I would really have to say, In response to the comments left about the validity and truthfulness of Halema's story are entirely false, and show that those who made them have obviously never met her. Sorry about the bad grammar, if there is any.. --["Users/JulienBiewerElstob"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-21 00:45:18'' [[nbsp]]Commenting on the case dismissal based on “civil compromise”, to me, the out come means three things<br> - <br> - 1) Halema is innocent, that is a fact. I do not have any kind of legal experience, but I believe that this fact is based on Halema’s very basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Before the judge had dismissed, Halema was a suspect but she was never guilty, however, now that the judge has dismissed, Halema is innocent PERIOD. People who still try to cast doubts on her innocence are, in my opinion, in a way disputing her basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.<br> - <br> - 2) The dismissal was based on civil compromise. That means that the judge determined that the government had no business interfering in this case beyond the point where the police had facilitated the exchange of information.<br> - <br> - 3) By his dismissal of the charges against Halema, the judge neither exonerated nor convicted the police, city officials, and/or DA. That is simply because none of these public officials was on trial, therefore, exonerating them or convicting them was beyond the scope of the court in that session. However if the Buzyans decide to file civil lawsuits or criminal charges against these public employees for any reason such as constitutional violations, law violations, or any other misconducts or criminal activities, then these public employees will be on trial, and only the outcome of their trial is what is going to determine whether or not they are guilty as charged.<br> - <br> - Picking up from comment number 3 and reflecting back on comment number 1 above, my guess would be that if Halema is entitled to the basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty, then the public employees should be entitled to it as well. However, regardless of any court ruling and aside from the matter of innocence and guilt, “public employees” bear an additional burden of providing good explanations and justifications to the public when authorities and money are used in controversial ways. In this “fender bender” issue, the continuous failure from the part of the involved public officials in communicating with the public in a convincing and transparent manner is one of the major factors that drove the public concerns to become so serious, and drove the public comments to be so critical.--["Users/AnisSury"]<br> - * The statement "innocent until proven guilty" isn't a basic human right. It is the status attributed to suspects on trial in the United States. Indeed, in some other countries it is the reverse: guilty until proven innocent. --Tushar<br> - * Tushar, please review Article 11 under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted and proclaimed by the UN General Assembly resolution 217 A(III) of 10 Dec 1984. ---["Users/AnisSury"]<br> - * I see. Interesting how our own country violates most of the Articles set forth in said resolution. Specifically Articles 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 23, 28 and 30. Also, I don't think you can put a formal definition on "human rights" because that requires assumption and agreement, and you can never have absolute agreement. --["Users/TusharRawat" Tushar]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-05-02 16:12:34'' [[nbsp]] Is there still a gag order on this case? I'm just curious. If there is, can Officer Pheng Ly still have a website defending himself and his actions. The website is www.officerly.com. Oh, by the way, NancyGrisby is really Officer Pheng Ly's sister named Nancy Ly. She's hiding her identity and is defending her brother. I received some emails from people in Sacramento that Nancy is trying to rally up her community to support her brother on May 2nd at the Davis City Council meeting. My understanding is that their Hmong commuinty doesn't support them because they feel it's not about racism but about an individual who violated another citizens rights. --["Users/PattyShire"]<br> - * That just lowers her credibility even further. You don't defend someone by hiding. Good for the Hmong community, they have the right mindset. --["Users/TusharRawat" TR]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-05-09 09:14:58'' [[nbsp]] Per Officer Ly's letter to the Editor - Cal Aggie 5/9/06, the tapes that were posted on the Davis Enterprise website were removed at the request of the family. We need to remove confidential information that was posted here as a result of the release of the tapes, I believe. --["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-05-09 10:05:27'' [[nbsp]] question --["Users/BrendaRodgers"] I'm confused about the confidentiality issue. If the parents willingly went to the media (Their daughter's name and face were shown on TV) why are they now seeking confidentiality? I'm not being argumentative, I'm really wondering.<br> - <br> - --------------------<br> - Brenda, Please see the discussion re: juvenile confidentiality that I've moved here from another page. Also see [http://www.daviswiki.org/Juvenile_Justice_System Juvenile Justice System] - specifically "Local Rules" of the Yolo County Court. ["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> - <br> - '''Discussion:'''<br> - <br> - ''2006-04-29 01:47:26'' [[nbsp]] I read the information (["Users/DavisPublicServant"]) posted on the Halema page (See [http://www.daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan/Yolo_County_DA%27s_Office Halema Buzayan / Yolo County DA]) and also listened to the police tapes on the Davis Enterprise. I understood that Judge Warriner had ordered that the adults involved in Halema's case were to follow the law regarding juvenile confidentiality. Can the Yolo County DA's office decide on its own that these laws no longer apply to a particular juvenile? What's to keep this from happening to other kids in Davis? --["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-29 01:49:08'' [[nbsp]] Maybe we should now remove the Halema page or at least edit out all reference to her identity. --["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-29 08:31:50'' [[nbsp]] I believe that Halema and her family waived their right to confidentiality. --["Users/WilliamLewis"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-29 08:55:41'' [[nbsp]] I don't believe a parent can waive that right for their child and the Court ordered that the Defense and the DAs office were to follow the confidentiallity laws. Juvenile files are not to be even acknowledged. This does not bode well for juveniles in Yolo County. I think that they should rotate out the DAs assigned to juvenile cases and reassign them to adult criminal cases where confidentially is not something that needs to be grasped. --["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-29 15:43:13'' [[nbsp]] I'd imagine that parents, since they legally represent their children, and that children have no legal rights (short of against abuse and other direct criminal acts) against their parents unless "emancipated" (that is to say, given their own legal identity), are wholly qualified to waive confidentiality rights on behalf of their children. Furthermore, if the parents weren't of the same party (ie representing their children fully), THEY would not have access to the confidential files either. Suffice to say, I would say unless someone cites something authoritative that says otherwise it is not safe to fiat "I don't believe a parent can waive that right." --["Users/KrisFricke"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-04-29 18:43:37'' [[nbsp]] Even if the parents give their permission for the release of information, Juvenile Court has to approve it. There is a process. See [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=3607458072+0+0+0&amp;WAISaction=retrieve California Code - Welfare and Institutions Code Section 825-830.1] Releasing confidential juvenile information to others not on a very specific list and for very specific purposes is a misdeameanor. From what I read in the paper, the DDA made a request to be allowed to release information about the case and it was denied by Judge Warriner. The order was for everyone to follow juvenile confidentiality laws. Information that the DDA released is extremely confidential and, it is assumed, damaging to the child, including the juvenile's birth date, where she goes to school, her drivers license number, description, names and birth dates of her 3 siblings. Why the DDA did this, I can't fathom. Essentially, she is asking the community to become a huge "police oversight" body. Or, maybe the DDA just disagrees with the Judge's adjudication and hopes that this will result in something that approximates her sense of justice in this matter. That is something to think about --["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> - I can't access the link provided but this is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard! So parents can't release confidential information about a child but somehow if the government asks a public school for possible military candidates the school must release such information?<br> - * I am not referring to the parents or the juvenile releasing information. The District Attorney did. The child and her parents can do anything they want, but the Officers of the Court cannot. What is so dumb about that? Here's the website to find the code: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Search for "Juvenile confidential" under Welfare and Institutions Code. Look for Section 825-830.1 - ["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> - * Oh, wow. My bad. I completely agree with you on that. I must have read it wrong or something... sorry. --["Users/TusharRawat" TR]<br> - * Hey I just read sections 825-830.1 and I didn't see anything that answers the specific question at hand -- could you provide a more specific citation? Also, as per your restatement above "''I am not referring ... The District Attorney did.''" I think that mischaracterizes the subject at hand, as the subject is the parents or juvenile authorizing the DA to release information, which essentially is in fact essentially equal to ''the parents or the juvenile releasing information''. -["Users/KrisFricke"]<br> - * See section 827.9. It is not clear that the DDA petitioned the Court to release confidential juvenile police records to the Davis Enterprise and received authorization from the Court after an objection period prior to doing so. The DA/Halema page says "Yolo County District Attorney’s Office has determined that...the office can now talk about the facts of the case with the public." I don't think that the DA's Office has the power to go against a Court Order to follow juvenile confidentiality laws, regardless of whether they anticipate an objection from the parents or not. I am not trying to divert attention from the issue of whether Officer Ly acted in good faith or not. As a parent, I am just alarmed that the DDA can release very personal information about a juvenile without permission from the Court. This is really important. I don't think the DDA has followed the law here. If they release the information to the juvenile and she released it to the press, that would be different, much as I find that equally alarming. -["Users/SharlaDaly"]<br> - *Sharla, you are correct. First, the family always has the right to release any information they want. The laws are set up to protect the juveniles, not to protect the police (note that was in one of the KGO reports from their legal correspondent. Second, the DA was not released from this agreement when the case was dismissed and in fact, there is a possibility the family could file for sanctions. They are most concerned with the fact that the DA's office apparently never removed personal information such as phone numbers, birth dates of minors, driver's license numbers, etc. from the family from the tapes. That's a serious breach of privacy.-["Users/HenryBianco"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-05-12 23:14:22'' [[nbsp]] Contrary to what has been suggested, the family's side has not been publicly presented. The family's lawyers have declined to provide specific responses to Pheng Ly and the District Attorney's comments, on the grounds that the judge has not given them permision to do so. --["Users/LawJuvi"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-06-13 16:30:42'' [[nbsp]] In September 2003 I wrote to Police Chief Hyde congratulating him on being named to his new position and I told him I hoped he would clean up the Davis Police Department. As someone coming in from outside the organization, I hoped he would make some positive changes and get rid of some of the individuals who did not measure up.<br> - The “Hit and Run” case demonstrates that Mr. Hyde has done very little to improve the performance of his staff. The fundamental problems are-<br> - there is too much dishonesty coming out of the department<br> - there appears to be no review of the officer actions,<br> - supervision is sorely lacking and<br> - there is an obvious tendency to bully young people.<br> - The complaint, described above,mentions Officer Ly’s “bizarre conspiracy theory”. This is not the first time Davis Police Officers have arrived at bizarre conclusions – they dream these things up and no one up the chain of command bothers to determine if the conclusions make any sense. --["Users/SteveHayes"]<br> - ------<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-07-19 19:55:33'' [[nbsp]] Federal civil rights law suit filed last week. Actually only the first part of it. --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2008-09-11 00:13:17'' [[nbsp]] ["3 Degrees of Davis" Welcome To Davis] --["Users/StevenDaubert"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-03-26 00:52:50'' [[nbsp]] Why did Officer Ly feel the need to create a personal website to defend himself? This doesn't speak "professionalism" to me, why should he be ashamed/need to explain anything if he simply "did his job." That should be enough. This whole situation is very upsetting. --["Users/ArianeMetz"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ deleted</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2010-03-26 00:52:50ArianeMetzComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 210: </td> <td> Line 210: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-03-26 00:52:50'' [[nbsp]] Why did Officer Ly feel the need to create a personal website to defend himself? This doesn't speak "professionalism" to me, why should he be ashamed/need to explain anything if he simply "did his job." That should be enough. This whole situation is very upsetting. --["Users/ArianeMetz"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2009-02-27 21:12:04JoePomidor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 3: </td> <td> Line 3: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> It has been alleged that the ["Davis Police Department"] and ["Yolo County District Attorney"] pursued the case far beyond normal due to the fact that Buzayan is a Muslim. She was arrested for an automobile accident that she was allegedly involved in, after her family had agreed to pay damages to the other driver. Dean Johnson, a former San Mateo County prosecutor and legal analyst for ABC 7, alle<span>d</span>ged that the Davis Police overstepped their bounds in the following three ways: </td> <td> <span>+</span> It has been alleged that the ["Davis Police Department"] and ["Yolo County District Attorney"] pursued the case far beyond normal due to the fact that Buzayan is a Muslim. She was arrested for an automobile accident that she was allegedly involved in, after her family had agreed to pay damages to the other driver. Dean Johnson, a former San Mateo County prosecutor and legal analyst for ABC 7, alleged that the Davis Police overstepped their bounds in the following three ways: </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2008-09-11 00:14:00StevenDaubertfix'd <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 209: </td> <td> Line 209: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2008-09-11 00:13:17'' [[nbsp]] ["Welcome To Davis<span>"</span>] --["Users/StevenDaubert"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2008-09-11 00:13:17'' [[nbsp]] ["<span>3 Degrees of Davis" </span>Welcome To Davis] --["Users/StevenDaubert"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2008-09-11 00:13:17StevenDaubertComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 208: </td> <td> Line 208: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2008-09-11 00:13:17'' [[nbsp]] ["Welcome To Davis"] --["Users/StevenDaubert"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2008-09-10 19:59:59JasonAllerlink fix <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 90: </td> <td> Line 90: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * An inflated size of police department could be a budget issue, if city officials determine so, but I don't think it would lead to repetitive misconduct. I believe that Regardless of the size of the police deparment, absolute authority and lack of accountability is what makes police officers cross their boundries. On your doubts of it being a case of discrimination, May be it is not a case of discirimatnion against muslims in particular. May be it is one of the cases of discrimination against any one outside the "norm", as Mr.["AbdolhosseinEdalati"] put it below, which does not make it any less worthy of public attention and call for correction. As far as the NCA involvement, The ["The National Council of Arab Americans" NCA] is an Arab American organization and not a Muslim American organization. That means the NCA is interested in issues concerning all Arab Americans including muslims, christians, Atheists, and all other colors of the spectrum. I don't understand how would their involvement "exacerbat side issues that should not exit in the first place". If you would please give examples of such side issues that could be exacerbated by NCA's involvement. and also please give examples of past cases where NCA's involvement exacerbated side issues that should not exist. Personally, I don't know about NCA except from what I read on their website and from what I heard in today's meeting. --["Users/AnisSury"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * An inflated size of police department could be a budget issue, if city officials determine so, but I don't think it would lead to repetitive misconduct. I believe that Regardless of the size of the police deparment, absolute authority and lack of accountability is what makes police officers cross their boundries. On your doubts of it being a case of discrimination, May be it is not a case of discirimatnion against muslims in particular. May be it is one of the cases of discrimination against any one outside the "norm", as Mr.["<span>Users/</span>AbdolhosseinEdalati"] put it below, which does not make it any less worthy of public attention and call for correction. As far as the NCA involvement, The ["The National Council of Arab Americans" NCA] is an Arab American organization and not a Muslim American organization. That means the NCA is interested in issues concerning all Arab Americans including muslims, christians, Atheists, and all other colors of the spectrum. I don't understand how would their involvement "exacerbat side issues that should not exit in the first place". If you would please give examples of such side issues that could be exacerbated by NCA's involvement. and also please give examples of past cases where NCA's involvement exacerbated side issues that should not exist. Personally, I don't know about NCA except from what I read on their website and from what I heard in today's meeting. --["Users/AnisSury"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 178: </td> <td> Line 178: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-29 01:47:26'' [[nbsp]] I read the information (["DavisPublicServant"]) posted on the Halema page (See [http://www.daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan/Yolo_County_DA%27s_Office Halema Buzayan / Yolo County DA]) and also listened to the police tapes on the Davis Enterprise. I understood that Judge Warriner had ordered that the adults involved in Halema's case were to follow the law regarding juvenile confidentiality. Can the Yolo County DA's office decide on its own that these laws no longer apply to a particular juvenile? What's to keep this from happening to other kids in Davis? --["Users/SharlaDaly"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-29 01:47:26'' [[nbsp]] I read the information (["<span>Users/</span>DavisPublicServant"]) posted on the Halema page (See [http://www.daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan/Yolo_County_DA%27s_Office Halema Buzayan / Yolo County DA]) and also listened to the police tapes on the Davis Enterprise. I understood that Judge Warriner had ordered that the adults involved in Halema's case were to follow the law regarding juvenile confidentiality. Can the Yolo County DA's office decide on its own that these laws no longer apply to a particular juvenile? What's to keep this from happening to other kids in Davis? --["Users/SharlaDaly"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2008-07-12 17:01:28JasonAllerlink fixes <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 46: </td> <td> Line 46: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ------</span><br> <span>-</span> So far only the Buzayan family's side has been publicly presented. The police cannot comment on the situation because of the lawsuit and pending court trial. ["EMOSNAIL"] operatives have confirmed that there is a [http://emosnail.livejournal.com/218115.html gag order] in effect on this case.-- ["KrisFricke"] </td> <td> <span>+ </span><br> <span>+</span> So far only the Buzayan family's side has been publicly presented. The police cannot comment on the situation because of the lawsuit and pending court trial. ["EMOSNAIL"] operatives have confirmed that there is a [http://emosnail.livejournal.com/218115.html gag order] in effect on this case.-- ["<span>Users/</span>KrisFricke"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 50: </td> <td> Line 50: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2006-03-23 10:06:32'' [[nbsp]] It is sad that a sixteen year old girl has to have a wiki page made about her over this topic. This case is going to get real messy (and maybe expensive). I brought it up at the city council candidate's forum this last Monday and there were a lot of people in the audience that had no idea what I was talking about because the local press has ignored it. I'm sure ["The California Aggie" the Aggie] will do something with it, come the beginning of the spring quarter, because they are a lot less biased than the ["The Davis Enterprise" Enterprise]. --["RobRoy"]<br> <span>-</span> I don't know about "less biased" but certainly differently biased! I try to read both papers so I can get more sides of a story. :) --["CindySperry"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> There's usually more than two sides to a story. Truth is closer to a dodecahedron. But yeah, I had no clue this was going on before the Wiki. --["JesseSingh"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-03-23 13:48:18'' [[nbsp]] Can anyone fill in those dates so we can get a clearer picture of how it happened? Also, does anyone know what cause it to suddenly be propelled back in the media this past week? I'm guessing because of the hearing this Friday. --["AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-03-23 13:59:32'' [[nbsp]] Well, it hit the media in the bay area, not locally. However, the filing of the lawsuit and release of the tapes of the officer talking could be the cause. --["JamesSchwab"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-03-23 14:01:38'' [[nbsp]] Officer Ly once gave ["KristyHeidenberger" Kristy] a ticket for an illegal u-turn - she had in fact made an illegal u-turn, but Ly wrote down on the ticket that her car was the wrong colour, and that it all occured at an intersection a block or two away. So thats all I have to say about Officer Ly. What is Buzayan actually charged with anyway? --["KrisFricke"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-03-23 14:38:00'' [[nbsp]] I think she is charged with hit and run. --["AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2006-03-23 10:06:32'' [[nbsp]] It is sad that a sixteen year old girl has to have a wiki page made about her over this topic. This case is going to get real messy (and maybe expensive). I brought it up at the city council candidate's forum this last Monday and there were a lot of people in the audience that had no idea what I was talking about because the local press has ignored it. I'm sure ["The California Aggie" the Aggie] will do something with it, come the beginning of the spring quarter, because they are a lot less biased than the ["The Davis Enterprise" Enterprise]. --["<span>Users/</span>RobRoy"]<br> <span>+</span> I don't know about "less biased" but certainly differently biased! I try to read both papers so I can get more sides of a story. :) --["<span>Users/</span>CindySperry"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> There's usually more than two sides to a story. Truth is closer to a dodecahedron. But yeah, I had no clue this was going on before the Wiki. --["<span>Users/</span>JesseSingh"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-03-23 13:48:18'' [[nbsp]] Can anyone fill in those dates so we can get a clearer picture of how it happened? Also, does anyone know what cause it to suddenly be propelled back in the media this past week? I'm guessing because of the hearing this Friday. --["<span>Users/</span>AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-03-23 13:59:32'' [[nbsp]] Well, it hit the media in the bay area, not locally. However, the filing of the lawsuit and release of the tapes of the officer talking could be the cause. --["<span>Users/</span>JamesSchwab"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-03-23 14:01:38'' [[nbsp]] Officer Ly once gave ["<span>Users/</span>KristyHeidenberger" Kristy] a ticket for an illegal u-turn - she had in fact made an illegal u-turn, but Ly wrote down on the ticket that her car was the wrong colour, and that it all occured at an intersection a block or two away. So thats all I have to say about Officer Ly. What is Buzayan actually charged with anyway? --["<span>Users/</span>KrisFricke"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-03-23 14:38:00'' [[nbsp]] I think she is charged with hit and run. --["<span>Users/</span>AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 63: </td> <td> Line 63: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2006-03-27 09:33:53'' [[nbsp]] Both Mayor Asmundson in the KGO story as well as Councilmember Souza in the March 24th Sacramento Bee article "Davis prosecution sparks bias claim"(Metero Section, B1 and B5) have supported the police on this issue. --["JamesSchwab"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-03-28 12:05:06'' [[nbsp]] First of all, some of the sense of racism charges have to do with the nature of some of the comments that Officer Ly makes to himself. Secondly, the news media has made much of the story about the arrest which is a bit baffling because I have seen both cars and not only does the height of the vehicles not line up, but the damage doesn't match. Now normally the law is that once damages (civil) are accepted by the victim, legal action is not allowed. That did not happen here. Third, the victim herself in this case is outraged. Finally, the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney. --["DavidGreenwald"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-03-30 15:55:27'' [[nbsp]] This outrageous: Page A9 of the Davis Enterprise shows a picture of Jim Hyde congratulating Pheng Ly who received the David PD's Officer of the Year award on Tuesday. Ly is the cop being implicated in Buzayan case. --["DavidGreenwald"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2006-03-27 09:33:53'' [[nbsp]] Both Mayor Asmundson in the KGO story as well as Councilmember Souza in the March 24th Sacramento Bee article "Davis prosecution sparks bias claim"(Metero Section, B1 and B5) have supported the police on this issue. --["<span>Users/</span>JamesSchwab"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-03-28 12:05:06'' [[nbsp]] First of all, some of the sense of racism charges have to do with the nature of some of the comments that Officer Ly makes to himself. Secondly, the news media has made much of the story about the arrest which is a bit baffling because I have seen both cars and not only does the height of the vehicles not line up, but the damage doesn't match. Now normally the law is that once damages (civil) are accepted by the victim, legal action is not allowed. That did not happen here. Third, the victim herself in this case is outraged. Finally, the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney. --["<span>Users/</span>DavidGreenwald"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-03-30 15:55:27'' [[nbsp]] This outrageous: Page A9 of the Davis Enterprise shows a picture of Jim Hyde congratulating Pheng Ly who received the David PD's Officer of the Year award on Tuesday. Ly is the cop being implicated in Buzayan case. --["<span>Users/</span>DavidGreenwald"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 75: </td> <td> Line 75: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> If this is the way all hit-and-run cases are handeled, both the Yolo county and the city of Davis will go bankrupt just after a hand full of similar cases. What money do they save to investigate, prosecute, and try bank roberries, burglaries, homicides, drive-by-shootings, and other criminal activities that are more serious than a minor misdemeanor such as a hit-and-run. How about using tax payers' money for other important issues such as schools, healthcare, water resources, environment, flood protection, affordable housing, etc. In conclusion, I strongly believe that since the damages were paid for to the satisfaction of the so called victim, the charges should be dropped immdediately so that no more tax payers' money will be wasted on this case and a better chance will be given for spending on just causes. -["AnisSury"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> If this is the way all hit-and-run cases are handeled, both the Yolo county and the city of Davis will go bankrupt just after a hand full of similar cases. What money do they save to investigate, prosecute, and try bank roberries, burglaries, homicides, drive-by-shootings, and other criminal activities that are more serious than a minor misdemeanor such as a hit-and-run. How about using tax payers' money for other important issues such as schools, healthcare, water resources, environment, flood protection, affordable housing, etc. In conclusion, I strongly believe that since the damages were paid for to the satisfaction of the so called victim, the charges should be dropped immdediately so that no more tax payers' money will be wasted on this case and a better chance will be given for spending on just causes. -["<span>Users/</span>AnisSury"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 79: </td> <td> Line 79: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ["AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"] says below, "Davis cops have a history of making work for themselves where none exists", and the solution to this is reduce the police department so they are busier with real work. There wasn't just one "mistake" here, this was the police repeatedly pursuing this case after it had been resolved civilly and there was not any life or property at risk. Is that what a police force that is too busy would do? Ultimately, treating people badly wastes more time for the police than it will benefit them and they will realize this sooner with a smaller department.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> I don't think the city council, city manager, and city lawyer care one way or the other except for however can make the least trouble for them. So I think that if they treat the Buzayan family badly, it is because they are trying to cover for the police department just because they think that will be easier than fixing it. That may or may not be true, but I suspect it comes down to just what they, maybe arrogantly as you say, think is easiest and most convenient. As for the police, you are right that the family may have been personally targeted, but that could be for lots of reasons (and I am not saying there are good reasons). Maybe Officer Ly has a grudge with the family. I don't know, but I really don't want to assume that it is racism or a similarly broad-based discrimination. I think it would be a very bad idea to jump to conclusions about that and if it ever becomes explicit it will look that much more ridiculous. -["NickSchmalenberger"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> * The main reasons to think so, as far as I can see, are a) that there don't seem to be any other reasons why the police would pursue this case, let alone pursue it so aggressively, and b) the arresting officer (Ly) 's comments about Halema Buzayan and her mother's head scarves. --["KenjiYamada"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> * Racism could definitely be a factor, and it doesn't matter what the police new before the investigation: take for example racial profiling data. A survery of the CHP found that their was no real disparity in how the CHP pulled over different ethinicities, the disparity occurred in the punishment that was given out. Blacks and latinos were more likely to receive tickets and have their property towed. The investigation was not inappropriate it was everything that happened after the act. -["JamesSchwab"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> * So because an incident of police misconduct occurs, it only occured in a vacuum with no externalities and because people wanted it to happen? That makes sense. --["JamesSchwab"]<br> <span>-</span> * What is that better solution? --["KenjiYamada"]<br> <span>-</span> * Less police. -["NickSchmalenberger"]<br> <span>-</span> * An inflated size of police department could be a budget issue, if city officials determine so, but I don't think it would lead to repetitive misconduct. I believe that Regardless of the size of the police deparment, absolute authority and lack of accountability is what makes police officers cross their boundries. On your doubts of it being a case of discrimination, May be it is not a case of discirimatnion against muslims in particular. May be it is one of the cases of discrimination against any one outside the "norm", as Mr.["AbdolhosseinEdalati"] put it below, which does not make it any less worthy of public attention and call for correction. As far as the NCA involvement, The ["The National Council of Arab Americans" NCA] is an Arab American organization and not a Muslim American organization. That means the NCA is interested in issues concerning all Arab Americans including muslims, christians, Atheists, and all other colors of the spectrum. I don't understand how would their involvement "exacerbat side issues that should not exit in the first place". If you would please give examples of such side issues that could be exacerbated by NCA's involvement. and also please give examples of past cases where NCA's involvement exacerbated side issues that should not exist. Personally, I don't know about NCA except from what I read on their website and from what I heard in today's meeting. --["AnisSury"]<br> <span>-</span> * This is an absurd argument. If anything, less police will make the police more likely not less likely to make mistakes. They are spread too thin as it is. They are unable to adequately respond right now. We really need to hire more police for the load that they have to bear. Decreasing the number would mean more stress, more anxiety, less rest, which will increase frustration and the number of mistakes that are made. I really wish people would think their solutions through. --["DavidGreenwald"]<br> <span>-</span> * The NCA just got involved yesterday where the issue has been going for 10 months. Jamal gave the police department and the city of Davis many chances to correct their mistakes through contacting the chief of police, the city council, and the city manager through their own self correcting procedures. They were so arrogant and ignored his complaints. also the city lawyer theatened him in one of the meetings, as jamal explained during yesterdays meeting. That means, the arresting officer, the chief of police, the city manager, and city council are all involved (according to your argument all of these guys have nothing more important to do except to creat work for themselves by harressing tax paying residents of the city of Davis. I am not arguing on this issue). To go back to the discrimination issue, and given the above, it is the police department's reponsibility now to explain to every one why are they treating the Buzayans this way. The police department used a totally different procedure with the Buzayans than what their standard procedure lays out, therefore, they must come up with good reasons for why they did that in order for me not to believe that Jamal and his family are personally targeted. If the police department fails to come up with good reasons then, in an indirect way, the police department admits that Jamal and his family are personally targeted, and therefore it is a discrimination of some kind. I leave it up to them to pick up what basis of discrimination it is. Never the less, if there is doubts of discrimination on any basis, as there is many in this case, all civil society organizations that work to promote and protect civil rights can and should act including CAIR, NCA, NAACP,ACLU, and all the others to make sure that no discirimination is involved or to call for corrections if discrimination is proven to have taken place.--["AnisSury"]<br> <span>-</span> * Nick, you have a good point there. However, the failure of coming up with good reasons from the part of the police department and the city officials over the last 10 months only strengthened doubts, made possibility of discrimination more believable to be valid, and made situtation worse. After reading your discussion above and thinking more about what has been going on, I could not recall that the Buzayans have ever claimed that they were discriminated against. Even in their civil litigations, they claimed violation of constitutional rights but they did not make any reference to any kind of discrimination. I do recall though, that they have been very consistant in demanding explanations from the city officials for what they have been subject to. Having said that, I still think that it is very appropriate for the NCA and CAIR to get involved at least to investigate possibilities, clear doubts, and lead their public bases to take the right stand. Until today, as far as I remember, neighter the NCA nor CAIR have made any statement with any references to discrimination claims.--["AnisSury"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-07 22:46:45'' [[nbsp]] I do not think that this is an incident of racial profiling per se. Davis cops have a history of making work for themselves when none exists, but what Davis cops definitely need is some cultural sensitivity training. From personal experience I have seen how Davis police's lack of cultural sensitivity can exacerbate a normal, harmless situation. Sure if you have the talk and the walk of a white suburban resident you will be fine, but throw an immigrant, person of color, or even a young teenager and a little bit of misinterpretation and you get a nasty situation. They are inadept at handling such circustances. In fact, it seems that any profile outside the "norm" evokes Police paranoia and suspicioun as in this case. As if the Buzayan's were trying to pull the wool over the cops eyes by playing off the mother as the daughter...psh give me a break. --["AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ["<span>Users/</span>AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"] says below, "Davis cops have a history of making work for themselves where none exists", and the solution to this is reduce the police department so they are busier with real work. There wasn't just one "mistake" here, this was the police repeatedly pursuing this case after it had been resolved civilly and there was not any life or property at risk. Is that what a police force that is too busy would do? Ultimately, treating people badly wastes more time for the police than it will benefit them and they will realize this sooner with a smaller department.<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> I don't think the city council, city manager, and city lawyer care one way or the other except for however can make the least trouble for them. So I think that if they treat the Buzayan family badly, it is because they are trying to cover for the police department just because they think that will be easier than fixing it. That may or may not be true, but I suspect it comes down to just what they, maybe arrogantly as you say, think is easiest and most convenient. As for the police, you are right that the family may have been personally targeted, but that could be for lots of reasons (and I am not saying there are good reasons). Maybe Officer Ly has a grudge with the family. I don't know, but I really don't want to assume that it is racism or a similarly broad-based discrimination. I think it would be a very bad idea to jump to conclusions about that and if it ever becomes explicit it will look that much more ridiculous. -["<span>Users/</span>NickSchmalenberger"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> * The main reasons to think so, as far as I can see, are a) that there don't seem to be any other reasons why the police would pursue this case, let alone pursue it so aggressively, and b) the arresting officer (Ly) 's comments about Halema Buzayan and her mother's head scarves. --["<span>Users/</span>KenjiYamada"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> * Racism could definitely be a factor, and it doesn't matter what the police new before the investigation: take for example racial profiling data. A survery of the CHP found that their was no real disparity in how the CHP pulled over different ethinicities, the disparity occurred in the punishment that was given out. Blacks and latinos were more likely to receive tickets and have their property towed. The investigation was not inappropriate it was everything that happened after the act. -["<span>Users/</span>JamesSchwab"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> * So because an incident of police misconduct occurs, it only occured in a vacuum with no externalities and because people wanted it to happen? That makes sense. --["<span>Users/</span>JamesSchwab"]<br> <span>+</span> * What is that better solution? --["<span>Users/</span>KenjiYamada"]<br> <span>+</span> * Less police. -["<span>Users/</span>NickSchmalenberger"]<br> <span>+</span> * An inflated size of police department could be a budget issue, if city officials determine so, but I don't think it would lead to repetitive misconduct. I believe that Regardless of the size of the police deparment, absolute authority and lack of accountability is what makes police officers cross their boundries. On your doubts of it being a case of discrimination, May be it is not a case of discirimatnion against muslims in particular. May be it is one of the cases of discrimination against any one outside the "norm", as Mr.["AbdolhosseinEdalati"] put it below, which does not make it any less worthy of public attention and call for correction. As far as the NCA involvement, The ["The National Council of Arab Americans" NCA] is an Arab American organization and not a Muslim American organization. That means the NCA is interested in issues concerning all Arab Americans including muslims, christians, Atheists, and all other colors of the spectrum. I don't understand how would their involvement "exacerbat side issues that should not exit in the first place". If you would please give examples of such side issues that could be exacerbated by NCA's involvement. and also please give examples of past cases where NCA's involvement exacerbated side issues that should not exist. Personally, I don't know about NCA except from what I read on their website and from what I heard in today's meeting. --["<span>Users/</span>AnisSury"]<br> <span>+</span> * This is an absurd argument. If anything, less police will make the police more likely not less likely to make mistakes. They are spread too thin as it is. They are unable to adequately respond right now. We really need to hire more police for the load that they have to bear. Decreasing the number would mean more stress, more anxiety, less rest, which will increase frustration and the number of mistakes that are made. I really wish people would think their solutions through. --["<span>Users/</span>DavidGreenwald"]<br> <span>+</span> * The NCA just got involved yesterday where the issue has been going for 10 months. Jamal gave the police department and the city of Davis many chances to correct their mistakes through contacting the chief of police, the city council, and the city manager through their own self correcting procedures. They were so arrogant and ignored his complaints. also the city lawyer theatened him in one of the meetings, as jamal explained during yesterdays meeting. That means, the arresting officer, the chief of police, the city manager, and city council are all involved (according to your argument all of these guys have nothing more important to do except to creat work for themselves by harressing tax paying residents of the city of Davis. I am not arguing on this issue). To go back to the discrimination issue, and given the above, it is the police department's reponsibility now to explain to every one why are they treating the Buzayans this way. The police department used a totally different procedure with the Buzayans than what their standard procedure lays out, therefore, they must come up with good reasons for why they did that in order for me not to believe that Jamal and his family are personally targeted. If the police department fails to come up with good reasons then, in an indirect way, the police department admits that Jamal and his family are personally targeted, and therefore it is a discrimination of some kind. I leave it up to them to pick up what basis of discrimination it is. Never the less, if there is doubts of discrimination on any basis, as there is many in this case, all civil society organizations that work to promote and protect civil rights can and should act including CAIR, NCA, NAACP,ACLU, and all the others to make sure that no discirimination is involved or to call for corrections if discrimination is proven to have taken place.--["<span>Users/</span>AnisSury"]<br> <span>+</span> * Nick, you have a good point there. However, the failure of coming up with good reasons from the part of the police department and the city officials over the last 10 months only strengthened doubts, made possibility of discrimination more believable to be valid, and made situtation worse. After reading your discussion above and thinking more about what has been going on, I could not recall that the Buzayans have ever claimed that they were discriminated against. Even in their civil litigations, they claimed violation of constitutional rights but they did not make any reference to any kind of discrimination. I do recall though, that they have been very consistant in demanding explanations from the city officials for what they have been subject to. Having said that, I still think that it is very appropriate for the NCA and CAIR to get involved at least to investigate possibilities, clear doubts, and lead their public bases to take the right stand. Until today, as far as I remember, neighter the NCA nor CAIR have made any statement with any references to discrimination claims.--["<span>Users/</span>AnisSury"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-07 22:46:45'' [[nbsp]] I do not think that this is an incident of racial profiling per se. Davis cops have a history of making work for themselves when none exists, but what Davis cops definitely need is some cultural sensitivity training. From personal experience I have seen how Davis police's lack of cultural sensitivity can exacerbate a normal, harmless situation. Sure if you have the talk and the walk of a white suburban resident you will be fine, but throw an immigrant, person of color, or even a young teenager and a little bit of misinterpretation and you get a nasty situation. They are inadept at handling such circustances. In fact, it seems that any profile outside the "norm" evokes Police paranoia and suspicioun as in this case. As if the Buzayan's were trying to pull the wool over the cops eyes by playing off the mother as the daughter...psh give me a break. --["<span>Users/</span>AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 99: </td> <td> Line 99: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-08 21:50:15'' [[nbsp]] Anis: Good seeing you tonight at the meeting. Just want to add this is not the only time Patti Fong has said this. She said this back in either late January or early February. Right after Gonzalez-Leigh took over for Jamal. Whitney Leigh told me this back in early March before the gag order and he was just stunned at her audacity. --["DavidGreenwald"]<br> <span>-</span> Thank you David. Now we have two people confirming that Patti Fong made that statement. I really hope that some serious investigations be conducted to uncover all facts surrounding this claim and hold all responsible people accountable regardless of their position. --["AnisSury"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-12 22:36:03'' [[nbsp]] There was an [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2006/04/12/news/263new3.txt article] in the Enterprise yesterday. --["GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-13 22:07:26'' [[nbsp]] It must be tough being a police officer. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. You guys are probably the same people who complain that there is never a police officer around when you need one. Yet, when the police do their job you complain they should stay out of your business. A hit and run occured whether or not restitution was paid. Just because this rich girl was able to pay for the damages she caused does not mean she did not commit a crime. A crime still occured. Please reserve your judgment until both sides of the case are heard. I know more about this case then I can say at this point, but I can tell you that there is very strong evidence that this "honor student" is lying through her teeth. --["NancyGrisby"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-08 21:50:15'' [[nbsp]] Anis: Good seeing you tonight at the meeting. Just want to add this is not the only time Patti Fong has said this. She said this back in either late January or early February. Right after Gonzalez-Leigh took over for Jamal. Whitney Leigh told me this back in early March before the gag order and he was just stunned at her audacity. --["<span>Users/</span>DavidGreenwald"]<br> <span>+</span> Thank you David. Now we have two people confirming that Patti Fong made that statement. I really hope that some serious investigations be conducted to uncover all facts surrounding this claim and hold all responsible people accountable regardless of their position. --["<span>Users/</span>AnisSury"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-12 22:36:03'' [[nbsp]] There was an [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2006/04/12/news/263new3.txt article] in the Enterprise yesterday. --["<span>Users/</span>GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-13 22:07:26'' [[nbsp]] It must be tough being a police officer. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. You guys are probably the same people who complain that there is never a police officer around when you need one. Yet, when the police do their job you complain they should stay out of your business. A hit and run occured whether or not restitution was paid. Just because this rich girl was able to pay for the damages she caused does not mean she did not commit a crime. A crime still occured. Please reserve your judgment until both sides of the case are heard. I know more about this case then I can say at this point, but I can tell you that there is very strong evidence that this "honor student" is lying through her teeth. --["<span>Users/</span>NancyGrisby"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 108: </td> <td> Line 108: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> What other side can there be when the only two parties involved (the Buzayans and Adrienne Wohof) both consider the matter settled to their satisfaction? --["KenjiYamada"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> In the words of Melville..."Ah, my dear fellow, you can't fool us that way- you can't fool us. It is the easiest thing in the world for a man to look as if he had a great secret in him." It must be tough being a police officer in Davis, what with virtually no real crime and no way to use all that training and equipment.--["GrumpyOldGeek"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> What other side can there be when the only two parties involved (the Buzayans and Adrienne Wohof) both consider the matter settled to their satisfaction? --["<span>Users/</span>KenjiYamada"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> In the words of Melville..."Ah, my dear fellow, you can't fool us that way- you can't fool us. It is the easiest thing in the world for a man to look as if he had a great secret in him." It must be tough being a police officer in Davis, what with virtually no real crime and no way to use all that training and equipment.--["<span>Users/</span>GrumpyOldGeek"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 121: </td> <td> Line 121: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> As for the girl being rich, that does not have anything to do with the case what so ever. You do not need to be rich to pay 870 dollars of restitution, as a matter of fact, all what you need is to be a law obeying driver that carries the minimum liability insurance required by the law. What takes a lot of money and courage though, is to refuse diversion and to choose to fight for your constitutional rights even when your opponents are as powerful as the city and the county in which you live.''--["AnisSury"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-17 08:25:15'' [[nbsp]] New Girl makes allegations against Officer Ly but does not file complaint, takes diversion, and will not sue. Just wanted to get her story out: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&amp;id=4089871 --["DavidGreenwald"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-17 11:22:14'' [[nbsp]] THE JUDGE HAS DROPPED THE CASE! --["DavidGreenwald"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> As for the girl being rich, that does not have anything to do with the case what so ever. You do not need to be rich to pay 870 dollars of restitution, as a matter of fact, all what you need is to be a law obeying driver that carries the minimum liability insurance required by the law. What takes a lot of money and courage though, is to refuse diversion and to choose to fight for your constitutional rights even when your opponents are as powerful as the city and the county in which you live.''--["<span>Users/</span>AnisSury"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-17 08:25:15'' [[nbsp]] New Girl makes allegations against Officer Ly but does not file complaint, takes diversion, and will not sue. Just wanted to get her story out: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&amp;id=4089871 --["<span>Users/</span>DavidGreenwald"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-17 11:22:14'' [[nbsp]] THE JUDGE HAS DROPPED THE CASE! --["<span>Users/</span>DavidGreenwald"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 128: </td> <td> Line 128: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> (--["BrentLaabs"])<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-17 18:06:26'' [[nbsp]] See ["Juvenile Justice System"] --["SharlaDaly"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-17 18:22:42'' [[nbsp]] KGO Story: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&amp;id=4090553 --["DavidGreenwald"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-18 10:31:51'' [[nbsp]] Does someone happen to know the case # of either the original hit &amp; run case or the case now against Ly? --also the comments to this page are out of control and in extreme need of refactoring. --["KrisFricke"]<br> <span>-</span> * I would urge restraint in any reformatting of this page. There's lots of twists and turns and I'd prefer a little confusion to a rewrite of history --["GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> <span>-</span> * Refactoring involves moving comments into a more orderly fashion, not rewriting them. Unless one moved comments at random I don't see how it could damage the editorial intent and/or "rewrite history" - ["KrisFricke"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-20 16:31:05'' [[nbsp]] FOR MORE INFORMATION ON OFFICER PHENG LY, PLEASE VISIT [http://www.officerly.com/ WWW.OFFICERLY.COM]. I URGE EVERYONE TO HOLD JUDGEMENT UNTIL BOTH SIDES OF THE CASE HAS BEEN HEARD. THANK YOU! --["NancyGrisby"]<br> <span>-</span> * ''2006-04-20 16:46:56'' [[nbsp]] I think its a bad sign when an police officer needs an entire website to himself to support the claim that he is human. --["JamesSchwab"]<br> <span>-</span> *''2006-04-20 17:06:44'' [[nbsp]] James, I think it is a bad sign when a whole blog is dedicated to defaming a great officer, especially by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about. Talk about racism...wonder if the criticism would still be as loud had Officer Ly been white in predominantly white Davis. --["NancyGrisby"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> (--["<span>Users/</span>BrentLaabs"])<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-17 18:06:26'' [[nbsp]] See ["Juvenile Justice System"] --["<span>Users/</span>SharlaDaly"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-17 18:22:42'' [[nbsp]] KGO Story: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&amp;id=4090553 --["<span>Users/</span>DavidGreenwald"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-18 10:31:51'' [[nbsp]] Does someone happen to know the case # of either the original hit &amp; run case or the case now against Ly? --also the comments to this page are out of control and in extreme need of refactoring. --["<span>Users/</span>KrisFricke"]<br> <span>+</span> * I would urge restraint in any reformatting of this page. There's lots of twists and turns and I'd prefer a little confusion to a rewrite of history --["<span>Users/</span>GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> <span>+</span> * Refactoring involves moving comments into a more orderly fashion, not rewriting them. Unless one moved comments at random I don't see how it could damage the editorial intent and/or "rewrite history" - ["<span>Users/</span>KrisFricke"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-20 16:31:05'' [[nbsp]] FOR MORE INFORMATION ON OFFICER PHENG LY, PLEASE VISIT [http://www.officerly.com/ WWW.OFFICERLY.COM]. I URGE EVERYONE TO HOLD JUDGEMENT UNTIL BOTH SIDES OF THE CASE HAS BEEN HEARD. THANK YOU! --["<span>Users/</span>NancyGrisby"]<br> <span>+</span> * ''2006-04-20 16:46:56'' [[nbsp]] I think its a bad sign when an police officer needs an entire website to himself to support the claim that he is human. --["<span>Users/</span>JamesSchwab"]<br> <span>+</span> *''2006-04-20 17:06:44'' [[nbsp]] James, I think it is a bad sign when a whole blog is dedicated to defaming a great officer, especially by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about. Talk about racism...wonder if the criticism would still be as loud had Officer Ly been white in predominantly white Davis. --["<span>Users/</span>NancyGrisby"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 142: </td> <td> Line 142: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * ''206-04-20 20:47'' It might also be nice to know why officer Ly couldn't just put up a page on daviswiki.org instead of using a domain name registered in Nova Scotia with the administrative contact cloaked.--["GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> <span>-</span> * ''2006-04-20 16:53:50'' [[nbsp]] From his website, it seems like he is dedicated to his job, has a nice family and many friends. However, this has nothing to do with whether he made errors or not on the job. It is interesting to note (from his website) that he has recently been selected to field train all of DPD's new hires. --["SharlaDaly"]<br> <span>-</span> * ''2006-04-20 17:08:30'' [[nbsp]] Sharla, have you ever been a ride along with Office Ly? Have you personally seen him on a daily basis doing his job? Then be quiet. His colleagues will vouch for him, and that is a great sign of respect. --["NancyGrisby"]<br> <span>-</span> * ''2006-04-20 17:38:19'' [[nbsp]] Nancy, Please see [http://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Ethics Wiki Ethics] --["SharlaDaly"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * ''206-04-20 20:47'' It might also be nice to know why officer Ly couldn't just put up a page on daviswiki.org instead of using a domain name registered in Nova Scotia with the administrative contact cloaked.--["<span>Users/</span>GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> <span>+</span> * ''2006-04-20 16:53:50'' [[nbsp]] From his website, it seems like he is dedicated to his job, has a nice family and many friends. However, this has nothing to do with whether he made errors or not on the job. It is interesting to note (from his website) that he has recently been selected to field train all of DPD's new hires. --["<span>Users/</span>SharlaDaly"]<br> <span>+</span> * ''2006-04-20 17:08:30'' [[nbsp]] Sharla, have you ever been a ride along with Office Ly? Have you personally seen him on a daily basis doing his job? Then be quiet. His colleagues will vouch for him, and that is a great sign of respect. --["<span>Users/</span>NancyGrisby"]<br> <span>+</span> * ''2006-04-20 17:38:19'' [[nbsp]] Nancy, Please see [http://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Ethics Wiki Ethics] --["<span>Users/</span>SharlaDaly"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 147: </td> <td> Line 147: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * ''206-04-20 19:17:00'' NancyGrigsby, you made the statement earlier that "I can tell you that there is very strong evidence that this "honor student" is lying through her teeth." Assuming for a moment that the statement is true, then I have to suspect that you had access to confidential police documents and/or information and that you knowingly disclosed a portion of that information to the media.--["GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> <span>-</span> * Nancy's edits have all come from somewhere on the Sac State campus. It seems unlikely that this person works for the Yolo County Courts or the Davis PD. Any evidence he/she has that isn't public knowledge probably came from somewhere else. Perhaps Nancy is really Ly's brother that attends Sac State?--["WilliamLewis"]<br> <span>-</span> * Nonetheless, if someone within the department had knowledge of the information and gave it to her, that would still be, minimally, a breach of ethics. I am not a lawyer so I can't speak for the legal implications, but I'd like to know what they are. On the other hand, if NancyGrisby's comment were untrue then it wouldn't be a breach of ethics. (Grumpyoldgeek smacks his head) Or would it? --["GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-20 20:05:18'' [[nbsp]] Wow. This is getting really intense. I find it so strange seeing this happen to someone I know.. especially Halema. I see her in the Drama room everyday, and I would really have to say, In response to the comments left about the validity and truthfulness of Halema's story are entirely false, and show that those who made them have obviously never met her. Sorry about the bad grammar, if there is any.. --["JulienBiewerElstob"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * ''206-04-20 19:17:00'' NancyGrigsby, you made the statement earlier that "I can tell you that there is very strong evidence that this "honor student" is lying through her teeth." Assuming for a moment that the statement is true, then I have to suspect that you had access to confidential police documents and/or information and that you knowingly disclosed a portion of that information to the media.--["<span>Users/</span>GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> <span>+</span> * Nancy's edits have all come from somewhere on the Sac State campus. It seems unlikely that this person works for the Yolo County Courts or the Davis PD. Any evidence he/she has that isn't public knowledge probably came from somewhere else. Perhaps Nancy is really Ly's brother that attends Sac State?--["<span>Users/</span>WilliamLewis"]<br> <span>+</span> * Nonetheless, if someone within the department had knowledge of the information and gave it to her, that would still be, minimally, a breach of ethics. I am not a lawyer so I can't speak for the legal implications, but I'd like to know what they are. On the other hand, if NancyGrisby's comment were untrue then it wouldn't be a breach of ethics. (Grumpyoldgeek smacks his head) Or would it? --["<span>Users/</span>GrumpyoldGeek"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-20 20:05:18'' [[nbsp]] Wow. This is getting really intense. I find it so strange seeing this happen to someone I know.. especially Halema. I see her in the Drama room everyday, and I would really have to say, In response to the comments left about the validity and truthfulness of Halema's story are entirely false, and show that those who made them have obviously never met her. Sorry about the bad grammar, if there is any.. --["<span>Users/</span>JulienBiewerElstob"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 161: </td> <td> Line 161: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Picking up from comment number 3 and reflecting back on comment number 1 above, my guess would be that if Halema is entitled to the basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty, then the public employees should be entitled to it as well. However, regardless of any court ruling and aside from the matter of innocence and guilt, “public employees” bear an additional burden of providing good explanations and justifications to the public when authorities and money are used in controversial ways. In this “fender bender” issue, the continuous failure from the part of the involved public officials in communicating with the public in a convincing and transparent manner is one of the major factors that drove the public concerns to become so serious, and drove the public comments to be so critical.--["AnisSury"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> Picking up from comment number 3 and reflecting back on comment number 1 above, my guess would be that if Halema is entitled to the basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty, then the public employees should be entitled to it as well. However, regardless of any court ruling and aside from the matter of innocence and guilt, “public employees” bear an additional burden of providing good explanations and justifications to the public when authorities and money are used in controversial ways. In this “fender bender” issue, the continuous failure from the part of the involved public officials in communicating with the public in a convincing and transparent manner is one of the major factors that drove the public concerns to become so serious, and drove the public comments to be so critical.--["<span>Users/</span>AnisSury"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 163: </td> <td> Line 163: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Tushar, please review Article 11 under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted and proclaimed by the UN General Assembly resolution 217 A(III) of 10 Dec 1984. ---["AnisSury"]<br> <span>-</span> * I see. Interesting how our own country violates most of the Articles set forth in said resolution. Specifically Articles 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 23, 28 and 30. Also, I don't think you can put a formal definition on "human rights" because that requires assumption and agreement, and you can never have absolute agreement. --["TusharRawat" Tushar]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-05-02 16:12:34'' [[nbsp]] Is there still a gag order on this case? I'm just curious. If there is, can Officer Pheng Ly still have a website defending himself and his actions. The website is www.officerly.com. Oh, by the way, NancyGrisby is really Officer Pheng Ly's sister named Nancy Ly. She's hiding her identity and is defending her brother. I received some emails from people in Sacramento that Nancy is trying to rally up her community to support her brother on May 2nd at the Davis City Council meeting. My understanding is that their Hmong commuinty doesn't support them because they feel it's not about racism but about an individual who violated another citizens rights. --["PattyShire"]<br> <span>-</span> * That just lowers her credibility even further. You don't defend someone by hiding. Good for the Hmong community, they have the right mindset. --["TusharRawat" TR]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-05-09 09:14:58'' [[nbsp]] Per Officer Ly's letter to the Editor - Cal Aggie 5/9/06, the tapes that were posted on the Davis Enterprise website were removed at the request of the family. We need to remove confidential information that was posted here as a result of the release of the tapes, I believe. --["SharlaDaly"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-05-09 10:05:27'' [[nbsp]] question --["BrendaRodgers"] I'm confused about the confidentiality issue. If the parents willingly went to the media (Their daughter's name and face were shown on TV) why are they now seeking confidentiality? I'm not being argumentative, I'm really wondering. </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Tushar, please review Article 11 under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted and proclaimed by the UN General Assembly resolution 217 A(III) of 10 Dec 1984. ---["<span>Users/</span>AnisSury"]<br> <span>+</span> * I see. Interesting how our own country violates most of the Articles set forth in said resolution. Specifically Articles 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 23, 28 and 30. Also, I don't think you can put a formal definition on "human rights" because that requires assumption and agreement, and you can never have absolute agreement. --["<span>Users/</span>TusharRawat" Tushar]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-05-02 16:12:34'' [[nbsp]] Is there still a gag order on this case? I'm just curious. If there is, can Officer Pheng Ly still have a website defending himself and his actions. The website is www.officerly.com. Oh, by the way, NancyGrisby is really Officer Pheng Ly's sister named Nancy Ly. She's hiding her identity and is defending her brother. I received some emails from people in Sacramento that Nancy is trying to rally up her community to support her brother on May 2nd at the Davis City Council meeting. My understanding is that their Hmong commuinty doesn't support them because they feel it's not about racism but about an individual who violated another citizens rights. --["<span>Users/</span>PattyShire"]<br> <span>+</span> * That just lowers her credibility even further. You don't defend someone by hiding. Good for the Hmong community, they have the right mindset. --["<span>Users/</span>TusharRawat" TR]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-05-09 09:14:58'' [[nbsp]] Per Officer Ly's letter to the Editor - Cal Aggie 5/9/06, the tapes that were posted on the Davis Enterprise website were removed at the request of the family. We need to remove confidential information that was posted here as a result of the release of the tapes, I believe. --["<span>Users/</span>SharlaDaly"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-05-09 10:05:27'' [[nbsp]] question --["<span>Users/</span>BrendaRodgers"] I'm confused about the confidentiality issue. If the parents willingly went to the media (Their daughter's name and face were shown on TV) why are they now seeking confidentiality? I'm not being argumentative, I'm really wondering. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 174: </td> <td> Line 174: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Brenda, Please see the discussion re: juvenile confidentiality that I've moved here from another page. Also see [http://www.daviswiki.org/Juvenile_Justice_System Juvenile Justice System] - specifically "Local Rules" of the Yolo County Court. ["SharlaDaly"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> Brenda, Please see the discussion re: juvenile confidentiality that I've moved here from another page. Also see [http://www.daviswiki.org/Juvenile_Justice_System Juvenile Justice System] - specifically "Local Rules" of the Yolo County Court. ["<span>Users/</span>SharlaDaly"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 178: </td> <td> Line 178: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-29 01:47:26'' [[nbsp]] I read the information (["DavisPublicServant"]) posted on the Halema page (See [http://www.daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan/Yolo_County_DA%27s_Office Halema Buzayan / Yolo County DA]) and also listened to the police tapes on the Davis Enterprise. I understood that Judge Warriner had ordered that the adults involved in Halema's case were to follow the law regarding juvenile confidentiality. Can the Yolo County DA's office decide on its own that these laws no longer apply to a particular juvenile? What's to keep this from happening to other kids in Davis? --["SharlaDaly"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-29 01:49:08'' [[nbsp]] Maybe we should now remove the Halema page or at least edit out all reference to her identity. --["SharlaDaly"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-29 08:31:50'' [[nbsp]] I believe that Halema and her family waived their right to confidentiality. --["WilliamLewis"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-29 08:55:41'' [[nbsp]] I don't believe a parent can waive that right for their child and the Court ordered that the Defense and the DAs office were to follow the confidentiallity laws. Juvenile files are not to be even acknowledged. This does not bode well for juveniles in Yolo County. I think that they should rotate out the DAs assigned to juvenile cases and reassign them to adult criminal cases where confidentially is not something that needs to be grasped. --["SharlaDaly"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-29 15:43:13'' [[nbsp]] I'd imagine that parents, since they legally represent their children, and that children have no legal rights (short of against abuse and other direct criminal acts) against their parents unless "emancipated" (that is to say, given their own legal identity), are wholly qualified to waive confidentiality rights on behalf of their children. Furthermore, if the parents weren't of the same party (ie representing their children fully), THEY would not have access to the confidential files either. Suffice to say, I would say unless someone cites something authoritative that says otherwise it is not safe to fiat "I don't believe a parent can waive that right." --["KrisFricke"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-29 18:43:37'' [[nbsp]] Even if the parents give their permission for the release of information, Juvenile Court has to approve it. There is a process. See [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=3607458072+0+0+0&amp;WAISaction=retrieve California Code - Welfare and Institutions Code Section 825-830.1] Releasing confidential juvenile information to others not on a very specific list and for very specific purposes is a misdeameanor. From what I read in the paper, the DDA made a request to be allowed to release information about the case and it was denied by Judge Warriner. The order was for everyone to follow juvenile confidentiality laws. Information that the DDA released is extremely confidential and, it is assumed, damaging to the child, including the juvenile's birth date, where she goes to school, her drivers license number, description, names and birth dates of her 3 siblings. Why the DDA did this, I can't fathom. Essentially, she is asking the community to become a huge "police oversight" body. Or, maybe the DDA just disagrees with the Judge's adjudication and hopes that this will result in something that approximates her sense of justice in this matter. That is something to think about --["SharlaDaly"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-29 01:47:26'' [[nbsp]] I read the information (["DavisPublicServant"]) posted on the Halema page (See [http://www.daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan/Yolo_County_DA%27s_Office Halema Buzayan / Yolo County DA]) and also listened to the police tapes on the Davis Enterprise. I understood that Judge Warriner had ordered that the adults involved in Halema's case were to follow the law regarding juvenile confidentiality. Can the Yolo County DA's office decide on its own that these laws no longer apply to a particular juvenile? What's to keep this from happening to other kids in Davis? --["<span>Users/</span>SharlaDaly"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-29 01:49:08'' [[nbsp]] Maybe we should now remove the Halema page or at least edit out all reference to her identity. --["<span>Users/</span>SharlaDaly"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-29 08:31:50'' [[nbsp]] I believe that Halema and her family waived their right to confidentiality. --["<span>Users/</span>WilliamLewis"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-29 08:55:41'' [[nbsp]] I don't believe a parent can waive that right for their child and the Court ordered that the Defense and the DAs office were to follow the confidentiallity laws. Juvenile files are not to be even acknowledged. This does not bode well for juveniles in Yolo County. I think that they should rotate out the DAs assigned to juvenile cases and reassign them to adult criminal cases where confidentially is not something that needs to be grasped. --["<span>Users/</span>SharlaDaly"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-29 15:43:13'' [[nbsp]] I'd imagine that parents, since they legally represent their children, and that children have no legal rights (short of against abuse and other direct criminal acts) against their parents unless "emancipated" (that is to say, given their own legal identity), are wholly qualified to waive confidentiality rights on behalf of their children. Furthermore, if the parents weren't of the same party (ie representing their children fully), THEY would not have access to the confidential files either. Suffice to say, I would say unless someone cites something authoritative that says otherwise it is not safe to fiat "I don't believe a parent can waive that right." --["<span>Users/</span>KrisFricke"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-29 18:43:37'' [[nbsp]] Even if the parents give their permission for the release of information, Juvenile Court has to approve it. There is a process. See [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=3607458072+0+0+0&amp;WAISaction=retrieve California Code - Welfare and Institutions Code Section 825-830.1] Releasing confidential juvenile information to others not on a very specific list and for very specific purposes is a misdeameanor. From what I read in the paper, the DDA made a request to be allowed to release information about the case and it was denied by Judge Warriner. The order was for everyone to follow juvenile confidentiality laws. Information that the DDA released is extremely confidential and, it is assumed, damaging to the child, including the juvenile's birth date, where she goes to school, her drivers license number, description, names and birth dates of her 3 siblings. Why the DDA did this, I can't fathom. Essentially, she is asking the community to become a huge "police oversight" body. Or, maybe the DDA just disagrees with the Judge's adjudication and hopes that this will result in something that approximates her sense of justice in this matter. That is something to think about --["<span>Users/</span>SharlaDaly"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 190: </td> <td> Line 190: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I am not referring to the parents or the juvenile releasing information. The District Attorney did. The child and her parents can do anything they want, but the Officers of the Court cannot. What is so dumb about that? Here's the website to find the code: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Search for "Juvenile confidential" under Welfare and Institutions Code. Look for Section 825-830.1 - ["SharlaDaly"]<br> <span>-</span> * Oh, wow. My bad. I completely agree with you on that. I must have read it wrong or something... sorry. --["TusharRawat" TR]<br> <span>-</span> * Hey I just read sections 825-830.1 and I didn't see anything that answers the specific question at hand -- could you provide a more specific citation? Also, as per your restatement above "''I am not referring ... The District Attorney did.''" I think that mischaracterizes the subject at hand, as the subject is the parents or juvenile authorizing the DA to release information, which essentially is in fact essentially equal to ''the parents or the juvenile releasing information''. -["KrisFricke"]<br> <span>-</span> * See section 827.9. It is not clear that the DDA petitioned the Court to release confidential juvenile police records to the Davis Enterprise and received authorization from the Court after an objection period prior to doing so. The DA/Halema page says "Yolo County District Attorney’s Office has determined that...the office can now talk about the facts of the case with the public." I don't think that the DA's Office has the power to go against a Court Order to follow juvenile confidentiality laws, regardless of whether they anticipate an objection from the parents or not. I am not trying to divert attention from the issue of whether Officer Ly acted in good faith or not. As a parent, I am just alarmed that the DDA can release very personal information about a juvenile without permission from the Court. This is really important. I don't think the DDA has followed the law here. If they release the information to the juvenile and she released it to the press, that would be different, much as I find that equally alarming. -["SharlaDaly"]<br> <span>-</span> *Sharla, you are correct. First, the family always has the right to release any information they want. The laws are set up to protect the juveniles, not to protect the police (note that was in one of the KGO reports from their legal correspondent. Second, the DA was not released from this agreement when the case was dismissed and in fact, there is a possibility the family could file for sanctions. They are most concerned with the fact that the DA's office apparently never removed personal information such as phone numbers, birth dates of minors, driver's license numbers, etc. from the family from the tapes. That's a serious breach of privacy.-["HenryBianco"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-05-12 23:14:22'' [[nbsp]] Contrary to what has been suggested, the family's side has not been publicly presented. The family's lawyers have declined to provide specific responses to Pheng Ly and the District Attorney's comments, on the grounds that the judge has not given them permision to do so. --["LawJuvi"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I am not referring to the parents or the juvenile releasing information. The District Attorney did. The child and her parents can do anything they want, but the Officers of the Court cannot. What is so dumb about that? Here's the website to find the code: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Search for "Juvenile confidential" under Welfare and Institutions Code. Look for Section 825-830.1 - ["<span>Users/</span>SharlaDaly"]<br> <span>+</span> * Oh, wow. My bad. I completely agree with you on that. I must have read it wrong or something... sorry. --["<span>Users/</span>TusharRawat" TR]<br> <span>+</span> * Hey I just read sections 825-830.1 and I didn't see anything that answers the specific question at hand -- could you provide a more specific citation? Also, as per your restatement above "''I am not referring ... The District Attorney did.''" I think that mischaracterizes the subject at hand, as the subject is the parents or juvenile authorizing the DA to release information, which essentially is in fact essentially equal to ''the parents or the juvenile releasing information''. -["<span>Users/</span>KrisFricke"]<br> <span>+</span> * See section 827.9. It is not clear that the DDA petitioned the Court to release confidential juvenile police records to the Davis Enterprise and received authorization from the Court after an objection period prior to doing so. The DA/Halema page says "Yolo County District Attorney’s Office has determined that...the office can now talk about the facts of the case with the public." I don't think that the DA's Office has the power to go against a Court Order to follow juvenile confidentiality laws, regardless of whether they anticipate an objection from the parents or not. I am not trying to divert attention from the issue of whether Officer Ly acted in good faith or not. As a parent, I am just alarmed that the DDA can release very personal information about a juvenile without permission from the Court. This is really important. I don't think the DDA has followed the law here. If they release the information to the juvenile and she released it to the press, that would be different, much as I find that equally alarming. -["<span>Users/</span>SharlaDaly"]<br> <span>+</span> *Sharla, you are correct. First, the family always has the right to release any information they want. The laws are set up to protect the juveniles, not to protect the police (note that was in one of the KGO reports from their legal correspondent. Second, the DA was not released from this agreement when the case was dismissed and in fact, there is a possibility the family could file for sanctions. They are most concerned with the fact that the DA's office apparently never removed personal information such as phone numbers, birth dates of minors, driver's license numbers, etc. from the family from the tapes. That's a serious breach of privacy.-["<span>Users/</span>HenryBianco"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-05-12 23:14:22'' [[nbsp]] Contrary to what has been suggested, the family's side has not been publicly presented. The family's lawyers have declined to provide specific responses to Pheng Ly and the District Attorney's comments, on the grounds that the judge has not given them permision to do so. --["<span>Users/</span>LawJuvi"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 204: </td> <td> Line 204: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The complaint, described above,mentions Officer Ly’s “bizarre conspiracy theory”. This is not the first time Davis Police Officers have arrived at bizarre conclusions – they dream these things up and no one up the chain of command bothers to determine if the conclusions make any sense. --["SteveHayes"]<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ------<br> <span>-</span> ''2006-07-19 19:55:33'' [[nbsp]] Federal civil rights law suit filed last week. Actually only the first part of it. --["DavidGreenwald"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> The complaint, described above,mentions Officer Ly’s “bizarre conspiracy theory”. This is not the first time Davis Police Officers have arrived at bizarre conclusions – they dream these things up and no one up the chain of command bothers to determine if the conclusions make any sense. --["<span>Users/</span>SteveHayes"]<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ------<br> <span>+</span> ''2006-07-19 19:55:33'' [[nbsp]] Federal civil rights law suit filed last week. Actually only the first part of it. --["<span>Users/</span>DavidGreenwald"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2007-11-01 19:15:36TusharRawat(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 191: </td> <td> Line 191: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Oh, wow. My bad. I completely agree with you on that. I must have read it wrong or something... sorry. --["TusharRawat"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Oh, wow. My bad. I completely agree with you on that. I must have read it wrong or something... sorry. --["TusharRawat"<span>&nbsp;TR</span>] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2007-11-01 19:15:07TusharRawat(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 167: </td> <td> Line 167: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * That just lowers her credibility even further. You don't defend someone by hiding. Good for the Hmong community, they have the right mindset. --["TusharRawat"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * That just lowers her credibility even further. You don't defend someone by hiding. Good for the Hmong community, they have the right mindset. --["TusharRawat"<span>&nbsp;TR</span>] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2007-11-01 19:14:44TusharRawat(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 164: </td> <td> Line 164: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I see. Interesting how our own country violates most of the Articles set forth in said resolution. Specifically Articles 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 23, 28 and 30. Also, I don't think you can put a formal definition on "human rights" because that requires assumption and agreement, and you can never have absolute agreement. --["TusharRawat"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I see. Interesting how our own country violates most of the Articles set forth in said resolution. Specifically Articles 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 23, 28 and 30. Also, I don't think you can put a formal definition on "human rights" because that requires assumption and agreement, and you can never have absolute agreement. --["TusharRawat"<span>&nbsp;Tushar</span>] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2007-11-01 19:14:23TusharRawat(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 162: </td> <td> Line 162: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * The statement "innocent until proven guilty" isn't a basic human right. It is the status attributed to suspects on trial in the United States. Indeed, in some other countries it is the reverse: guilty until proven innocent. --<span>["</span>Tushar<span>Rawat"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> * The statement "innocent until proven guilty" isn't a basic human right. It is the status attributed to suspects on trial in the United States. Indeed, in some other countries it is the reverse: guilty until proven innocent. --Tushar </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2007-11-01 19:12:50TusharRawat(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 146: </td> <td> Line 146: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I believe Sharla was stating the obvious, there was no need to personally attack her. --<span>["</span>T<span>ushar</span>R<span>awat"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I believe Sharla was stating the obvious, there was no need to personally attack her. --TR </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2007-11-01 19:12:35TusharRawat(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 141: </td> <td> Line 141: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Before I start, Nancy, I would like to point out that '''I''' was editing this page. You need to wait when someone else is editing the page. Please be courteous. Second, officer Ly, as far as I can tell from his pictures, ''is'' white. He is not however, Caucasian. Actually, it isn't even worth talking to you. I can see that you are completely biased towards Officer Ly's point of view. Now I have to attend an ["ASUCD"] meeting, which is higher in my list of priorities than this. So, for future reference, '''wait when someone else is editing the page!!''' --<span>["</span>T<span>ushar</span>R<span>awat"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Before I start, Nancy, I would like to point out that '''I''' was editing this page. You need to wait when someone else is editing the page. Please be courteous. Second, officer Ly, as far as I can tell from his pictures, ''is'' white. He is not however, Caucasian. Actually, it isn't even worth talking to you. I can see that you are completely biased towards Officer Ly's point of view. Now I have to attend an ["ASUCD"] meeting, which is higher in my list of priorities than this. So, for future reference, '''wait when someone else is editing the page!!''' --TR </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2007-11-01 19:10:48TusharRawat(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 106: </td> <td> Line 106: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''This supposition without evidence isn't very helpful to anyone, rather it is simply demeaning to the student. Agreed on the police point though; they must respect the established laws while striving to maintain law and order at the same time.'' --<span>["</span>T<span>ushar</span>R<span>awat"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''This supposition without evidence isn't very helpful to anyone, rather it is simply demeaning to the student. Agreed on the police point though; they must respect the established laws while striving to maintain law and order at the same time.'' --TR </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2007-06-28 09:57:34SharlaDalyEnterprise cleared of liability <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 14: </td> <td> Line 14: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + In June 2006, the lawsuit against the Davis Enterprise was dismissed under California's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. Since the Enterprise had acquired the tapes of the police interviews of the juvenile legally the Court determined that it was not liable for posting the recordings on the newspaper website. [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/06/27/news/190new2.txt click for story]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 41: </td> <td> Line 43: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/06/27/news/190new2.txt Davis Enterprise 6/27/07]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-12-11 15:57:34EdwinSaadalink fix. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 84: </td> <td> Line 84: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * So because an incident of police misconduct occurs, it only occured in a vacuum with no externalities and because people wanted it to happen? That makes sense. --["JamesSchwab" </td> <td> <span>+</span> * So because an incident of police misconduct occurs, it only occured in a vacuum with no externalities and because people wanted it to happen? That makes sense. --["JamesSchwab"<span>]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-12-11 15:52:07MichaelMacIntosh <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 40: </td> <td> Line 40: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2006/12/10/news/021new1.txt Davis Enterprise] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2006/12/10/news/021new1.txt Davis Enterprise<span>&nbsp;12/12/06</span>] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-12-11 15:50:52MichaelMacIntosh <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 40: </td> <td> Line 40: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2006/12/10/news/021new1.txt Davis Enterprise<span>&nbsp;</span>]<span>.</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> * [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2006/12/10/news/021new1.txt Davis Enterprise] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-12-11 15:50:22MichaelMacIntosh <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 40: </td> <td> Line 40: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2006/12/10/news/021new1.txt Davis Enterprise ].</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-12-11 15:48:47MichaelMacIntosh <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 12: </td> <td> Line 12: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + On November 3, 2006, the Buzayan family, filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Davis, the Davis Police Department, the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office, The Davis Enterprise and individual members of each organization. In its lawsuit, the family is claiming intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress stemming from Halema’s arrest, prosecution and the subsequent attention from the Davis City Council and reporting in The Davis Enterprise [http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2006/12/10/news/021new1.txt click for story].</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-11-08 09:46:39EdwinSaada <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 103: </td> <td> Line 103: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - ''It's not the fact for some that the police are damned for doing something, it's for allegedly doing it ''wrong''. It doesn't matter if she's lying. Let's forget whether or not they are even supposed to follow up on a civilly settled issue. The case is irrelevant, let's instead say she robbed a bank. The fact is that she wasn't read her miranda rights, the minor was questioned without her parents, and her right to a lawyer was denied. It doesn't matter that she's "rich", or whether she's lying, or if it was even a fender bender vs a bank robbery - everyone is supposed to have those rights by law, and if the police denied and broke those, then yes, I can see why people are damning them.'' -["EdwinSaada" ES]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-11-08 09:38:32EdwinSaadacomment retraction <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 48: </td> <td> Line 48: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ------<br> - ''2006-03-23 11:33:18'' [[nbsp]] My girlfriend's mother heard about it on the news - in the peninsula (bay area). --["EdwinSaada"]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-07-23 10:02:57JasonAllerlink <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 18: </td> <td> Line 18: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * ["/PORAC" Peace Officer’s Research Association of California]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-07-22 21:21:33JasonAllerdeopranizing The National Council of Arab Americans <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 85: </td> <td> Line 85: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * An inflated size of police department could be a budget issue, if city officials determine so, but I don't think it would lead to repetitive misconduct. I believe that Regardless of the size of the police deparment, absolute authority and lack of accountability is what makes police officers cross their boundries. On your doubts of it being a case of discrimination, May be it is not a case of discirimatnion against muslims in particular. May be it is one of the cases of discrimination against any one outside the "norm", as Mr.["AbdolhosseinEdalati"] put it below, which does not make it any less worthy of public attention and call for correction. As far as the NCA involvement, The NCA is an Arab American organization and not a Muslim American organization. That means the NCA is interested in issues concerning all Arab Americans including muslims, christians, Atheists, and all other colors of the spectrum. I don't understand how would their involvement "exacerbat side issues that should not exit in the first place". If you would please give examples of such side issues that could be exacerbated by NCA's involvement. and also please give examples of past cases where NCA's involvement exacerbated side issues that should not exist. Personally, I don't know about NCA except from what I read on their website and from what I heard in today's meeting. --["AnisSury"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * An inflated size of police department could be a budget issue, if city officials determine so, but I don't think it would lead to repetitive misconduct. I believe that Regardless of the size of the police deparment, absolute authority and lack of accountability is what makes police officers cross their boundries. On your doubts of it being a case of discrimination, May be it is not a case of discirimatnion against muslims in particular. May be it is one of the cases of discrimination against any one outside the "norm", as Mr.["AbdolhosseinEdalati"] put it below, which does not make it any less worthy of public attention and call for correction. As far as the NCA involvement, The <span>["The National Council of Arab Americans" </span>NCA<span>]</span> is an Arab American organization and not a Muslim American organization. That means the NCA is interested in issues concerning all Arab Americans including muslims, christians, Atheists, and all other colors of the spectrum. I don't understand how would their involvement "exacerbat side issues that should not exit in the first place". If you would please give examples of such side issues that could be exacerbated by NCA's involvement. and also please give examples of past cases where NCA's involvement exacerbated side issues that should not exist. Personally, I don't know about NCA except from what I read on their website and from what I heard in today's meeting. --["AnisSury"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-07-19 19:55:33DavidGreenwaldComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 203: </td> <td> Line 203: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2006-07-19 19:55:33'' [[nbsp]] Federal civil rights law suit filed last week. Actually only the first part of it. --["DavidGreenwald"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-07-19 19:51:43JabberWokkyRevert to version 234 (These three points (four!) These four points by Dean (three!) Uhh...). <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- *</span> Another possible point not brought up by Johnson is that the media did not cover the most serious charges, which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of her Miranda Rights and denial of the right to an attorney. </td> <td> <span>+ <br> +</span> Another possible point not brought up by Johnson is that the media did not cover the most serious charges, which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of her Miranda Rights and denial of the right to an attorney. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-07-19 19:50:01SteveOstrowskiIt follows the alledged deal <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> -</span> Another possible point not brought up by Johnson is that the media did not cover the most serious charges, which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of her Miranda Rights and denial of the right to an attorney. </td> <td> <span>+ *</span> Another possible point not brought up by Johnson is that the media did not cover the most serious charges, which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of her Miranda Rights and denial of the right to an attorney. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-07-19 18:51:44EdwinSaadaintegrated. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 9: </td> <td> Line 9: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Possibly one more point was brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." --["DavidGreenwald"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ Another possible point not brought up by Johnson is that the media did not cover the most serious charges, which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of her Miranda Rights and denial of the right to an attorney.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-07-19 18:49:43EdwinSaadaRevert to version 228 (unintegrating = bad). <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 9: </td> <td> Line 9: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ Possibly one more point was brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." --["DavidGreenwald"]<br> + </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 19: </td> <td> Line 21: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - * Possibly one more point was brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." —["DavidGreenwald"]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-07-19 17:48:27WilliamLewisLinked signature. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 20: </td> <td> Line 20: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Possibly one more point was brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." —DavidGreenwald </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Possibly one more point was brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." —<span>["</span>DavidGreenwald<span>"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-07-19 17:46:38SteveOstrowskiThis would be better. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 9: </td> <td> Line 9: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Possibly one more point was brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." --["DavidGreenwald"]<br> - </span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 21: </td> <td> Line 19: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + * Possibly one more point was brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." —DavidGreenwald</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-07-19 17:43:43WilliamLewisRevert to version 228 (Comment was integrated. Moving back to the comments section is inappropriate.). <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + Possibly one more point was brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." --["DavidGreenwald"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 37: </td> <td> Line 39: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - ------<br> - Possibly one more point was brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." --["DavidGreenwald"]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-07-19 17:36:48SteveOstrowskiSeemed more a comment <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - Possibly one more point was brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." --["DavidGreenwald"]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 39: </td> <td> Line 37: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + ------<br> + Possibly one more point was brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." --["DavidGreenwald"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-07-18 08:26:33WilliamLewisminor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 9: </td> <td> Line 9: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Possibly one more point brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." --["DavidGreenwald"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> Possibly one more point<span>&nbsp;was</span> brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." --["DavidGreenwald"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-07-17 07:53:54WilliamLewisFixed very weird grammatical construction and a few other minor things. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 3: </td> <td> Line 3: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> It has been alleged that the ["Davis Police Department"] and ["Yolo County District Attorney"] pursued the case far beyond normal due to the fact that Buzayan is a Muslim. She was arrested for an automobile accident that she was allegedly involved in, after her family had agreed to pay damages to the other driver. Dean Johnson, a former San Mateo County prosecutor and legal analyst for ABC 7, alledged t<span>o three points in which</span> the Davis Police overstepped their bounds:<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> * The police violated Halema's constitutional rights by entering the home without saying they were there for an arrest<span>,<br> - * they treated the girl as if she were an adult accused of a felony,<br> - * and the police violated their own policy against filing criminal charges in a minor hit and run, if it's been settled civilly</span>.<br> <span>-</span> * <span>And</span> possibly one more point brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." --["DavidGreenwald"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> It has been alleged that the ["Davis Police Department"] and ["Yolo County District Attorney"] pursued the case far beyond normal due to the fact that Buzayan is a Muslim. She was arrested for an automobile accident that she was allegedly involved in, after her family had agreed to pay damages to the other driver. Dean Johnson, a former San Mateo County prosecutor and legal analyst for ABC 7, alledged t<span>hat</span> the Davis Police overstepped their bounds<span>&nbsp;in the following three ways</span>:<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> * The police violated Halema's constitutional rights by entering the home without saying they were there for an arrest.<br> <span>+</span> * <span>They treated the girl as if she were an adult accused of a felony.<br> + * The</span> p<span>olice violated their own policy against filing criminal charges in a minor hit and run, if it's been settled civilly.<br> + <br> + P</span>ossibly one more point brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." --["DavidGreenwald"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-07-17 00:24:30JabberWokkyThere we go (readded alledged in a more readable manner) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 3: </td> <td> Line 3: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> It has been alleged that the ["Davis Police Department"] and ["Yolo County District Attorney"] pursued the case far beyond normal due to the fact that Buzayan is a Muslim. She was arrested for an automobile accident that she was allegedly involved in, after her family had agreed to pay damages to the other driver. <span>There are 3 points in which the </span>D<span>avis Police overstepped their bounds</span>,<span>&nbsp;according to Dean Johnson is</span> a former San Mateo County prosecutor and legal analyst for ABC 7: </td> <td> <span>+</span> It has been alleged that the ["Davis Police Department"] and ["Yolo County District Attorney"] pursued the case far beyond normal due to the fact that Buzayan is a Muslim. She was arrested for an automobile accident that she was allegedly involved in, after her family had agreed to pay damages to the other driver. D<span>ean Johnson</span>, a former San Mateo County prosecutor and legal analyst for ABC 7<span>, alledged to three points in which the Davis Police overstepped their bounds</span>: </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-07-17 00:23:01JabberWokkyRevert to version 221 (Going to reword that to be more readable (still in Steve's intent)). <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 3: </td> <td> Line 3: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> It has been alleged<span>&nbsp;by some</span> that the ["Davis Police Department"] and ["Yolo County District Attorney"] pursued the case far beyond normal due to the fact that Buzayan is a Muslim. She was arrested for an automobile accident that she was allegedly involved in, after her family had agreed to pay damages to the other driver. There are 3 points in which the Davis Police overstepped their bounds, according to Dean Johnson is a former San Mateo County prosecutor and legal analyst for ABC 7:<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> * The police<span>&nbsp;allegedly</span> violated Halema's constitutional rights by entering the home without saying they were there for an arrest,<br> <span>-</span> * <span>They allegedl</span>y treated the girl as if she were an adult accused of a felony,<br> <span>-</span> * <span>And the police allegedly</span> violated their own policy against filing criminal charges in a minor hit and run, if it's been settled civilly. </td> <td> <span>+</span> It has been alleged that the ["Davis Police Department"] and ["Yolo County District Attorney"] pursued the case far beyond normal due to the fact that Buzayan is a Muslim. She was arrested for an automobile accident that she was allegedly involved in, after her family had agreed to pay damages to the other driver. There are 3 points in which the Davis Police overstepped their bounds, according to Dean Johnson is a former San Mateo County prosecutor and legal analyst for ABC 7:<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> * The police violated Halema's constitutional rights by entering the home without saying they were there for an arrest,<br> <span>+</span> * <span>the</span>y treated the girl as if she were an adult accused of a felony,<br> <span>+</span> * <span>and the police</span> violated their own policy against filing criminal charges in a minor hit and run, if it's been settled civilly. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-07-17 00:22:25WilliamLewisA quote is a quote. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * And possibly one more point brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most<span>&nbsp;allegedly</span> serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." --["DavidGreenwald"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * And possibly one more point brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." --["DavidGreenwald"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-07-17 00:20:32SteveOstrowski <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 3: </td> <td> Line 3: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> It has been alleged that the ["Davis Police Department"] and ["Yolo County District Attorney"] pursued the case far beyond normal due to the fact that Buzayan is a Muslim. She was arrested for an automobile accident that she was allegedly involved in, after her family had agreed to pay damages to the other driver. There are 3 points in which the Davis Police overstepped their bounds, according to Dean Johnson is a former San Mateo County prosecutor and legal analyst for ABC 7: </td> <td> <span>+</span> It has been alleged<span>&nbsp;by some</span> that the ["Davis Police Department"] and ["Yolo County District Attorney"] pursued the case far beyond normal due to the fact that Buzayan is a Muslim. She was arrested for an automobile accident that she was allegedly involved in, after her family had agreed to pay damages to the other driver. There are 3 points in which the Davis Police overstepped their bounds, according to Dean Johnson is a former San Mateo County prosecutor and legal analyst for ABC 7: </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-07-17 00:17:33SteveOstrowskiAllegedly edited. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 5: </td> <td> Line 5: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * The police violated Halema's constitutional rights by entering the home without saying they were there for an arrest,<br> <span>-</span> * <span>the</span>y treated the girl as if she were an adult accused of a felony,<br> <span>-</span> * <span>a</span>nd the police violated their own policy against filing criminal charges in a minor hit and run, if it's been settled civilly.<br> <span>-</span> * And possibly one more point brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." --["DavidGreenwald"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * The police<span>&nbsp;allegedly</span> violated Halema's constitutional rights by entering the home without saying they were there for an arrest,<br> <span>+</span> * <span>They allegedl</span>y treated the girl as if she were an adult accused of a felony,<br> <span>+</span> * <span>A</span>nd the police<span>&nbsp;allegedly</span> violated their own policy against filing criminal charges in a minor hit and run, if it's been settled civilly.<br> <span>+</span> * And possibly one more point brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most<span>&nbsp;allegedly</span> serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." --["DavidGreenwald"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-06-14 18:23:08DudeNuderemoved my previous comment as I felt it wasn't fair to the Davis PD as a whole <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 108: </td> <td> Line 108: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''Well, that depends on what you do and what you don<span>’</span>t. If you are a police officer and you <span>“do”</span> abuse your authorities and taxpayers resources that are entrusted to you, then you should be damned. And if you <span>“don’t”</span> use your authorities and taxpayers resources that are entrusted to you to do your job in enforcing law and maintaining order then you should be damned.<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>- “</span>a hit and run occurred whether or not restitution was paid<span>”</span>, <span>“a crime still occurred”</span>, <span>“</span><br> <span>-</span> .does not mean that she did not commit a crime.<span>”</span>, <span>“</span>I know more about this case then I can say </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''Well, that depends on what you do and what you don<span>’</span>t. If you are a police officer and you <span>“do”</span> abuse your authorities and taxpayers resources that are entrusted to you, then you should be damned. And if you <span>“don’t”</span> use your authorities and taxpayers resources that are entrusted to you to do your job in enforcing law and maintaining order then you should be damned.<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+ “</span>a hit and run occurred whether or not restitution was paid<span>”</span>, <span>“a crime still occurred”</span>, <span>“</span><br> <span>+</span> .does not mean that she did not commit a crime.<span>”</span>, <span>“</span>I know more about this case then I can say </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 115: </td> <td> Line 115: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> -<span>&nbsp;.is lying through her teeth.” Can you tell me s</span>p<span>eci</span>f<span>ically, with no need to get into details, which of the case documents did you see to come to these conclusions including your judgment that “the honor” student committed a “crime”. From Dan Noyes reports there is not a single person that was involved in the case testified that he or she saw a hit and run. The so-called witnesses stated clearly in their statements to your “cop of the year”</span> that there was no physical contact between the two cars (review Dan Noyes reports linked above). Also a registered mechanical engineer and a reputable expert on car collisions wrote his report testifying that the damages on the two cars don<span>’</span>t match (review Dan Noyes reports linked above). Well, I don<span>’</span>t have as much access to evidences about this case as you seem to have, but if what you know is as critical as you claim it to be then please bring it out so at least I can make sure that I stand on the right side of the issue. From what I know though, it is a clear-cut case. </td> <td> <span>+ .is lying through her teeth.” Can you tell me specifically, with no need to get into details, which of the case documents did you see to come to these conclusions including your judgment that “the honor” student committed a “crime”. From Dan Noyes reports there is not a single person that was involved in the case testified that he or she saw a hit and run. The so</span>-<span>called witnesses stated clearly in their statements to your “co</span>p<span>&nbsp;o</span>f<span>&nbsp;the year”</span> that there was no physical contact between the two cars (review Dan Noyes reports linked above). Also a registered mechanical engineer and a reputable expert on car collisions wrote his report testifying that the damages on the two cars don<span>’</span>t match (review Dan Noyes reports linked above). Well, I don<span>’</span>t have as much access to evidences about this case as you seem to have, but if what you know is as critical as you claim it to be then please bring it out so at least I can make sure that I stand on the right side of the issue. From what I know though, it is a clear-cut case. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 149: </td> <td> Line 149: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-21 00:45:18'' [[nbsp]]Commenting on the case dismissal based on <span>“civil compromise”</span>, to me, the out come means three things<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> 1) Halema is innocent, that is a fact. I do not have any kind of legal experience, but I believe that this fact is based on Halema<span>’</span>s very basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Before the judge had dismissed, Halema was a suspect but she was never guilty, however, now that the judge has dismissed, Halema is innocent PERIOD. People who still try to cast doubts on her innocence are, in my opinion, in a way disputing her basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-21 00:45:18'' [[nbsp]]Commenting on the case dismissal based on <span>“civil compromise”</span>, to me, the out come means three things<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> 1) Halema is innocent, that is a fact. I do not have any kind of legal experience, but I believe that this fact is based on Halema<span>’</span>s very basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Before the judge had dismissed, Halema was a suspect but she was never guilty, however, now that the judge has dismissed, Halema is innocent PERIOD. People who still try to cast doubts on her innocence are, in my opinion, in a way disputing her basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 157: </td> <td> Line 157: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Picking up from comment number 3 and reflecting back on comment number 1 above, my guess would be that if Halema is entitled to the basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty, then the public employees should be entitled to it as well. However, regardless of any court ruling and aside from the matter of innocence and guilt, <span>“</span>public employees<span>”</span> bear an additional burden of providing good explanations and justifications to the public when authorities and money are used in controversial ways. In this <span>“fender bender”</span> issue, the continuous failure from the part of the involved public officials in communicating with the public in a convincing and transparent manner is one of the major factors that drove the public concerns to become so serious, and drove the public comments to be so critical.--["AnisSury"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> Picking up from comment number 3 and reflecting back on comment number 1 above, my guess would be that if Halema is entitled to the basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty, then the public employees should be entitled to it as well. However, regardless of any court ruling and aside from the matter of innocence and guilt, <span>“</span>public employees<span>”</span> bear an additional burden of providing good explanations and justifications to the public when authorities and money are used in controversial ways. In this <span>“fender bender”</span> issue, the continuous failure from the part of the involved public officials in communicating with the public in a convincing and transparent manner is one of the major factors that drove the public concerns to become so serious, and drove the public comments to be so critical.--["AnisSury"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 189: </td> <td> Line 189: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * See section 827.9. It is not clear that the DDA petitioned the Court to release confidential juvenile police records to the Davis Enterprise and received authorization from the Court after an objection period prior to doing so. The DA/Halema page says "Yolo County District Attorney<span>’</span>s Office has determined that...the office can now talk about the facts of the case with the public." I don't think that the DA's Office has the power to go against a Court Order to follow juvenile confidentiality laws, regardless of whether they anticipate an objection from the parents or not. I am not trying to divert attention from the issue of whether Officer Ly acted in good faith or not. As a parent, I am just alarmed that the DDA can release very personal information about a juvenile without permission from the Court. This is really important. I don't think the DDA has followed the law here. If they release the information to the juvenile and she released it to the press, that would be different, much as I find that equally alarming. -["SharlaDaly"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * See section 827.9. It is not clear that the DDA petitioned the Court to release confidential juvenile police records to the Davis Enterprise and received authorization from the Court after an objection period prior to doing so. The DA/Halema page says "Yolo County District Attorney<span>’</span>s Office has determined that...the office can now talk about the facts of the case with the public." I don't think that the DA's Office has the power to go against a Court Order to follow juvenile confidentiality laws, regardless of whether they anticipate an objection from the parents or not. I am not trying to divert attention from the issue of whether Officer Ly acted in good faith or not. As a parent, I am just alarmed that the DDA can release very personal information about a juvenile without permission from the Court. This is really important. I don't think the DDA has followed the law here. If they release the information to the juvenile and she released it to the press, that would be different, much as I find that equally alarming. -["SharlaDaly"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 202: </td> <td> Line 202: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ''2006-06-14 05:35:48'' [[nbsp]] Perfect example of how FUCT the Davis PD is. This entire incident is an embarassment to our town --["DudeNude"]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-06-14 17:04:17PhilipNeustromminor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 3: </td> <td> Line 3: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> It has been alleged that the ["Davis Police Department"] and ["Yolo County District Attorney"] <span>have pursued a</span> case far beyond normal due to the fact that Buzayan is a Muslim. She was arrested for an automobile accident that she was allegedly involved in, after her family had agreed to pay damages to the other driver. There are 3 points in which the Davis Police overstepped their bounds, according to Dean Johnson is a former San Mateo County prosecutor and legal analyst for ABC 7: </td> <td> <span>+</span> It has been alleged that the ["Davis Police Department"] and ["Yolo County District Attorney"] <span>pursued the</span> case far beyond normal due to the fact that Buzayan is a Muslim. She was arrested for an automobile accident that she was allegedly involved in, after her family had agreed to pay damages to the other driver. There are 3 points in which the Davis Police overstepped their bounds, according to Dean Johnson is a former San Mateo County prosecutor and legal analyst for ABC 7: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 8: </td> <td> Line 8: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * And possibly one more point brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." <span>—</span>["DavidGreenwald"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * And possibly one more point brought up in the comments below: "the media has not covered the most serious charges which contain not only an unlawful arrest but violation of Miranda and denial of the right to an attorney." <span>--</span>["DavidGreenwald"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-06-14 11:31:15DavidGreenwaldSlight correction since the family is suing for 21 charges of misconduct <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 10: </td> <td> Line 10: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The case was dismissed by the ["Yolo County Superior Court"] on April 17, 2006. In June 2006, the family filed a claim of unlawful arrest against the city and district attorney. The full text of the claim can be found at: [http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2006/06/davis_hit_run_d.html ABC News]. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The case was dismissed by the ["Yolo County Superior Court"] on April 17, 2006. In June 2006, the family filed a claim of unlawful arrest a<span>nd several other allegations a</span>gainst the city and district attorney. The full text of the claim can be found at: [http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2006/06/davis_hit_run_d.html ABC News]. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-06-14 11:05:37AndrewChenIntegrated comment about claim <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 9: </td> <td> Line 9: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + The case was dismissed by the ["Yolo County Superior Court"] on April 17, 2006. In June 2006, the family filed a claim of unlawful arrest against the city and district attorney. The full text of the claim can be found at: [http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2006/06/davis_hit_run_d.html ABC News].</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 192: </td> <td> Line 194: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ''2006-06-13 15:14:03'' [[nbsp]] Complaint filed by the Buzayans against the Davis PD. This is a blog on KGO that has a link to the entire complaint: http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2006/06/davis_hit_run_d.html --["DavidGreenwald"]<br> - ------<br> - ------</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-06-14 05:35:48DudeNudeComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 202: </td> <td> Line 202: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2006-06-14 05:35:48'' [[nbsp]] Perfect example of how FUCT the Davis PD is. This entire incident is an embarassment to our town --["DudeNude"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-06-14 04:33:26PhilipNeustromminor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 13: </td> <td> Line 13: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Another account by <span>["/Annis Sury" </span>Annis Sury] </td> <td> <span>+</span> *<span>&nbsp;["/Annis Sury"</span> Another account by Annis Sury] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-06-13 16:33:49SteveHayes <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 195: </td> <td> Line 195: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2006-06-13 16:30:42'' [[nbsp]] In September 2003 I wrote to Police Chief Hyde congratulating him on being named to his new position and I told him I hoped he would clean up the Davis Police Department. As someone coming in from outside the organization, I hoped he would make some positive changes and get rid of some of the individuals who did not measure up.The “Hit and Run” case demonstrates that Mr. Hyde has done very little to improve the performance of his staff. The fundamental problems are-<span>T</span>here is too much dishonesty coming out of the department,<span>&nbsp;there appears to be no review of the officer actions,</span> supervision is sorely lacking and there is an obvious tendency to bully young people.The complaint, described above,mentions Officer Ly’s “bizarre conspiracy theory”. This is not the first time Davis Police Officers have arrived at bizarre conclusions – they dream these things up and no one up the chain of command bothers to determine if the conclusions make any sense. --["SteveHayes"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2006-06-13 16:30:42'' [[nbsp]] In September 2003 I wrote to Police Chief Hyde congratulating him on being named to his new position and I told him I hoped he would clean up the Davis Police Department. As someone coming in from outside the organization, I hoped he would make some positive changes and get rid of some of the individuals who did not measure up.<span><br> + </span>The “Hit and Run” case demonstrates that Mr. Hyde has done very little to improve the performance of his staff. The fundamental problems are-<span><br> + t</span>here is too much dishonesty coming out of the department<span><br> + there appears to be no review of the officer actions</span>,<span><br> +</span> supervision is sorely lacking and<span><br> +</span> there is an obvious tendency to bully young people.<span><br> + </span>The complaint, described above,mentions Officer Ly’s “bizarre conspiracy theory”. This is not the first time Davis Police Officers have arrived at bizarre conclusions – they dream these things up and no one up the chain of command bothers to determine if the conclusions make any sense. --["SteveHayes"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-06-13 16:30:42SteveHayesComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 194: </td> <td> Line 194: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2006-06-13 16:30:42'' [[nbsp]] In September 2003 I wrote to Police Chief Hyde congratulating him on being named to his new position and I told him I hoped he would clean up the Davis Police Department. As someone coming in from outside the organization, I hoped he would make some positive changes and get rid of some of the individuals who did not measure up.The “Hit and Run” case demonstrates that Mr. Hyde has done very little to improve the performance of his staff. The fundamental problems are-There is too much dishonesty coming out of the department, there appears to be no review of the officer actions, supervision is sorely lacking and there is an obvious tendency to bully young people.The complaint, described above,mentions Officer Ly’s “bizarre conspiracy theory”. This is not the first time Davis Police Officers have arrived at bizarre conclusions – they dream these things up and no one up the chain of command bothers to determine if the conclusions make any sense. --["SteveHayes"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-06-13 16:25:19SteveHayes <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 194: </td> <td> Line 194: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ''2006-06-13 16:20:34'' [[nbsp]] In September 2003 I wrote to Police Chief Hyde congratulating him on being named to his new position and I told him I hoped he would clean up the Davis Police Department. As someone coming in from outside the organization, I hoped he would make some positive changes and get rid of some of the individuals who did not measure up. --["SteveHayes"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2006-06-13 16:22:29'' [[nbsp]] In September 2003 I wrote to Police Chief Hyde congratulating him on being named to his new position and I told him I hoped he would clean up the Davis Police Department. As someone coming in from outside the organization, I hoped he would make some positive changes and get rid of some of the individuals who did not measure up. --["SteveHayes"]</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-06-13 16:22:29SteveHayesComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 195: </td> <td> Line 195: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2006-06-13 16:22:29'' [[nbsp]] In September 2003 I wrote to Police Chief Hyde congratulating him on being named to his new position and I told him I hoped he would clean up the Davis Police Department. As someone coming in from outside the organization, I hoped he would make some positive changes and get rid of some of the individuals who did not measure up. --["SteveHayes"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-06-13 16:20:34SteveHayesComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 193: </td> <td> Line 193: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2006-06-13 16:20:34'' [[nbsp]] In September 2003 I wrote to Police Chief Hyde congratulating him on being named to his new position and I told him I hoped he would clean up the Davis Police Department. As someone coming in from outside the organization, I hoped he would make some positive changes and get rid of some of the individuals who did not measure up. --["SteveHayes"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-06-13 15:14:03DavidGreenwaldComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 6: </td> <td> Line 6: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * they treated the girl as if she were an adult accused of a felony,<span>&nbsp;</span><br> <span>-</span> * and the police violated their own policy against filing criminal charges in a minor hit and run, if it's been settled civilly.<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> * they treated the girl as if she were an adult accused of a felony,<br> <span>+</span> * and the police violated their own policy against filing criminal charges in a minor hit and run, if it's been settled civilly. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 32: </td> <td> Line 32: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * [http://www.sacbee.com/content/breakingnews/story/14244354p-15062890c.html Sac Bee 4/17/06 Charges Dropped Against Muslim Teenager]<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> * [http://www.sacbee.com/content/breakingnews/story/14244354p-15062890c.html Sac Bee 4/17/06 Charges Dropped Against Muslim Teenager] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 64: </td> <td> Line 64: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> 2. What are the residents of Yolo county and those of the city of Davis gaining from spending all this money and efforts when we know that even if the judge rules that Halema is guilty she will not be paying the so called victim a single penny more on top of what her parents had already paid before the charges were even filed?.<span>&nbsp;</span><br> <span>-</span> 3. Why are thousands of tax payers' money are being spent on a case that Mr. Buzayan resovled 10 months ago with only 870 Dollars?.<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> 2. What are the residents of Yolo county and those of the city of Davis gaining from spending all this money and efforts when we know that even if the judge rules that Halema is guilty she will not be paying the so called victim a single penny more on top of what her parents had already paid before the charges were even filed?.<br> <span>+</span> 3. Why are thousands of tax payers' money are being spent on a case that Mr. Buzayan resovled 10 months ago with only 870 Dollars?. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 69: </td> <td> Line 69: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-07 18:57:28'' [[nbsp]] I think the police certainly acted inappropriately here, but I don't see any reason to conclude that it has anything to do with the family being Arab. To assume so anyway, and for the Arab Council to become involved, will only exacerbate side issues that shouldn't exist in the first place. I think that the real explanation for this is that some people in Davis want to have an incident of police brutality so they can feel outraged, and they think this is it. I think the real solution is to have a smaller police department that doesn't have time for stuff like this instead of a police review board. This way the same problem is solved with less people and a smaller government.<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-07 18:57:28'' [[nbsp]] I think the police certainly acted inappropriately here, but I don't see any reason to conclude that it has anything to do with the family being Arab. To assume so anyway, and for the Arab Council to become involved, will only exacerbate side issues that shouldn't exist in the first place. I think that the real explanation for this is that some people in Davis want to have an incident of police brutality so they can feel outraged, and they think this is it. I think the real solution is to have a smaller police department that doesn't have time for stuff like this instead of a police review board. This way the same problem is solved with less people and a smaller government. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 71: </td> <td> Line 71: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ["AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"] says below, "Davis cops have a history of making work for themselves where none exists", and the solution to this is reduce the police department so they are busier with real work. There wasn't just one "mistake" here, this was the police repeatedly pursuing this case after it had been resolved civilly and there was not any life or property at risk. Is that what a police force that is too busy would do? Ultimately, treating people badly wastes more time for the police than it will benefit them and they will realize this sooner with a smaller department.<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> ["AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"] says below, "Davis cops have a history of making work for themselves where none exists", and the solution to this is reduce the police department so they are busier with real work. There wasn't just one "mistake" here, this was the police repeatedly pursuing this case after it had been resolved civilly and there was not any life or property at risk. Is that what a police force that is too busy would do? Ultimately, treating people badly wastes more time for the police than it will benefit them and they will realize this sooner with a smaller department. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 84: </td> <td> Line 84: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * The NCA just got involved yesterday where the issue has been going for 10 months. Jamal gave the police department and the city of Davis many chances to correct their mistakes through contacting the chief of police, the city council, and the city manager through their own self correcting procedures. They were so arrogant and ignored his complaints. also the city lawyer theatened him in one of the meetings, as jamal explained during yesterdays meeting. That means, the arresting officer, the chief of police, the city manager, and city council are all involved (according to your argument all of these guys have nothing more important to do except to creat work for themselves by harressing tax paying residents of the city of Davis. I am not arguing on this issue). To go back to the discrimination issue, and given the above, it is the police department's reponsibility now to explain to every one why are they treating the Buzayans this way. The police department used a totally different procedure with the Buzayans than what their standard procedure lays out, therefore, they must come up with good reasons for why they did that in order for me not to believe that Jamal and his family are personally targeted. If the police department fails to come up with good reasons then, in an indirect way, the police department admits that Jamal and his family are personally targeted, and therefore it is a discrimination of some kind. I leave it up to them to pick up what basis of discrimination it is. Never the less, if there is doubts of discrimination on any basis, as there is many in this case, all civil society organizations that work to promote and protect civil rights can and should act including CAIR, NCA, NAACP,ACLU, and all the others to make sure that no discirimination is involved or to call for corrections if discrimination is proven to have taken place.--["AnisSury"]<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> * The NCA just got involved yesterday where the issue has been going for 10 months. Jamal gave the police department and the city of Davis many chances to correct their mistakes through contacting the chief of police, the city council, and the city manager through their own self correcting procedures. They were so arrogant and ignored his complaints. also the city lawyer theatened him in one of the meetings, as jamal explained during yesterdays meeting. That means, the arresting officer, the chief of police, the city manager, and city council are all involved (according to your argument all of these guys have nothing more important to do except to creat work for themselves by harressing tax paying residents of the city of Davis. I am not arguing on this issue). To go back to the discrimination issue, and given the above, it is the police department's reponsibility now to explain to every one why are they treating the Buzayans this way. The police department used a totally different procedure with the Buzayans than what their standard procedure lays out, therefore, they must come up with good reasons for why they did that in order for me not to believe that Jamal and his family are personally targeted. If the police department fails to come up with good reasons then, in an indirect way, the police department admits that Jamal and his family are personally targeted, and therefore it is a discrimination of some kind. I leave it up to them to pick up what basis of discrimination it is. Never the less, if there is doubts of discrimination on any basis, as there is many in this case, all civil society organizations that work to promote and protect civil rights can and should act including CAIR, NCA, NAACP,ACLU, and all the others to make sure that no discirimination is involved or to call for corrections if discrimination is proven to have taken place.--["AnisSury"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 89: </td> <td> Line 89: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-08 19:20:52'' [[nbsp]] In the NCA emergency meeting that was held on Saturday April the 8th, and during his account of his experience with the ongoing criminal charges against his daughter, Jamal revealed to the meeting that in one of the 7 court appearances they had, the judge asked Patricia Fong, The DA deputy that is prosectuing Halema, "Why are you prosecuting this case?". "Your honor, we must convict Halema because she is suing the City of Davis" Patricia responded in front of every one in court.<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-08 19:20:52'' [[nbsp]] In the NCA emergency meeting that was held on Saturday April the 8th, and during his account of his experience with the ongoing criminal charges against his daughter, Jamal revealed to the meeting that in one of the 7 court appearances they had, the judge asked Patricia Fong, The DA deputy that is prosectuing Halema, "Why are you prosecuting this case?". "Your honor, we must convict Halema because she is suing the City of Davis" Patricia responded in front of every one in court. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 97: </td> <td> Line 97: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> </td> <td> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 112: </td> <td> Line 112: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> .there is very strong evidence that<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> .there is very strong evidence that </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 147: </td> <td> Line 147: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-21 00:45:18'' [[nbsp]]Commenting on the case dismissal based on “civil compromise”, to me, the out come means three things<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-21 00:45:18'' [[nbsp]]Commenting on the case dismissal based on “civil compromise”, to me, the out come means three things </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 149: </td> <td> Line 149: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> 1) Halema is innocent, that is a fact. I do not have any kind of legal experience, but I believe that this fact is based on Halema’s very basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Before the judge had dismissed, Halema was a suspect but she was never guilty, however, now that the judge has dismissed, Halema is innocent PERIOD. People who still try to cast doubts on her innocence are, in my opinion, in a way disputing her basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.<span>&nbsp;</span><br> <span>- </span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> 1) Halema is innocent, that is a fact. I do not have any kind of legal experience, but I believe that this fact is based on Halema’s very basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Before the judge had dismissed, Halema was a suspect but she was never guilty, however, now that the judge has dismissed, Halema is innocent PERIOD. People who still try to cast doubts on her innocence are, in my opinion, in a way disputing her basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.<br> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 153: </td> <td> Line 153: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> 3) By his dismissal of the charges against Halema, the judge neither exonerated nor convicted the police, city officials, and/or DA. That is simply because none of these public officials was on trial, therefore, exonerating them or convicting them was beyond the scope of the court in that session. However if the Buzyans decide to file civil lawsuits or criminal charges against these public employees for any reason such as constitutional violations, law violations, or any other misconducts or criminal activities, then these public employees will be on trial, and only the outcome of their trial is what is going to determine whether or not they are guilty as charged.<span>&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> 3) By his dismissal of the charges against Halema, the judge neither exonerated nor convicted the police, city officials, and/or DA. That is simply because none of these public officials was on trial, therefore, exonerating them or convicting them was beyond the scope of the court in that session. However if the Buzyans decide to file civil lawsuits or criminal charges against these public employees for any reason such as constitutional violations, law violations, or any other misconducts or criminal activities, then these public employees will be on trial, and only the outcome of their trial is what is going to determine whether or not they are guilty as charged. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 187: </td> <td> Line 187: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * See section 827.9. It is not clear that the DDA petitioned the Court to release confidential juvenile police records to the Davis Enterprise and received authorization from the Court after an objection period prior to doing so. The DA/Halema page says "Yolo County District Attorney’s Office has determined that...the office can now talk about the facts of the case with the public." I don't think that the DA's Office has the power to go against a Court Order to follow juvenile confidentiality laws, regardless of whether they anticipate an objection from the parents or not. I am not trying to divert attention from the issue of whether Officer Ly acted in good faith or not. As a parent, I am just alarmed that the DDA can release very personal information about a juvenile without permission from the Court. This is really important. I don't think the DDA has followed the law here. If they release the information to the juvenile and she released it to the press, that would be different, much as I find that equally alarming. -["SharlaDaly"]<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> * See section 827.9. It is not clear that the DDA petitioned the Court to release confidential juvenile police records to the Davis Enterprise and received authorization from the Court after an objection period prior to doing so. The DA/Halema page says "Yolo County District Attorney’s Office has determined that...the office can now talk about the facts of the case with the public." I don't think that the DA's Office has the power to go against a Court Order to follow juvenile confidentiality laws, regardless of whether they anticipate an objection from the parents or not. I am not trying to divert attention from the issue of whether Officer Ly acted in good faith or not. As a parent, I am just alarmed that the DDA can release very personal information about a juvenile without permission from the Court. This is really important. I don't think the DDA has followed the law here. If they release the information to the juvenile and she released it to the press, that would be different, much as I find that equally alarming. -["SharlaDaly"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 191: </td> <td> Line 191: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2006-06-13 15:14:03'' [[nbsp]] Complaint filed by the Buzayans against the Davis PD. This is a blog on KGO that has a link to the entire complaint: http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2006/06/davis_hit_run_d.html --["DavidGreenwald"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-05-12 23:15:31LawJuvi <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 73: </td> <td> Line 73: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> I don't think the city council, city manager, and city lawyer care one way or the other except for however can make the least trouble for them. So I think that if they treat the Buzayan family badly, it is because they are trying to cover for the police department just because they think that will be easier than fixing it. That may or may not be true, but I suspect it comes down to just what they, maybe arrogantly as you say, think is easiest and most convenient. As for the police, you are right that the family may have been personally targeted, but that could be for lots of reasons (and I am not saying there are good reasons). Maybe Officer Ly has a grudge with the family. I don't know, but I really don't want to assume that it is racism or a similarly broad-based discrimination. I think it would be a very bad idea to jump to conclusions about that and if it ever becomes explicit it will look that much more ridiculous.<span><br> -</span> -["NickSchmalenberger"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> I don't think the city council, city manager, and city lawyer care one way or the other except for however can make the least trouble for them. So I think that if they treat the Buzayan family badly, it is because they are trying to cover for the police department just because they think that will be easier than fixing it. That may or may not be true, but I suspect it comes down to just what they, maybe arrogantly as you say, think is easiest and most convenient. As for the police, you are right that the family may have been personally targeted, but that could be for lots of reasons (and I am not saying there are good reasons). Maybe Officer Ly has a grudge with the family. I don't know, but I really don't want to assume that it is racism or a similarly broad-based discrimination. I think it would be a very bad idea to jump to conclusions about that and if it ever becomes explicit it will look that much more ridiculous. -["NickSchmalenberger"] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 166: </td> <td> Line 165: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2006-05-09 10:05:27'' [[nbsp]] question --["BrendaRodgers"]<span><br> -</span> I'm confused about the confidentiality issue. If the parents willingly went to the media (Their daughter's name and face were shown on TV) why are they now seeking confidentiality? I'm not being argumentative, I'm really wondering. </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2006-05-09 10:05:27'' [[nbsp]] question --["BrendaRodgers"] I'm confused about the confidentiality issue. If the parents willingly went to the media (Their daughter's name and face were shown on TV) why are they now seeking confidentiality? I'm not being argumentative, I'm really wondering. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 192: </td> <td> Line 190: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2006-05-12 23:14:22'' [[nbsp]] Contrary to what has been suggested, the family's side has not been publcly presented. The family's lawyers have declined to provide specific responses to Pheng Ly and the District Attorney's comments, on the grounds that the judge has not given them permision to do so. --["LawJuvi"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2006-05-12 23:14:22'' [[nbsp]] Contrary to what has been suggested, the family's side has not been publ<span>i</span>cly presented. The family's lawyers have declined to provide specific responses to Pheng Ly and the District Attorney's comments, on the grounds that the judge has not given them permision to do so. --["LawJuvi"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-05-12 23:14:22LawJuviComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 191: </td> <td> Line 191: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2006-05-12 23:14:22'' [[nbsp]] Contrary to what has been suggested, the family's side has not been publcly presented. The family's lawyers have declined to provide specific responses to Pheng Ly and the District Attorney's comments, on the grounds that the judge has not given them permision to do so. --["LawJuvi"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-05-09 12:49:23KrisFrickeCorrecting attribution <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 37: </td> <td> Line 37: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> So far only the Buzayan family's side has been publicly presented. The police cannot comment on the situation because of the lawsuit and pending court trial. ["EMOSNAIL"] operatives have confirmed that there is a [http://emosnail.livejournal.com/218115.html gag order] in effect on this case.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;''Is the city council held to the same legal bindings?'' </span>-- ["KrisFricke"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> So far only the Buzayan family's side has been publicly presented. The police cannot comment on the situation because of the lawsuit and pending court trial. ["EMOSNAIL"] operatives have confirmed that there is a [http://emosnail.livejournal.com/218115.html gag order] in effect on this case.-- ["KrisFricke"]<span><br> + * ''Is the city council held to the same legal bindings?''-- Someone Else</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-05-09 12:31:19HenryBiancoforgot to sign my post, sorry <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 189: </td> <td> Line 189: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> *Sharla, you are correct. First, the family always has the right to release any information they want. The laws are set up to protect the juveniles, not to protect the police (note that was in one of the KGO reports from their legal correspondent. Second, the DA was not released from this agreement when the case was dismissed and in fact, there is a possibility the family could file for sanctions. They are most concerned with the fact that the DA's office apparently never removed personal information such as phone numbers, birth dates of minors, driver's license numbers, etc. from the family from the tapes. That's a serious breach of privacy. </td> <td> <span>+</span> *Sharla, you are correct. First, the family always has the right to release any information they want. The laws are set up to protect the juveniles, not to protect the police (note that was in one of the KGO reports from their legal correspondent. Second, the DA was not released from this agreement when the case was dismissed and in fact, there is a possibility the family could file for sanctions. They are most concerned with the fact that the DA's office apparently never removed personal information such as phone numbers, birth dates of minors, driver's license numbers, etc. from the family from the tapes. That's a serious breach of privacy.<span>-["HenryBianco"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-05-09 12:30:03HenryBianco <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 189: </td> <td> Line 189: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ *Sharla, you are correct. First, the family always has the right to release any information they want. The laws are set up to protect the juveniles, not to protect the police (note that was in one of the KGO reports from their legal correspondent. Second, the DA was not released from this agreement when the case was dismissed and in fact, there is a possibility the family could file for sanctions. They are most concerned with the fact that the DA's office apparently never removed personal information such as phone numbers, birth dates of minors, driver's license numbers, etc. from the family from the tapes. That's a serious breach of privacy.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-05-09 11:44:51SharlaDalyMove confidentiality disscussion to this page <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 167: </td> <td> Line 167: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + --------------------<br> + Brenda, Please see the discussion re: juvenile confidentiality that I've moved here from another page. Also see [http://www.daviswiki.org/Juvenile_Justice_System Juvenile Justice System] - specifically "Local Rules" of the Yolo County Court. ["SharlaDaly"]<br> + <br> + '''Discussion:'''<br> + <br> + ''2006-04-29 01:47:26'' [[nbsp]] I read the information (["DavisPublicServant"]) posted on the Halema page (See [http://www.daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan/Yolo_County_DA%27s_Office Halema Buzayan / Yolo County DA]) and also listened to the police tapes on the Davis Enterprise. I understood that Judge Warriner had ordered that the adults involved in Halema's case were to follow the law regarding juvenile confidentiality. Can the Yolo County DA's office decide on its own that these laws no longer apply to a particular juvenile? What's to keep this from happening to other kids in Davis? --["SharlaDaly"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-29 01:49:08'' [[nbsp]] Maybe we should now remove the Halema page or at least edit out all reference to her identity. --["SharlaDaly"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-29 08:31:50'' [[nbsp]] I believe that Halema and her family waived their right to confidentiality. --["WilliamLewis"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-29 08:55:41'' [[nbsp]] I don't believe a parent can waive that right for their child and the Court ordered that the Defense and the DAs office were to follow the confidentiallity laws. Juvenile files are not to be even acknowledged. This does not bode well for juveniles in Yolo County. I think that they should rotate out the DAs assigned to juvenile cases and reassign them to adult criminal cases where confidentially is not something that needs to be grasped. --["SharlaDaly"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-29 15:43:13'' [[nbsp]] I'd imagine that parents, since they legally represent their children, and that children have no legal rights (short of against abuse and other direct criminal acts) against their parents unless "emancipated" (that is to say, given their own legal identity), are wholly qualified to waive confidentiality rights on behalf of their children. Furthermore, if the parents weren't of the same party (ie representing their children fully), THEY would not have access to the confidential files either. Suffice to say, I would say unless someone cites something authoritative that says otherwise it is not safe to fiat "I don't believe a parent can waive that right." --["KrisFricke"]<br> + ------<br> + ''2006-04-29 18:43:37'' [[nbsp]] Even if the parents give their permission for the release of information, Juvenile Court has to approve it. There is a process. See [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=3607458072+0+0+0&amp;WAISaction=retrieve California Code - Welfare and Institutions Code Section 825-830.1] Releasing confidential juvenile information to others not on a very specific list and for very specific purposes is a misdeameanor. From what I read in the paper, the DDA made a request to be allowed to release information about the case and it was denied by Judge Warriner. The order was for everyone to follow juvenile confidentiality laws. Information that the DDA released is extremely confidential and, it is assumed, damaging to the child, including the juvenile's birth date, where she goes to school, her drivers license number, description, names and birth dates of her 3 siblings. Why the DDA did this, I can't fathom. Essentially, she is asking the community to become a huge "police oversight" body. Or, maybe the DDA just disagrees with the Judge's adjudication and hopes that this will result in something that approximates her sense of justice in this matter. That is something to think about --["SharlaDaly"]<br> + I can't access the link provided but this is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard! So parents can't release confidential information about a child but somehow if the government asks a public school for possible military candidates the school must release such information?<br> + * I am not referring to the parents or the juvenile releasing information. The District Attorney did. The child and her parents can do anything they want, but the Officers of the Court cannot. What is so dumb about that? Here's the website to find the code: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Search for "Juvenile confidential" under Welfare and Institutions Code. Look for Section 825-830.1 - ["SharlaDaly"]<br> + * Oh, wow. My bad. I completely agree with you on that. I must have read it wrong or something... sorry. --["TusharRawat"]<br> + * Hey I just read sections 825-830.1 and I didn't see anything that answers the specific question at hand -- could you provide a more specific citation? Also, as per your restatement above "''I am not referring ... The District Attorney did.''" I think that mischaracterizes the subject at hand, as the subject is the parents or juvenile authorizing the DA to release information, which essentially is in fact essentially equal to ''the parents or the juvenile releasing information''. -["KrisFricke"]<br> + * See section 827.9. It is not clear that the DDA petitioned the Court to release confidential juvenile police records to the Davis Enterprise and received authorization from the Court after an objection period prior to doing so. The DA/Halema page says "Yolo County District Attorney’s Office has determined that...the office can now talk about the facts of the case with the public." I don't think that the DA's Office has the power to go against a Court Order to follow juvenile confidentiality laws, regardless of whether they anticipate an objection from the parents or not. I am not trying to divert attention from the issue of whether Officer Ly acted in good faith or not. As a parent, I am just alarmed that the DDA can release very personal information about a juvenile without permission from the Court. This is really important. I don't think the DDA has followed the law here. If they release the information to the juvenile and she released it to the press, that would be different, much as I find that equally alarming. -["SharlaDaly"] </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-05-09 10:06:52BrendaRodgers <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 166: </td> <td> Line 166: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ I'm confused about the confidentiality issue. If the parents willingly went to the media (Their daughter's name and face were shown on TV) why are they now seeking confidentiality? I'm not being argumentative, I'm really wondering.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-05-09 10:05:27BrendaRodgersComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 164: </td> <td> Line 164: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2006-05-09 10:05:27'' [[nbsp]] question --["BrendaRodgers"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-05-09 10:01:40JabberWokkyFixed markup. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 25: </td> <td> Line 25: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- '''</span>*<span>&nbsp;-</span> [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2006/05/09/Opinion/Letters.To.The.Editor-1923347.shtml?sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com&amp;MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com Letter to the Editor from Officer Ly - Cal Aggie 5/9/06] </td> <td> <span>+ </span>* [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2006/05/09/Opinion/Letters.To.The.Editor-1923347.shtml?sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com&amp;MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com Letter to the Editor from Officer Ly - Cal Aggie 5/9/06] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-05-09 09:14:58SharlaDalyComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 162: </td> <td> Line 162: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2006-05-09 09:14:58'' [[nbsp]] Per Officer Ly's letter to the Editor - Cal Aggie 5/9/06, the tapes that were posted on the Davis Enterprise website were removed at the request of the family. We need to remove confidential information that was posted here as a result of the release of the tapes, I believe. --["SharlaDaly"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-05-09 09:12:48SharlaDalySee Officer Ly's letter <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 25: </td> <td> Line 25: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ '''* - [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2006/05/09/Opinion/Letters.To.The.Editor-1923347.shtml?sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com&amp;MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com Letter to the Editor from Officer Ly - Cal Aggie 5/9/06]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-05-02 17:12:58TusharRawatComment added <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 160: </td> <td> Line 160: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * That just lowers her credibility even further. You don't defend someone by hiding. Good for the Hmong community, they have the right mindset. --["TusharRawat"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-05-02 16:24:43PattyShire <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 159: </td> <td> Line 159: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ''2006-05-02 16:12:34'' [[nbsp]] Is there still a gag order on this case? I'm just curious. Cuz apparently, Officer Pheng Ly has a website defending himself and his actions. The website is www.officerly.com --["PattyShire"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ ''2006-05-02 16:12:34'' [[nbsp]] Is there still a gag order on this case? I'm just curious. If there is, can Officer Pheng Ly still have a website defending himself and his actions. The website is www.officerly.com. Oh, by the way, NancyGrisby is really Officer Pheng Ly's sister named Nancy Ly. She's hiding her identity and is defending her brother. I received some emails from people in Sacramento that Nancy is trying to rally up her community to support her brother on May 2nd at the Davis City Council meeting. My understanding is that their Hmong commuinty doesn't support them because they feel it's not about racism but about an individual who violated another citizens rights. --["PattyShire"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-05-02 16:12:34PattyShireComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 158: </td> <td> Line 158: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2006-05-02 16:12:34'' [[nbsp]] Is there still a gag order on this case? I'm just curious. Cuz apparently, Officer Pheng Ly has a website defending himself and his actions. The website is www.officerly.com --["PattyShire"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-29 09:10:05JasonAllertrying to balance presentation of various versions. page still needs major work. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Halema Buzayan, a Davis Senior High School Honor Student and President of her school's Muslim Student Association (MSA), is a central figure in a June 2005 [http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&amp;id=4000500 incident] that was finally covered by the media in March 2006. </td> <td> <span>+</span> Halema Buzayan, a <span>["</span>Davis Senior High School<span>"]</span> Honor Student and President of her school's Muslim Student Association (MSA), is a central figure in a June 2005 [http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&amp;id=4000500 incident] that was finally covered by the media in March 2006. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 3: </td> <td> Line 3: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> It has been alleged that the Davis Police Department<span>&nbsp;and </span>Yolo County District Attorney have pursued a case far beyond normal due to the fact that Buzayan is a <span>m</span>uslim.<span>&nbsp;</span> She was arrested for an automobile accident that she was allegedly involved in, after her family had agreed to pay damages to the other driver. There are 3 points in which the Davis Police overstepped their bounds, according to Dean Johnson is a former San Mateo County prosecutor and legal analyst for ABC 7: </td> <td> <span>+</span> It has been alleged that the <span>["</span>Davis Police Department<span>"] and ["</span>Yolo County District Attorney<span>"]</span> have pursued a case far beyond normal due to the fact that Buzayan is a <span>M</span>uslim. She was arrested for an automobile accident that she was allegedly involved in, after her family had agreed to pay damages to the other driver. There are 3 points in which the Davis Police overstepped their bounds, according to Dean Johnson is a former San Mateo County prosecutor and legal analyst for ABC 7: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 10: </td> <td> Line 10: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Other players:</span> </td> <td> <span>+ == Different Accounts ==<br> + <br> + * The ["/I-Team Investigation" KGO I-Team Investigation] report<br> + * Another account by ["/Annis Sury" Annis Sury]<br> + * A post dismissal information release by the ["/Yolo County DA's Office" Yolo County DA's Office]<br> + <br> + == Public Comments ==<br> + * ["/Police Chief Jim Hyde" Police Chief Jim Hyde's] comments early on in the case<br> + <br> + == Involved Persons ==</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 15: </td> <td> Line 24: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- * [http://www.officerly.com/ Officer Pheng Ly] -- Arresting Officer <br> - </span> </td> <td> <span>+ * Officer ["Pheng Ly"] -- Arresting Officer. See also [http://www.officerly.com/ his website]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 26: </td> <td> Line 34: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- == Different Accounts ==<br> - <br> - So far only the Buzayan family's side has been publicly presented. The police cannot comment on the situation because of the lawsuit and pending court trial. ["EMOSNAIL"] operatives have confirmed that there is a [http://emosnail.livejournal.com/218115.html gag order] in effect on this case. ''Is the city council held to the same legal bindings?''<br> - <br> - === According to ABC's I-Team Investigation ===<br> - The incident took place sometime last summer and in fact Jamal Buzayan the teen's father went along with others to a city council [http://www.city.davis.ca.us/meetings/human/MIN07-28-05.pdf Human Relations Committee Meeting] on July 28th, 2005<br> - <br> - '''7th of June, 2005'''<br> - <br> - According to a police report, two witnesses spot the Buzayan's SUV moving near a sedan -- they "do not see contact between the two vehicles," but notice some damage to the car as the family's SUV pulls away. The witnesses leave a note for the sedan's owner, Adrienne Wonhof. With the help of Davis police, she reaches the Buzayans. <br> - <br> - '''10th of June, 2005'''<br> - <br> - Adrienne Wohof locates the Buzayan family. Adrienne Wonhof, : "They said they hadn't hit anybody's car, and that they didn't think that they did it." <br> - <br> - Jamal Buzayan: "Her bumper is much lower than my bumper." The damage to the two vehicles doesn't seem to match, and no one in the family recalls any collision, but Jamal writes a check for $870 anyway. <br> - <br> - '''10th of June, 2005'''<br> - <br> - Later, Davis Police interviewed the Buzayan family. <br> - <br> - Officer Pheng Ly: "The subject kinda has a smile on her face when she's telling me all this. I think she knows more than what she's saying." Then, the officer takes note of Najat's traditional head scarf. Officer Pheng Ly: "The interesting thing I noticed about the mom is that she wears something over her head and the daughter doesn't and the witnesses didn't mention anything about that, think they would have mentioned that to me. So, it's probable the daughter was driving the car." <br> - <br> - Ly never bothers to ask Najat about her scarf -- if he had, he would have found out that both the mother and her daughter, Halema, wear them sometimes. Still, the officer has the two witnesses check a photo lineup with Halema's picture. One identifies her as the driver, the other picks someone else. Davis Police do not take what would seem to be the obvious next step. <br> - <br> - Whitney Leigh, Buzayans' attorney: "They never conducted any lineup that included a photograph of the mother which is standard police procedure and something that really surprised me in this case." <br> - <br> - ABC7's Dan Noyes: "Who was driving?" <br> - Halema Buzayan, arrested teen: "It was my mother who was driving." <br> - Dan Noyes: "No question about that?" <br> - Halema Buzayan: "There is no question, no." <br> - <br> - '''13th of June, 2005'''<br> - <br> - The records show Halema and her mother never vary from the story. Still, six days after the incident -- three days after the family paid the bill -- Officer Ly is back at the Buzayans' home -- 9:30 on a school night, with back-up. <br> - <br> - Jamal Buzayan: "I was really scared of them, cause both had hands on the gun." <br> - <br> - The officer asks Jamal to see his daughter, Halema, the 16-year-old honor student, but she's asleep. He offers to bring her to the station in the morning, but Ly insists. Halema comes down the stairs and gets the shock of her life. <br> - <br> - Officer Pheng Ly: "Well, based on my investigation, okay, I believe that you were driving the car, okay?" <br> - Halema Buzayan: "Are you serious?" <br> - Officer Pheng Ly: "So, I am placing you under arrest, okay?" <br> - Halema asks to change out of her pajamas, but Officer Ly insists she just throw on socks and shoes. Her father stands by helplessly. <br> - Jamal Buzayan: "That was the most humiliating experience I had in my life. And, you know you're just hopeless and you don't even know what's going to happen." <br> - <br> - The officer drives Halema to the police station, interrogates her, and books her. He tells the girl again and again to just tell the truth, even while fingerprinting her. <br> - <br> - Halema Buzayan: "He takes my fingerprints and every time he pushes down, he pushes down really hard, and he tells me, 'Tell the truth, tell the truth, that's all you have to do,' and he just seems so angry with me." <br> - Dean Johnson, ABC7 legal analyst: "I think the arrest was over the top in this case." <br> - <br> - '''Friday, March 24th, 2006'''<br> - <br> - And District Attorney David Henderson is also taking action. He's asking the judge to shut out the media by putting a gag order in place. <br> - The Yolo County District Attorney decided to prosecute. But their aggressive tactics are raising questions.<br> - The D.A. is also asking the judge to place sanctions on the Buzayan's attorneys for talking to Channel 7 in the first place. They say this will protect Halema Bazayan since she is a minor. Both sides will be in court this Friday.<br> - <br> - <br> - === Another version: ===<br> - <br> - Here's some details I know........<br> - According to a police report, two witnesses spot the Buzayan's SUV moving near a sedan -- they "do not see contact between the two vehicles," but notice some damage to the car as the family's SUV pulls away. The witnesses leave a note for the sedan's owner, Adrienne Wonhof. Adrienne gets in the car and drives home. After she arrived at her home, Adrienne reports to the police that she found a note from 2 witnesses informing her about a hit-and-run involving her car. The note has the names of the witnesses and a phone number. Officer ly arrives at Adreinne's house takes the note examines the damage that's allegedly caused by the SUV and takes pictures of it. <br> - <br> - '''Same night of the 7th of June, 2005'''<br> - <br> - Officer ly reaches the witnesses, documents their report, and allegedly retrieves cell phone pictures for the perpetrator’s car. Officer ly runs a check on the license plate and concludes that the Buzayan’s family to be the owner of the SUV.<br> - <br> - '''Later that night'''<br> - <br> - Officer ly goes to Buzyan’s house to investigate the incident. The Buzayans confirmed the presence of their vehicle in Safeway parking lot around the time of the alleged hit-and-run with Mrs Buzyan, Najat (Halema’s mom), being the driver of the SUV. Najat, however, insists that she was not involved in any collision of any kind. Officer Ly insists that the witnesses saw Najat hit the car, and that he has pictures of her committing the hit-and-run that was taken by one of the witnesses’ using their cell phone camera. Mr. Buzayan, Jamal (Halema’s Father), decides to go along with officer ly’s story and ask him for his advise on how to get this issue resolved. Officer ly hands Jamal Adrienne’s name, insurance info, and address and recommends that the Buzyans call her and have the issue settled with her. Jamal asks officer ly if he needs to get back with him once issue settled. Officer ly insists that there is no need for that and that all the Buzayans need to do is to pay for the damage. officer ly leaves the Buzayan's. Jamal uses the phone book to look up Adrienne’s number. Najat immediately places the call to Adrienne informing her of their willingness to pay for the damage that’s done to her car.<br> - <br> - '''8th of June, 2005'''<br> - <br> - Jamal contacts insurance agent, reports the incident, and asks for advise. Agent gives Jamal the option to pay for the damage out of his own pocket instead of having the insurance company paying for it. Jamal chooses to pay out of pocket but still asks his agent to make the arrangement for that.<br> - <br> - (Same day) Agent contacts Adrienne and asks for estimate.<br> - <br> - '''9th of June, 2005'''<br> - <br> - Agent receives estimate from Adrienne.<br> - <br> - '''10th of June, 2005'''<br> - <br> - Jamal pays Adrienne full estimate amount with a cashier’s check<br> - <br> - '''13th of June, 2005'''<br> - <br> - Officer ly shows up again at the Buzayan's. To the Buzayans surprise officer Ly is there to arrest the alleged perpetrator even after Jamal explains to him that Adrienne was already compensated for the damages to her car. It was even more surprising and shocking to them that officer ly is now positive that the perpetrator is Halema Buzayan and not Najat!!. - AnnisSury<br> - <br> - ==== Comments by Police Chief Jim Hyde ====<br> - <br> - "The Police Department does not discuss pending cases with good reason. Such discussion could unfairly prejudice the City or the defendant. Where, as here, juvenile matters are at issue, confidentiality is of particular concern. Indeed, the Public Records Act and the Brown Act both recognize these principles, tempering the public's right to know against the need for confidentiality for the limited time while an issue is in litigation. See Cal. Gov't Code § 6254(b) and § 54956.9 (permitting closed session between city council and legal counsel regarding existing or anticipated litigation). More importantly, with respect to juvenile records, the City is precluded by law from disseminating information regarding juvenile cases. See, e.g., Welf. &amp; Inst. Code § 827."<br> - <br> - "The Davis Police Department handled this case precisely as it would in any other instance involving similar circumstances," Davis Police Chief Jim Hyde said in a written statement. "The officer investigating this incident had ample cause to arrest the juvenile suspect."--March 24, 2006 Sacamento Bee.<br> - <br> - Chief Hyde actually did release a 12-page report at the February 21, 2006 Davis City Council Meeting where he spent roughly one page and a half explaining the actions of the police department in this case (which is by the way, not legal according to the law, police cannot publicly comment on juvenile cases). The response by Hyde is completely contradicted by known evidence. <br> - </span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 124: </td> <td> Line 35: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + So far only the Buzayan family's side has been publicly presented. The police cannot comment on the situation because of the lawsuit and pending court trial. ["EMOSNAIL"] operatives have confirmed that there is a [http://emosnail.livejournal.com/218115.html gag order] in effect on this case. ''Is the city council held to the same legal bindings?'' -- ["KrisFricke"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 245: </td> <td> Line 158: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - <br> - -----<br> - '''Yolo County DA's Office Releases Facts of the Case'''<br> - <br> - On April 17, 2006, Judge Warriner dismissed the juvenile Petition against Halema Buzayan on the ground that there had been a civil compromise, i.e. restitution had been voluntarily paid. He also said that the juvenile court system has nothing to offer to rehabilitate the minor. He said that she learned her “lesson” through multiple court appearances. He said that the Davis Police had done their job in resolving the case. His dismissal was not a finding that she was innocent. <br> - <br> - Subsequently, the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office has determined that with no pending juvenile court matter and the minor’s earlier written and oral requests that her confidentiality be waived and her constructive waiver of confidentiality (by her behavior) the office can now talk about the facts of the case with the public. On Tuesday April 25, 2006, the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office provided Lauren Keene of the Davis Enterprise an opportunity to review the evidence and audiotapes of the case. <br> - <br> - Here are the facts of the case: <br> - <br> - Minor Halema Buzayan was charged with driving on June 7, 2005 and violating Section 20002(a)VC (hit and run, misdemeanor), Section 14603 VC (driving in violation of restrictions, infraction-her license was issued on May 19, 2005 and had a 12 month restriction not to have transport passengers under 20 years without a parent or other driver who is over 25 years old), and Section 22106 VC (unsafe starting and backing, infraction). <br> - <br> - On June 7, 2005, around 630-730pm two witnesses Marc Rowe (21 years old) and Carly Collins (22 years old) observed a Toyota Highlander in the Safeway South (Davis) parking lot backing out of a parking space and moving really close to a parked Mazda. After the Toyota was re-parked into another space, they saw damage on the Mazda where the Toyota had been very close and which matched damage on the Toyota. They watched a young girl 17-20 years old, dark shoulder length wavy hair, blue jeans, white teeshirt (possibly with frog designs), non-white and maybe of Middle Eastern heritage get out of the Toyota’s driver seat, talking on her cell phone. Two young boys 11 and 13 years old (or so) also got out of the Toyota. The two witnesses watch the driver and boys go into Safeway. As the driver walked pass the Mazda, both witnesses saw the driver discretely - trying not to be obvious - look at the damage on the Mazda. The damage was bumper to bumper damage with paint transfers. The driver did not leave a note, so the two witnesses did. They took a camera phone photo of the Toyota’s damage.<br> - <br> - Around 7:30 pm, the victim Adrienne Wonhof-Gustafson came out of Safeway, saw the new damage, and found the note. She went home and called the police. Officer Pheng Ly was dispatched to take the call. He photographed the Mazda’s damage, took the note, promised to contact the owner of the Toyota and get back to her. The victim told him that she had already contacted the witnesses who said it was a girl driving the Toyota. The Toyota registration came back to the Buzayan family in south Davis. <br> - <br> - Officer Ly then went to the Buzayan family home, but no one was home. He returned an hour later and talked with Jamal Buzayan, his wife Najat Darrat and their daughter Halema. The wife said that she went to Safeway three times that day, driving the Toyota on the second and third trips. She said that the third trip to the store was after 5 pm, but before 630 pm and she had all four children in the car - boys 6, 11, 14 and Halema. She denied hitting any car and denied re-parking the Toyota into another space. Halema denied driving the Toyota at all that day. Officer Ly’s contact with the Buzayan family as audio-recorded appears to be cordial, except the mother demanded to know if someone have taken her photograph. Officer Ly provided them with information from the victim and encouraged them to contact their insurance company. The mother is wearing a Muslim head scarf - a hijab - at this contact. In another interview she stated that she had worn her hijab all day long. Officer Ly recontacted the witnesses who stated that the driver was not wearing a head scarf. Officer Ly believed that the witnesses’ description identified minor Halema as the driver. <br> - <br> - That same night Officer Ly re-contacted the victim, provided her with the Buzayan’s insurance information and told her that all the drivers in the Buzayan family deny hitting the Mazda. The victim, after consulting with her husband, told the officer that she wanted to press charges. Officer Ly then returned to the police station to prepare a photo lineup which included minor Halema. He contacted the witnesses and showed them the photo lineup. Rowe picked out the minor Halema. Collins picked someone else. <br> - <br> - The family apparently contacted the victim and paid her money for repairs and car rental costs. To date, Officer Ly has never been contacted by the victim with information that she received restitution from the family. The payment of restitution however does not dismiss the criminal charges. The family paid directly, not going through insurance. <br> - <br> - On June 13, 2005, Officer Ly went to the Buzayan home to arrest minor Halema for hit and run. He tried going out at 6:54pm, right after briefing, but no one was home. He returned around 9:38 pm with Officer Hartz and arrested the minor. <br> - <br> - Here are the issues raised by the minor and her family: <br> - <br> - 1. 930 pm arrest - is allowed. Under PC840, arrests for misdemeanors and infractions are permitted up to 10 pm. Officer Ly was working a 6pm-6am shift Saturday-Tuesday, with some Wednesdays, and was responsible to complete this investigation and arrest. The father’s request to bring her into the station the next day was not possible with the officer’s schedule. <br> - <br> - 2. “Pajamas” - The minor was wearing a blue teeshirt and long pants - clothing often worn by teens in the public and which the officer thought were street clothes. The teeshirt is documented in the minor’s booking photo. At no time were the officers told that the minor was in her nightclothes and should change. To Officer Ly, she did not appear to have been waken up from sleep. School was already out for the summer break. <br> - <br> - 3. Minor did ask “Should I change” and Officer Ly said “No, that’s fine, you aren’t going to be there that long. Just put some shoes and socks on. Okay?” The minor was allowed to go upstairs unescorted to get shoes and socks and apparently decided not use that opportunity to change her clothes. If the officer had been told that she needed to change out of her “pajamas,” he would have accommodated her.<br> - <br> - 4. The family accuses Officer Ly of yelling, commanding and ordering the family around in their own home - The audiotapes reflect (both Officer Ly’s and Officer Hartz’s simultaneous recording of the arrest) that Officer Ly was polite, calm, and professional.<br> - <br> - 5. Officer Ly’s observation that the mother wore a hijab (Muslim head scarf) and his comment that the mother dressed traditionally are not proof of religious or ethnic discrimination - they were Officer Ly’s observations of her clothing for the purpose of identification. <br> - <br> - 6 Miranda - The minor never asserted her Miranda Rights. She did ask about having her father’s attorney, apparently a benefit provided to him as an UC employee, but never said anything affirmative about wanting an attorney to be present. <br> - <br> - 7. Should a photo line up with the minor’s mother included been presented to the witnesses? No, the mother is 43 years old and clearly not a 17-20 year old girl. <br> - <br> - 8. Excessive force - The family claims that Officers Ly and Hartz were both fingering their guns during the arrest. Both officers deny this. The family claims that Officer Hartz’ presence (as the backup officer) was unnecessary and overwhelming. The family claims that Officer Ly used excessive force in the fingerprinting process. The fingerprint card shows clear prints, which would not be possible if the fingers were pressed too hard. Pressing too hard would create smears and smudged prints. The minor complained that Officer Ly was mean when he told her to put on her seatbelt, and that she should have been told that the car seat was hard. They claim that Officer Ly was so mad that they thought that he was ready to hit them. <br> - <br> - 9. The family complains that the minor should not be alone with a person from the opposite sex - If the parents had stated that the minor should not be transported alone by a man, the officer would have accommodated them. They asked, Can I ride with her? The officer responded that they can follow his car. At no time did the minor or her parents explain that she should not be unescorted in these circumstances. It is unreasonable for the parents to have expected to be present during the minor’s interrogation.<br> - <br> - You may also visit the Davis Enterprise for a full story regarding the case, including audio tapes of the interviews. (4/28/06)</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-28 20:14:28JasonAller <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 272: </td> <td> Line 272: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> 1. 930 pm arrest - is allowed. Under PC840, arrests for misdemeanors and infractions are<span><br> - <br> -</span> permitted up to 10 pm. Officer Ly was working a 6pm-6am shift Saturday-Tuesday, with some Wednesdays, and was responsible to complete this investigation and arrest. The father’s request to bring her into the station the next day was not possible with the officer’s schedule. </td> <td> <span>+</span> 1. 930 pm arrest - is allowed. Under PC840, arrests for misdemeanors and infractions are permitted up to 10 pm. Officer Ly was working a 6pm-6am shift Saturday-Tuesday, with some Wednesdays, and was responsible to complete this investigation and arrest. The father’s request to bring her into the station the next day was not possible with the officer’s schedule. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-28 20:11:25PhilipNeustromminor cleanup on DA facts <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 258: </td> <td> Line 258: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> On June 7, 2005, around 630-730pm two witnesses Marc Rowe (21 years old) and Carly Collins (22 years old) observed a Toyota Highlander in the Safeway South (Davis) parking lot backing out of a parking space and moving really close to a parked Mazda. After the Toyota was re-parked into another space, they saw damage on the Mazda where the Toyota had been very close and which matched damage on the Toyota. They watched a young girl 17-20 years old, dark shoulder length wavy hair, blue jeans, white teeshirt (possibly with frog designs), non-white and maybe of Middle Eastern heritage get out of the Toyota’s driver seat, talking on her cell phone. Two young boys 11 and 13 years old (or so) also got out of the Toyota. The two witnesses watch the driver<span><br> </span>- <span><br> </span>- <span>and boys go into Sa</span>fe<span>way</span>. <span>As t</span>he driver <span>wal</span>k<span>ed pass the Mazda, both witnesses saw the driver discretely - trying not to be obvious - look at the damage on the Mazda</span>.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;The damage was bumper to bumper damage with paint transfers. The driver did not leave a note, so the two witnesses did. They took a camera phone photo of the Toyota’s damage.<br> - </span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> On June 7, 2005, around 630-730pm two witnesses Marc Rowe (21 years old) and Carly Collins (22 years old) observed a Toyota Highlander in the Safeway South (Davis) parking lot backing out of a parking space and moving really close to a parked Mazda. After the Toyota was re-parked into another space, they saw damage on the Mazda where the Toyota had been very close and which matched damage on the Toyota. They watched a young girl 17-20 years old, dark shoulder length wavy hair, blue jeans, white teeshirt (possibly with frog designs), non-white and maybe of Middle Eastern heritage get out of the Toyota’s driver seat, talking on her cell phone. Two young boys 11 and 13 years old (or so) also got out of the Toyota. The two witnesses watch the driver<span>&nbsp;and boys go into Safeway. As the driver walked pass the Mazda, both witnesses saw the driver discretely </span>- <span>trying not to be obvious </span>- <span>look at the damage on the Mazda. The damage was bumper to bumper damage with paint trans</span>fe<span>rs</span>. <span>T</span>he driver <span>did not leave a note, so the two witnesses did. They too</span>k<span>&nbsp;a camera phone photo of the Toyota’s damage</span>. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 281: </td> <td> Line 278: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - </span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 285: </td> <td> Line 280: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - </span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 289: </td> <td> Line 282: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - </span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-28 15:13:25DavispublicServant <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 245: </td> <td> Line 245: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + <br> + -----<br> + '''Yolo County DA's Office Releases Facts of the Case'''<br> + <br> + On April 17, 2006, Judge Warriner dismissed the juvenile Petition against Halema Buzayan on the ground that there had been a civil compromise, i.e. restitution had been voluntarily paid. He also said that the juvenile court system has nothing to offer to rehabilitate the minor. He said that she learned her “lesson” through multiple court appearances. He said that the Davis Police had done their job in resolving the case. His dismissal was not a finding that she was innocent. <br> + <br> + Subsequently, the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office has determined that with no pending juvenile court matter and the minor’s earlier written and oral requests that her confidentiality be waived and her constructive waiver of confidentiality (by her behavior) the office can now talk about the facts of the case with the public. On Tuesday April 25, 2006, the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office provided Lauren Keene of the Davis Enterprise an opportunity to review the evidence and audiotapes of the case. <br> + <br> + Here are the facts of the case: <br> + <br> + Minor Halema Buzayan was charged with driving on June 7, 2005 and violating Section 20002(a)VC (hit and run, misdemeanor), Section 14603 VC (driving in violation of restrictions, infraction-her license was issued on May 19, 2005 and had a 12 month restriction not to have transport passengers under 20 years without a parent or other driver who is over 25 years old), and Section 22106 VC (unsafe starting and backing, infraction). <br> + <br> + On June 7, 2005, around 630-730pm two witnesses Marc Rowe (21 years old) and Carly Collins (22 years old) observed a Toyota Highlander in the Safeway South (Davis) parking lot backing out of a parking space and moving really close to a parked Mazda. After the Toyota was re-parked into another space, they saw damage on the Mazda where the Toyota had been very close and which matched damage on the Toyota. They watched a young girl 17-20 years old, dark shoulder length wavy hair, blue jeans, white teeshirt (possibly with frog designs), non-white and maybe of Middle Eastern heritage get out of the Toyota’s driver seat, talking on her cell phone. Two young boys 11 and 13 years old (or so) also got out of the Toyota. The two witnesses watch the driver<br> + <br> + and boys go into Safeway. As the driver walked pass the Mazda, both witnesses saw the driver discretely - trying not to be obvious - look at the damage on the Mazda. The damage was bumper to bumper damage with paint transfers. The driver did not leave a note, so the two witnesses did. They took a camera phone photo of the Toyota’s damage.<br> + <br> + <br> + Around 7:30 pm, the victim Adrienne Wonhof-Gustafson came out of Safeway, saw the new damage, and found the note. She went home and called the police. Officer Pheng Ly was dispatched to take the call. He photographed the Mazda’s damage, took the note, promised to contact the owner of the Toyota and get back to her. The victim told him that she had already contacted the witnesses who said it was a girl driving the Toyota. The Toyota registration came back to the Buzayan family in south Davis. <br> + <br> + Officer Ly then went to the Buzayan family home, but no one was home. He returned an hour later and talked with Jamal Buzayan, his wife Najat Darrat and their daughter Halema. The wife said that she went to Safeway three times that day, driving the Toyota on the second and third trips. She said that the third trip to the store was after 5 pm, but before 630 pm and she had all four children in the car - boys 6, 11, 14 and Halema. She denied hitting any car and denied re-parking the Toyota into another space. Halema denied driving the Toyota at all that day. Officer Ly’s contact with the Buzayan family as audio-recorded appears to be cordial, except the mother demanded to know if someone have taken her photograph. Officer Ly provided them with information from the victim and encouraged them to contact their insurance company. The mother is wearing a Muslim head scarf - a hijab - at this contact. In another interview she stated that she had worn her hijab all day long. Officer Ly recontacted the witnesses who stated that the driver was not wearing a head scarf. Officer Ly believed that the witnesses’ description identified minor Halema as the driver. <br> + <br> + That same night Officer Ly re-contacted the victim, provided her with the Buzayan’s insurance information and told her that all the drivers in the Buzayan family deny hitting the Mazda. The victim, after consulting with her husband, told the officer that she wanted to press charges. Officer Ly then returned to the police station to prepare a photo lineup which included minor Halema. He contacted the witnesses and showed them the photo lineup. Rowe picked out the minor Halema. Collins picked someone else. <br> + <br> + The family apparently contacted the victim and paid her money for repairs and car rental costs. To date, Officer Ly has never been contacted by the victim with information that she received restitution from the family. The payment of restitution however does not dismiss the criminal charges. The family paid directly, not going through insurance. <br> + <br> + On June 13, 2005, Officer Ly went to the Buzayan home to arrest minor Halema for hit and run. He tried going out at 6:54pm, right after briefing, but no one was home. He returned around 9:38 pm with Officer Hartz and arrested the minor. <br> + <br> + Here are the issues raised by the minor and her family: <br> + <br> + 1. 930 pm arrest - is allowed. Under PC840, arrests for misdemeanors and infractions are<br> + <br> + permitted up to 10 pm. Officer Ly was working a 6pm-6am shift Saturday-Tuesday, with some Wednesdays, and was responsible to complete this investigation and arrest. The father’s request to bring her into the station the next day was not possible with the officer’s schedule. <br> + <br> + 2. “Pajamas” - The minor was wearing a blue teeshirt and long pants - clothing often worn by teens in the public and which the officer thought were street clothes. The teeshirt is documented in the minor’s booking photo. At no time were the officers told that the minor was in her nightclothes and should change. To Officer Ly, she did not appear to have been waken up from sleep. School was already out for the summer break. <br> + <br> + <br> + <br> + 3. Minor did ask “Should I change” and Officer Ly said “No, that’s fine, you aren’t going to be there that long. Just put some shoes and socks on. Okay?” The minor was allowed to go upstairs unescorted to get shoes and socks and apparently decided not use that opportunity to change her clothes. If the officer had been told that she needed to change out of her “pajamas,” he would have accommodated her.<br> + <br> + <br> + <br> + 4. The family accuses Officer Ly of yelling, commanding and ordering the family around in their own home - The audiotapes reflect (both Officer Ly’s and Officer Hartz’s simultaneous recording of the arrest) that Officer Ly was polite, calm, and professional.<br> + <br> + <br> + <br> + 5. Officer Ly’s observation that the mother wore a hijab (Muslim head scarf) and his comment that the mother dressed traditionally are not proof of religious or ethnic discrimination - they were Officer Ly’s observations of her clothing for the purpose of identification. <br> + <br> + 6 Miranda - The minor never asserted her Miranda Rights. She did ask about having her father’s attorney, apparently a benefit provided to him as an UC employee, but never said anything affirmative about wanting an attorney to be present. <br> + <br> + 7. Should a photo line up with the minor’s mother included been presented to the witnesses? No, the mother is 43 years old and clearly not a 17-20 year old girl. <br> + <br> + 8. Excessive force - The family claims that Officers Ly and Hartz were both fingering their guns during the arrest. Both officers deny this. The family claims that Officer Hartz’ presence (as the backup officer) was unnecessary and overwhelming. The family claims that Officer Ly used excessive force in the fingerprinting process. The fingerprint card shows clear prints, which would not be possible if the fingers were pressed too hard. Pressing too hard would create smears and smudged prints. The minor complained that Officer Ly was mean when he told her to put on her seatbelt, and that she should have been told that the car seat was hard. They claim that Officer Ly was so mad that they thought that he was ready to hit them. <br> + <br> + 9. The family complains that the minor should not be alone with a person from the opposite sex - If the parents had stated that the minor should not be transported alone by a man, the officer would have accommodated them. They asked, Can I ride with her? The officer responded that they can follow his car. At no time did the minor or her parents explain that she should not be unescorted in these circumstances. It is unreasonable for the parents to have expected to be present during the minor’s interrogation.<br> + <br> + You may also visit the Davis Enterprise for a full story regarding the case, including audio tapes of the interviews. (4/28/06)</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-21 18:46:27TusharRawatComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 244: </td> <td> Line 244: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I see. Interesting how our own country violates most of the Articles set forth in said resolution. Specifically Articles 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 23, 28 and 30. Also, I don't think you can put a formal definition on "human rights" because that requires assumption and agreement, and you can never have absolute agreement. --["TusharRawat"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-21 18:15:13AnisSuryJust formatting <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 243: </td> <td> Line 243: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Tushar, please review Article 11 under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted and proclaimed by the UN <span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- </span>General Assembly resolution 217 A(III) of 10 Dec 1984. ---["AnisSury"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Tushar, please review Article 11 under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted and proclaimed by the UN General Assembly resolution 217 A(III) of 10 Dec 1984. ---["AnisSury"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-21 18:14:19AnisSury <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 244: </td> <td> Line 244: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- *</span> General Assembly resolution 217 A(III) of 10 Dec 1984. ---["AnisSury"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> General Assembly resolution 217 A(III) of 10 Dec 1984. ---["AnisSury"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-21 18:13:46AnisSuryDoubled checked info and presented result. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 243: </td> <td> Line 243: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- * Thanks Tushar, note is taken, I will study what I wrote more carefully and correct it accoridingly.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ * Tushar, please review Article 11 under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted and proclaimed by the UN <br> + * General Assembly resolution 217 A(III) of 10 Dec 1984. ---["AnisSury"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-21 07:47:45AnisSuryresponded to Tushar <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 235: </td> <td> Line 235: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> 1) Halema is innocent, that is a fact. I do not have any <span>type</span> of legal experience, but I believe that this fact is based on Halema’s very basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Before the judge had dismissed, Halema was a suspect but she was never guilty, however, now that the judge has dismissed, Halema is innocent PERIOD. People who still try to cast doubts on her innocence are, in my opinion, in a way disputing her basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. </td> <td> <span>+</span> 1) Halema is innocent, that is a fact. I do not have any <span>kind</span> of legal experience, but I believe that this fact is based on Halema’s very basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Before the judge had dismissed, Halema was a suspect but she was never guilty, however, now that the judge has dismissed, Halema is innocent PERIOD. People who still try to cast doubts on her innocence are, in my opinion, in a way disputing her basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 243: </td> <td> Line 243: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Thanks Tushar, note is taken, I will study what I wrote more carefully and correct it accoridingly.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-21 04:24:56TusharRawatComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 242: </td> <td> Line 242: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> </td> <td> <span>+ * The statement "innocent until proven guilty" isn't a basic human right. It is the status attributed to suspects on trial in the United States. Indeed, in some other countries it is the reverse: guilty until proven innocent. --["TusharRawat"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-21 04:11:28NickSchmalenbergerrearrange, hope i didn't destroy any content <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 154: </td> <td> Line 154: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-07 18:57:28'' [[nbsp]] I think the police certainly acted inappropriately here, but I don't see any reason to conclude that it has anything to do with the family being <span>muslim</span>. <span>&nbsp;</span>To assume so anyway, and for the Arab Council to become involved, will only exacerbate side issues that shouldn't exist in the first place. I think that the real explanation for this is that some people in Davis want to have an incident of police brutality so they can feel outraged, and they think this is it. I<span>t may not be a coincidence that this comes out n</span>ow, <span>after the police review board has been proposed</span>. I think the <span>real solution is to have a smaller police department that does</span>n't <span>have time for stuff li</span>k<span>e this instead of a police review board</span>. <span>This way the same problem is solved with less people and a smaller government</span>. -["NickSchmalenberger"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>- </span> * The main reasons to think so, as far as I can see, are a) that there don't seem to be any other reasons why the police would pursue this case, let alone pursue it so aggressively, and b) the arresting officer (Ly) 's comments about Halema Buzayan and her mother's head scarves. --["KenjiYamada"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>- </span> * Racism could definitely be a factor, and it doesn't matter what the police new before the investigation: take for example racial profiling data. A survery of the CHP found that their was no real disparity in how the CHP pulled over different ethinicities, the disparity occurred in the punishment that was given out. Blacks and latinos were more likely to receive tickets and have their property towed. The investigation was not inappropriate it was everything that happened after the act. -["JamesSchwab"]<br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>- </span> * So because an incident of police misconduct occurs, it only occured in a vacuum with no externalities and because people wanted it to happen? That makes sense. --["JamesSchwab"<span>]</span><br> <span>- * I didn't say the incident occured because people wanted it to, I said the publicity might have been greater because people wanted it to be. I don't know why the incident occured, although I doubt it was because she was Muslim. Also, I'm not denying that police misconduct occured, I am simply saying there is a better simpler solution than a police review board. -["NickSchmalenberger"]<br> - <br> - </span> * What is that better solution? --["KenjiYamada"]<br> <span>- </span> * Less police<span>. ["AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"] says below, "Davis cops have a history of making work for themselves where none exists", and the solution to this is reduce the police department so they are busier with real work. Ultimately, treating people badly wastes more time for the police than it will benefit them and they will realize this sooner with a smaller department</span>. -["NickSchmalenberger"]<br> <span>- </span> * An inflated size of police department could be a budget issue, if city officials determine so, but I don't think it would lead to repetitive misconduct. I believe that Regardless of the size of the police deparment, absolute authority and lack of accountability is what makes police officers cross their boundries. On your doubts of it being a case of discrimination, May be it is not a case of discirimatnion against muslims in particular. May be it is one of the cases of discrimination against any one outside the "norm", as Mr.["AbdolhosseinEdalati"] put it below, which does not make it any less worthy of public attention and call for correction. As far as the NCA involvement, The NCA is an Arab American organization and not a Muslim American organization. That means the NCA is interested in issues concerning all Arab Americans including muslims, christians, Atheists, and all other colors of the spectrum. I don't understand how would their involvement "exacerbat side issues that should not exit in the first place". If you would please give examples of such side issues that could be exacerbated by NCA's involvement. and also please give examples of past cases where NCA's involvement exacerbated side issues that should not exist. Personally, I don't know about NCA except from what I read on their website and from what I heard in today's meeting. --["AnisSury"]<br> <span>- * The side issue that would be exacerbated is their being Arab and Muslim. You are right that I may have been inaccurately associating the NCA with Islam, and I thank you for pointing this out, but the same problem exists. That problem is that, silly as it is, there are certain bad sterotypes of Arabs here in the US and for the NCA to be involved will call up those sterotypes and counter-sterotypes of racial profiling by police, neither of which I think needs to happen and will only make the situation less clear than it is. -["NickSchmalenberger"]<br> - <br> - </span> * This is an absurd argument. If anything, less police will make the police more likely not less likely to make mistakes. They are spread too thin as it is. They are unable to adequately respond right now. We really need to hire more police for the load that they have to bear. Decreasing the number would mean more stress, more anxiety, less rest, which will increase frustration and the number of mistakes that are made. I really wish people would think their solutions through. --["DavidGreenwald"]<br> <span>- <br> - * There wasn't just one "mistake" here, this was the police repeatedly pursuing this case after it had been resolved civilly and there was not any life or property at risk. Is that what a police force that is too busy would do? -["NickSchmalenberger"]<br> - </span> * The NCA just got involved yesterday where the issue has been going for 10 months. Jamal gave the police department and the city of Davis many chances to correct their mistakes through contacting the chief of police, the city council, and the city manager through their own self correcting procedures. They were so arrogant and ignored his complaints. also the city lawyer theatened him in one of the meetings, as jamal explained during yesterdays meeting. That means, the arresting officer, the chief of police, the city manager, and city council are all involved (according to your argument all of these guys have nothing more important to do except to creat work for themselves by harressing tax paying residents of the city of Davis. I am not arguing on this issue). To go back to the discrimination issue, and given the above, it is the police department's reponsibility now to explain to every one why are they treating the Buzayans this way. The police department used a totally different procedure with the Buzayans than what their standard procedure lays out, therefore, they must come up with good reasons for why they did that in order for me not to believe that Jamal and his family are personally targeted. If the police department fails to come up with good reasons then, in an indirect way, the police department admits that Jamal and his family are personally targeted, and therefore it is a discrimination of some kind. I leave it up to them to pick up what basis of discrimination it is. Never the less, if there is doubts of discrimination on any basis, as there is many in this case, all civil society organizations that work to promote and protect civil rights can and should act including CAIR, NCA, NAACP,ACLU, and all the others to make sure that no discirimination is involved or to call for corrections if discrimination is proven to have taken place.--["AnisSury"] <br> <span>- * I don't think the city council, city manager, and city lawyer care one way or the other except for however can make the least trouble for them. So I think that if they treat the Buzayan family badly, it is because they are trying to cover for the police department just because they think that will be easier than fixing it. That may or may not be true, but I suspect it comes down to just what they, maybe arrogantly as you say, think is easiest and most convenient. As for the police, you are right that the family may have been personally targeted, but that could be for lots of reasons (and I am not saying there are good reasons). Maybe Officer Ly has a grudge with the family. I don't know, but I really don't want to assume that it is racism or a similarly broad-based discrimination. I think it would be a very bad idea to jump to conclusions about that and if it ever becomes explicit it will look that much more ridiculous. -["NickSchmalenberger"]<br> - </span> * Nick, you have a good point there. However, the failure of coming up with good reasons from the part of the police department and the city officials over the last 10 months only strengthened doubts, made possibility of discrimination more believable to be valid, and made situtation worse. After reading your discussion above and thinking more about what has been going on, I could not recall that the Buzayans have ever claimed that they were discriminated against. Even in their civil litigations, they claimed violation of constitutional rights but they did not make any reference to any kind of discrimination. I do recall though, that they have been very consistant in demanding explanations from the city officials for what they have been subject to. Having said that, I still think that it is very appropriate for the NCA and CAIR to get involved at least to investigate possibilities, clear doubts, and lead their public bases to take the right stand. Until today, as far as I remember, neighter the NCA nor CAIR have made any statement with any references to discrimination claims.--["AnisSury"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-07 18:57:28'' [[nbsp]] I think the police certainly acted inappropriately here, but I don't see any reason to conclude that it has anything to do with the family being <span>Arab</span>. To assume so anyway, and for the Arab Council to become involved, will only exacerbate side issues that shouldn't exist in the first place. I think that the real explanation for this is that some people in Davis want to have an incident of police brutality so they can feel outraged, and they think this is it. I<span>&nbsp;think the real solution is to have a smaller police department that doesn't have time for stuff like this instead of a police review board. This way the same problem is solved with less people and a smaller government. <br> + <br> + ["AbdolhosseinEdalati-Sarayani"] says bel</span>ow, <span>"Davis cops have a history of making work for themselves where none exists", and the solution to this is reduce the police department so they are busier with real work</span>. <span>There wasn't just one "mistake" here, this was the police repeatedly pursuing this case after it had been resolved civilly and there was not any life or property at risk. </span>I<span>s that what a police force that is too busy would do? Ultimately, treating people badly wastes more time for the police than it will benefit them and they will realize this sooner with a smaller department. <br> + <br> + I don't</span> think the <span>city council, city manager, and city lawyer care one way or the other except for however can make the least trouble for them. So I think that if they treat the Buzayan family badly, it is because they are trying to cover for the police department just because they think that will be easier than fixing it. That may or may not be true, but I suspect it comes down to just what they, maybe arrogantly as you say, think is easiest and most convenient. As for the police, you are right that the family may have been personally targeted, but that could be for lots of reasons (and I am not saying there are good reasons). Maybe Officer Ly has a grudge with the family. I do</span>n't k<span>now, but I really don't want to assume that it is racism or a similarly broad-based discrimination</span>. <span>I think it would be a very bad idea to jump to conclusions about that and if it ever becomes explicit it will look that much more ridiculous</span>.<span><br> +</span> -["NickSchmalenberger"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> * The main reasons to think so, as far as I can see, are a) that there don't seem to be any other reasons why the police would pursue this case, let alone pursue it so aggressively, and b) the arresting officer (Ly) 's comments about Halema Buzayan and her mother's head scarves. --["KenjiYamada"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> * Racism could definitely be a factor, and it doesn't matter what the police new before the investigation: take for example racial profiling data. A survery of the CHP found that their was no real disparity in how the CHP pulled over different ethinicities, the disparity occurred in the punishment that was given out. Blacks and latinos were more likely to receive tickets and have their property towed. The investigation was not inappropriate it was everything that happened after the act. -["JamesSchwab"]<br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> * So because an incident of police misconduct occurs, it only occured in a vacuum with no externalities and because people wanted it to happen? That makes sense. --["JamesSchwab"<br> <span>+</span> * What is that better solution? --["KenjiYamada"]<br> <span>+</span> * Less police. -["NickSchmalenberger"]<br> <span>+</span> * An inflated size of police department could be a budget issue, if city officials determine so, but I don't think it would lead to repetitive misconduct. I believe that Regardless of the size of the police deparment, absolute authority and lack of accountability is what makes police officers cross their boundries. On your doubts of it being a case of discrimination, May be it is not a case of discirimatnion against muslims in particular. May be it is one of the cases of discrimination against any one outside the "norm", as Mr.["AbdolhosseinEdalati"] put it below, which does not make it any less worthy of public attention and call for correction. As far as the NCA involvement, The NCA is an Arab American organization and not a Muslim American organization. That means the NCA is interested in issues concerning all Arab Americans including muslims, christians, Atheists, and all other colors of the spectrum. I don't understand how would their involvement "exacerbat side issues that should not exit in the first place". If you would please give examples of such side issues that could be exacerbated by NCA's involvement. and also please give examples of past cases where NCA's involvement exacerbated side issues that should not exist. Personally, I don't know about NCA except from what I read on their website and from what I heard in today's meeting. --["AnisSury"]<br> <span>+</span> * This is an absurd argument. If anything, less police will make the police more likely not less likely to make mistakes. They are spread too thin as it is. They are unable to adequately respond right now. We really need to hire more police for the load that they have to bear. Decreasing the number would mean more stress, more anxiety, less rest, which will increase frustration and the number of mistakes that are made. I really wish people would think their solutions through. --["DavidGreenwald"]<br> <span>+</span> * The NCA just got involved yesterday where the issue has been going for 10 months. Jamal gave the police department and the city of Davis many chances to correct their mistakes through contacting the chief of police, the city council, and the city manager through their own self correcting procedures. They were so arrogant and ignored his complaints. also the city lawyer theatened him in one of the meetings, as jamal explained during yesterdays meeting. That means, the arresting officer, the chief of police, the city manager, and city council are all involved (according to your argument all of these guys have nothing more important to do except to creat work for themselves by harressing tax paying residents of the city of Davis. I am not arguing on this issue). To go back to the discrimination issue, and given the above, it is the police department's reponsibility now to explain to every one why are they treating the Buzayans this way. The police department used a totally different procedure with the Buzayans than what their standard procedure lays out, therefore, they must come up with good reasons for why they did that in order for me not to believe that Jamal and his family are personally targeted. If the police department fails to come up with good reasons then, in an indirect way, the police department admits that Jamal and his family are personally targeted, and therefore it is a discrimination of some kind. I leave it up to them to pick up what basis of discrimination it is. Never the less, if there is doubts of discrimination on any basis, as there is many in this case, all civil society organizations that work to promote and protect civil rights can and should act including CAIR, NCA, NAACP,ACLU, and all the others to make sure that no discirimination is involved or to call for corrections if discrimination is proven to have taken place.--["AnisSury"] <br> <span>+</span> * Nick, you have a good point there. However, the failure of coming up with good reasons from the part of the police department and the city officials over the last 10 months only strengthened doubts, made possibility of discrimination more believable to be valid, and made situtation worse. After reading your discussion above and thinking more about what has been going on, I could not recall that the Buzayans have ever claimed that they were discriminated against. Even in their civil litigations, they claimed violation of constitutional rights but they did not make any reference to any kind of discrimination. I do recall though, that they have been very consistant in demanding explanations from the city officials for what they have been subject to. Having said that, I still think that it is very appropriate for the NCA and CAIR to get involved at least to investigate possibilities, clear doubts, and lead their public bases to take the right stand. Until today, as far as I remember, neighter the NCA nor CAIR have made any statement with any references to discrimination claims.--["AnisSury"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-21 00:55:44AnisSury <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 235: </td> <td> Line 235: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-21 00:45:18'' [[nbsp]]Commenting on the case dismissal based on “civil compromise”, to me, the out come means three things <span>[br]</span><br> <span>-</span> 1) Halema is innocent, that is a fact. I do not have any type of legal experience, but I believe that this fact is based on Halema’s very basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Before the judge had dismissed, Halema was a suspect but she was never guilty, however, now that the judge has dismissed, Halema is innocent PERIOD. People who still try to cast doubts on her innocence are, in my opinion, in a way disputing her basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. <span>[br] </span><br> <span>-</span> 2) The dismissal was based on civil compromise. That means that the judge determined that the government had no business interfering in this case beyond the point where the police had facilitated the exchange of information.<span>[br]</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-21 00:45:18'' [[nbsp]]Commenting on the case dismissal based on “civil compromise”, to me, the out come means three things <br> <span>+ <br> +</span> 1) Halema is innocent, that is a fact. I do not have any type of legal experience, but I believe that this fact is based on Halema’s very basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Before the judge had dismissed, Halema was a suspect but she was never guilty, however, now that the judge has dismissed, Halema is innocent PERIOD. People who still try to cast doubts on her innocence are, in my opinion, in a way disputing her basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. <br> <span>+ <br> +</span> 2) The dismissal was based on civil compromise. That means that the judge determined that the government had no business interfering in this case beyond the point where the police had facilitated the exchange of information.<span><br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-21 00:54:49AnisSury <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 235: </td> <td> Line 235: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-21 00:45:18'' [[nbsp]]Commenting on the case dismissal based on “civil compromise”<span>&nbsp;it means two things</span><br> <span>-</span> 1) Halema is innocent, that is a fact. I do not have any type of legal experience, but I believe that this fact is based on Halema’s very basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Before the judge had dismissed, Halema was a suspect but she was never guilty, however, now that the judge has dismissed, Halema is innocent PERIOD. People who still try to cast doubts on her innocence are, in my opinion, in a way disputing her basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. <br> <span>-</span> 2) The dismissal was based on civil compromise. That means that the judge determined that the government had no business interfering in this case beyond the point where the police had facilitated the exchange of information.<span>&nbsp;</span><br> <span>-</span> 3) By his dismissal of the charges against Halema, the judge neither exonerated nor convicted the police, city officials, and/or DA. That is simply because none of these public officials was on trial, therefore, exonerating them or convicting them was beyond the scope of the court at session. However if the Buzyans decide to file civil lawsuits or criminal charges against these public employees for any reason such as constitutional violations, law violations, or any other misconducts or criminal activities, then these public employees will be on trial, and only the outcome of their trial is what is going to determine whether or not they are guilty as charged. <br> <span>-</span> <br> <span>-</span> Picking up from comment 3 and reflecting back on comment 1 above, my guess would be that if Halema is entitled to the basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty, then the public employees should be entitled to it as well. However, regardless of any court ruling and aside from the matter of innocence and guilt, “public employees” bear an additional burden of providing good explanations and justifications to the public when authorities and money are used in controversial ways. In this “fender bender” issue, the continuous failure from the part of the involved public officials in communicating with the public in a convincing and transparent manner is one of the major factors that drove the public concerns to become so serious, and drove the public comments to be so critical.--["AnisSury"]<br> <span>- </span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-21 00:45:18'' [[nbsp]]Commenting on the case dismissal based on “civil compromise”<span>, to me, the out come means three things [br]</span><br> <span>+</span> 1) Halema is innocent, that is a fact. I do not have any type of legal experience, but I believe that this fact is based on Halema’s very basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Before the judge had dismissed, Halema was a suspect but she was never guilty, however, now that the judge has dismissed, Halema is innocent PERIOD. People who still try to cast doubts on her innocence are, in my opinion, in a way disputing her basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. <span>[br] </span><br> <span>+</span> 2) The dismissal was based on civil compromise. That means that the judge determined that the government had no business interfering in this case beyond the point where the police had facilitated the exchange of information.<span>[br]</span><br> <span>+</span> 3) By his dismissal of the charges against Halema, the judge neither exonerated nor convicted the police, city officials, and/or DA. That is simply because none of these public officials was on trial, therefore, exonerating them or convicting them was beyond the scope of the court <span>in th</span>at session. However if the Buzyans decide to file civil lawsuits or criminal charges against these public employees for any reason such as constitutional violations, law violations, or any other misconducts or criminal activities, then these public employees will be on trial, and only the outcome of their trial is what is going to determine whether or not they are guilty as charged. <br> <span>+</span> <br> <span>+</span> Picking up from comment <span>number </span>3 and reflecting back on comment<span>&nbsp;number</span> 1 above, my guess would be that if Halema is entitled to the basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty, then the public employees should be entitled to it as well. However, regardless of any court ruling and aside from the matter of innocence and guilt, “public employees” bear an additional burden of providing good explanations and justifications to the public when authorities and money are used in controversial ways. In this “fender bender” issue, the continuous failure from the part of the involved public officials in communicating with the public in a convincing and transparent manner is one of the major factors that drove the public concerns to become so serious, and drove the public comments to be so critical.--["AnisSury"]<br> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-21 00:46:39AnisSury <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 234: </td> <td> Line 234: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2006-04-21 00:45:18'' [[nbsp]]Commenting on the case dismissal based on “civil compromise” it means two things<br> + 1) Halema is innocent, that is a fact. I do not have any type of legal experience, but I believe that this fact is based on Halema’s very basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Before the judge had dismissed, Halema was a suspect but she was never guilty, however, now that the judge has dismissed, Halema is innocent PERIOD. People who still try to cast doubts on her innocence are, in my opinion, in a way disputing her basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. <br> + 2) The dismissal was based on civil compromise. That means that the judge determined that the government had no business interfering in this case beyond the point where the police had facilitated the exchange of information. <br> + 3) By his dismissal of the charges against Halema, the judge neither exonerated nor convicted the police, city officials, and/or DA. That is simply because none of these public officials was on trial, therefore, exonerating them or convicting them was beyond the scope of the court at session. However if the Buzyans decide to file civil lawsuits or criminal charges against these public employees for any reason such as constitutional violations, law violations, or any other misconducts or criminal activities, then these public employees will be on trial, and only the outcome of their trial is what is going to determine whether or not they are guilty as charged. <br> + <br> + Picking up from comment 3 and reflecting back on comment 1 above, my guess would be that if Halema is entitled to the basic human right of being innocent until proven guilty, then the public employees should be entitled to it as well. However, regardless of any court ruling and aside from the matter of innocence and guilt, “public employees” bear an additional burden of providing good explanations and justifications to the public when authorities and money are used in controversial ways. In this “fender bender” issue, the continuous failure from the part of the involved public officials in communicating with the public in a convincing and transparent manner is one of the major factors that drove the public concerns to become so serious, and drove the public comments to be so critical.--["AnisSury"]<br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-20 20:51:53GrumpyoldGeek <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 224: </td> <td> Line 224: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * ''206-04-20 20:47'' It might also be nice to know why officer Ly couldn't just put up a page on daviswiki.org instead of using a domain name registered in Nova Scotia with the administrative contact cloaked.--["GrumpyoldGeek"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-20 20:20:48GrumpyoldGeek <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 230: </td> <td> Line 230: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Nonetheless, if someone within the department had knowledge of the information and gave it to her, that would still be, minimally, a breach of ethics. I am not a lawyer so I can't speak for the legal implications, but I'd like to know what they are. On the other hand, if NancyGrisby's comment were untrue then it wouldn't be a breach of ethics. (Grumpoldgeek smacks his head) Or would it? --["GrumpyoldGeek"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Nonetheless, if someone within the department had knowledge of the information and gave it to her, that would still be, minimally, a breach of ethics. I am not a lawyer so I can't speak for the legal implications, but I'd like to know what they are. On the other hand, if NancyGrisby's comment were untrue then it wouldn't be a breach of ethics. (Grump<span>y</span>oldgeek smacks his head) Or would it? --["GrumpyoldGeek"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-20 20:20:02GrumpyoldGeek <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 230: </td> <td> Line 230: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Nonetheless, if someone within the department had knowledge of the information and gave it to her, that would still be, minimally, a breach of ethics. I am not a lawyer so I can't speak for the legal implications, but I'd like to know what they are. On the other hand, if NancyGrisby's comment were untrue then it wouldn't be a breach of ethics. <span>&nbsp;Smacks his head, o</span>r would it? --["GrumpyoldGeek"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Nonetheless, if someone within the department had knowledge of the information and gave it to her, that would still be, minimally, a breach of ethics. I am not a lawyer so I can't speak for the legal implications, but I'd like to know what they are. On the other hand, if NancyGrisby's comment were untrue then it wouldn't be a breach of ethics. <span>(Grumpoldgeek smacks his head) O</span>r would it? --["GrumpyoldGeek"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-20 20:18:38GrumpyoldGeek <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 230: </td> <td> Line 230: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Nonetheless, if someone within the department had knowledge of the information and gave it to her, that would still be, minimally, a breach of ethics. I am not a lawyer so I can't speak for the legal implications, but I'd like to know what they are. --["GrumpyoldGeek"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Nonetheless, if someone within the department had knowledge of the information and gave it to her, that would still be, minimally, a breach of ethics. I am not a lawyer so I can't speak for the legal implications, but I'd like to know what they are.<span>&nbsp;On the other hand, if NancyGrisby's comment were untrue then it wouldn't be a breach of ethics. Smacks his head, or would it?</span> --["GrumpyoldGeek"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-20 20:05:18JulienBiewerElstobComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 231: </td> <td> Line 231: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2006-04-20 20:05:18'' [[nbsp]] Wow. This is getting really intense. I find it so strange seeing this happen to someone I know.. especially Halema. I see her in the Drama room everyday, and I would really have to say, In response to the comments left about the validity and truthfulness of Halema's story are entirely false, and show that those who made them have obviously never met her. Sorry about the bad grammar, if there is any.. --["JulienBiewerElstob"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-20 20:03:37GrumpyoldGeek <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 230: </td> <td> Line 230: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Nonetheless, if someone within the department had knowledge of the information and gave it to her, that would still be, minimally, a breach of ethics. I am not a lawyer so I can't speak for the legal implications, but I'd like to know what they are. --["GrumpyoldGeek"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-20 19:57:05WilliamLewisComment added <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 229: </td> <td> Line 229: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Nancy's edits have all come from somewhere on the Sac State campus. It seems unlikely that this person works for the Yolo County Courts or the Davis PD. Any evidence he/she has that isn't public knowledge probably came from somewhere else. Perhaps Nancy is really Ly's brother that attends Sac State?--["WilliamLewis"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-20 19:35:44GrumpyoldGeek <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 228: </td> <td> Line 228: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * ''206-04-20 19:17:00'' NancyGrigsby, you made the statement earlier that "I can tell you that there is very strong evidence that this "honor student" is lying through her teeth." Assuming for a moment that the statement is true, then I have to <span>assume</span> that you had access to confidential police documents and/or information and that you knowingly disclosed a portion of that information to the media.--["GrumpyoldGeek"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * ''206-04-20 19:17:00'' NancyGrigsby, you made the statement earlier that "I can tell you that there is very strong evidence that this "honor student" is lying through her teeth." Assuming for a moment that the statement is true, then I have to <span>suspect</span> that you had access to confidential police documents and/or information and that you knowingly disclosed a portion of that information to the media.--["GrumpyoldGeek"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-20 19:19:30GrumpyoldGeek <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 228: </td> <td> Line 228: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * ''206-04-20 19:17:00'' NancyGrigsby, you made the statement earlier that "I can tell you that there is very strong evidence that this "honor student" is lying through her teeth." Assuming for a moment that the statement is true, then I have to assume that you had access to confidential police documents and/or information and that you knowingly disclosed a portion of that information to the media.--["GrumpyoldGeek"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-20 18:48:05TusharRawatsome people are simply rude <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 227: </td> <td> Line 227: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I believe Sharla was stating the obvious, there was no need to personally attack her. --["TusharRawat"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-20 17:45:19KrisFrickeminor refactoring <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 218: </td> <td> Line 218: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Refactoring involves moving comments into a more orderly fashion, not rewriting them. Unless one moved comments at random I don't see how it could damage the editorial intent and/or "rewrite history" - ["KrisFricke"]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 220: </td> <td> Line 221: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ------<br> -</span> ''2006-04-20 16:46:56'' [[nbsp]] I think its a bad sign when an police officer needs an entire website to himself to support the claim that he is human. --["JamesSchwab"]<br> <span>- ------<br> - ''2006-04-20 16:53:50'' [[nbsp]] From his website, it seems like he is dedicated to his job, has a nice family and many friends. However, this has nothing to do with whether he made errors or not on the job. It is interesting to note (from his website) that he has recently been selected to field train all of DPD's new hires. --["SharlaDaly"]<br> - ------<br> - </span>''2006-04-20 17:06:44'' [[nbsp]] James, I think it is a bad sign when a whole blog is dedicated to defaming a great officer, especially by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about. Talk about racism...wonder if the criticism would still be as loud had Officer Ly been white in predominantly white Davis. --["NancyGrisby"]<br> <span>-</span> * Before I start, Nancy, I would like to point out that '''I''' was editing this page. You need to wait when someone else is editing the page. Please be courteous. Second, officer Ly, as far as I can tell from his pictures, ''is'' white. He is not however, Caucasian. Actually, it isn't even worth talking to you. I can see that you are completely biased towards Officer Ly's point of view. Now I have to attend an ["ASUCD"] meeting, which is higher in my list of priorities than this. So, for future reference, '''wait when someone else is editing the page!!''' --["TusharRawat"]<br> <span>- ------</span><br> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-20 17:08:30'' [[nbsp]] Sharla, have you ever been a ride along with Office Ly? Have you personally seen him on a daily basis doing his job? Then be quiet. His colleagues will vouch for him, and that is a great sign of respect. --["NancyGrisby"]<br> <span>- ------<br> -</span> ''2006-04-20 17:38:19'' [[nbsp]] Nancy, Please see [http://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Ethics Wiki Ethics] --["SharlaDaly"] </td> <td> <span>+ *</span> ''2006-04-20 16:46:56'' [[nbsp]] I think its a bad sign when an police officer needs an entire website to himself to support the claim that he is human. --["JamesSchwab"]<br> <span>+ *</span>''2006-04-20 17:06:44'' [[nbsp]] James, I think it is a bad sign when a whole blog is dedicated to defaming a great officer, especially by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about. Talk about racism...wonder if the criticism would still be as loud had Officer Ly been white in predominantly white Davis. --["NancyGrisby"]<br> <span>+ </span> * Before I start, Nancy, I would like to point out that '''I''' was editing this page. You need to wait when someone else is editing the page. Please be courteous. Second, officer Ly, as far as I can tell from his pictures, ''is'' white. He is not however, Caucasian. Actually, it isn't even worth talking to you. I can see that you are completely biased towards Officer Ly's point of view. Now I have to attend an ["ASUCD"] meeting, which is higher in my list of priorities than this. So, for future reference, '''wait when someone else is editing the page!!''' --["TusharRawat"]<br> <span>+ * ''2006-04-20 16:53:50'' [[nbsp]] From his website, it seems like he is dedicated to his job, has a nice family and many friends. However, this has nothing to do with whether he made errors or not on the job. It is interesting to note (from his website) that he has recently been selected to field train all of DPD's new hires. --["SharlaDaly"]</span><br> <span>+ *</span> ''2006-04-20 17:08:30'' [[nbsp]] Sharla, have you ever been a ride along with Office Ly? Have you personally seen him on a daily basis doing his job? Then be quiet. His colleagues will vouch for him, and that is a great sign of respect. --["NancyGrisby"]<br> <span>+ *</span> ''2006-04-20 17:38:19'' [[nbsp]] Nancy, Please see [http://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Ethics Wiki Ethics] --["SharlaDaly"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-20 17:38:19SharlaDalyComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 229: </td> <td> Line 229: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2006-04-20 17:38:19'' [[nbsp]] Nancy, Please see [http://daviswiki.org/Wiki_Ethics Wiki Ethics] --["SharlaDaly"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-20 17:17:55TusharRawatComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 226: </td> <td> Line 226: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Before I start, Nancy, I would like to point out that '''I''' was editing this page. You need to wait when someone else is editing the page. Please be courteous. Second, officer Ly, as far as I can tell from his pictures, ''is'' white. He is not however, Caucasian. Actually, it isn't even worth talking to you. I can see that you are completely biased towards Officer Ly's point of view. Now I have to attend an ["ASUCD"] meeting, which is higher in my list of priorities than this. So, for future reference, '''wait when someone else is editing the page!!''' --["TusharRawat"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-20 17:08:30NancyGrisbyComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 226: </td> <td> Line 226: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2006-04-20 17:08:30'' [[nbsp]] Sharla, have you ever been a ride along with Office Ly? Have you personally seen him on a daily basis doing his job? Then be quiet. His colleagues will vouch for him, and that is a great sign of respect. --["NancyGrisby"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-20 17:06:44NancyGrisbyComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 224: </td> <td> Line 224: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2006-04-20 17:06:44'' [[nbsp]] James, I think it is a bad sign when a whole blog is dedicated to defaming a great officer, especially by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about. Talk about racism...wonder if the criticism would still be as loud had Officer Ly been white in predominantly white Davis. --["NancyGrisby"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-20 16:53:50SharlaDalyComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 222: </td> <td> Line 222: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2006-04-20 16:53:50'' [[nbsp]] From his website, it seems like he is dedicated to his job, has a nice family and many friends. However, this has nothing to do with whether he made errors or not on the job. It is interesting to note (from his website) that he has recently been selected to field train all of DPD's new hires. --["SharlaDaly"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Halema Buzayanhttp://daviswiki.org/Halema_Buzayan2006-04-20 16:47:26JamesSchwab <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Halema Buzayan<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 221: </td> <td> Line 221: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2006-04-20 16:46:56'' [[nbsp]] I think its a bad sign when an police officer needs a entire website to himself to support the claim that he is human. --["JamesSchwab"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2006-04-20 16:46:56'' [[nbsp]] I think its a bad sign when an police officer needs a<span>n</span> entire website to himself to support the claim that he is human. --["JamesSchwab"] </td> </tr> </table> </div>