Here is another roundup of some of the most thought-provoking reader comments of the week. Comments are selected by our editors and subject to editing for grammar, spelling, clarity and length.
Click on each topic's headline to see the article in question.
I wouldn't want to be chasing a bad guy with a gun down a dark alley regardless, but I certainly wouldn't want to after [Anaheim City Councilwoman Lucille Kring] broadcast to the world that an elected official believes that taking them in dead is better than alive. Doesn't exactly do much to incentivize not going out in a blaze of stupidity, now does it?
Of course, the ironic piece here hasn't been discussed: Guess who's going to get deposed and who's statement is going to be in the family's complaint when they sue Anaheim? Saved a trial indeed.
— Ryan Cantor
Kring needs to apologize publicly to the police for labeling them as murderous vigilantes.
We hope the police shot back in self-defense, which is very justifiable and something we expect our police to do. We hope the police did not summarily murder the person in order to save the cost of a trial. To claim they did is a huge insult to the honor and integrity of the police, and Kring owes them a huge public apology.
She didn't apologize for praising summary execution, especially for its cost and time savings. All she did was apologize for not respecting Moreno Jr.'s — and I'm paraphrasing this to make it more coherent — inherent dignity as a human being.
You may want to read into that an apology for shooting suspects dead without trial; I interpret it as saying only that she feels a little bad about being so celebratory about it.
If she really doesn't still favor summary execution, perhaps she'll let us know more explicitly.
— Greg Diamond
The incident does not meet the definition of "summary execution." Don't even go there. The "this is always a good outcome" statement likely applies to the incident as I have described it, and in that sense I fully endorse the comment.
I don't interpret statements like these on a hyperpartisan basis as many do. My only criticism of Kring would be that she didn't see this hypercriticism coming. She should have clarified her statement at the time.
The scary thing would be any one of those five [defendants] ever walking the street again.
From my position in law enforcement, I know all 5 very well, especially [Leonel] Vega, also known as Downer from Delhi. They are sociopaths, psychotic, murderous and bloodthirsty. They would kill in a heartbeat without even thinking about it, and they have before.
If granted retrials, I highly doubt any one of them would win acquittals, since most of the murder convictions were from street executions and their crime partners testified against them.
The DA's office really dropped the ball on this one, and shame on them if their shady conducts puts any of our lives at risk in the future. They didn't even need a jailhouse informant on any of these five — and definitely not [Scott] Dekraai.
— All American
Most people that have looked at this project already know that it's a train to nowhere. The downtown circulator has some value for Santa Ana, but then the tangent up the Pacific Electric right of way to Garden Grove makes no sense in terms of transportation.
Let's look at real ridership numbers. If this boondoggle will not move the masses or will cannibalize existing transit to get people moving, it doesn't really have value to the Orange County Transportation Authority. The idea that "if you build it, hopefully Santa Ana can then attract people, and maybe some of them will ride the light rail" is a bad premise for justifying a project of this magnitude and certainly one this expensive.
The reality is that Garden Grove wants this project because they think it will open up development opportunities at the Willowick Golf Course site they own. Santa Ana desperately needs Garden Grove to support it because Santa Ana would otherwise have to pay the full cost of the system without the useless Garden Grove link.
Neither of those reasons has anything to do with actually moving people. All of the reasons Santa Ana uses to promote the light rail instead of improving bus service have to do with revitalizing and redeveloping areas of an already crowded city.
OCTA is in the business of transportation. It is not their job to play around with development. If this light rail project depends on new development that may or may not ever happen, then OCTA should stop wasting money on it and wait until that development comes and transit is needed.
— SA Resident
Dr. Gardner, it's too bad, but planning commissioners will always be political appointees and their selection and behavior quasi-political. Sometimes you get lucky; mostly you don't.
I was on the OC Planning Commission for almost eight years. The 3rd District commissioner was Rick Goacher — honest and dedicated, a real pro.
On the other hand, there hasn't been a coherent county planning commissioner from the 1st District in a decade.
— David Zenger
I guess not automatically renewing any Santa Ana contract is a good idea at this point. Although NAPA Auto Parts appears to be meeting all the terms of their contract as required, some of the other city contractors may have failed to perform well, and it's sound policy to solicit bids to make sure the residents are getting the best possible deal.
If, however, NAPA Auto Parts places a bid and is the lowest responsible bidder, I hope the City Council will do right by the residents and accept that bid instead of using this contract to continue to attack the mayor.
— SA Resident