Letters to Editor
Barred from Shore
From Issue: Volume XX - Number 17
City prosecutor Doug Haubert and the police department seem to be very creative when it comes to inventing new ways to violate a person's civil rights. [Man Barred from Shore for Public Intoxication, Aug. 24 issue.]
Mr. Zea was drunk and challenged people to fight. That is against the law. He should be punished as provided by the law, not exposed to the the thin air inventions of the Long Beach bureaucracy to ban him from Belmont Shore
What is next, a "get outta town" order?
It is this kind of misguided wild, wild west folly that has the city paying millions in law suits. The legislature has provided adequate law for situations like this. That should be enough for the "tough on crime" crowd in city government.
And I live 50 yards from 2nd Street. It is therefore unlawful for Mr. Zea to visit my home. Who are these people that can make such invasive and wild-eyed decisions?
The writer is a retired deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department. In subsequent news coverage following the prosecutor's Aug. 20 news release it was clarified that "Zea does not live in the Belmont Shore area ... is allowed to drive through the neighborhood and may shop or conduct business in the mornings, but cannot be in the area on foot between noon and 3 a.m.
With drunkenness that leads to assault, there is nothing more effective than humiliating someone straight to rethink their actions. That’s what jail sentences are supposed to do.
Stephen Downing says that Mr. Zea’s civil rights have been violated by banning him from the bar scene in Belmont Shore? If he were caught DUI, is barring him from driving on the road a civil rights violation too?
At least this way, the taxpayer won’t have to pick up Mr. Zea’s $40K annual upkeep while incarcerated. The responsibility is on him where it belongs.
I’m sure the local ACLU is preparing to defend Mr. Zea from this heinous punishment.
Robert Van der Upwich