Anaheim Councilmember Kring is unfit for any public duty

Anaheim Councilwoman Lucille Kring at a City Council meeting in 2013. (Photo by: Adam Elmahrek)

Anaheim Councilwoman Lucille Kring at a City Council meeting in 2013. (Photo by: Adam Elmahrek)

Our system of justice in this nation has been designed, at least in principle, to ensure that all people are innocent until proven guilty of a crime by a jury of their peers. The job of police officers is to arrest people when they are suspected of committing crimes, gather the evidence of those alleged crimes, and turn that information over to prosecutors to pursue justice as prescribed by law. If in the course of performing their duties police officers have the need to defend their lives, or those of innocent bystanders, with deadly force their actions should generally be considered as necessary. When our elected leaders, or those assigned the significant responsibility of protecting the public from crimes, assert that the preemptive execution of suspects is the preferred method of upholding the laws of a civil society those officials need to be expunged from their role as leaders or officers of our society.

The principle of “shoot first so that no questions need be asked” puts the very core of our system of justice in jeopardy. Such an attitude places the lives of both suspects and police in mortal jeopardy. There is nothing more dangerous than someone who has nothing to lose.

Last week, following the shooting in Anaheim of K-9 officer Bruno and death of the suspect who shot him, one of the City of Anaheim’s most senior elected officials commented on a local Anaheim online message board about the incident. That official was current city council member, and mayoral candidate, Lucille Kring. She wrote:

“Bruno is a true hero as are all the canine police officers. And the shooting saved us a trial. Always a good outcome.”

Upon assuming her duties as an elected official in Anaheim, Ms. Kring took an oath swearing “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California.” Her comment demonstrates a willing failure to uphold the core principle of her oath.

To be fair Ms. Kring, after being publicly chastised for her comment both on the forum where it was written and in the media, issued an apology for her comment.

“This morning I made a careless and insensitive statement in an on-line newsgroup that does not reflect my values.  The loss of a human life is always a tragedy. He was someone’s son, maybe an uncle, brother, father. I apologize unreservedly for my statement and I hope you will forgive me.”

The problem with her apology is that she does not retract her sentiment, just that she made her statement carelessly and without sensitivity. It is not unreasonable to consider the careless comments of an elected public official to be more representative of their actual viewpoint than prepared and carefully crafted remarks. Councilwoman Kring’s opened a window into her soul; revealing for all to see what she really thinks and believes. Kring is a veteran politician, not some new kid on the political block. She knows, better than most, that walking back such a statement is not as easy as a simple apology. In politics, there are no backsies.

But in the context of politics, Councilwoman Kring has another problem. She has chosen to challenge the current Mayor Tom Tait for the most senior position of leadership in the city. She holds herself out to the public as a better leader for the city. Viewed through the lens of her comments, rather than the rose-colored lens of a polished political persona, Lucille Kring is unfit for not only the office she seeks, but the one she currently holds.

It has been said elsewhere, and deserves repeating here;

Lucille Kring should abandon her campaign for mayor and resign her current city council position and the responsibility for upholding her oath of office. Such an act on her part would save the people of Anaheim the cost of a political trial, in the form of a recall.

  37 comments for “Anaheim Councilmember Kring is unfit for any public duty

  1. Ryan Cantor
    March 25, 2014 at 11:12 am

    “Councilwoman Kring’s opened a window into her soul; revealing for all to see what she really thinks and believes. Kring is a veteran politician, not some new kid on the political block. She knows, better than most, that walking back such a statement is not as easy as a simple apology. In politics, there are no backsies.”

    Well put. She lacks the moral authority to serve after making that statement.

  2. junior
    March 25, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    Do you all really think this is a BFD? I don’t.

    Anyone who shoots at cops deserves what they get.

  3. Richard Chavez
    March 25, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    Dan I completely agree with you; Lucille Kring should resign from her office as a council member and abandon any aspirations she has for future political office. Kring knew exactly what she was publically saying, and in spite of her apology it’s clear she meant every word she said.

    There are some basic questions the City Council as a whole should consider regarding Anaheim and a growing, frustrated and increasingly angry community. What is going on in our streets that makes young men run from police officers when ordered to stop? Why are our police officers finding themselves challenged, and needing to draw their weapons, and worse, fire them at young men in our impoverished neighborhoods? Are polices enacted by the city council impacting the less fortunate in our community in disparate manner, and are those policies leading to increased violence in our streets?

    In fact, an example of a poorly executed public policy by the Anaheim City Council that does impact the poor in Anaheim was the massive $150 million dollar give-away to multimillionaire hotel owners – which Kring supported. While some would say the project creates more jobs, what’s the problem? In fact the hotel creates hundreds of minimum or near minimum wage jobs. Families in Anaheim working these jobs are caught in a vicious treadmill, having to double and triple up in apartments, having to scrabble to food banks for food and having to leave their children unattended while working odd shifts in a the very demanding resort industry.

    As a condition of the subsidy to the hotel developers, Kring and the council majority could have demanded and been insured that the workers of the hotel would earn a livable wage, and that local contractors and vendors would be used. In addition, a portion of those funds could have been used to increase community outreach efforts by the police department, after school programs and day care.

    Instead of being a leader and an advocate for sound public policy, Kring has chosen to be divisive and further inflame a community that is suffering. Worse yet her words are dangerous. The last thing our honorable police officers and our community needs is a callus politician that is pouring fuel onto flames of intolerance and fear.

    Richard Chavez
    Former Anaheim Council Member

    • March 25, 2014 at 4:58 pm

      Richard — Thanks very much. I view the situation of youth running from and shooting at police as being unrelated to the hotel deal. It sounds like the new police chief has much to change and this sort of violence in Anaheim has increased since Tait was elected mayor. I am sure you will remember that in Tait’s first term on the council, he strongly advocated for INS agents to be placed inside the Anaheim City Jail to deport “illegal alien criminals.” Tait missed the event in Anaheim on districts last Saturday even though organizers promoted him as a speaker. We both know a Mayor Galloway would never pass up a promise to speak somewhere

  4. Jason Young
    March 25, 2014 at 7:28 pm

    Dan will say anything to get Lorri Galloway elected including insinuating that crime has risen under Mayor Tait’s watch. What a bunch of baloney. Who doesn’t want illegal alien criminals deported? We certainly do know that Lorri Galloway loves to get her face in front of any camera. Mayor Tait on the other hand isn’t a media whore.

    • March 25, 2014 at 8:49 pm

      Jason, I am noting you referred to Ms. Galloway as a whore that in any context hardly would be considered kind. I’m sure Mayor Tait is proud to call you his friend. Or perhaps Tait shares your views since you speak for him so often.

  5. Jose Mario
    March 25, 2014 at 7:37 pm

    Very true comments in this blog post. Lucille Kring is not hot. Kris Murray IS hot, so we should elect her to all five positions on the City Council!

  6. junior
    March 25, 2014 at 8:28 pm

    Poor form Jason.

  7. Ryan Cantor
    March 25, 2014 at 9:32 pm

    Point of order, no he did not.

  8. Jason Young
    March 25, 2014 at 10:01 pm

    Dan I called her a MEDIA WHORE not a whore. Lorri certainly loves to hold press conferences and get here name/face out in the media as often as possible.

    • March 26, 2014 at 8:14 am

      Jason, it’s inappropriate to use the term whore in any context about any woman just as its inappropriate to use any number of derogatory terms about LGBTs, Jews, Latinos, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, or those with a physical or mental impairment.

    • junior
      March 26, 2014 at 9:05 am

      Jason Young – You are a boor and a lout – and are approaching misogynistic – media queen would have been acceptable.

  9. March 26, 2014 at 12:24 am

    Come on Dan, you know what the term media whore means. Heck, you’re in the frigging business of getting your clients out in front of reporters. There are many elected officials, and many hoping to be elected officials, who can be placed under the classification of “media whore.” Making that point about Lorri is not a suggestion that she is engaged in what has been called one of the worlds oldest professions. Calling someone a media whore is not unkind. Such a designation is sometimes viewed as a badge of honor for a politician. But I do think that we’re getting a bit off topic here. The post is about Councilwoman Kring and her classification of the death of a suspect, who allegedly fired on police officers and wounded a K-9 officer, as a preferred option to a trial.

    • March 26, 2014 at 8:10 am

      It’s an unkind and inconsiderate term; people in my profession rarely use it. To call any woman any variant on the term “whore” is inappropriate at best and insensitive at worst. And I think we all know Jason has the daggers out for Lorri.

  10. Ryan Cantor
    March 26, 2014 at 12:33 am

    Thanks, Chris. Perfect comment.

    Hat tip to the author(s) of this piece.

  11. junior
    March 26, 2014 at 6:48 am

    Dan C: “I view the situation of youth running from and shooting at police as being unrelated to the hotel deal.”

    You REALLY had to explain that to someone???

    • March 26, 2014 at 9:47 am

      I understand the point Richard is trying to make, but it’s pretty clear that Mayor Tait’s “City of Kindness” and “Year of Kindness” initiatives are a joke.

  12. Ed blazer
    March 26, 2014 at 7:44 pm

    Since when do liberals care about the law? We see from the very top the constitution and law means nothing. Move on to better topic.

    • March 26, 2014 at 8:39 pm

      Ed, Can I call you Mr. Ed? You know, because your about as witty as that horse that could talk an that TV show that aired from 1958-66.

      So Mr. Ed, tap you hoof three times if you know the answer to this question? Where did you learn that liberals supposedly don’t care about the law? If you remember, go kick them in the head for telling you such stupid things.

      It was radical, freedom loving, liberals who founded this country and drafted the constitution. If you read back through the 8 years of history of this blog, you’ll find that us “LIBERALS” have pushed for the enforcement of laws against public corruption, and against secret deals that benefit special interests instead of the public at large.

      You’ll find that liberals are the people more likely to defend your right to say whatever you like. We will also hold you accountable for your remarks rather than just give you a pass.

      If a person commits a crime, they should be prosecuted for that crime. If they exchange gunfire with law enforcement personnel and die in the process, that is not the preferred outcome. Rather it is an unfortunate outcome that resulted from that individual’s choice to shoot at law enforcement officers.

  13. Pat
    March 27, 2014 at 7:16 am

    Refreshing, a politician who speaks her mind. I’ll vote for her. Stay the course Lucille!

  14. Ryan Cantor
    March 27, 2014 at 10:12 am

    “Read” is using the term loosely. More like “suffered through a prepared statement with less emotion than Stephan Hawking reciting the dictionary, as quickly as possible, and quite possibly with one breath.”

    She said it, she meant it, she ENJOYED IT . . . she’s just sorry she got caught. Not qualified to lead.

    Anyway– why put that last part in bold, Dan? You should be jumping up and down on Kring for this . . . She’s no ally of yours . . .

    • March 27, 2014 at 2:52 pm

      it was to emphasize that she redacted and apologized for the statement which if you look at the original post, there was no mention of a redaction because it happened after we posted this.

      No, Kring is not an ally of mine. I support Lorri Galloway. However your comments about the rights and humanity of Moreno Jr. are over the top. This was a justified a police action as possible.

      You’re a father Ryan; a gang member with a long rap sheet 10 days south of getting out of jail holds a gun to your kid’s head…humanity indeed

  15. Playrighter
    March 27, 2014 at 10:59 am

    There was previously a liberally run website called mediawhoresonline. I’m guessing Sarah Palin wasn’t the only female so tagged. The site was often quoted by James Carville and Paul Begala. I’d say that “whore” is disrespectful to women; “media whore” is sometimes an apt description for people of both sexes.

    That said, what are the chances that all this righteous indignation is really a preemptive effort to get Kring out of an election, akin to Bridgegate and Christie?

    FWIW, While the family of the victim has something to grieve over, I find Kring’s “offensive” comment to be logical and not out of line. Someone willing to shoot to kill (either police man or police dog) is no longer a threat to society, and the cost of a trial was avoided — and the dog will survive. That looks to be a good outcome.

  16. Ryan Cantor
    March 27, 2014 at 2:44 pm

    Well, jeez, Play . . . let’s just screw due process all together and noose them all up right there in the street! Avoiding “cost” is what liberty and justice FOR ALL is all about, right? Bullets are way cheaper than three squares a day!

    Her statement isn’t logical. It’s the antithesis of logical– as emotional and from the hip as it gets. Nevermind the fallout from this reckless statement: I’m gonna say it anyway and let the chips fall where they may.

    You can’t call it “logical” because she CLEARLY didn’t think before she said it.

    When Anaheim gets sued, and when they settle, you can thank Lucy Kring for the bill. That statement is gonna look real logical then.

    • March 27, 2014 at 3:42 pm

      I seriously doubt Anaheim Police decided to perform a summary execution right there. I suspect protecting the public was more important to them.

      Tait could have praised the APD for how they handled this case; instead he laments the loss of life. You suggested Anaheim was going to pay for this case somehow in a comment on OJ? Really? I don’t think so.

      • Ryan Cantor
        March 27, 2014 at 3:52 pm

        I don’t think anyone over at the APD needs any ego stroking. They’re professionals, have a job to do, and know how to do it. I’m sure their concern is supporting the officers involved and not about having praise laid on them from an elected official.

        But since you’re so concerned with what wasn’t said: WHERE IS GALLOWAY? Hiding under a rock?

        Regarding a suit, if someone wants to sue, they have a case on its face just using Kring’s comments. That’s irrespective of the APD’s actions or reality, but as we all know– court isn’t about reality, it’s about perception. Had Kring kept her mouth shut, that wouldn’t be the case . . .

        • March 27, 2014 at 7:48 pm

          Your standards for a lawsuit are pretty low. What Kring said was offensive but it won’t get anyone a dime in a lawsuit.

  17. Ryan Cantor
    March 27, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    Dan,

    Yes or no, have you seen ANYTHING from me critical of the APD’s response?

    Shooting a man in self defense is one thing. That certainly seems to be the case here, and I’m sure the weight of duty here is falling on some LEOs and their family this week.

    Pissing on his grave is another. I wouldn’t call objecting to that “over the top” and neither should you. Kring did exactly that.

    Any word on a response from Galloway . . . a week later?

    • March 27, 2014 at 3:40 pm

      But nothing uncritical of the shooter; should the cops have read him his rights after he fired the first shot?

      • Ryan Cantor
        March 27, 2014 at 3:55 pm

        What exactly is there to say? Dude was clearly carrying a gun and used it. Now he’s dead.

        Doesn’t that, you know . . . sorta condemn itself, Dan? I mean jeez, what do you want me to do? Write him a strongly worded letter c/o St. Peter?

        Miranda only applies if he was, or was about to be, taken into custody. Are you suggesting that situation occurred? If not, then don’t ask an absurd question that you already know the answer to.

        • March 27, 2014 at 8:10 pm

          All I know is Tait has lost complete control of the city council chambers. Tons of F-bombs all directed at police who did their jobs. Shameful lack of leadership and unwillingness to use the gavel. Completely disgraceful.

  18. Ryan Cantor
    March 27, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    You know, Dan– I’m just gonna start making a list. WWLGD?

    Given that Ms. Galloway has said absolutely nothing about anything for over a year, it’ll be really interesting to see how she addresses your numerous critiques– particularly if she’s willing to adopt policies at the dais, which courts have OVERWHELMINGLY deemed illegal for decades.

    So, let’s hear it from Lori, Dan. How would she regulate the content of speech?

    We’ll tackle the next half dozen or so of your empty critiques next. I’m sure she’s really going to appreciate you putting all this minutia in the spotlight for her. A real pal you’re going to turn out to be.

  19. March 27, 2014 at 8:39 pm

    It’s spelled “Lorri” and I will remind you it’s March. I think allowing Tait and Kring to bash each other silly is damn smart. And Lorri has done more for the residents of Anaheim’s Latino neighborhoods and working class residents than either Tait or Kring.

    Isn’t it your turn to give Tom his foot rub tonight?

  20. Ryan Cantor
    March 27, 2014 at 9:52 pm

    Is it? I must have missed that in her last issue statement. When was that? 2010?

    Glad to here she’s been doing good work. Important work. Something worth actually commenting on. It’ll be a nice change of pace to discuss rather than your constant complaining over largely irrelevant items.

    But hey– thanks for the admission that whatever she’s been working on is so important that she’s been completely invisible for over a year. Sure does beg the question as to why she wants to come back to something that has been less interesting than whatever she’s been doing. You’re gonna be a great pal, sir.

    That feet comment was just strange. I hardly know the guy, Dan. If he does get foot rubs, good for him. Strange, Dan. Strange.

  21. Will
    March 28, 2014 at 8:51 am

    Isn’t the rule of politics that when someone steps into it so to speak, that the others get out of the way? If this person made a dumb comment, let it remain hers and hers only.

Comments are closed.