npr edvertisers
visitors movie times

Santa Barbara Weather: 56.5°F | Humidity: 93% | Pressure: 30.24in ( Falling) | Conditions: Clear | Wind Direction: South | Wind Speed: 0.2mph [see map]

Free Newsletter
  login You create the news! Send items of interest to ed@edhat.com
    17841 Subscribers
      527 Paid (3.0%)
     108 Commenters
     109853 Page Views

Buy Edhat Shirts
Buy Edhat Shirts
Buy Edhat Bags
Buy Edhat Bags
Advertise on Edhat
Advertise on Edhat
Buy Edhat Hats
Buy Edhat Hats
News Events Referrals Deals Classifieds Comments About

Local Stories by Local People
updated: Nov 07, 2012, 4:10 PM

A jury found former SB Police officer Brian Kenneth Sawicki guilty on Wednesday of misdemeanor counts of destroying evidence and resisting arrest.

External Link

Comments in order of when they were received | (reverse order)

 COMMENT 340315 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-11-07 04:25 PM

Not Guilty of electronic peeping???? Are you kidding me? There was a video in a changing room! Cheese and rice people!


 COMMENT 340317 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-11-07 04:30 PM

Yeah wasn't there a hidden cam in the gym that he owns? BS!!


 COMMENT 340319 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-11-07 04:33 PM

What a joke jury they were over paid.


 COMMENT 340329P agree helpful negative off topic

2012-11-07 04:50 PM

horrendous verdict. What IS the problem with Santa Barbara juries- Not Guilty of electronic peeping?!?!? Not guilty of Child annoying?!? What in the world do these people need as evidence....


 COMMENT 340338P agree helpful negative off topic

2012-11-07 05:01 PM

The headline is more than unfair. It is misleading and borders on libel. Sawicki was acquitted of the principal charge of child molesting and lewd conduct. He was acquitted because there was no evidence that he had a sexual interest in the two teenage girls or attempted in any way to approach them. The headline should say that he was acquitted.

This is another example of our extreme feminist DA overreaching and exceeding her authority in prosecuting this man for something he did not do in her pursuit of political correctness. The news media, as usual, took the easy PC route and parroted the DA's unsubstantiated accusations, slandering this man repeatedly with saturation publicity. In my opinion, the DA's conduct was more criminal than anything Sawicki did.


 COMMENT 340342 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-11-07 05:11 PM

I'll trust that the jury made the right decision and that they knew stuff we didn't (and I'm not exactly shocked the media skewed the story to be a bit more exciting). And yeah, that title is wrong, and potentially slanderous.

But, dude, 320, you are not helping anyone with those comments... Since you seem to have such vast knowledge of the events, you should probably enlighten the rest of us as to what really happened so we all stop thinking so badly of this "clearly innocent man".


 COMMENT 340346 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-11-07 05:21 PM

I am puzzled by the outrage about the headline. He was, in fact, convicted of certain charges. A headline is a headline - how much can it say? The article made clear what he was convicted of and what he was acquitted of. It would have been equally "skewed" and "wrong" if the headline had said, "Sawicki acquitted." As for the split verdict, how can the folks who didn't hear the evidence speak so knowledgeably about whether the jury got it right?


 COMMENT 340355P agree helpful negative off topic

2012-11-07 05:46 PM

The headline on Noozhawk, "Mixed Verdict. . ."

And at the Indie it's, "Former Cop Acquitted of Lewd Acts. . ."

Those seem to be more accurate than KEYT.


 COMMENT 340363 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-11-07 06:06 PM

He didn't mean to to pick a time when two13 years old girls were near,to be naked and be putting lotion on his middle leg. YEA RIGHT! Pervert policeman


 COMMENT 340368P agree helpful negative off topic

2012-11-07 06:17 PM

The only information that should have been held back from the jury was that he was a policeman. I bet he played that up for all its worth. Anyone else would have been convicted solely on circumstantial evidence ... no question he was a peeper.


 ROGER DODGER agree helpful negative off topic

2012-11-08 07:18 AM

Very strange case this is a well oiled city.


 COMMENT 340489P agree helpful negative off topic

2012-11-08 08:44 AM

Masturbating or having sex outside should not be a crime. One should be discrete, as few want to see others being sexual (other than in almost every movie and advertisement. Actors and models only please. No real people.) It didn't seem like he was engaging in lewd behavior from my perspective. Avoid or politely ignore him. I taught my kids the same thing. No big deal. Nothing to see here. Move along.


50% of comments on this page were made by Edhat Community Members.


*** 6 comments were deleted from this thread by the Edhat Board Nanny for violating Edhat Comments Board policy. Click Here to see them.



Comments on this thread are only open to Community Members.

# # # #

Add Your Comments

Edhat Username



Don't have an Account?

Don't know if you have an account?

Don't remember your account info?


ENJOY HAPPY HOUR! ... Between 4:00pm & 5:00pm only happy comment are allowed on the Edhat Comments Board.

If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all.

Hide Your Handle, but show paid status (paid subscribers only)
NEW - use verified name and picture (contact ed@edhat.com to be verified)
Find out About Becoming A Paid Subscriber
NOTE: We are testing a new Comment Preview Page. You must hit OK on the next page to have your comment go live. Send Feedback to ed@edhat.com.

get a handle   |  lost handle




# # # #


Send To a Friend
Your Email
Friend's Email

Top of Page | Old News Archives | Printer-Friendly Page

  Home Subscribe FAQ Jobs Contact copyright © 2003-2015  
Edhat, Inc.