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.

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

COMMENT 340315	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	2012-11-07 04:30 PM
Yeah wasn't there a hidden cam in the gym that he owns? BS!!
COMMENT 340319	2012-11-07 04:33 PM
What a joke jury they were over paid.
COMMENT 340329P	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	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	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	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	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	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	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	2012-11-08 07:18 AM
Very strange case this is a well oiled city.
COMMENT 340489P	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.

# # # #