OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

  • Custom Campaigns

    Custom Campaigns
  • DMI

  • Allen for Assembly

  • Ramos for Costa Mesa

  • Bennett for Fullerton

  • Lalloway for Irvine

  • Sachs for Mission Viejo

  • Grangoff for Orange

  • Alexander for CUSD

  • Glasky for IUSD

  • Contact Us to Purchase an Ad

  • Lincoln Club of Orange County

Petrilla Releases Statement About 2001 Arrest – Wow!

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on January 28, 2014

Last night I observed a report over at the Rancho Santa Margarita Patch about 73rd Assembly candidate Jesse Petrilla being arrested in 2001 and his pleading guilty to two felony counts: one count for assault with a firearm and another with a “firearm enhancement” (Petrilla’s Past).  I was surprised that he had nothing to say to the Patch reporter when he was contacted about it.  Apparently today he did give out a statement – not to the Patch but to some of his friends which Patch reporter Martin Henderson obtained a copy of.  It is here: (Petrilla’s statement).  Basically in his statement he admits to being arrested but tries to make the situation sound like he was arrested for self defense with all the charges simply being dismissed.

Yet Councilman Petrilla glosses over: 1. that he plead guilty to two felonies and 2. that these two charges were dismissed only after he served all or part of his probation that a judge sentenced him to and the two charges he plead guilty to being reduced to misdemeanors.   Mr. Petrilla does not express any remorse for his actions or that he has learned any lessons from this situation.  He justifies this conduct by claiming the people he was firing the rifle at were drug dealers who were threatening him.  In my opinion if that were true, the police or sheriff’s department and the District Attorney would likely have dismissed the charges – all of them – as self defense.  No need to plead guilty in a plea bargain, no probation to serve and no need to have the two convictions reduced to misdemeanors and then dismissed (which I understand is common procedure for expungement of criminal convictions from your record).

According to the Patch reporter – the facts were double checked via Court records and found to be accurate.

Since 2001 has Mr. Petrilla joined the military and served honorably?  Yes he has!  Plus he and his wife have every right to be happy at the birth of his new son!  But if he wants to represent people like myself in the legislature, he should be able to admit the truth about what happened in this past, admit to past mistakes and not try to parse words in a statement to try and wiggle out of admitting the truth of what happened.  While I understand people make mistakes in the past – I also believe you need to be open about them (felony convictions are public record and are serious matters) and hopefully to have learned from them – not try to avoid the truth via well crafted statements.

I am no one’s “opposition researcher” and I am not on any candidate’s payroll.  I am a voter in the 73rd Assembly District, a believer in the 2nd Amendment (including the right of self defense), a volunteer activist and an attorney by profession.  My response to Mr. Petrilla’s “statement” is “WOW” not because I am impressed with his explanation, but because I am shocked that he would issue a statement that glosses over these important facts and try to act like his own plea bargained confession to two felony convictions simply did not happen.  He would be better off if he had just stayed silent and not issued this parsed statement that avoids the obvious truth of what happened.  In my opinion, Mr. Petrilla’s statement alone renders him unqualified to serve as my representative in the State Assembly.

I will be voting for a different candidate for this office.

Note: it was brought to my attention that I used the term “parole” instead of “probation” to describe part of the sentence the judge gave to Mr. Petrilla.  That was my error and I stand corrected.  I have changed the description to the correct sentence of probation.

8 Responses to “Petrilla Releases Statement About 2001 Arrest – Wow!”

  1. Patrick said

    Editors Note: This comment has been redacted due to the fact that it is a personal attack on someone not relevant to the post.

  2. Ted Nugent said

    It should be noted that Craig Alexander is totally in the tank for Bill Brough and has been a financial donor to him, so being that he has money invested in his candidate he of course stands to gain something from beating up on Jesse Petrilla and desperately trying make something of nothing (which the court concurs with) that happened when Petrilla was 17 years old.

    That silly campaign report told on you Craig!

    http://giving.piryx.com/activities/353244

    • Craig P. Alexander said

      Mr. Nugent ignores the fact that Mr. Petrilla made the statement he made a two days ago and ignored or conveniently left out of this statement extremely important facts. As I said in my post, in my opinion his statement in response to the first post and his attempt to impliedly deny his conviction on his own plea bargain and the judge’s sentence for that conviction alone disqualify him for the office of State Assembly. Let me be clear – this statement in response to the first post by Mr. Henderson was made by Mr. Petrilla two days ago – not when he was 17. It is Mr. Petrilla’s statement of two days ago that was to me shocking and is the basis of my opinion that I set forth in my last post above.

      The fact that I gave money to Bill Brough in the past – is in my opinion not relevant to Mr. Petrilla’s qualifications to be an Assembly person. However you, the reader and more importantly, the voters in the 73rd Assembly District, need to make their own determinations as to whether or not my conclusions and opinions are correct or not. I would recommend to all who read this post – click through to the two Patch articles, read them entirely (they are not that long) and come to your own conclusions.

      A final note – I have to laugh at the link showing my contribution to Mr. Brough’s city council campaign about five years ago. That is reaching back a bit! Well for full disclosure (since Mr. Nugent believes this is relevant) I have given Mr. Brough some campaign contributions more recently for his Assembly race. Again – don’t be convinced by my opinion – read the Patch articles linked in my post above and decide for yourself!

      • Ted Nugent said

        Like I said, you’re totally in the tank for Petrillas opponent. Thank you for finally coming clean and disclosing your perspective is clearly biased.

      • Scott Carpenter said

        To be fair to Mr. Nugent’s original comment, the link he posted shows you gave him money for his 2014 Council account not from 5 years ago. However it did say for Brough for City Council, not Assembly. But good to disclose direct associations when posting about active campaigns, its lends legitimacy to posts in my opinion.

  3. […] http://ocpolitical.com/2014/01/28/petrilla-releases-statement-about-2001-arrest-wow/ […]

  4. […] of Bill’s opponents for this seat (see my prior posts about Jesse Petrilla (Patch Post & Petrilla Statement) and the latest post over at the Rancho Santa Margarita Patch (Did Petrilla Lie…)  – now […]

  5. […] That is why I was so shocked by his prior statement of only a few weeks ago in my post about this: Petrilla Statement – Wow!  The Rancho Santa Margarita Patch also carried a story about his prior statement of a few weeks […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,005 other followers