MAILBAG:

Mr. de Arakal’s thought-provoking column (“Acosta case never trial worthy,” Oct. 11) on the Acosta trial begs for a counterpoint. His general point that the Acosta trial was an embarrassing train wreck for our city is valid, but there is much to be debated about how we got to this point.

I believe the city’s decision to prosecute Acosta was justified. Take the mayor’s actions out of it, and attempt to leave any bias you may have behind. Faced with a defiant Acosta and a very vocal crowd, what were the police supposed to do? He actively resisted them and disobeyed their orders. If the city had refused to prosecute him, what message does that send to anyone else wishing to disrupt a council meeting? No one knows why the district attorney decided to not prosecute. The district attorney is an elected official, perhaps entering the illegal immigration fray by prosecuting the most visible symbol of pro-illegal immigration activism in Orange County at the time would have been too politically costly.

I know full well this is a very passionate issue, and that it does seem completely unfair and disgusting that an elected official would grant an out-of-towner privileges (Gilchrist asking his supporters to stand) while shutting down a resident wishing to do the same thing. Not allowing Acosta’s supporters to stand does appear wrong and discriminatory, but that is only if you ignore significant factors contributing to the sequence of events that night.

Acosta’s behavior at the previous meeting, which he deliberately disrupted with a profanity-laced outburst, the size and make-up of the crowd, and the nature of the exchange between the mayor and Gilchrist all factor into what happened. Gilchrist requested, Acosta demanded.

Acosta’s willingness to throw decorum out the window in December could reasonably be construed as a deliberately planned act of civil disobedience.

The mayor, a veteran law-enforcement officer, made a decision based on his perception of the situation, and it seemed pretty clear that the police felt the same way. Acosta did say he and all his supporters would be “right here” and would “fight this to the end” and were “not going to let this pass.” From a public safety standpoint, what do you do? Just hope that everything will be OK, it’s just rhetoric, or take preemptive action?

I urge everyone interested to watch the videos again. Notice Acosta’s swift transition from barely-able-to-speak nervousness to aggressive defiance. The mayor was clearly heard telling him to stop urging his supporters to stand. Acosta ignored him and repeatedly exclaimed “do it!” in open defiance of the presiding officer and the clearly posted rules. Watch also when the police calmly surround Acosta and listen to his protests. When it becomes clear that he has no intention of complying with multiple senior police officers, Chief Hensley leans in and orders him removed from the council chambers. “Football scrum?” Hardly.

Remember, in this country, disobeying lawful orders and physically resisting a police officer gets you arrested. If an officer has his hands on your arm and you violently shake it off, you will go down to the ground.

In the end, Acosta’s hijacking of the meeting was responsible for the ensuing disruption. Acosta had many legitimate options for addressing the perceived injustice of being cut off. Unfortunately for all of us, he chose the wrong option and paid the consequences.

I respect Mr. de Arakal’s opinion, and the bungled legal proceedings are an embarrassment. That said, the merits of the charges against Acosta remain undetermined. I am in no way endorsing the mayor’s refusal to let Acosta’s supporters stand, and his actions may be costly if a federal judge agrees with Acosta’s attorneys. However, arguably there is a reasonable explanation for the mayor’s actions. I simply cannot discern any reasonable explanation for Acosta’s actions that night.

Rob Dickson

Costa Mesa