CUCPJ Delivers Petition With More Than 400 signatures, But Rietz Refuses To Drop Charges On Jeshaun

On Tuesday morning, Jan. 19, Champaign-Urbana Citizens for Peace and Justice delivered an online petition with 377 signatures to State’s Attorney Julia Rietz asking her to drop the charges on Jeshaun Manning-Carter, the 15 year old who was with Kiwane Carrington when he was killed by Champaign police. A hard copy of the petition with another 60 signatures was also presented. Jeshaun is being prosecuting on felony charges of resisting arrest.

A juvenile hearing was held at 2 p.m. with about 15-20 supporters showing up at the Champaign County Courthouse, although they were not permitted in the courtroom as is routine in juvenile cases. State’s Attorney Rietz appeared in court and local African American attorney Alfred Ivy represented the defendant. Attorney Ivy asked Judge Heidi Ladd for a continuance, saying that he and the State’s Attorney were working toward a resolution. Rietz had no objection, stating that according to Principal Richard Kelly of the READY Program where Jeshaun goes to school, he was attending class and doing well. Yet despite this good record, Rietz was still unwilling to drop the charges.

A continuance was granted and the next hearing will be held February 17 at 2:45 in Courtroom C.  

You can sign the petition and read the many heartfelt comments left by others here:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dropthecharges/

After the hearing, I attempted to ask Rietz if she had a response to the people who had signed the petition and she simply stated, “No.” When I asked why she would not respond she said, “I don’t trust you Brian.”

While Rietz would not talk to me, she invited press members from WCIA and WDWS into her office. A reporter with the television station WCIA told me that Rietz had seen the petition and read it.

BD

377 is really not that many

377 is really not that many for the champaign county area.

This from Ms. Mary Schenk of

This from Ms. Mary Schenk of the News-Gazette, who was not even at the hearing.

As this article makes clear, Schenk is merely a mouthpiece for the State's Attorney, not an objective journalist.

I talked to Mrs. Eloris Nash at the hearing who said the family is receiving counseling through the Family Advocacy Project for low income African-American families and the Effective Black Parenting Program.

The Parenting With Love and Limits program referred to below is a new pilot program Rietz is trying to funnel clients into.

This makes it evident that the SA is not willing to work with the family and is operating on the assumption that she knows what's best for the family.

Shameless.

BD

 

 

The News-Gazette.com

 

Teen's resisting arrest case continued again

By Mary Schenk
Wednesday January 20, 2010

URBANA – A Champaign teen charged with resisting arrest in connection with an incident in which his friend was killed by a police officer will be back in court again next month.

State's Attorney Julia Rietz and Urbana attorney Alfred Ivy appeared briefly Tuesday before Champaign County juvenile court Judge Heidi Ladd in the case of Jeshaun Manning-Carter, 16.

The teen was in the back yard of a home at 906 W. Vine St., C, on Oct. 9 with Kiwane Carrington, 15, when Mr. Carrington was fatally shot by Champaign police officer Dan Norbits. Also present was Champaign Police Chief R.T. Finney, who, along with Norbits, was responding to a call of a burglary and confronted the boys.

"He's been going to READY (alternative school) and been attending and not getting in any trouble," State's Attorney Julia Rietz said of Manning-Carter. "But it's early yet and I let the judge know that the family had been invited to participate in Parenting with Love and Limits but has declined. I urged them to reconsider and participate in the program."

The program is a six-week workshop led by trained counselors aimed at helping families whose children get in trouble improve their communication skills and relationships.

Ivy reported to Ladd that he and Rietz are trying to work out an equitable solution to Manning-Carter's case.

Ladd continued the case to Feb. 17 for a status hearing.

I agree  that it's probably

I agree  that it's probably too late for parenting classes to do any good.  The kid is sixteen. 

What the hell are you talking about here?

"This makes it evident that the SA is not willing to work with the family and is operating on the assumption that she knows what's best for the family."

All she did was OFFER to send them to the Parenting With Love program!  She didn't say they HAD to go or anything.  How is that not working with the family?  How is offering someone counseling not working with them? 

This is why nobody trusts you.

Establishing Trust

"I urged them to reconsider and participate in the program."

To me, it sounds very much like Rietz has a distinct preference that the family choose her program over over one offered and operated by the African-American community.

And really what is more important here?

Some trumped up charge that Rietz is using to pander to voters? Her priority is to come up with something, anything to try to mitigate what is going to be a very costly misadventure for the citizens/taxpayers of Champaign. This is from someone who has already proven that she is perfectly willing to overlook extreme misbehavior by police officers by reducing charges or simply not filing them despite extensive evidence of criminal violations, but is more than willing to throw the book at a kid who has been through hell already at the hands of a brutal justus system.

Or the fact that the young man is traumatized by having his friend gunned down next to him by a couple of incomptent "professional" police officers?

If Jeshaun was your child, which would YOU think was more important?

I think Jeshaun's family knows what counseling is best for him right now, not some crazy lady with an axe to grind.

Rietz's emphasis on the fact that she's not getting what she wants is very much a public threat, uttered with the help of a cooperative stenographer to power. She knows it and Ms. Schenck was more than happy to help Rietz out by communicating it.

This is why nobody trusts you.

"To me, it sounds very much

"To me, it sounds very much like Rietz has a distinct preference that the family choose her program over over one offered and operated by the African-American community."

Well, of course that's what it sounds like to you.  You're a follower of this site, so obviously, you're prejudiced to think that whatever the State's Attorney does is wrong.  But actually read it.  Where do you see anything in the article that says she has a problem with Effective Black Parenting?  All it says is that she offered them this other thing too.

"Her priority is to come up with something, anything to try to mitigate what is going to be a very costly misadventure for the citizens/taxpayers of Champaign."

Even if that were true, how is offering him counseling supposed to do that?  What do those two things even have to DO with each other?

"I think Jeshaun's family knows what counseling is best for him right now, not some crazy lady with an axe to grind."

Why do you think that?  His family didn't do anything about the fact that he only went to school five times in the last school term.  No offense, but we're not exactly talking about the parents of the year here.

"Rietz's emphasis on the fact that she's not getting what she wants is very much a public threat, uttered with the help of a cooperative stenographer to power."

Again, how do you figure?  If all she cares about is the voters of this town or power or whatever stupid thing you think, then why would she CARE what counselor Jeshaun goes to, or even if he goes AT ALL.  Why would she even make this counseling AVAILABLE to him if all she cared about was throwing the book at him?  Your dumbass conspiracy theories don't add up any more than anyone else's on this site.

Well, of course that's what

Well, of course that's what it sounds like to you.  You're a follower of this site, so obviously, you're prejudiced...dumbass...

There have been no more faithful or more prejudiced "follower of this site" than you, Brian's stalker.

Get over it. You've got an opinion and it really is subjective and frankly more opinionated - and far less supported by evidence - than much of what others take the time to write.

As for that last little bit.

Frankly, I hope that your disrepectful attitude lately towards everyone else here and your open flaunting of it soon leads to your faithful followingness being interrupted.

Probably.

"There have been no more faithful or more prejudiced "follower of this site" than you, Brian's stalker."

That's probably true.  I like to keep up on things.  Keep myself informed before I shoot my mouth off.

"You've got an opinion and it really is subjective and frankly more opinionated - and far less supported by evidence - than much of what others take the time to write."

Oh yeah?  Then how is it that I'm always ABLE to back my statements up with evidence?  Why does nobody ever point out where I'm wrong?  I'm sure I've made mistakes somewhere.  How come nobody ever points them out?  Why is it that I'm able to point out the mistakes of others without any trouble at all, if nothing I say is based on evidence?

"Frankly, I hope that your disrepectful attitude lately towards everyone else here and your open flaunting of it soon leads to your faithful followingness being interrupted."

How?  They're going to block me from being able to read this site?

I don't think I'm being disrespectful.  I'm taking the time to read other people's points and respond to them in detail.  I don't just run around shouting "You're a cop!" to everyone I don't like.  In that regard, I'm the most respectful person here.

I also think it's worth

I also think it's worth pointing out that of course Mary Schenk was not at the hearing.  It was a juvenile hearing, so the public is not allowed in.  Were YOU at the hearing, Brian?  Like, actually in the courtroom?

If not, then why would you bring up that she wasn't?

Yes, as a member of the press

Yes, as a member of the press, I was allowed into the courtroom. As mentioned in the initial article, WCIA and WDWS reporters were there. Schenk was not. BD

Well...

Well, I stand corrected.  Although, actually, it doesn't say that the WCIA or WDWS reporters were in the courtroom.  All it says is:

"While Rietz would not talk to me, she invited press members from WCIA and WDWS into her office. A reporter with the television station WCIA told me that Rietz had seen the petition and read it."

That doesn't mean they were in the courtroom.

Anyway.  Care to address any of the other stuff I said?

State Attorney's Counseling Program

It is probably best to NOT accept the counseling program that is being proffered by the State's Attorney for two reasons:

1) Accepting this program implies an admission of guilt. As a result, the state's attorney will be able to characterize the youth as "troubled" and more likely to commit a crime.

2) Such counseling programs are harmful to youth because they teach blind obedience to authority. This is clearly contrary to the goals of a democratic society. No one in his or her right mind would have his or her child participate in such a program.

The kid didn't do anything wrong that has any significance. Unfortunately, in this day and age, the criminal justice has adopted the habit of transforming mole hills into mountains, particularly in matters that involve minority children.

 

What?

"Accepting this program implies an admission of guilt."

No, it doesn't.  People go to counseling all the time.  Besides, even if it did, he's already GOING to a different counseling program.  What difference does it make?

"Such counseling programs are harmful to youth because they teach blind obedience to authority."

Right.  And you know this how, exactly?  It's a brand-new program, so how could you possibly know what it teaches?  I've known people who've both been through family counseling programs, and people who have run them, and I've never heard of a single one that taught "blind obedience to authority".

Although, considering how many times this kid has been arrested, teaching him SOME respect for authority seems pretty clearly warranted.

"The kid didn't do anything wrong that has any significance."

Except breaking into a house and resisting arrest.  But let's not forget all the previous times he'd been arrested, including one of him fighting with an off-duty cop at a movie theater.  I don't know what you've heard from CUCPJ, but his kid was no angel by any  means.

"Unfortunately, in this day and age, the criminal justice has adopted the habit of transforming mole hills into mountains, particularly in matters that involve minority children."

Well, which would you prefer?  Offering him counseling, or just shipping him off to juvenile hall WITHOUT giving him the opportunity for a better future?  Where do you come up with the idea that counseling is such a bad thing?

Also

"As a result, the state's attorney will be able to characterize the youth as "troubled" and more likely to commit a crime."

I should have pointed this out before, but didn't, that when you get into as much trouble as Jeshaun has over the years, you're already labeled as a troubled kid.  The difference is, if you go to counseling, you at least look like the kind of troubled kid who's willing to do something about it.

Mixed Messages

The Nesw-Gazette has, as usual, been running interference for the state's attorney. Mary Schenk reported was was said above about Jeshaun's case, like she was just trying to help, as if the felony charge was the only thing she could possibly think of to help a kid who saw his friend blown away right before his eyes.

Then a few days later, we get Ms. Schenk doing a puff piece on Parenting with Love and Limits, the program that Rietz supposedly was offering to Jeshaun as part of the "bargain." However, there was no mention in the story about Jeshaun's hearing that the felony charge would be dropped, as the puff piece indicated was part of the package with the PLL program described in more detail by Schenk a few days later. So I was left wondering if Rietz was actually willing to drop the felony charge or whether she was just trying to seem like she was willing to do that. That sort of thing is what a politican would do, not someone that really cared about what Jeshaun has already been through.

So which is it? Will Rietz drop the felony charge, in fact drop the charges entirely, if Jeshaun agrees to and completes this "wonderful" program?

As one kid in it was quoted as saying, it made him "think about how fortunate you are." I kind of doubt that Jeshaun needs any help with that. After all, he was right there when some clumsy ill-trained cop took his friend's life. Jeshaun already knows how fortunate he is that Chief Finney was just a little bit less stupid that day.

Oh jeez.

"Mary Schenk reported was was said above about Jeshaun's case, like she was just trying to help, as if the felony charge was the only thing she could possibly think of to help a kid who saw his friend blown away right before his eyes."

The felony charge was because he was committing a felony.  The counseling offer was because she was trying to help.

"Then a few days later, we get Ms. Schenk doing a puff piece on Parenting with Love and Limits, the program that Rietz supposedly was offering to Jeshaun as part of the 'bargain.'"

I don't see anywhere in the original article that said that it was part of any bargain.  She was just urging him to go.  Maybe that'll be part of some deal in the future, maybe not. 

"So I was left wondering if Rietz was actually willing to drop the felony charge or whether she was just trying to seem like she was willing to do that."

Well.  Considering that she already DID offer to drop the charges once, I imagine she will be again.  Not for just nothing, though.  What do you think she's going to say?  "Jeshaun, we are willing to drop all charges against you.  In exchange, you agree to go back to your old life of skipping school every day, committing an escalating series of petty crimes, and basically sitting around playing XBOX all day."  Tell me that that would be in Jeshuan's best interest.  Go on.  I'd like to hear someone come out and say that.

"So which is it? Will Rietz drop the felony charge, in fact drop the charges entirely, if Jeshaun agrees to and completes this 'wonderful' program?"

Doubtful.  When did she ever say she would?

Last Word from the Bully...Yet?

I can't help wonder if that's the last word from the bully for today. Probably not. No point in addressing all of that, because it's mostly retreads of what he's restated over and over and over. You get the point, which is...

He has an obsession with building some kid up into a feral monster who did something within a few seconds that warranted shooting his friend.

That's it and the disproportionatility of his work is stunning in its immorality. Whatever Jeshaun's quite minor record as a juvenile, it does not begin to approach the unjustified taking of the life of another human being. Period. Case closed.

But bullies just keep trying, becaue the desire to dominate others is part of their mindset.

It's really that simple.

There is nothing that justified the killing of Kiwane Carrington, but the bully keeps trying to build a reason for it out of the mud that Kiwane died in that day in October.

Neither teen was breaking into the house, at least in a legal sense. Whatever Rietz's faults, she knew she couldn't sustain that charge and it was dropped. True, the resisting charge is BS and should also be dropped, but there is no legally justifiable basis for the bully to claim "breaking into a house" as doing "anything wrong that has any significance." That's just another convenient lie as he grasps at non-existent reasons to justify shooting Kiwane.

What even more ridiculous is that we all know that Kiwane's death has no legal justification because it was -- at best -- an accident and may in fact have been reckless conduct, aided and abetted by Finney's own reckless conduct.

Here again  we have more evidence of the bully's disproportionate and immoral worldview. To him it's more important to speculate about Jeshaun "skipping school every day, committing an escalating series of petty crimes, and basically sitting around playing XBOX all day..." than it is to address what seems to be already demonstrable dangers to the community.

One, a cop who at the least is poorly training and very well might have an ingrained habit of reckless behavior toward those citizens he comes into contact with in the community, directly leading to the death of at least one of them.

Two, a chief of police who at the least prefers to use his gun instead of his brain and who may very well be leading those beneth him to do the same by that very example.

Yeah, troubled youth in our community do need more services, do need people to care about them, and do need help and concern from all of us, preferably in the context where these services are not delivered in a correctional setting, which has been proven time and again to actually exacerbate such problems in the individuals involved.

But I think if the bully was honest and proportionate in his moral outrage, he'd expect the same or even better out of trained, professional adults.

But he's a bully and bullies don't think like that. They focus on beating up on their hapeless victims. Unfortunately, he'll probably be back. I'd appreciate it if we'd take a somewhat harder line toward bullies and their witless and disturbing behavior. They set a very bad example for the youth in our community.

Whatever.

"No point in addressing all of that, because it's mostly retreads of what he's restated over and over and over."

Well, I do admit that I tend to repeat myself a lot around here.  That's because I have this weird, naive faith that, eventually, someone might actually read what I write, rather than sort of skim it, get the idea that I'm disagreeing with the consensus around here, and then just sort of make up what they think I must be saying.

"Whatever Jeshaun's quite minor record as a juvenile, it does not begin to approach the unjustified taking of the life of another human being. Period. Case closed."

Fascinating.  So you know that Jeshaun's record was "quite minor".  How bizarre.  I didn't think anyone ever released his entire criminal record yet.  They released Kiwane's, but we only know a few of the incidents involving Jeshaun.  They are two different people, you know.

But if what I've said is a retread of everything else I've said, then you must surely have read the little hissy fit I through once, where I  pointed out that I never said Kiwane DESERVED to die.  If you can point out where I have, then please do so.  It was an accident.  Saying that it was an accident is not at all the same thing as saying that it was something that SHOULD have happened.  Far from it.  It's just saying that the intent wasn't there.

"But bullies just keep trying, becaue the desire to dominate others is part of their mindset.

It's really that simple."

Uhh... right.  How am I supposed to dominate anyone by leaving comments on a website?  Even if I WANTED to dominate people, nothing I say here can possibly make you do anything.  So I have no idea what you're talking about.  Do you?

"There is nothing that justified the killing of Kiwane Carrington, but the bully keeps trying to build a reason for it out of the mud that Kiwane died in that day in October."

Do I have to say it again?

"Neither teen was breaking into the house, at least in a legal sense."

See?  This is WHY I have to keep repeating myself. 

I already put this link up once.  I urge you to read this: 

http://cdn.news-gazette.com/media/pdf/Thomas_Deborah_Issiah_and_Ebonee_Interview_NG.pdf

You're not going to read it, are you?  You're going to ignore it and keep making your same old points, and I really AM going to have to come back here and copy every single time Deborah Thomas said that Kiwane was not allowed in the house when she wasn't there, and that she didn't even know who Jeshaun was, aren't I?  Well, I'd really rather not have to do that, but I will if I have to.

In a legal sense, you are only allowed to break into someone else's house if you own the house or have the owner's permission to break in.  In what sense, then, was it legal for Jeshaun to try to break in?  He was friends with a guy who sometimes spent the night there?  I would love to see the courtroom where that argument would stand up.

I remember being in high school.  I had friends that my parents wouldn't let set foot in the house, let alone let them break in when they weren't around.  Just being friends with a kid who is staying there is not enough to give him permission to break in.  He was committing a crime. 

Now, if Deborah Thomas later decides that she doesn't want to press charges against him for what he did, that's her prerogative.  Doesn't change the fact that a criminal act took place.  It just means that she is unwilling to pursue it any further.

I think the coffee cup on my desk understands this by now.  But if I'm wrong, then as always, feel free to point it out.

 True, the resisting charge is BS and should also be dropped,"

Why do you think the resisting arrest charge is BS?  Are you actually claiming that he WASN'T resisting arrest?  You really think he complied with the officer and got down on the ground and didn't struggle at all?  If that's what you think, then let me know.  Otherwise, you should know that the act of resisting arrest is perfectly good grounds, legally, for charging someone with resisting arrest.

"but there is no legally justifiable basis for the bully to claim 'breaking into a house' as doing 'anything wrong that has any significance.'"

Well, unless he had permission from the homeowner to break into her house when she wasn't there, which seems EXTREMELY unlikely, considering that she didn't even know who he was, then yes.  There is a legally justifiable basis for it.

"What even more ridiculous is that we all know that Kiwane's death has no legal justification because it was -- at best -- an accident and may in fact have been reckless conduct, aided and abetted by Finney's own reckless conduct."

What's ridiculous is you claiming that I ever said there WAS a justification for it.  It was an accident.  If I've said differently anywhere else, show me where. 

"To him it's more important to speculate about Jeshaun 'skipping school every day, committing an escalating series of petty crimes, and basically sitting around playing XBOX all day...' "

Well, you're right about the XBOX.  He may have been a Playstation kind of guy, I don't really know.  We DO know that he skipped school a great deal, and that he has a record of several petty crimes (and those are just the ones we've been told about).  But yes, you're right.  I don't know about the XBOX for sure.

"than it is to address what seems to be already demonstrable dangers to the community."

You do realize that the comment you're responding to was about sending Jeshaun to counseling, right?  Are family therapy sessions the demonstrable danger to the community you're talking about?

"One, a cop who at the least is poorly training and very well might have an ingrained habit of reckless behavior toward those citizens he comes into contact with in the community, directly leading to the death of at least one of them."

Well, he MIGHT, I guess.  He MIGHT secretly be a vampire.  Who knows?  Is there some evidence for this?

"Two, a chief of police who at the least prefers to use his gun instead of his brain and who may very well be leading those beneth him to do the same by that very example."

The Chief Of Police didn't use his gun, in the sense of firing it.  He used it by having it out.  This was using his brain, since he is responding to a report of a break-in in progress, and one of the kids won't keep his hand out of his pocket.

"Yeah, troubled youth in our community do need more services, do need people to care about them, and do need help and concern from all of us, preferably in the context where these services are not delivered in a correctional setting, which has been proven time and again to actually exacerbate such problems in the individuals involved."

OK, well... 

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO HERE!!!

Parenting With Love And Limits IS a service in the community to help troubled youth!  The state's attorney TRIED to get him to go to it!  He and his family are the ones who refuse to avail themselves of this service! 

So what makes you think more services in the community are going to help, if they refuse to make use of the ones that are already there?  If this kid keeps committing crimes, and then doesn't do anything to actually make any attempt at making his life any better, then what do you suggest they do?  Just let hiim KEEP committing crimes, because if we actually punish him for it, it might make him worse?  It's sort of a Catch-22, I admit.  But it's not like the state's attorney is the one holding this process up here. 

"But I think if the bully was honest and proportionate in his moral outrage, he'd expect the same or even better out of trained, professional adults."

Was Jeshaun accidentally breaking into the house?  Was he accidentally resisting arrest?  Was he just accidentally fighting with that cop at the movie theater? 

"But he's a bully and bullies don't think like that. They focus on beating up on their hapeless victims"

So wanting Jeshaun to actually make something of his life is "beating up on" him.  That makes a lot of sense. 

So hey.  Let Jeshaun do what he wants.  Let him rack up a criminal record a mile long and flunk out of school.  That's fine.  Why should I care?  And maybe ten years from now when he spends his time sitting around complaing that he can't find a job, and so he finally commits a really serious crime that winds him up in prison for the rest of his life, why should I care then either?

You know, it kind of reminds me of something Kiwane's grandmother said, in one of his arrest reports.  I know you didn't bother to read it, but she basically said that she thought the justice system let Kiwane down by letting him out of the detention center so early.  She said that she thought that leniency is what led to his behavior getting more and more out of control. 

That's not really relevant, though.

The Bargain

What's really important here in the negotiations toward an "equitable solution" is if the State's Attorney is attempting to force on the family and Jeshaun a stipulation to the facts of the Oct. 9 incident as portrayed by the police. It's not the type of counseling that's the issue, it's whether or not accepting the counseling comes with a "...and you agree with what Chief Finney and Daniel Norbits say happened on Oct. 9..." and therefore, no civil lawsuit against the City. That's what the criminal charges are about- discrediting the witness to the acts of Finney and Norbits. The same two guys who made up charges of residential burglary.

Let's hope Alfred Ivy doesn't sell out in an effort to "get it over with".

Would you listen to yourself?

It's like you're convinced that there must be some sort of conspiracy afoot, but have no idea what it might be.

"It's not the type of counseling that's the issue, it's whether or not accepting the counseling comes with a '...and you agree with what Chief Finney and Daniel Norbits say happened on Oct. 9...' and therefore, no civil lawsuit against the City."

First, how could accepting counseling come with that stipulation, or ANY stipulation at all?  It's not like he HAS to stipulate to anything to get into the counseling group.  He could just go, if he was willing to go.

Second, Jeshaun isn't the one who would be filing the wrongful death suit against the police anyway.  Kiwane's family would.  Nothing anyone stipulates to would keep them from filing a civil suit.  If it came up in court, all Kiwane's family's lawyers would have to say is "Of COURSE Jeshaun stipulated to the statements of the police.  He was looking at felony charges!".  What's the worst that could happen then?  That Jeshaun would be charged with perjury for pleading guilty?  It's highly unlikely that they would do that, but even if they did, would Kiwane's family really refuse to file suit because they were afraid that might happen?

Third, if Jeshaun wanted to plead guilty, all he would have to do is say that he did, in fact, resist arrest.  That doesn't say anything at all about whether or not the officers were acting recklessly.  He could say that he punched Finney in the face, and that wouldn't have any impact on whether or not Norbits was acting recklessly. 

Fourth, if all Rietz wants is for Jeshaun to take this deal, then why would she make it any harder for him than necessary?  Why force him to take counseling that he doesn't WANT, if it would decrease the likelihood of him taking a deal?  Why would she ADD that as a condition, in other words?  If a stipulation is enough, then why not say that the stipulation and Effective Black Parenting is all he needs, rather than a stipulation and Parenting With Love And Limits?  Why would she jeopardize the chances of him taking the plea, if that's all she cares about?

"That's what the criminal charges are about- discrediting the witness to the acts of Finney and Norbits."

If that were true, then as I asked before, why would she have offered him a deal BEFORE she decided not to file charges against Finney and Norbits, when he could have gotten the lawyers out of the way back in November, and then gone to the media or whatever and gotten his side of the story out, before Rietz ever released her summary?  If there was as much evidence of wrongdoing as you seem to think there is out in the public prior to her decision not to file charges, it would have made it much harder for her to justify NOT filing charges.

No Conspiracy, It's a Culture of Impunity

It's called a "culture of impunity" and Ms. Rietz has done her part in upholding that, rather than the rule of law.

The term "culture of impunity" may be unfamiliar to many Americans. For most who are familiar with it, it usually refers to a system of official disregard or incapacity to act against crimes of violence against the population or tolerance for official acts of violence. You can insist that "there's nothing happening here and people should just move along" but we refuse to do so.

We as citizens will not tolerate or keep silent in the face of those who are willing to tolerate or even facilitate a culture of impunity.

Post new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer