CU Citizens for Peace and Justice is launching a petition drive to demand that State's Attorney Julia Rietz drop all charges against Jeshaun Manning-Carter.
The best friend of Kiwane Carrington, Jeshaun was with him on Oct. 9 when he was killed.
He is currently being prosecuted with felony charges of resisting a "peace" officer.
His next court hearing is Jan. 19 at 2pm in Courtroom C.
Until then you can sign the petition here:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dropthecharges/
You can also call State's Attorney Julia Rietz at 384-3733.
Tell her the best thing to do for this youth is to drop the charges against him - not send him to juvenile detention or reform school.
BD
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer
Good plan!
But, since this is America, shouldn't we give him an opportunity for a fair trial by a jury of his peers?
After all, although he is presumed innocent, he has been charged with a crime. If the charges our bogus then he has nothing to worry about.
I can understand the symbolic gesture, but Rietz doesn't exactly listen to BD and UCIMC.
The one thing I can agree with, though, is that the only way to get charges dismissed against you is to be a drunk driving cop.
No, the best thing would have
No, the best thing would have been if this had never happened. It started with them not listening and ended with CPD shooting the poor kid. He should be held responsible for his actions - just like everyone else...
"just like everyone else..."?
"He should be held responsible for his actions - just like everyone else..."
If that was really the case, then a court would also be getting ready to judge the actions of Norbits and Finney.
no
no jeshaun shouldnt go to jail because he been through alot seening kiwane killed thats a lot to carry on your heart for the rest of yur liife...n why they dont send the officer who killed kiwane this is his second murder case....????
No Please Dont Send Jeshaun To Jail....From His Gf,Brittany,N CuzN N Laws
No Disinterested Witnesses
The state can try to make the claim that Jeshaun resisted, but both the witnesses against him have considerable reason to not testify truthfully about what happened that day.
And that's even before the civil case comes into the picture. What they might say on the stand in the case against Jeshaun literally amounts to millions of dollars that it's going to cost the citizens of Champaign.
Rietz's indictment is in itself questionable, given that it took place before the investigation of what took place that day had hardly begun. In fact, IIRC no one even talked to Norbits about it until several days after he killed Kiwane. How the heck could Rietz brings charges given she seem to have acted in such a manner that was unfairly prediposed and prejudiced against the surviving teen? She clearly didn't have all the facts. She just decided she'd go ahead and bring charges with a very incomplete set of facts.
Not that it mattered much in the end as far as what she obviously made up her mind from the beginning about the outcome.
Sure lets all sign it and
Sure lets all sign it and send a message to everyone that it is okay to fight with the police.
Strawman
Only an idiot like you would think that something that lasts well under 45 confusing seconds, involves 2 guns against 2 kids, and ends up with one dead kid and trumped up charges against the other sends "a message to everyone that it is okay to fight with the police."
Most everyone else thinks it was was a tragedy of errors -- most, if not all of them committed on the side of the adults (supposed professionals) involved.
So if Mr. Carter didnt do any
So if Mr. Carter didnt do any of this, how the hell did Finney get hurt? Falling at the station, because even if he fell while trying to arrest mr. carter, ( mr. Carter) is still guilty of resisting. Personally I think he should have taken the plea deal. But you know, roll the dice young man and see where it gets you.
Perhaps BD will serve your jail time ( if you get any) for you.
Clumsiness
I think there are a number of reasons why Chief Finney could end up hurt without it meaning that a young man is legally guilty of resisting an officer. The charge seems to hang far more on the prejudices of the state's attorney and her trust that she can sell such to what will undoubtedly be an mostly, if not all white jury. One might hope that there are a few honest men and women in the pool in Champaign County. Ms. Rietz seems to gamble that there aren't any.
So.
You ACTUALLY believe that these two kids complied with the police? That they got down on the ground and didn't resist at all or try to get away? And then Norbits just popped Kiwane for a cheap thrill while Kiwane was sitting there peacefully and smiling up at him, right? Because that happens SO often, you know. Do you have any evidence at ALL that that's what happened?
No, of course you don't. And it doesn't really make that much sense. But I'm sure you believe it anyway. You see now why there's no point trying to talk to you. Your beliefs are not based on logic or evidence, but just on the fact that you hate the police. Nothing could possibly convince you that the police DIDN'T behave badly, once you've gotten it into your head that they have (see the Toto Kaiyewu incident for a perfect example of this).
This is why nobody really works that hard at convincing people like you that the police are doing a good job. Because you'd never believe them anyway. Chief Finney had enough confidence in himself that he called the FBI to investigate WHAT HE DID. To me, that's pretty strong evidence right there, if he's willing to get them involved. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Will it matter to you when the investigation is done? I mean, if the FBI investigation shows that they DIDN'T violate Kiwane's civil rights? Just hypothetically, if they say that, will you believe it? Will you say "OK, I guess I was wrong."? Or will you complain about how they MUST not have done a good enough job, because if they did, they would have found Finney guilty? I'm betting on the latter. You don't actually care what the evidence is. You, and lots of other people, have already made your minds up, and there's no point for anyone to try to change them.
This is why nobody important pays attention to people like you, and never will.
Have fun signing the online petition, though. Those are always enormously effective.
I have no problem with the
I have no problem with the police being judged as they should. Carter should be treated the same...nothing more nothing less.
Then Drop the Charges
If that's the case, there was never any need to bring charges against Jeshaun, like Rietz concluded about the officers.
Drop the charges.
You all do realize that mr.
You all do realize that mr. carter is a JUVENILE which means that there is NO JURY. He goes before a judge and the facts are presented then. So much for the thought of "one honest juror". But remember Mr. Chesley managed to turn down an agreement that cost him -0- in terms of fines etc into one that cost him some money. It was his "advisors" who did not have his interests at heart, but rather wanted to purpeturate their agenda, and that didnt work out so well for the young man.
Justice vs. JustUs
Speaking of perpetuating an agenda...
I suppose it is useful in some tragic way to be reminded that the court that Jeshaun will be tried in is a kangaroo court. I wonder what the possibilities are for a change of venue outside of Champaign County, given that this case is so fraught with blatant conflicts of interest to try Jeshaun here?
Turning down the questionable deal that Piraino put together before the ISP report was available was simply common sense. Why would any competent lawyer trade away his client's rights before all the cards were on the table?
That certainly doesn't preclude an agreement now that more evidence is available. Or one based on further discovery, which seems needs to be done, considering teh still incomplete status and open questions left by the somewhat shoddy work the ISP done. Or does the commentor already know that Rietz is simply vindictive and will not respect the offer already made or make a better one as more facts come to light?
And we should not forget that the FBI investigation is still underway and will eventually produce a report to be forwarded to Washington. Its task should not be limited to the question of whether Kiwane's rights were violated that day, but also must include whether Jeshaun's rights were violated.
Not all the kittens in this litter have been born yet. The smug self-satisfaction of some of the police/trolls here may melt under the hot sun of real justice, instead of Champaign County JustUs, Lord help us all.
Clarification.
The ISP report investigated why Kiwane Carrington got shot. It had nothing to do with whether or not Carter was getting arrested (which nobody disputes), and whether or not he was resisting. That evidence was already there. What difference would it have made if the ISP report was done when the first deal was made?
Especially since Carter KNEW what he did that day. Are you suggesting that he should have waited to decide on the deal because he didn't know whether or not he had been resisting arrest, and had to read the report to find out what he did that day? That's the only reason I can think of as to why it would make sense for him to wait.
"Its task should not be limited to the question of whether Kiwane's rights were violated that day, but also must include whether Jeshaun's rights were violated."
Even if they were, how would that change the fact as to whether or not he was resisting arrest?
"The smug self-satisfaction of some of the police/trolls here may melt under the hot sun of real justice, instead of Champaign County JustUs, Lord help us all."
Well, given the track record of the IMC, I really wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
You seem, interestingly enough, to have concluded that Jeshaun DIDN'T resist arrest that day. What with all your talk of smug self-satisfaction of others and "real justice" and all. Do YOU have any evidence that he didn't resist arrest? Any evidence whatsoever that his civil rights were violated? Or do you just hate the police?
Why not resist arrest?
If the police act unethically, why not resist arrest? Why should citizens always act like a bunch of sheep whenever they are confronted by the police? Passivity in the face of tyranny is not compatible with democractic principles.
The police should be required to make only reasonable requests while interacting with citizens. Is it reasonable for the police to demand, at gunpoint, that someone lie on the ground when he or she has done nothing wrong and has engaged in no threatening action?
This could be considered an unreasonable request under some circumstances.
Well...
He WAS breaking into a house, you know. Despite all the misinformation put out by CUCPJ and others, if you read the interview with the homeowner, she stated several times that nobody was allowed to be at the house when she wasn't there. That makes it breaking and entering.
Particularly in Jeshaun's case, as he never even stayed at the house. Even if he HAD, how were the police supposed to know that? The police tell people to get down on the ground so that suspects don't pull out guns and shoot them.
Jeshaun's going to lose. He should have taken the deal. Too bad.
Charges Laid & Dropped
Quit beating a dead horse. It's not quite as bad as beating a dead kid, but just as insulting to the intelligence of the audience here.
The original charge laid against Jeshaun was burglary. That was dropped in the course of the weekend and replaced by the present charge of resisting. Rietz's office is known for piling on the charges every chance it gets. She does that whenever there is the slightest chance she can make something stick. They get dropped when there is no way they'll stick. The current charge should be viewed in that light - there is some chance it could stick, but if one looks at the totality of the evidence quite possibly not.
The burglary charge, or whatever it was, was thrown up because they were scrambling for some reason to justify killing Kiwane and holding Jeshaun in jail that weekend until CPD could get its alibi straight. It wasn't going to hold up in court and they knew it. They would've certainly kept it to turn the screws on Jeshaun to force him to plea on the subsequent charge if it had any substance to it. But they found they couldn't after talking to the homeowner and anyone who's read the News-Gazette knows that.
So they decided to try for resisting. By the time Norbits offered his alibi several days later, what he said didn't help the resisting charge as much as Rietz thought it would, which is why she hoped to use Piraino to stampede Jeshaun into taking the plea -- and why that echo that someone else noted keeps popping up here. Someone is pissing on all our legs here.
Yeah, maybe he should've taken the plea in the eyes of a few. Too bad for the city of Champaign, Norbits, Finney and the taxpayers west of Wright St that he didn't, I suppose. It's now between Jeshaun's lawyer, his family, and himself what to do next, not some tinbadge cop-troll who thinks the blood that was spilled that day can be covered up by intimidating a kid with a felony charge in the hope that will save the Darth Vader/Hannibal Lecter-image of CPD.
That's impossible.
"Quit beating a dead horse. It's not quite as bad as beating a dead kid, but just as insulting to the intelligence of the audience here."
It is quite impossible to insult the intelligence of the followers of this site. To even posit that they HAVE intelligence is an enormous compliment to them.
Who's beating a dead horse? Am I wrong? DID you, in fact, read the interview with the homeowner? Notice the parts where she says, over and over again, that Kiwane wasn't allowed there when she wasn't home? She seemed like she barely even knew who Jeshaun WAS. They were breaking the law. And if it seems like I'm beating a dead horse, that's probably because you have to keep saying something over and over before most IMCbots understand it.
"Rietz's office is known for piling on the charges every chance it gets. She does that whenever there is the slightest chance she can make something stick."
Every chance, huh? So, I'm sure that you must follow every criminal proceeding in this town, in order to know that.
Tell me then, o wise one, why it is that Kiwane wasn't charged with resisting arrest the FIRST time he did it? Why was he let off with warnings TIME and TIME again? Why is it that, the first time he broke the conditions of his station adjustment, even though it would have been an open-and-shut case, she didn't file any charges against him at all? Why is it that, even when he was caught with a blunt on his person, he never went to trial for possession of cannabis? Can you tell me that? I really doubt that you CAN, but I'm even more sure that you WON'T. This is because you clearly have no real idea of how the criminal justice system in this town works, and are just relying on your prejudices, as usual. But you'd think that you'd be able to at least read the report that you keep talking about.
"The current charge should be viewed in that light - there is some chance it could stick, but if one looks at the totality of the evidence quite possibly not."
Care to put your money where your mouth is? A friendly wager?
It doesn't really matter, though. "Some chance that charges could stick" is pretty much the only legal requirement for pressing charges. If it was guaranteed they would stick, they wouldn't bother having trials.
"The burglary charge, or whatever it was, was thrown up because they were scrambling for some reason to justify killing Kiwane and holding Jeshaun in jail that weekend until CPD could get its alibi straight."
Amazing, Kreskin. The burglary charge was because he was caught breaking into a house. Who CARES if Jeshaun was in jail over the weekend? What was he going to do? Go to the media and blow their story out of the water? OK, well, if there was any chance he could do that, why hasn't he yet? Why didn't he do it in the entire MONTH we were waiting for the ISP report?
"But they found they couldn't after talking to the homeowner and anyone who's read the News-Gazette knows that."
Umm. After talking to the homeowner, they found out that he wasn't allowed in the house when she wasn't there. That's what all her kids said too. She changed her story after she found out Kiwane got shot, of course, but still. It wasn't Kiwane's house. It CERTAINLY wasn't Jeshaun's house, as he never even stayed there. He was not allowed to break into the house. He was committing a crime.
The News-Gazette didn't know. They didn't have any more information than anyone else, so they had no idea what her original story was.
But what does any of this have to do with the fact that he was resisting arrest? He WAS. I don't see how you can look at all this and claim that he wasn't.
"By the time Norbits offered his alibi several days later, what he said didn't help the resisting charge as much as Rietz thought it would, which is why she hoped to use Piraino to stampede Jeshaun into taking the plea -- and why that echo that someone else noted keeps popping up here."
No, dummy. PIRAINO came up with the deal because he had his client's best interests in mind, and wanted to keep him out of jail, and his record clean of a felony conviction. This is what lawyers DO. I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling that his NEW lawyer is going to end up doing the exact same thing.
They offer people deals all the time. Remember Brian Chesley, that stupid kid from Douglass Park a couple years ago? They offered HIM a deal too. He didn't take it either. He got convicted. They had plenty of evidence against him, but they still offered him a deal. They do it all the time. If your lawyer asks for a deal, you're pretty much guaranteed to get one.
If Rietz doesn't think the charges will stick, what do you think is stopping her from just dropping them?
"Too bad for the city of Champaign, Norbits, Finney and the taxpayers west of Wright St that he didn't, I suppose."
What do you think it matters to Finney and Norbits? Like I said before, they've already been let off the hook. What do they care what happens to Jeshaun? He means nothing to them at this point.
Too bad for Jeshaun he didn't take the deal, though. Even if he eventually does get another one, he's been spending money on this Ivy guy all this time. Lawyers aren't cheap, you know.
"It's now between Jeshaun's lawyer, his family, and himself what to do next, not some tinbadge cop-troll who thinks the blood that was spilled that day can be covered up by intimidating a kid with a felony charge in the hope that will save the Darth Vader/Hannibal Lecter-image of CPD."
See? There you go again, calling me a cop. You know, when you call me a cop, and then I ask you for some evidence that I am, and all you do is just KEEP calling me a cop, all it does is make you look stupid.
Who said anything about covering up the blood that was spilled that day? What does the fact that this kid was resisting arrest have to do with covering up Kiwane's death? Even if you think that the death of Kiwane was the worst thing that happened since the bombing of Nagasaki, how does it change the fact that Jeshuan WAS resisting arrest?
The only people who have the image of CPD as Darth Vader/Hannibal Lecter types are the kinds of people who would think that about them if they spent all day petting kittens and drawing pictures of unicorns flying through a rainbow-filled sky. They're just people who hate the police, because of their own prejudices. There's no way to convince them that the police AREN'T Hannibal Lecter. This is why nobody listens to you.
Well, there's the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about either. But it's mainly the prejudice thing.
Here is the deal. The law
Here is the deal. The law governing this particular suggestion (resisting / obstructing a peace officer) specifically says that one cannot resist /obstruct the police even if the arrest is illegal. So you can be totally right about the situation and be arrested illegally, but can be charged criminally and CONVICTED if you arrest. So, if you want to resist cause you think you are right, I would not suggest it. There are remedies for an illegal arrest. Resisting the arrest is not one of them...
Intent: The Burden of Proof
Yadda, yadda, yadda. Whine, whine, whine. Geez, how many water cooler lawyers are there down at the station house in Champaign anyway? It's certainly NOT any less than anywhere else in this county. And they certainly are NOT disinterested and they certainly do have their own axes to grind.
Look, we can just imagine that the report that the charges against Jeshaun is based on is one more cookie cutter, fill out the form throw the black kid in jail sort of thing. Does it even mention that anyone got killed that day? I really wonder? It would be an outrage to try to hold a trial based on some trumped-up piece of crap like that, but this IS Champaign County after all. We shall see, I suppose, so we can only hope that the ISP report is relevant and admissable in order to deal with intent, because I think it offers plenty for a defense attorney to mine.
Look, the only thing that the ISP report seems to offer as substantive proof that either youth had that police were around while they were otherwise lawfully going about their business that afternoon in the few fleeting seconds before one was dying on the ground was when Norbits came around the corner in uniform. Norbits offered that what he heard was Finney yelling to the kids to get on the ground or he was going to shoot.
Finney was in plainclothes, probably acting like his usual boofoonish and overbearing self and waving an automatic pistol around in the few brief seconds those kids had to make any sort of decision about WTF was going on. Heck, for all those kids knew, it could've been Bozo the Clown, practicing for his next parade of tomfoolery. They never had time to form the intent to resist arrest.
And if after what happened in the next few seconds of confusion, if I then had just seen my buddy capped by some cop for no damn good reason, yeah I just might throw a punch or two at the idiot who started the fight with me before the cop showed up. Does that then deserve a felony rap?
I can't think of anything that would be more unjust. I guess Ms. Rietz couldn't either, cause she's got the gall to slap Jeshaun with that nonsense. She's not prosecutor. She's a persecutor. Is she actually some kid's mother? Damn, someone ought to investigate her for being an unfit mother, cause that's just heartless.
Remember, this wasn't a traffic stop, with revolving lights clearly indicating the presence of police.
This wasn't someone in uniform who started things, clearly identified as an officer.
The kids were not doing anything illegal that would've meant that they should've been expecting the police to interrupt their afternoon and shoot one of them through the heart.
All of this goes directly to the issue of proof of intent. Did either youth intend to resist arrest? There doesn't seem to be much of a case there to start with based on that -- and even less once the ISP report is thrown into the mix.
Are you trying to tell us that the ISP stuff won't be allowed in the court for this? That the FBI investigation will be irrelevant if it turns up something relevant? Frankly, I hope the FBI is planning on talking to EVERYONE involved in the incident, both investigations, and the filing, dropping, and decisions made to not file of any of the charges involved in this case in Ms. Rietz's office. Otherwise it's just one more whitewash. There were multiple things that I can think that might have violated both teens' civil rights the way this has gone so far.
Yeah, we can see why the state wins so many cases, because the rules it sets allow it to exclude so much of the truth and manage to include only what it prefers. I can tell a lie so, so easily with ground rules like that, too.
And so much of it come down to letting the police and the SA simply dictate to the court exactly what the court should decide.
Unless the issue of intent on the part of Jeshaun is fully and BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT proven -- no matter who decides -- then I don't see how he can be convicted. And I don't see how the weak evidence I've heard would allow that. Because that would only presume that the state can allow any injustice on the word of any officer with a reason to lie.
But bad convictions do happen, that DOES happen a LOT in Champaign County, on Ms. Rietz's watch and before. That is unjust, illegal, and frankly tragic in many cases where people don't die, far worse when they do. It is and should be an embarrassment to any citizen who cares about the standard that everyone should be held to the rule of law -- including police.
It is why Champaign County is referred to as "the Plantation."
Yeah, Jeshaun sure could end up railroaded and kangaroo-courted into a felony conviction. Happens virtually everyday in that ugly f-n courthouse. There's nothing new about that. It's just really clear in this case that there is no way the state has enough proof without basically saying that it's absolutely willingly and unquestionably to take the word of two men with massive reason to lie.
The only thing new is that Rietz is squirming about on this one, trying to come up with some other solution, because this entire mess WILL haunt her politically. She has made the morally and legally wrong decision already and she knows it. She makes these sorts of decisions all the time and gets away with them, because the system is so stacked in that direction, but she's sweating this one.
She COULD have made the right decision, let either a special prosecutor or a grand jury review all the evidence against ALL those there that day -- well against all those that SURVIVED, at least -- and let them make the call, let the chips fall where they may. But she didn't dare let any of the citizens decide, because she was too interested in continuing to operate the protection racket for cops that we have here in Champaign County.
No, good citizens, you are unworthy of deciding. It is a fiction that civilians control the police state that we have in Champaign County.
And for some reason those specail prosecutors seem to always want to bring charges, so let's restrict them coming down on regular citizens.
See?
"Geez, how many water cooler lawyers are there down at the station house in Champaign anyway? "
See what I mean? You have no reason to believe that anyone here is a cop. You just don't like what they're saying, so you assume that any person you don't like is probably a cop.
There's no evidence anyone here is a cop, but that doesn't matter to you. Why should it? You don't base your opinions on evidence or logic. Just on your own prejudices.
"Look, we can just imagine that the report that the charges against Jeshaun is based on is one more cookie cutter, fill out the form throw the black kid in jail sort of thing."
Sure, we can imagine all kinds of things. We could imagine that Jeshaun wasn't even THERE that day, and what LOOKED like Jeshaun was actually an evil android sent there by his enemies to frame him. It's fun to imagine, isn't it? Now, let's quit imagining and deal with the facts instead.
"Does it even mention that anyone got killed that day? I really wonder?"
Probably not. Why would it? What would that have to do with the obvious fact that Jeshaun was committing a crime?
"Look, the only thing that the ISP report seems to offer as substantive proof that either youth had that police were around while they were otherwise lawfully going about their business that afternoon in the few fleeting seconds before one was dying on the ground was when Norbits came around the corner in uniform."
Umm...
I don't know how to tell you this, but breaking into a house is not "lawfully going about their business". Sorry. Look, I don't really blame you for thinking that they were doing something legal that day. It's not your fault that Terry Townsend and the IMC and CUCPJ have spent the last two months lying to you about that. But really. You're not supposed to break into a house. It's true! You can look it up, if you want.
"Heck, for all those kids knew, it could've been Bozo the Clown, practicing for his next parade of tomfoolery. They never had time to form the intent to resist arrest."
Wow. Just how slow do you think these kids were? If you see a cop, how long do you think it takes to decide you're going to run from him? Like, a tenth of a second? They didn't have that long from the time they saw Norbits in his full regalia until the time Kiwane started squirming away from his grasp? How did he manage to DO it, then? If he hadn't had time to DECIDE to resist arrest, how was he able to, in fact, RESIST being arrested?
You're getting dumber by the second here...
"And if after what happened in the next few seconds of confusion, if I then had just seen my buddy capped by some cop for no damn good reason, yeah I just might throw a punch or two at the idiot who started the fight with me before the cop showed up. Does that then deserve a felony rap?"
Possibly. His resistance BEFORE he saw Kiwane get "capped" certainly does. Did you not read the part about Finney actually attempting to shove him to the ground, AFTER Norbits showed up in his uniform?
"I can't think of anything that would be more unjust."
I can. Filing charges against a person who WASN'T obviously committing a crime, like Jeshaun was. You might say it's cruel to do so. That's your opinion, and I don't see much point arguing about that. But there's nothing unjust about sending someone to trial when there's this much evidence that he was committing a crime.
"Are you trying to tell us that the ISP stuff won't be allowed in the court for this? That the FBI investigation will be irrelevant if it turns up something relevant?"
I don't have any idea if they will be or not. I don't see what difference it really makes, though. All the ISP investigation does is provide more evidence that this kid was resisting arrest.
"Yeah, we can see why the state wins so many cases, because the rules it sets allow it to exclude so much of the truth and manage to include only what it prefers."
Umm. Would you mind telling me what's being excluded? This kid has a lawyer. He can call any witnesses he wants. You're full of crap here.
The reason the state wins so many cases is that the state's attorney typically doesn't file charges against someone unless the evidence is pretty good. It would be a waste of time otherwise.
"I can tell a lie so, so easily with ground rules like that, too."
Who's lying? Any evidence on this one, or is it just more of your typical crap here?
"Unless the issue of intent on the part of Jeshaun is fully and BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT proven -- no matter who decides -- then I don't see how he can be convicted."
OK, well. That's what the trial is FOR. He hasn't been convicted yet. This is just to see if there's enough evidence to bother HAVING a trial. Clearly there is.
"And I don't see how the weak evidence I've heard would allow that."
You mean the testimony of the two officers? The pretty obvious fact that a struggle ensued, when a struggle clearly would NOT have taken place if this kid hadn't resisted? That's usually pretty good for a resisting arrest charge. What other kind of evidence do you think there would usually be?
"Because that would only presume that the state can allow any injustice on the word of any officer with a reason to lie."
Why do you think these officers have any reason to lie? They've already been let off the hook, so even if the conviction of Jeshaun had anything to do with that at some point, it doesn't anymore. So what do they care if this kid goes to juvenile hall or not? What difference do you think it makes to them?
"But bad convictions do happen, that DOES happen a LOT in Champaign County, on Ms. Rietz's watch and before."
Give me an example. An easy one, right off the top of your head.
"It is why Champaign County is referred to as 'the Plantation.'"
By whom? Is there a guy with a whip, forcing black people to work from sunup until sundown? Because I haven't seen that. Is there a guy forcing you to do anything AT ALL, other than, you know, not break into people's houses? I'm pretty sure Champaign isn't unique in that regard.
You know, what's interesting here is that the only person who was being forced to do anything was Kiwane. He got kicked out of his regular school, and was ordered to go to that more expensive, special school they built to deal with kids with behavioral issues. And he didn't go to that one either! And did he even get into any trouble at all for not doing what The Man told him to do? Not really. So again, you are full of crap.
"It's just really clear in this case that there is no way the state has enough proof without basically saying that it's absolutely willingly and unquestionably to take the word of two men with massive reason to lie."
Again, what reason do they have to lie? What do they care, at this point, WHAT happens to Jeshaun? He could be awarded an Olympic Gold Medal for Breaking and Entering, and it wouldn't have any impact on them.
"The only thing new is that Rietz is squirming about on this one, trying to come up with some other solution, because this entire mess WILL haunt her politically. She has made the morally and legally wrong decision already and she knows it."
It didn't seem like she was squirming to me. Where do you get that? If she was THAT upset about it, she would have just dropped the charges. So, no. I don't think she's squirming.
Morally wrong? Well, again, that's your opinion, and nobody can convince you one way or the other, but legally, there's nothing at all wrong with what she did.
That Same Old Echo
Strange how there's always someone who wants to piss on your leg, gets all upset when you call him on it, then insists that you should just accept it when he tells you it's really only raining.
That's twice now.
That's twice I've heard that exact same expression with regard to this case. If you're going to accuse someone else of being an "echo", the least you could do is come up with a new one.
I'd really PREFER it if you could come up with a rational argument as to where I'm wrong. But I realize the limitations certain people have, and would settle with a new figure of speech.
Who is Annonymous 9:06 and 10:16?
Not that they are required to identify themselves, but since their opinion is so certain, their mocking so thorough, and their arguments so "insider-ish", they ought to identify themselves as to whether they are law enforcement. It would help to understand their arguing on this site. I would advise anyone actually concerned about the Carrington murder avoid going toe to toe with Annonymous 9:06 and 10:16. It seems evident they are out to waste the time of others and direct arguments toward substantiating the theatre that officialdom has foisted these last few months. As proof of their insincerity I offer their next mocking argument how stupid this post is......retirement from the force must be that boring.....
Jesus Christ.
I've only told you about a dozen times I'm not a cop. Never have been a cop, and unless reincarnation is for real, am never GOING to be a cop.
I don't really know what I can do to prove that I'm not.
I hereby renounce policedom and all its false promises!
There, was that good enough? No? Well, then I don't know what to tell you.
I only mock people here because I TRY to have logical arguments. Go back and read what I wrote. I cram more logical arguments into those comments than the entire rest of this site! But nobody listens! Nobody argues back sensibly. All they do is shout "You're a cop!", like that even has any impact on whether I'm right or wrong.
So why shouldn't I mock people, if they're not even going to TRY to be rational?
I'm not out to waste your time. Far from it. I'm trying to get you to actually think logically about the things you say and believe. If you actually respond to my arguments in an intelligent way, it might make you think more logically about things. I can't think of a better way to spend your time.
People here don't want it. They like being stupid and wrong. That's fine with me, if that's what they want to do, but I don't see why I should be respectful of it.
Wow.
Couldn't help myself there.
I presume I'm not talking to someone who thinks he's Jesus Christ.
Hard to tell here.
Arrogance. Yes.
Logic? Perhaps, you likes a whole lotta of you.
Opinion. Definitely, more than you seem to understand.
Waste of time. Yours? Definitely. The best it stirs here is mild amusement, especially after these whoppers.
"I only mock people here because I TRY to have logical arguments."
That's one heck of excuse. Read it here again and think about how logical that sounds.
"Nobody argues back sensibly."
You just aren't even trying to understand the point of view of others, are you?
"They like being stupid and wrong...I don't see why I should be respectful of it."
I kind of think you're the sort of person who is not particularly respectful of people even when they are smart and right or just plain wise.
I suppose it's good to know the real you.
No crime was committed, otherwise charges would have been filed
"Who's beating a dead horse? Am I wrong? DID you, in fact, read the interview with the homeowner? Notice the parts where she says, over and over again, that Kiwane wasn't allowed there when she wasn't home?"
I read exactly the opposite; she was quoted as saying they were welcome at her home at any time, and thus no crime was committed. If what the police-troll claims is true, then the teenagers would have been charged with breaking and entering, or at least trespassing. This wasn't done because the homeowner did not think that any crime was committed by the teenagers, thus Ms. Reitz and the Champaign Police had no real criminal case to justify the killing of Kiwane.
End of story.
What are you TALKING about?!?
THIS interview?
http://cdn.news-gazette.com/media/pdf/Thomas_Deborah_Issiah_and_Ebonee_Interview_NG.pdf
Read it for real. Don't just pretend to. She must say, a dozen times, that nobody was allowed to be in the house when she wasn't there. Her kids say that. Her boyfriend says that. Where do you see ANYTHING, in the original, tape-recorded interview, that says Kiwane was allowed to be there whenever he wanted? I could go through and copy every time she says that no kids were allowed there when she wasn't home, but I'm sure you wouldn't read that either.
" If what the police-troll claims is true, then the teenagers would have been charged with breaking and entering, or at least trespassing. This wasn't done because the homeowner did not think that any crime was committed by the teenagers, thus Ms. Reitz and the Champaign Police had no real criminal case to justify the killing of Kiwane."
Well, they didn't charge Kiwane with a crime because he was dead. But they DID charge Jeshaun with a crime, at first. They later DROPPED those charges after Thomas changed her story. They were just relying on what she told them at the time.
See what I mean when I say people who follow this site are idiots?
Suggestion
See what I mean when I say people who follow this site are idiots?
I think there are a lot of different interpretations of what has been said by all those involved in this tragic affair. I think there's been about 0% reason for you to call anyone "idiots." You might try sticking to more presuasive discourse.
Thanks.
Oh, please . . . .
Police-Troll: "She seemed like she barely even knew who Jeshaun WAS."
She was the aunt of Kiwane. In the north side of Champaign, everyone seems to know everyone else, whether or not they are related to each other.
Well, maybe she did.
Hell, maybe she DID know Jeshaun. But if you actually take the time to read the interview...
http://cdn.news-gazette.com/media/pdf/Thomas_Deborah_Issiah_and_Ebonee_Interview_NG.pdf
You'll see her saying, several times, that she didn't know who "Jashon" or "Dashon" was.
Now, maybe she did know him and was just lying at the time. Who knows? But the point is, the police were just going on what she told them at the time.
"The burglary charge, or
"The burglary charge, or whatever it was, was thrown up because they were scrambling for some reason to justify killing Kiwane and holding Jeshaun in jail that weekend until CPD could get its alibi straight."
Police-Troll: "Amazing, Kreskin. The burglary charge was because he was caught breaking into a house. Who CARES if Jeshaun was in jail over the weekend? What was he going to do? Go to the media and blow their story out of the water? OK, well, if there was any chance he could do that, why hasn't he yet? Why didn't he do it in the entire MONTH we were waiting for the ISP report?"
Considering how often the police changed their story after the incident occurred, this does not exactly enhance their credibility. This fact is reflected in the change of criminal charges against Jeshaun.
Generally, a criminal defendent doesn't talk to the press until after the case has been resolved -- they are typically advised by their lawyers to remain silent. This is why filing a spurious criminal charge is a good way to prevent someone from telling the truth about what actually happened. Furthermore, if the police are lucky enough to get the criminal charge to stick, in the eyes of the public, this tends to discredit the testimony of an eyewitness regarding police misconduct.
Unfortunately, the criminal justice system in Illinois is notoriously unreliable and often sends innocent people to jail or prison (hence, the suspension of the death penalty); and so even if Jeshaun is convicted of resisting arrest, this doesn't necessarily mean that his version of events is untrue.
Supposedly, the police chief had this shoulder dislocated while struggling with Jeshaun, and yet he resumed his police duties the next day without having his arm in a sling. Normally, a dislocated shoulder results in someone having their arm in a sling for at least several weeks, if not months. It seems Chief Finney enjoyed a miraculous recovery from his alleged injury. This make me wonder how much of a struggle during the arrest process actually occurred . . . .
Let's try this again...
"Considering how often the police changed their story after the incident occurred, this does not exactly enhance their credibility. This fact is reflected in the change of criminal charges against Jeshaun."
Show me. Show me where they changed their story. Really. Show me. One of the many alleged times they've changed it. Just one.
For the first MONTH, they weren't telling us any story AT ALL. Then the ISP report came out. Have they changed their story since then?
You know who DID change her story? Deborah Thomas. The homeowner. At first, meaning AT THE TIME the first charges were made, she said that nobody was allowed to be at the house when she wasn't there. She changed her story AFTER that, saying that she wouldn't have MINDED if Kiwane had broken into the house (although she still never said that Jeshaun was). But how were the police supposed to know that she'd change her story to conform to the then-current image that was being promoted of Kiwane as a peacefull, cherubic young man who never got into an ounce of trouble, and spent all his spare time studying to be an astronaut?
Here is, in fact, what the police and state's attorney had to go on at the time:
1) Testimony from an independent witness who said he saw these kids going around the house, trying to get in.
2) The fact that Jeshaun was caught right AT the site of the reported break-in.
3) Testimony from the homeowner that nobody was allowed to be in the house, and that she never even HEARD of this Jeshaun character.
Gee, I don't know. Sounds like a pretty good charge to me. Maybe breaking and entering would have been more technically correct, but it doesn't really make a whole lot of difference. Either way, there's a perfectly good reason to charge him with a crime. The fact that they had every reason to believe he was committing one.
Tell me, if one of your neighbors reported that he saw someone breaking into your house, the police show up and FIND the guy breaking into your house, and they ask you if you know anybody by that guy's name, and you say you've never heard of him, would YOU want the police to just let him go? That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
"Generally, a criminal defendent doesn't talk to the press until after the case has been resolved -- they are typically advised by their lawyers to remain silent. This is why filing a spurious criminal charge is a good way to prevent someone from telling the truth about what actually happened."
K. But this isn't your "typical" case. He would rather keep silent so as not to jeopardize his really minor burglary chargethan let everyone know that his best friend was murdered execution-style or whatever stupid thing you think happened? Jesus, with friends like Jeshaun, who needs enemies?
But if they were that worried about it, then why would Rietz LET him take a deal, then? If she had, the case would have been over a month ago, and Jeshaun would have already told his story. Remember: she offered him the deal on November 12. Rietz didn't release her summary until December 8. If he had taken the deal, the lawyers wouldn't be involved AT ALL anymore, and he would be free to say WHATEVER the hell he wanted, BEFORE the decision to not file charges against the police had been made. If she was afraid he was going to go to the media and blow their story out of the water, why would she have offered him the deal BEFORE she released the report and her summary? IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
And this wasn't a spurious charge. It was a completely sensible one.
But I'm still curious as to why you think it would matter. You claim that Norbits, Finney, and Rietz spent the weekend getting their story straight. OK. Let's suppose Jeshaun had been out of jail. Could he have somehow jeopardized their ability to do this? How? Track them down to whatever smoke-filled back room they were meeting and videotaped them or something? Honestly, even assuming the police WERE spending the weekend getting their story straight, what do you think they thought he was going to DO? Just tell me, so I can get an idea.
Incidentally, and I don't know why I didn't bring this up before, but your conspiracy theory isn't even logically consistent at this point. You claim that they spent all weekend getting their story straight, but then later complain that they can't get their story straight. You say that Rietz was worried because their "alibi" didn't support the charges of resisting arrest.
OK, well, if they were going to lie, why do you think they decided to tell the lie they DID tell? Why not come up with something better, that was going to be airtight? Why wouldn't Rietz have sat down with them and said "OK, guys, here's your story.", then told them what to say. Practice it, rehearse it, then go over it until it's completely natural? It does not make sense.
"so even if Jeshaun is convicted of resisting arrest, this doesn't necessarily mean that his version of events is untrue."
No, it doesn't. Nobody said that it did. So why would they bother with these charges, if they were so obviously fake?
"Normally, a dislocated shoulder results in someone having their arm in a sling for at least several weeks, if not months."
Are you nuts? I knew a guy in high school who dislocated his shoulder while we were playing football. It looked totally ghastly. We were all standing around wondering what we were going to do, when he calls his brother over, who had apparently done this for him before, and he sort of yanked it, and it went right back into place. It was one of the most disgusting things I ever saw, but he was good as new the next day.
Now, of course, this guy had dislocated that shoulder several times prior to this. I don't know if that has anything to do with it or not, or if Finney has ever dislocated his shoulder before, but it's hardly like it's some debilitating injury or something.
"This make me wonder how much of a struggle during the arrest process actually occurred . . . ."
Probably not a huge one. It wouldn't have to be. You can get charged with resisting arrest just for running away, or for trying to wriggle out of the handcuffs when the cop tries to put them on you.
medical report denied
In fact, we filed a FOIA for the medical records Finney sustained on Oct. 9 and it was denied.
Now the SA, an elected official, is prosecuting charges on information which the public is denied access to.
Whose interests does Rietz serve?
BD
I assume you've heard of
I assume you've heard of something called HIPAA, right?
The annonymous police troll
I would warn anyone arguing with the troll who is so passionately trying to justify the killing of Kiwane, could be trying to find out what the IMCista's know to help Finney and Norbits when they have to take the stand in the surviving youth's trial.
Local Jokel
Reading through the reports, I find it so strange that Norbits has / and is getting away with / all sorts of memory loss issues. How convenient. It seems to be select. He gives pretty precise information of what happened both before and after he murdered the young man but the actual murder itself he has conveniently forgot. Why is it that police are allowed to lie about the defendant but if the defendant lies it is held against him/her? "It troubles him" the police report says. I hope it troubles him the rest of his life. He is a murder and why he and Finney and others who have covered this up or refused to cooperate have been held accountable is truly a mystery to me.
Correction
My previous post should have said "have not been held acountable is truly a mystery to me."
DROP THE DAMN
DROP THE DAMN CHARGES!!!!!!!
HE HAS BEEN THROUGH ALOT OF SHIT!!!!!!!!
Post new comment