DPOA Gives Reisig $16,000 in May
The initial campaign filing by incumbent District Attorney Jeff Reisig did not show a tremendous amount of money – he only raised $32,700 between January 1 and April 21. However, he began that time with about $85,000 cash on hand, which put him in a position of having a nearly $73,000 cash balance at the end of the filing period.
However, since that time, law enforcement and some of the deputy DAs have started to recognize the threat that Dean Johansson’s non-traditional campaign poses to the incumbent.
That is most notable in the actions of the Davis Police Officers Association, which clearly views Dean Johansson as some sort of existential threat. On March 1 they are listed as making a $500 donation to the Reisig campaign through their PAC.
But since that filing, the Reisig campaign has filed nine 24-hour contribution reports. In less than three weeks he has raised $35,500 just in those contributions.
Where is the money coming from? DPOA, in addition to their $500 contribution, has made a $2000 contribution and now on May 5, a $14,000 contribution.
Law enforcement sees Mr. Johansson as a clear threat, as the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA) donated $5000.
Deputy DAs and former deputy DAs are also pumping money in, with Deputy DA Melinda Aiello contributing $2500, Supervising Deputy DA Garrett Hamilton giving $1000, Ann Hurd, the former Chief Deputy DA and wife 
of retired Judge Steven Mock, giving $1000, and former Deputy DA Robert Trudgen, now in Amador County, giving $1000.
Davis Accountant Vic Bucher gave $1000 and hotel owner Reed Youmans gave $1000 as well.
The biggest chunk of money came from DPOA, which interestingly enough appears to have been the only police officer association to pump in large amounts of money, even though every major one has endorsed the incumbent.
When the incumbent is in trouble, he has the ability to tap into resources that are largely unavailable to Dean Johansson, who is largely running an untraditional grassroots campaign. On Friday night at a rally, he told supporters that more than 500 people have volunteered their time on the campaign.
There are signs that the efforts are working.
Dean Johansson has modeled his candidacy after Philadelphia’s newly-elected DA Larry Krasner. Mr. Krasner assumed the office as a man who cut his teeth as a civil rights attorney. He is a strong proponent of police reform and criminal justice reform.
Mr. Johansson has been surprised by the reception and his insurgent campaign has picked up steam. A Reisig supporter told me last week that they had spoken with a key volunteer for the Reisig campaign who said that when they walk precincts they are amazed by how many people are telling them not to bother talking to them, they are supporting Johansson.
Around the same time, the report from Crime Victims United came out leaking to the public an 11-year-old police report. A few days later, a combination of law enforcement and deputy DAs, along with Supervisor Matt Rexroad, attacked Dean Johansson for failing to salute the flag at the candidates forum, even though he both stood and placed his hand on his heart.
Clearly, a campaign that is promising to more deeply examine and prosecute police abuse and likely to crack down on the activities of some of its deputy DAs, including cleaning house, figures to be a threat to the establishment.
Deputy DA Ryan Couzens has been an outspoken supporter of Jeff Reisig, both in the courtroom and on the campaign trail. It was his letter to the Johansson campaign that seemed to ignite the sign wars. He also signed onto the Pledge of Allegiance letter.
Deputy DA Melinda Aiello was the prosecutor on a key murder trial last year that surprisingly ended in acquittal, even though the defendant had acknowledged firing the weapon that killed a drug dealer in the front seat. The defendant claimed self-defense, and the jury, after listening to the dishonesty of key witnesses including the police, finally acquitted him outright rather than imposing voluntary manslaughter.
Then there is the letter from Deputy DA Frits van der Hoek, who claims that Mr. Reisig is a supporter of bail reform, with nothing on the record showing Mr. Reisig remotely in favor of bail reform.
Mr. van der Hoek writes, “Most people agree that California should move away from its cash bail system. There is no quick fix though, because cash bail is included within California’s constitution. To help unstick this clog, Reisig assigned one of his top prosecutors to work with legislators to reform California’s cash bail system, while managing flight risk and keeping dangerous offenders away from the public.”
Not only is there no record of this, but Jeff Reisig’s office has consistently argued for higher bails, even in cases where bail didn’t make a lot of sense.
For example, in 2016, a man was arrested on possession charges and multiple violations of probation. The probation department recommended that the man be held on bail rather than released on his own recognizance (OR).
The defense attorney argued that the guy has a job, family and ties to the area – he’s not a flight risk. Plus, it’s not a prison case as it is possession of drugs. And, as the defense pointed out, he’s never missed a court appearance. The man had no history of violence.
But the DA on the case argued for bail and the commissioner, Kent O’Mara, told the defense that he was not going to go against probation’s recommendation, so he put a $55,000 bail on him.
What purpose did bail serve here? Talk is cheap.
And then there is Mr. van der Hoek himself. As Dean Johansson becomes more of a threat, we see a lot of deputy DAs coming out to support their boss. Mr. van der Hoek has good reason to do so, because he might not have a job under DA Johansson.
Mr. van der Hoek was sworn in on May 6, 2015. Just over two weeks after the May 6 announcement, Mr. Van der Hoek was officially cleared of his part in the fatal February 2014 shooting death of 38-year-old Antonio Lopez Guzman, just off the campus of San Jose State University, when he was an officer with the San Jose PD.
The shooting has been highly controversial, and Mr. van der Hoek yelled to his partner to “shoot him, shoot!”
Video for the case has not been released, but many challenge the view that the shooting was necessary, pointing out that Mr. Lopez Guzman was shot twice in the back, with the last image showing the victim attempting to get away rather than charging the officer.
Again, after watching the video, Richard Konda, an advocate with the Asian Law Alliance told the media, “I didn’t see him make any aggressive move toward any person.”
Would Mr. van der Hoek keep his job under a new progressive DA? Seems like a good reason to support your current boss.
It seems to fair to say that many of the deputy DAs – all of whom are at-will employees, could have job security issues. At the UC Davis law school candidate’s forum, where only Dean Johansson showed up, Mr. Johansson praised the work of two deputy DAs: “Larry Eichele and Alvina Tzang are two personally that I think are great attorneys. They would be promoted to run the office…”
He had pointed words for most of the rest of the office: “I’ve never seen an office that is more demeaning to defendants and their families in the courtroom. I’ve never seen an office that is more vindictive to other attorneys.”
Mr. Eichele, who briefly put his name in the ring to run for DA, is now said to be fighting to keep his job, even though he had a stellar record for 15 years. The rest of the DAs would seem to be on thin ice if Mr. Johansson succeeds in his campaign.
Clearly, law enforcement, especially the Davis Police Department, view Mr. Johansson as a serious threat and they seem willing to pump in money to the Reisig campaign in an effort to save him. We have three week left in this race and we will see how this unfolds.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
We all want safe communities. No one is pro crime. What we have are two very different visions of how best to achieve safe communities. I believe that a DA as a representative of the citizens of a county in the effort to ensure safe communities should : 1. Be in alignment with the methods preferred by his constituents 2. Exercise consistently good judgement in ensuring that justice is done and not take actions based on fear or vindictiveness. 3. Use the taxpayers money in the most cost effective means possible.
I have included Yolo County citizens statistical preferences on a number of issues and Jeff Reisig’s positions.
Prop 34 ( reform of 3 strikes) 74% Yolo voters favored Reisig – neutral
Prop 47 (reduction of some felonies to misdemeanors) 61% voters favored Reisig opposed
Prop 57 ( increased parole chances for some non violent incarcerated) 68% of voters favored. Reisig opposed.
Prop 64 ( legalized adult marijuana use) 60% of voters approved. Reisig opposed.
Note. My comment is not about whether or not you are personally for or against any of these measures. It is that DA Reisig has been either neutral or in opposition to the majority of Yolo County voters.
I am sure that everyone who has been following on the Vanguard already knows that I feel that DA Reisig does not demonstrate either consistently good judgement in charging nor does he use funding wisely to detect, arrest and appropriately charge the most dangerous members of our community often opting for over charging on relatively minor offenses in order to maintain a “tough on crime” facade.
Comment:
I reject the notion of,
That concept has been seen as “mob rule” in different times, different places… think how that concept may have played out in the deep south in the early 50’s where the majority of the constituents may have wanted a black man charged with rape, for giving a hug to a young white girl… and rejected at the next election, the DA who felt it was wrong… it cuts both ways…
Pretty much everything else I agree with. I’ve voted, but will not turn in my ballot until election day… in case I need to surrender it, and vote a new ballot…
Howard
“That concept has been seen as “mob rule” in different times, different places”
I agree with your objection. My comment was sloppy as written and should have included the caveat that it only applied to cases in which no one would be oppressed on the basis of “majority opinion”.
I am sure that everyone who has been following on the Vanguard already knows that I feel that Johansson does not demonstrate either consistently good judgement in behavior, and would likely support the most dangerous members of our community by pandering to the Davis liberal and that results in Yolo Country being less safe for residents and families.
What you think of the ethics of deputy DA contributing to bosses re-election?
In many cases the deputy DA would not be a friend of his boss and would have his/her own political aspirations. Who knows a boss better than a key employee? I know employees well and they can be hard on bosses… likely not going out in public with praise unless the praise was warranted. And this is a consistent message from everyone that works for Riesig. I’m sure if there was a disgruntled employee critical of Reisig you would have made it the headline.
You’re missing the point… again. Anyone who has remotely been critical of Reisig or has spoken out against him, is gone. They are firing Eichele for example, a man who prior to entering the race in November had an exemplary record. It’s not a free relationship. Support your boss, keep your job and get promoted. Anyone come out against him in that office loses their job. THat’s a huge problem.
Nothing…
Why do you think he does not want to work for J?
The “at will” status of the attorneys is troubling… what you posted is deeply disturbing… what makes you think it will be different under Johansson? Will he “purge” those who back(ed) Reisig, if he is elected? Will we be trading one despot for another, albeit with a different ‘bent’/philosophy?
If not, why do you believe that will be different?
Actually meant as a fair question, as I’m inclined to vote for the challenger…
In the real world, not the make-believe Utopia that some seem to imagine, an employee that is outwardly critical of a boss needs to be terminated. The boss is accountable for the performance of the whole, not the employee. And sometimes employees are not a good fit for the direction that the boss decides to take the organization.
It would be different if the employee was critical of things like hostile work environment or sexual harassment or something like that. None of that is the case with Riesig. But in the real world, if you don’t like the decisions being made by the boss, you can certainly try to change his/her mind, but criticism of the boss’s decisions outside of that direct one-on-one communication should always be justified grounds for termination.
I think your disconnect here is related to your lack of work experience in high performing organizations and its replacement with a view that things get accomplished with criticism, protect and activism. Organizational dysfunction would reign supreme if protecting employees that are outwardly critical of a boss.
Jeff
I agree that everyone following on the Vanguard knows your feelings. There is a difference however. I have cited specific cases to illustrate the reasons I feel the way I do about the actions of Jeff Reisig. These cases are well documented, not just distant allegations. You however, have posted nothing to support your “feelings” despite the fact that you frequently tout your own objectivity.
If you have documented information based on actual cases on why you feel Johansson would not make a good DA, I think it would be important for you to share that with the community so that an informed decision can be made. If you are only repeating your “feelings”, not so much so, since as you frequently say it is what is objective that matters, not one’s feelings.
You come up with 3 or 4 decisions that you consider mistakes and then use them to back your opinion that Reisig’s performance is bad.
I asked you before, do you have 3-4 decisions as a doctor that you consider mistakes? I assume so. And given that, dies this mean you are a bad doctor?
How many decisions would it take to convince you?
There is an old rule of thumb for managers… if you get more than 50% of the tough decisions right, you’re an OK manager… so, if it is 3-4 out of say, a thousand that are problematic?
46 percent acquital rate in cases that go to trial (average is 16 percent statewide) Highest trial rate in the state. But I want Jeff to give me an actual number
So, David… is the acquittal rate due to “bad charges”, or poor prosecutorial skills by subordinate attorneys?
My guess is that it is a complex function of both… and probably other variables as well…
I see no reason to believe that the prosecutors in this county are that worse at prosecuting cases. I think they take cases where the facts are much more marginal and that largely has to do with decisions on which cases to prosecute and what offers to make.
If people’s lives are at stake most certainly yes, Jeff.
That’s what the power of the DA’s office is as well – the power over lives.
Johansson has stated he is inspired by Philadelphia’s new reformer District Attorney Larry Krasner. In that city, “reforms begun two years ago have dropped the city’s jail population by 33 percent, without causing any increase in crime or chaos”.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/true-crime/wp/2018/04/23/justice-reforms-take-hold-the-inmate-population-plummets-and-philadelphia-closes-a-notorious-jail/
People generally like having DA’s to the right of them and public defenders to the left due to our adversarial justice system. It keeps the universe in harmony.
Jim
It might keep the universe in harmony if DAs and public defenders had equal power within the system. That is no where near the case. Our system is so tilted towards the DA as to make a mockery of a truly balanced adversarial sytsem.
I do not agree with that statement. Do you think more innocent people are found guilty of crimes they did not commit or more people who committed crimes are found not guilty?
They aren’t flip sides of the same coin. The standard of conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt, by definition that means that the system is designed to err on the side of finding people who committed a crime, not guilty.
Agree that is both the design and the reality. That is why I find Tia’s statement “Our system is so tilted towards the DA” to be from left field as in any county the system is tilted in favor of the accused.
That statement really doesn’t show an understanding of how the system works in reality (as opposed to in theory). Theoretically the accused gets the benefit of the presumption of innocence, reality is in most criminal trials the jurors go into them with the presumption that the defendant had to do something to get there and the realistic burden is on the defense to prove that they didn’t do it.
The prosecution has to to submit it’s evidence to the defense through discovery. The defense does not have to show anything to the prosecution. The prosecution needs to show their hand at the preliminary hearing. The defense does not. And so it goes.
And the prosecution has access to police investigators in addition to their own investigators. The defense has limited access to their own investigators depending on budget.
The defense gets all records from the police investigations while not having to disclose their own results.
I think people generally don’t know where their DA’s are in relation to them.
I agree with that.
No, people want justice and rule of law and accountability. What they don’t want is petty politics and wasted money, like the raid that Reisig and YONET officer Gary Richter green lighted to go after Paul Fullerton and Little shop of Growers. AR-15’s Darth Vader body armor, Flash Bangs, all because Fullerton shaerd a joint with an undercover YONET officer? And the officer was staking out LSG simply because Reisig and Richter hate cannabis, and thought Paul was simply “Too Big For His Britches”? How much money wasted on that raid, Fullerton’s kids traumatized …. all so Reisig could make his other fascist pals happy. I don’t want my tax money being spent on politically motivated partisan raids that accomlish nothing but scare little kids, I want it spent on keeping this place safe.
https://davisvanguard.org/2017/07/fullerton-marijuana-case-takes-bizarre-turn/
If you want a DA who IMO seems to be more concerned about criminal rights than victim rights then by all means vote for Johannson.
Despite his rhetoric, Reisig has a fairly mixed record on victims rights. I think you want to make the case more on being tough on crime, than victims rights.
When it comes to doing right for the victims of crimes and being tougher on crime I think Reisig is the much better candidate.
That’s too general a statement to have any meaning. What does it mean “doing right for the victims of crimes” – I have a lot of problems with the narrowness of the definition. But I would also argue that Reisig is quite selective in terms of the support he gives “victims.”
You don’t like it because I think you know it’s true and it will be the leading factor in Reisig getting re-elected instead of your preferred candidate. So now you are just making a weak effort at deflecting.
You didn’t answer the question, what does it mean “doing right for the victims of crimes”?
You can’t define even what “it” is
Keith
Please provide actual evidence ( case examples) to demonstrate that your claim reflects reality and not just your bias.
Jim
“I do not agree with that statement. Do you think more innocent people are found guilty of crimes they did not commit or more people who committed crimes are found not guilty?”
I don’t see that as the most pertinent question since it ignores the issue of how the charging is decided in the first place ( exclusively the DA) and it does not take into consideration plea bargains which are often taken not because of factual guilt, but because people fear they will be convicted of worse.
Also ignores burden of proof
which leads to many guilty people going free. You still have not presented any reason why factually innocent people are being incarcerated in great numbers.
Question… does the DA solely decide on what gets prosecuted, or is it the lower level folk who make the recommendation, and the DA can veto? A good manager let’s their folk do the ‘work’, and the manager goes along with that unless there is a problem with the recommendation…
Is the county system so dysfunctional that the DA reviews every case, and decides as the single opinion?
There is almost no autonomy in the DA’s office. I have sat many times in court and the judge is trying to broker a deal and the deputy DA says that they have to get permission to take the deal. I have been told there are times when the Deputy DA says if they drop this case, they’d be fired. No discretion by lower ranking employees. It’s all a cadre of supervisors and a very top down driven organization.
Hi, you might be interested in this video on the role of prosecutors, which I found to be informative: https://youtu.be/4aVIEqmR1wE
Starting around 1:00 – “Prosecutors have more power than most of us realize. Prosecutors alone decide whether or not to charge a crime. They get to decide who is prosecuted, and who gets a pass. They also decide what crimes to charge you with. This is important, because the more serious the charge, the greater the risk a person faces by taking a case to trial. This increased risk puts pressure on a person to give up their rights and take a deal, even if they are innocent. And despite their legal duty to turn over evidence that could prove you’re innocent, prosecutors themselves, all in secret, decide when to apply that rule.
“Given all the discretionary power, prosecutors ultimately determine how the system treats the most vulnerable people in our communities. But the problem is not just the unfair amount of power prosecutors have. The problem is the abuse of that power, which is unfortunately all around us. Investigative reporter Radley Balko explains that one of the most powerful positions in public service, a position that carries with it the authority not only to ruin lives but in many cases the power to end them, is one of the positions most shielded from liability and accountability. And he’s right. Over 40 years ago, the Supreme Court gave prosecutors absolute immunity, a powerful legal protection that is even greater than the protections the law gives police officers. Absolutely immunity is a big deal – a really big deal – and it means that in our current legal system, who we elect to represent the people becomes even more critical.”
“the unfair amount of power prosecutors have” Why is it “unfair”? Who should make the decision? Prosecutors are directly responsible to the electorate, who would you have decide?
I guess I did not make myself clear… once “battle is joined”, I get where the ‘commander’ has to sign off on a ‘truce’… are you saying every case is ‘started’ by the DA, personally?
According to my attorney friend: “All cases go through the DA period.” So yes, correct.
Again… does the DA look at every complaint, or only those forwarded by staff (Asst DA’s) with a recommendation for ‘pursuing’? Need a flow chart here!
If an Asst DA has reviewed a complaint, and recommends “no action”, does the DA sign off?
Or, does the DA initiate, or decide not to, on every complaint?
I get where every case to be prosecuted goes thru the DA’s lens… but how does it get to that point, or is the DA doing it all?
Why do folk make what I thought was a simple question so … ‘deflecting’?
I don’t know the answer to your question Howard but you could call Reisig’s office and they will likely tell you.
I will note that the DA is responsible for “equal justice under law” which could be difficult to assure if multiple people are cutting deals with defendants based on who-knows-what criteria. Unless there is some particular reason that it is bad for the boss to sign every deal I don’t see that it is a bad practice.
How do articles get published on The Vanguard? Does David approve each one? Can Cresci publish whatever he thinks is relevant? Is The Vanguard “a very top down driven organization”?
Your logic seems quite a bit off. “plea bargains which are often taken not because of factual guilt” if you believe this is a common occurrence then you should congratulate Reisig for giving people their constitutional right to a jury trial.
The reason the trial rate is so high is that the offers made by the DA’s office are not reasonable and therefore the defendants would rather roll the dice with a jury trial.
Plea bargains are not a guaranteed right. Jury trials are. You should talk to Tia, she finds plea bargains to be an instrument of oppression.
I find it curious since most DAs prefer plea bargains which keep the conviction rate high. By encouraging trials I would think Reisig is acting against his own best interest.
Another perspective is that plea bargaining has corrupted the entire process of criminal justice and Riesig is taking the high road.
I actually sat on a jury trial for a DUI charge the we ended up deciding innocence and I asked the DA in the post-trial why he decided to prosecute given some of the known challenges with the case and he said because it was the right thing to do given the harm that would have caused by allowing a known drunk driver to get away with it and do it again.
That is the work of a moral DA. Only prosecuting the strong cases is the work of a weak DA.
LOL. What percentage of cases in Yolo do you think get plea bargained? I feel like you are throwing darts in the dark, hoping to hit something.
The Vanguard seems to have a bifurcated outlook on plea bargains. On one day “cash bail is bad” as it leads to too many plea bargains on the next day “jury trials are bad” as they indicate too few plea bargains.
Plea bargains are necessary. 97 percent of all cases end in plea bargains. Without them, the system would grind to a halt. Some can argue maybe that would be a good thing. If a DA is overcharging cases, if people are stuck in custody, forcing them to take a plea bargain if they are innocent or overcharged is not justice. On the other hand, if there are reasonable charges and a reasonable offer, a plea bargain can be beneficial. It’s not one size fits all. So yes, there is at least a bifurcated view of plea bargains.
Jeff
“Utopia that some seem to imagine, an employee that is outwardly critical of a boss needs to be terminated. ”
I strongly disagree. I do not consider Kaiser to be a utopian setting yet I do believe it to be a “high performing organizations”. And yet people were not fired when they disagreed with the decisions of their “boss” the assistant chief or chief of the department. If substantive issues were raised about the performance of a “boss” those were taken up the “chain of command” and frequently resulted in changes in position, sometimes of the person making the complaint, sometimes of the boss depending on the findings of investigation. This is how I believe grievances should be approached since it is just plain true that the “boss” is not always right.
“do you have 3-4 decisions as a doctor that you consider mistakes? I assume so. And given that, dies this mean you are a bad doctor”?
The answer is “it depends”. Let’s suppose that a doctor makes one surgical error, one missed diagnosis, and one error in test interpretation. I would not say that would necessarily be a call for remedial steps. However, if a surgeon makes the repeated judgement errors resulting in harm to multiple patients, I would say ( and have said) that it is time for remediation of reassignment to duties that do not call for that type of judgement making. This is for the safety of patients just as I feel that we need a change for the safety of our community. How do I know I would do that? Because I have more than once in my career.
I was co-habitating with a surgeon once. When I asked about dinner one evening she said, “it wasn’t such a good day today. I hit the dura and the patient boxed. Let’s go out.”
So out we went.
You have not made the case that Riesig has made consistent mistakes, only the three you keep repeating.
It sounds to me like Tia will be supporting Riesig unless she can name another meth addicted Mom that killed her kid, another cheese thief doing hard time and another firefighter in jail for selling pot…
Jim
“The prosecution has to to submit it’s evidence to the defense through discovery”
That is the rule. It is often not the reality as witnessed by numerous cases in which the result is challenged and subsequently on appeal a judge states that he will let the verdict stand because he “doesn’t believe that the information withheld from the defense by the prosecution would ‘have made any difference to outcome'”. Prosecutors in the real world simply do not always provide all information to the defense, only that which the prosecutor sees as “relevant”. Hmmm….in a system in which it is his job to “win” instead of seek justice, do you suppose it is rare for information to be withheld?
Jeff
“You have not made the case that Riesig has made consistent mistakes, only the three you keep repeating.”
Actually more than three:
1. Cheese thief
2. Baby Justice
3. Marijuana “sting”
4. “Gang charges” over a trace of methamphetamine
5. “Gang charges” over 7-11 case.
6. Information provided at Citizen’s Academy sponsored by Mr. Reisig that communities of color are specifically targeted and that police are allowed to lie to citizens in order to obtain confession or testimony the police believe may be valuable. Although to be fair, now Chief Pytel in a personal confirmation did tell me the latter would be “rare” and used only in extreme cases.
7. Now the mental health case ending in suicide.
And these are only the cases, situations, and strategies that are directly linked to the decisions of Jeff Reisig, and do not include those cases over which he did not have direct control, but his leadership in running a department focused solely on “criminality” and frequently missing the medical and social interventions that could prevent tragedies in the name of “law and order”.
So yes, I consider this to be a pattern of poor judgement, not a few isolated cases.
And you have not answered my question of how these cases have made our community any safer. Nor have you provided any substantive reason for why you feel Dean Johansson is not suited for the job, and yet you have repeated it.
1. Cheese thief
TWADDLE
2. Baby Justice
MISTAKE
3. Marijuana “sting”
POSSIBLE MISTAKE
4. “Gang charges” over a trace of methamphetamine
THE LAW AND SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY. AND YOUR HYPOCRISY GIVEN CRITICISM #2.
5. “Gang charges” over 7-11 case.
THE LAW AND SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY. GANGS HAVE GROWN OUT OF CONTROL IN YOLO COUNTY. BUT LIVING IN DAVIS YOU ARE MOSTLY ISOLATED FROM THE RISKS.
6. Information provided at Citizen’s Academy sponsored by Mr. Reisig that communities of color are specifically targeted and that police are allowed to lie to citizens in order to obtain confession or testimony the police believe may be valuable. Although to be fair, now Chief Pytel in a personal confirmation did tell me the latter would be “rare” and used only in extreme cases.
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REISIG. THIS IS A POLICE MATTER.
7. Now the mental health case ending in suicide.
THIS IS A DISGUSTING THING FOR A DOCTOR TO DO. EXPLOIT A SUICIDE FOR POLITICS.
So yes, I consider this to be a pattern of poor judgement, not a few isolated cases.
THE ONLY PATTERN OF BAD JUDGEMENT I SEE HERE IS YOURS RELATED TO WHAT THE JOB OF DA IS AND WHAT IT REQUIRES.
Certain entertainment value in watching a “p—ing match”… please continue… doesn’t move the football, but is entertaining…
Bonus points for Tia for working the DAs name in to a sentence that also said “color are specifically targeted” when it sounds like the DA was not even a the event…
Let’s see : Marijuana sting achieves :
1) Little children traumatized by Darth Vader Cops with absolutlely no sense of self-control
2) Massive amounts of public money wasted
3) Legitimate taxpaying business trainwrecked simply because Fascist YONET and Fascist REISIG don’t like Fullerton’s attitude.
4) Local hero firefighter who has saved lives of many many people has his name dragged through the mud
Let me ask, is it the policy of Reisig and his YONET pets to abuse and traumatize small children in order to get his NON-CONVICTION over a NON-ISSUE? Is it the policy of his office that he simply gets to green light paramilitary-style raids against people his simply DISLIKES?
SOUNDS LIKE ABUSE OF POWER TO ME.
Not in our name anymore, and not with our money.
“his job to “win” instead of seek justice” Note that the public defender has no duty to seek justice at all nor to be responsible for the consequences of their actions. As an example there was a recent case where a man was accused of rape. His defense was that he was sleeping and therefore not responsible and in support he obtained a diagnosis of narcolepsy. As you may know narcolepsy is a completely subjective diagnosis and prior to his arrest he had never sought treatment for it. So the principle behind his defense is “it’s OK to rape anyone you want to as long as you say you were sleeping”.
Given your previous comments I am sure you will agree it is fair to say they as a member of the Public Defender’s office “Dean supports the right of someone who says they are sleeping to rape anyone”.
OTT… weird… can we get an adult in the room?
Yes, once ‘battle is on’ it goes to fighting as hard as you can… both ways… to be honest, let’s acknowledge NEITHER side is really prone to seek justice… they seek resolution, win-lose… Shakespeare had it right, ” first, we….”
District attorneys represent the people. It is not in the people’s best interest for a DA’s office to seek “wins” above “justice.” Public defenders represent individual clients. There is a difference.
Please define “justice” as you see it…
If my (your?) daughter was brutally raped and killed, and if I chose to off the offender, prior to trial, or after, where does “justice” lie as to my actions?
I opine that justice [who defines?] is in the eye of the beholder… not absolute , unless you believe in God, then, it belongs to Him/Her… “justice” may be dictated by “the mob”, the vigilantes… popular vote… majority opinion, based on their experience, values, spirituality… opinions on a blog…
Most DAs seek “wins” by plea bargaining. Reisig seems to be willing to seek “justice” through trials when, as you note, he could get “wins” more easily through increased plea bargaining.
I presume you will endorse Reisig for his principled stand?
That would be the non-hypocritical stand.