Chicago’s Bloody Thursday: 15 People Shot In Six Hours

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Fifteen people were shot — including one man who died — all over the city Thursday night in just under six hours.

At 5:30 p.m. a 16-year-old boy was shot in the arm on the North Side in the 5000 block of North Kenmore Avenue, according to police News Affairs Officer Veejay Zala.

The boy did not suffer life threatening injuries and was taken to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, Zala said.

At 6:37 p.m. a 19-year-old man playing basketball in Cole Park, 8500 S. King Dr., was shot after trying to break up a fight. He was taken to Jackson Park Hospital in good condition, police said.

A 21-year-old man was shot in the mid-section at 6:48 p.m. in the 4500 block of West Altgeld Street, according to Zala.

At 7:15 p.m. four men were shot in the 7700 block of South Loomis Boulevard, according to Zala.

Fire Media Affairs Director Larry Langford said one 31-year-old man was taken in critical condition to John H. Stroger Hospital of Cook County, one 19-year-old was taken to Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood in an unidentified condition and a 24-year-old suffered a graze wound and was taken to Stroger.

A fourth man was taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn with a gunshot wound to the leg, Langford said.

What the hell are we doing to each other? What kind of world are we leaving to our children? This is not about them shooting those people. This is about us and the world in which we have decided we wish to live.

What the hell are we doing with the time we’ve been given?

Springfield About to Lighten-Up on ‘Sexting’ Teens

Some common sense from Springfield via the Chicago Trib:

Students under 18 who use computers or cell phones to share nude photos of their peers would earn little more than a scolding under a measure the Illinois Senate approved Thursday to address the “sexting” phenomenon.

Offenders would not face criminal charges, but would get juvenile court supervision that could result in counseling or community service. The bill doesn’t address youths who send or receive racy photos if they don’t distribute them.

“We’re not trying to prosecute them if they keep it between themselves,” said Rep. Darlene Senger, R-Naperville, who got a similar bill through the Illinois House last week. “It’s when the third party is involved. That’s when you get the situations where so-and-so committed suicide because the picture got up everywhere.”

No, I do not think it is wise at all for young people to send nude pictures of themselves to each other, regardless of the medium they use. But face it: kids are stupid sometimes. They make incredible mistakes as juveniles, and that’s why the law treats them differently until they reach the incredible old age of 17 in Illinois, and even then law enforcement and prosecutors have discretion. The current law is insane. No adolescent should be marked for life as a registered sex offender for sexting.

I hope after this law passes, there will be reconsideration for those lads and lasses who have been condemned to a life of humiliation because of their stupid, but typically youthful, indiscretions.

CBO: Health-Care Reform Bill Cuts Deficit $1.3 Trillion Over 20 Years, Covers 95%

First, from Ezra Klein at the Washington Post:

Washington has spent the past week or so waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to release its preliminary estimate of the Senate bill with the reconciliation fixes. Not only are those numbers important for the debate, but Democratic leaders refuse to release the actual text of their changes until CBO releases the specifics of its analysis.

According to a Democratic source, CBO has finished its work and will release the official preliminary score later today. But here are the basic numbers: The bill will cost $940 billion over the first 10 years and reduce the deficit by $130 billion during that period. In the second 10 years — so, 2020 to 2029 — it will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion. The legislation will cover 32 million Americans, or 95 percent of the legal population.

To put this in context, that’s more deficit reduction than either the House or Senate bill, and more coverage than the Senate bill.

Next, from the New York Times:

U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on Thursday that proposed final healthcare legislation would cut the U.S. deficit by more than $100 billion over the first 10 years.

Hoyer told reporters that the Congressional Budget Office said the sweeping healthcare overhaul would cut the deficit by more than $1 trillion over the subsequent decade. The CBO is expected to release its official estimate of the cost of the Democratic-written legislation on Thursday.

This is good news for liberals, good news for conservatives, good news for all.

Sweet Justice: Measure Advances to Raise Retirement Age For Lawmakers, Judges

First, the scoop from Clout Street at the Chicago Trib:

Lawmakers and judges would have to wait longer to retire and their pension checks would be limited under a measure that got full support today in a House panel.

The measure, sponsored by Rep. Kevin McCarthy, D-Orland Park, would raise retirement age for full benefits from 55 to 67 for lawmakers and 60 to 67 for judges. They could retire before 67 under the new plan, but the benefits would be lower.

"The day of people retiring at 60 and living 10 years is over," McCarthy said. "There are people retiring in their 50s and dying in their mid-90s. The system just can’t function with those kind of parameters."

McCarthy’s bill also would limit annual pension payments at the same level as Social Security — currently $106,800. The rules would apply to lawmakers and judges employed by the state after July 1. Lawmakers estimated the state would save more than $1.5 billion over 35 years.

Under the current system, some officials are able to receive bigger pensions than their salaries. Former Gov. George Ryan, who last month was denied by the Illinois Supreme Court any future state pension payments, had received about $200,000 annually in pension until he was convicted in 2006 on political corruption charges. He retired as governor with a salary of $150,691.

Heard from a judge not too long ago who had been appointed to the bench. His honor told me he sought the appointment because of the great retirement he would have after one term. I had hoped to hear something about his love of justice. No, he wanted the bench for the retirement package.

I hope the legislature moves this forward quickly.

Coming In June: The Summer of Blagojevich

Rod Blagojevich’s flying circus continues this summer: a judge ruled today there will be no delay in the former governor’s trial.

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich won’t be able to delay his trial on public corruption charges, a federal judge said today.

U.S. District Judge James Zagel said the trial should go forward as planned on June 3. He called a pending U.S. Supreme Court decision that could redefine a statute that some of Blagojevich’s charges are based on a “red herring.’’

“I don’t see any reason to continue this case,’’ Zagel said. “This is more than a year to acquaint yourselves with the evidence.’’

Last week, lawyers for the indicted governor made a formal request to continue the June trial to November, saying they’ve been snowed under by recently turned over evidence, and they still await the Supreme Court ruling. Prosecutors opposed any delay for Blagojevich, who debuted on the television show “Celebrity Apprentice’’ on Sunday. They said the ex-governor has had plenty of time to prepare for trial.

The circus comes to town in June.

Will Legal Wrangling Delay the Summer of Blagojevich?

Rod Blagojevich

Rod Blagojevich’s lawyers want to delay his trial five months. Scheculed to begin in June, that would push his trial’s start date to November, just in time for Thanksgiving.

Personally, I was looking forward to a summer with Rod. Rod TV. The Summer of Blagojevich.

You name it.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Federal prosecutors said today they oppose a bid by lawyers for former Gov. Rod Blagojevich to delay his corruption trial until November.

Blagojevich’s lawyers last week asked to postpone the trial from June 3 because the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to limit or throw out the “honest services” fraud law. They also cited a voluminous amount of evidence turned over by prosecutors in recent days.

In their filing Monday, prosecutors contended that neither argument by the defense is persuasive, “particularly in light of the strong public interest in resolving this case as expeditiously as possible.”

Blagojevich’s repeated public statements against the case have heightened that interest, the government contended.

“The charges in this case allege that the defendant engaged in a longstanding and pervasive abuse of his power as the governor of the state of Illinois,” the prosecution said. “The defendant has repeatedly and publicly challenged the legitimacy of the charges against him. As a result, the public has a strong interest in the expeditious resolution of the charges.”

Prosecutors argued that no matter how the Supreme Court rules on the “honest services” law, the underlying evidence against the former governor would remain the same at trial.

And so it goes.

I’m betting this request will be denied. The trial is on for June 3.

Unless I’m wrong.

Above is my favorite picture of Rod, BTW. Thanks to ENEWSPF for that.

Would You Go Nude Hot-Tubbing With Utah GOP Rep. Kevin Garn? (Video)

Would you go nude hot-tubbing with Republican Rep. Kevin Garn of Utah?

First, the strange news from NPR:

Utah’s House majority leader resigned from the Legislature Saturday, two days after acknowledging he paid a woman $150,000 to keep quiet about a nude hot-tubbing incident that took place a quarter century ago when she was a teenager.

Republican Rep. Kevin Garn’s Thursday night confession came in a speech before House colleagues and stunned this conservative state. On Saturday, he apologized in an e-mail to House Speaker David Clark for becoming a distraction.

"After discussing this matter with my family, I have decided that it is in the best interests of them, my colleagues and the people of Utah," he wrote.

Garn, 55, acknowledged the indiscretion with the legal minor immediately after the Legislature adjourned for the session.

"Although we did not have any sexual contact, it was still clearly inappropriate — and it was my fault," he said from the House floor Thursday night.

Lawmakers responded with a standing ovation for his honesty and embraced him, a move some found offensive given the nature of what Garn was saying. In hindsight, the ovation may not have been the best move, but it shouldn’t be misconstrued to indicate support for unethical behavior, Clark said Saturday.

Garn told colleagues he paid the woman, Cheryl Maher, after she began contacting reporters about the incident during his unsuccessful bid for a congressional seat in 2002. Despite a confidentiality agreement, the now 40-year-old Maher began contacting local news media last week to retell her story about being naked with Garn when she was 15, he said Thursday.

It’s unclear whether Garn was 29 or 30 at the time of the incident. He’s more than 14 years older than Maher, who now lives in Derry, N.H.

This happened a quarter century ago. She was legal (at 15???). He was conservative and Republican. They were both nude. There was no sex. (Really???) He paid her $150,000 to keep silent. What could go wrong?

I honestly don’t know Rep. Kevin Garn at all. My favorite from all of this is from Utah Republican Party Chairman Dave Hansen, who says the party will bounce back from this and the January resignation of Senate Majority Leader Sheldon Killpack following his arrest on a charge of driving under the influence.

"I would’ve preferred neither one of them had happened, obviously, but they did," Hansen said of the Garn and Killpack resignations. "But I don’t think in the long run it’s going to have any effect."

That’s a nice attempt to spin bad news, but, somewhere along the line, we all have to surrender our sanctimony, on the left and the right.

Anyhow, enjoy the vintage Eddie Murphy video.

Did You Know Ben Roethlisberger Weighs 241 Pounds?

Ben Roethlisberger stands once again accused of sexual assault. The alleged victim is a Georgia college student, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

In the latest incident, a 20-year-old woman attending Georgia College & State University in Milledgeville, near Mr. Roethlisberger’s off-season home, is the alleged victim, according to Milledgeville police Deputy Chief Richard Malone.

"We had a sexual assault report," Deputy Chief Malone said during a news conference Friday night. "It is alleged that he was the perpetrator."

Mr. Roethlisberger and his legal team have emphatically denied the accusations in the Nevada case but have not come out as strongly in the latest incident.

Late Friday afternoon, the quarterback’s agent, Ryan Tollner, issued a statement:

"Last night, Ben and his friends met a group of women and everyone mingled together throughout the evening. We have spoken to law enforcement.

"Based on information currently available, an allegation was made against Ben, which appeared to be dismissed after a preliminary investigation last night.

"Obviously, given the prior accusation against Ben, we are skeptical of motive, but we will continue to cooperate with everyone involved."

Here’s the strange part:

The incident report indicates that the victim was with two female friends, ages 19 and 20. Mr. Roethlisberger’s name is obscured, but the "offender" is listed as 6-feet-5 and 241 pounds with brown hair and eyes.

241 pounds? Why not 240 pounds? Why not "between 240 and 250 pounds?" Why is "241" the magic number?

Could it have something to do with the official NFL profile of Big Ben? From NFL.com:

Ben Roethlisberger | #7 | QB
Pittsburgh Steelers | Official Team Site

Height: 6-5   Weight: 241   Age: 28
Born: 3/2/1982 Lima , OH
College: Miami (Ohio)
Experience: 7th season
High School: Findlay HS [OH]

Nailing Ben’s weight exactly is quite the coincidence.

Quite.

Remarks by President Obama on Health Care Reform, March 3, 2010 (Video and Text)

Washington, D.C.–March 3, 2010 – 1:50 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much, all of you, for joining us today. And I want to thank Julie, Barbara, Roland, Stephen, Renee, and Christopher, standing behind me — physicians, physicians assistants, and nurses who understand how important it is for us to make much needed changes in our health care system.

I want to thank all of you who are here today. I want to specially recognize two people who have been working tirelessly on that — on this effort, my Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius — (applause) — as well as our quarterback for health reform out of the White House, Nancy-Ann DeParle. (Applause.)

We began our push to reform health insurance last March, in this room, with doctors and nurses who know the system best. And so it’s fitting to be joined by all of you as we bring this journey to a close.

Last Thursday, I spent seven hours at a summit where Democrats and Republicans engaged in a public and very substantive discussion about health care. This meeting capped off a debate that began with a similar summit nearly one year ago. And since then, every idea has been put on the table. Every argument has been made.

Everything there is to say about health care has been said — (laughter) — and just about everybody has said it. (Laughter.) So now is the time to make a decision about how to finally reform health care so that it works, not just for the insurance companies, but for America’s families and America’s businesses.

Now, where both sides say they agree is that the status quo is not working for the American people. Health insurance is becoming more expensive by the day. Families can’t afford it. Businesses can’t afford it. The federal government can’t afford it. Smaller businesses and individuals who don’t get coverage at work are squeezed especially hard. And insurance companies freely ration health care based on who’s sick and who’s healthy; who can pay and who can’t. That’s the status quo. That’s the system we have right now.

Democrats and Republicans agree that this is a serious problem for America. And we agree that if we do nothing -– if we throw up our hands and walk away -– it’s a problem that will only grow worse. Nobody disputes that. More Americans will lose their family’s health insurance if they switch jobs or lose their job. More small businesses will be forced to choose between health care and hiring. More insurance companies will deny people coverage who have preexisting conditions, or they’ll drop people’s coverage when they get sick and need it most. And the rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid will sink our government deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. On all of this we agree.

So the question is, what do we do about it?

On one end of the spectrum, there are some who’ve suggested scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with a government-run health care system. And though many other countries have such a system, in America it would be neither practical nor realistic.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are those, and this includes most Republicans in Congress, who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry — whether it’s state consumer protections or minimum standards for the kind of insurance they can sell. The argument is, is that that will somehow lower costs. I disagree with that approach. I’m concerned that this would only give the insurance industry even freer rein to raise premiums and deny care.

So I don’t believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America. I believe it’s time to give the American people more control over their health care and their health insurance. I don’t believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone. I believe that doctors and nurses and physician assistants like the ones in this room should be free to decide what’s best for their patients. (Applause.)

Now, the proposal I put forward gives Americans more control over their health insurance and their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable. It builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I can tell you as the father of two young girls, I would not want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor.

Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system. First, it would end the worst practices of insurance companies. No longer would they be able to deny your coverage because of a preexisting condition. No longer would they be able to drop your coverage because you got sick. No longer would they be able to force you to pay unlimited amounts of money out of your own pocket. No longer would they be able to arbitrarily and massively raise premiums like Anthem Blue Cross recently tried to do in California — up to 39 percent increases in one year in the individual market. Those practices would end.

Second, my proposal would give uninsured individuals and small business owners the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves — because if it’s good enough for members of Congress, it’s good enough for the people who pay their salaries. (Applause.)

The reason federal employees get a good deal on health insurance is that we all participate in an insurance market where insurance companies give better coverage and better rates, because they get more customers. It’s an idea that many Republicans have embraced in the past, before politics intruded.

And my proposal says that if you still can’t afford the insurance in this new marketplace, even though it’s going to provide better deals for people than they can get right now in the individual marketplace, then we’ll offer you tax credits to do so — tax credits that add up to the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history. After all, the wealthiest among us can already buy the best insurance there is, and the least well off are able to get coverage through Medicaid. So it’s the middle class that gets squeezed, and that’s who we have to help.

Now, it is absolutely true that all of this will cost some money — about $100 billion per year. But most of this comes from the nearly $2 trillion a year that America already spends on health care — but a lot of it is not spent wisely. A lot of that money is being wasted or spent badly. So within this plan, we’re going to make sure the dollars we spend go towards making insurance more affordable and more secure. We’re going to eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance and pharmaceutical companies; set a new fee on insurance companies that stand to gain a lot of money and a lot of profits as millions of Americans are able to buy insurance; and we’re going to make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share on Medicare.

The bottom line is our proposal is paid for. And all the new money generated in this plan goes back to small businesses and middle-class families who can’t afford health insurance. It would also lower prescription drug prices for seniors. And it would help train new doctors and nurses and physician assistants to provide care for American families.

Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions — families, businesses, and the federal government. We have now incorporated most of the serious ideas from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care — ideas that go after the waste and abuse in our system, especially in programs like Medicare. But we do this while protecting Medicare benefits, and extending the financial stability of the program by nearly a decade.

Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people’s premiums and brings down our deficit by up to a trillion dollars over the next two decades — brings down our deficit. Those aren’t my numbers; those are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the Washington acronym for the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress in terms of how much stuff costs. (Laughter.)

So that’s our proposal. This is where we’ve ended up. It’s an approach that has been debated and changed and I believe improved over the last year. It incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans — including some of the ideas that Republicans offered during the health care summit, like funding state grants on medical malpractice reform, and curbing waste and fraud and abuse in the health care system. My proposal also gets rid of many of the provisions that had no place in health care reform — provisions that were more about winning individual votes in Congress than improving health care for all Americans.

Now, despite all that we agree on and all the Republican ideas we’ve incorporated, many — probably most — Republicans in Congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies. And if they truly believe that less regulation would lead to higher quality, more affordable health insurance, then they should vote against the proposal I’ve put forward.

Now, some also believe that we should, instead of doing what I’m proposing, pursue a piecemeal approach to health insurance reform, where we tinker around the edges of this challenge for the next few years. Even those who acknowledge the problem of the uninsured say we just can’t afford to help them right now — which is why the Republican proposal only covers 3 million uninsured Americans while we cover over 31 million.

The problem with that approach is that unless everyone has access to affordable coverage, you can’t prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions; you can’t limit the amount families are forced to pay out of their own pockets. The insurance reforms rest on everybody having access to coverage.

And you also don’t do anything about the fact that taxpayers currently end up subsidizing the uninsured when they’re forced to go to the emergency room for care, to the tune of about a thousand bucks per family. You can’t get those savings if those people are still going to the emergency room. So the fact is, health reform only works if you take care of all of these problems at once.

Now, both during and after last week’s summit, Republicans in Congress insisted that the only acceptable course on health care reform is to start over. But given these honest and substantial differences between the parties about the need to regulate the insurance industry and the need to help millions of middle-class families get insurance, I don’t see how another year of negotiations would help.

Moreover, the insurance companies aren’t starting over. They’re continuing to raise premiums and deny coverage as we speak. For us to start over now could simply lead to delay that could last for another decade, or even more. The American people, and the U.S. economy, just can’t wait that long. So, no matter which approach you favor, I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. (Applause.)

We have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for the past year but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of 60 votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up or down vote that was cast on welfare reform, that was cast on the Children’s Health Insurance Program, that was used for COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and, by the way, for both Bush tax cuts — all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority.

I, therefore, ask leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. (Applause.) And I urge every American who wants this reform to make their voice heard as well — every family, every business, every patient, every doctor, every nurse, every physician’s assistant. Make your voice heard.

This has been a long and wrenching debate. It has stoked great passions among the American people and their representatives. And that’s because health care is a difficult issue. It is a complicated issue. If it was easy, it would have been solved long ago. As all of you know from experience, health care can literally be an issue of life or death. And as a result, it easily lends itself to demagoguery and political gamesmanship, and misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

But that’s not an excuse for those of us who were sent here to lead. That’s not an excuse for us to walk away. We can’t just give up because the politics are hard. I know there’s been a fascination, bordering on obsession, in this media town about what passing health insurance reform would mean for the next election and the one after that. How will this play? What will happen with the polls? I will leave it to others to sift through the politics, because that’s not what this is about. That’s not why we’re here.

This is about what reform would mean for the mother with breast cancer whose insurance company will finally have to pay for her chemotherapy. This is about what reform would mean for the small business owner who will no longer have to choose between hiring more workers or offering coverage to the employees she has. This is about what reform would mean for middle-class families who will be able to afford health insurance for the very first time in their lives and get a regular checkup once in a while, and have some security about their children if they get sick.

This is about what reform would mean for all those men and women I’ve met over the last few years who’ve been brave enough to share their stories. When we started our push for reform last year, I talked to a young mother in Wisconsin named Laura Klitzka. She has two young children. She thought she had beaten her breast cancer but then later discovered it had spread to her bones. She and her husband were working and had insurance, but their medical bills still landed them in debt. And now she spends time worrying about that debt when all she wants to do is spend time with her children and focus on getting well.

This should not happen in the United States of America. And it doesn’t have to. (Applause.)

In the end, that’s what this debate is about. It’s about what kind of country we want to be. It’s about the millions of lives that would be touched and, in some cases, saved by making private health insurance more secure and more affordable.

So at stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I do not know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right. (Applause.)

And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law.

Thank you very much, everybody. Let’s get it done. (Applause.)

END
2:09 P.M. EST

Source: whitehouse.gov

Jacob B. Nodarse, 23, Suspect in Darien Killings in Custody

First from the Sun-Times:

A suspect in the triple murder of a family in west suburban Darien was arrested this afternoon in south Florida, authorities said.

Jacob Nodarse, 23, of Lemont, was sleeping in a van outside his parents’ house in Lehigh Acres, Fla., when police and deputy U.S. marshals arrested him at about 4 p.m. today, officials said.

Nodarse was the subject of a manhunt after Darien Police early today issued an alert that he might have fled to Florida in a BMW, which was found parked in his parents’ garage, authorities said.

Nodarse has been charged with obstruction of justice. Police would not say why they believe he is a suspect in the fatal shootings early Tuesday of Jeffrey R. Kramer, 50, his wife Lori L. Kramer, 48, and their 20-year-old son Michael J. Kramer.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Shortly after the arrest in Florida, four police cars pulled up to a building in Countryside where records show Nodarse once lived. About half a dozen police officers in bullet-proof vests entered the building, breaking down a door.

Nodarse’s grandmother, Ingrid Kampe, 64, of Tinley Park, was shocked at news of the arrest.

She said they had just had dinner together at a steakhouse on Sunday "and he seemed fine, he seemed really good" and didn’t act out of the ordinary at all. She described him as kind, quiet and mild-mannered.

"He’s got a heart of gold," Kampe said.

Earlier today, Hamilton County sheriff’s police had searched a stretch of rural highway in northern Florida after cell phone signals indicated he was there.

But deputies reported back to Darien police that they found nothing. "They gave us a location where the car may be located. We checked every location in the area and haven’t found anything," said Hamilton County Sheriff J. Harrell Reid.

And it’s at this point that I’ll stress everyone arrested in this country is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

What a horrible tragedy.