This is a whataboutism. Gardner and Bell must stand on their own merits and it is pretty clear that Gardner is not doing so, and this does not come as a surprise to people familiar with her prior to her time as Circuit Attorney.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2020Things were going so well before Gardner and Bell got into office, amirite?Rooster wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2020Why anyone would want to work in LE in the city or county is beyond me.
Catch and release.
One day in the near future the city is going to wake up and not a police offer to be found.
- 2,929
Prosecuting? That's kind of important when you're the City's prosecuting attorney.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2020^ is she not doing what she campaigned on?
Also, to an earlier point, there is a hard distinction between Gardner and Bell as prosecutors. While they may both be progressive and campaigned as "change agents", Bell's leadership has the Prosecuting Attorney's office in the County pursuing charges and hearing cases with much more consistency than Gardner.
- 1,642
Gardner is a goner. Only question is how much money she will swindle the City out of on her way out.
Blowout election coming up in August. It's over.
Blowout election coming up in August. It's over.
- 9,576
She’s put a bigger emphasis on diversion programs. What do people think diversion programs mean? So of course there will be less charges filled. I witnessed a stabbing and rightly they prosecuted it. Trial next monthgone corporate wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2020Prosecuting? That's kind of important when you're the City's prosecuting attorney.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2020^ is she not doing what she campaigned on?
Also, to an earlier point, there is a hard distinction between Gardner and Bell as prosecutors. While they may both be progressive and campaigned as "change agents", Bell's leadership has the Prosecuting Attorney's office in the County pursuing charges and hearing cases with much more consistency than Gardner.
With at least 2 other white candidates in the race, she’s in the front seat with north city and progressive votes.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2020Gardner is a goner. Only question is how much money she will swindle the City out of on her way out.
Blowout election coming up in August. It's over.
- 1,642
More than a few "progressives" have lost faith in Gardner. They might be naïve but they're not stupid.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2020With at least 2 other white candidates in the race, she’s in the front seat with north city and progressive votes.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2020Gardner is a goner. Only question is how much money she will swindle the City out of on her way out.
Blowout election coming up in August. It's over.
And, wait, are you saying people vote strictly based on the color of the candidate?
I think the vast majority of the black community wants justice and safety. And they aren't getting it with Gardner.
- 9,576
They’re getting justice, the cops that have harassed their community are getting locked up. Their children are no longer denied opportunity because of a silly weed arrest (that half the city cops use anyway) and instead are given a second chance with a diversion program. Gardner is giving justice to victims of violent crime by going after those who commit it, now if the police and detectives would just do a better job finding those people and putting together a decent case, she would be able to charge moreleeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Jan 23, 2020More than a few "progressives" have lost faith in Gardner. They might be naïve but they're not stupid.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2020With at least 2 other white candidates in the race, she’s in the front seat with north city and progressive votes.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2020Gardner is a goner. Only question is how much money she will swindle the City out of on her way out.
Blowout election coming up in August. It's over.
And, wait, are you saying people vote strictly based on the color of the candidate?
I think the vast majority of the black community wants justice and safety. And they aren't getting it with Gardner.
I believe all candidates for Circuit Attorney typically campaign on executing the duties of said office, which include prosecuting suspected murderers in a competent manner. It is hard to imagine the arguments one would use to make the case that Gardner has not bungled numerous murder trials since taking office, when there is a veritable mountain of evidence that she has done so, including prosecuting at least one obviously innocent man for a murder he didn't commit, which thankfully the jury did not go along with.
I may be inexperienced as I never before lived in a city with this level of violent crime, but in my neighborhood (Soulard), there have been quite a few instances of violent crimes with witnesses/video evidence where the suspects were detained and basically released shortly after. I am far from being SLPD's number one fan, but our neighborhood liaison keeps saying they cannot do more than what they are doing now, and this is all up to KG's office. Sure, we might be a bunch of white gentrifiers (aren't we all on this board?), but most of us are progressive and will definitely be not voting for her.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jan 23, 2020They’re getting justice, the cops that have harassed their community are getting locked up. Their children are no longer denied opportunity because of a silly weed arrest (that half the city cops use anyway) and instead are given a second chance with a diversion program. Gardner is giving justice to victims of violent crime by going after those who commit it, now if the police and detectives would just do a better job finding those people and putting together a decent case, she would be able to charge more
- 71
I agree, I think she'll win another term. I'm going to vote for her. Most of the griping really does seem racially motivated and coming from people who don't even live in the city.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2020With at least 2 other white candidates in the race, she’s in the front seat with north city and progressive votes.
The people that I've talked to who interact with her office daily all agree that its a chaotic mess. That would seem to be backed up by the fact that there has been a mass exodus by experienced prosecutors which is directly related to the plummeting conviction rate.
It's ok to think that the city could use a fresh perspective regarding crime enforcement and still believe that Kim Gardner is absolutely not the person to execute it.
It's also ok to think that Jeff Roorda is a clown who the police union should never associate with.
It's ok to think that the city could use a fresh perspective regarding crime enforcement and still believe that Kim Gardner is absolutely not the person to execute it.
It's also ok to think that Jeff Roorda is a clown who the police union should never associate with.
Spot on.jbacott wrote: ↑Jan 24, 2020The people that I've talked to who interact with her office daily all agree that its a chaotic mess. That would seem to be backed up by the fact that there has been a mass exodus by experienced prosecutors which is directly related to the plummeting conviction rate.
It's ok to think that the city could use a fresh perspective regarding crime enforcement and still believe that Kim Gardner is absolutely not the person to execute it.
It's also ok to think that Jeff Roorda is a clown who the police union should never associate with.
The ordeal made over that traffic stop by both sides is beyond childish.
This is either incredibly misguided or outright lying. I know I have lived in the City since birth as have many of the posters here expressing their concerns about the Circuit Attorney. As to racially motivated, I doubt I could convince you otherwise, but I at least tend to vote on a candidate's qualifications and policies and not on their race. I was very critical of Sharon Carpenter when she was turning the Recorder's office into a shambles, and voted for Butler.JacksonPolyp wrote: ↑Jan 24, 2020I agree, I think she'll win another term. I'm going to vote for her. Most of the griping really does seem racially motivated and coming from people who don't even live in the city.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jan 22, 2020With at least 2 other white candidates in the race, she’s in the front seat with north city and progressive votes.
So those of us who happen to live on the other side of Skinker don't have a say in the matter? Are we still letting an arbitrary line divide us? Keep in mind that an awful lot of folks live in the County but work in the City, and in fact help pay her salary.JacksonPolyp wrote: ↑Jan 24, 2020Most of the griping really does seem racially motivated and coming from people who don't even live in the city.
As for myself, I currently live in University City, but I own a business in the City of St. Louis, and have worked in the City for the last 35 years. I may not get to vote for or against Gardner, but I certainly am entitled to express my opinion on her performance.
- 9,576
There are 3 things at issue here and they’re getting conflated, so let’s arrange them
Issue one- Grietens case. Private investigator hired by CAO office may have lied about taking notes at a deposition. From what a hear these things never make it to court. You get a slap on the wrist. Especially in a case that didn’t go anywhere
Issue two- SLPOA vs Gardner fight. This one is where racism from both sides is tossed around. I have 3 high school friends in the PD, I’ve told all 3 that as long as Roorda is their spokesman I would never vote for another prop P. He’s a divider and is hurting the officers he reps more than helping. This issue started after Gardner didn’t let slide even the basic cases of police misconduct. As you can imagine SLPOA didn’t like that, although if their officers didn’t shot each other while on a coke rage bender while on shift or if they didn’t lose credibility by posting vile and racist sh*t on Facebook (that becomes an issue in court if that office is a witness to a crime). Hence why she doesn’t take cases from officers on her exclusion list (common around the country). Anyway, her going after cops (I don’t really blame her) has cost SLPOA a lot of money and they want her gone and want someone who will look the other way on police misconduct. She wins this issue. Any reasonable person would agree with that
Issue three- her performance as a CAO. This issue is always resolved every 4 years by voters. Being unhappy with issue 3 doesn’t make you a racist. Her performance is mostly on her but lack of charges or conviction is shared by the police dept. end of the day, they bring a case after their detectives are done working. As for as office turnover, that happens, sure it’s higher with her but she’s also doing this differently from the last CAO who was in the office for 16 years. So if you’re use to doing things one way for half of your career and now someone comes and does a 180 you’re probably going leave
Ok, all on same page? Good.
Issue one- Grietens case. Private investigator hired by CAO office may have lied about taking notes at a deposition. From what a hear these things never make it to court. You get a slap on the wrist. Especially in a case that didn’t go anywhere
Issue two- SLPOA vs Gardner fight. This one is where racism from both sides is tossed around. I have 3 high school friends in the PD, I’ve told all 3 that as long as Roorda is their spokesman I would never vote for another prop P. He’s a divider and is hurting the officers he reps more than helping. This issue started after Gardner didn’t let slide even the basic cases of police misconduct. As you can imagine SLPOA didn’t like that, although if their officers didn’t shot each other while on a coke rage bender while on shift or if they didn’t lose credibility by posting vile and racist sh*t on Facebook (that becomes an issue in court if that office is a witness to a crime). Hence why she doesn’t take cases from officers on her exclusion list (common around the country). Anyway, her going after cops (I don’t really blame her) has cost SLPOA a lot of money and they want her gone and want someone who will look the other way on police misconduct. She wins this issue. Any reasonable person would agree with that
Issue three- her performance as a CAO. This issue is always resolved every 4 years by voters. Being unhappy with issue 3 doesn’t make you a racist. Her performance is mostly on her but lack of charges or conviction is shared by the police dept. end of the day, they bring a case after their detectives are done working. As for as office turnover, that happens, sure it’s higher with her but she’s also doing this differently from the last CAO who was in the office for 16 years. So if you’re use to doing things one way for half of your career and now someone comes and does a 180 you’re probably going leave
Ok, all on same page? Good.
- 71
I would just add to this that high office turnover is a hallmark of reformist prosecutors being elected. Reform prosecutors usually try to weed out the really bad apples with mass firings the week they take office, but sometimes it can take a while, especially I'm guessing in a place like St. Louis where there is just a lot of really entrenched backward thinking about criminal justice in these institutions.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jan 26, 2020
As for as office turnover, that happens, sure it’s higher with her but she’s also doing this differently from the last CAO who was in the office for 16 years. So if you’re use to doing things one way for half of your career and now someone comes and does a 180 you’re probably going leave
- 6,124
Given the degree to which I gripe about U. City politics I'm in no position to criticize. You certainly have more right to an opinion in my city than I in yours.framer wrote:So those of us who happen to live on the other side of Skinker don't have a say in the matter? Are we still letting an arbitrary line divide us? Keep in mind that an awful lot of folks live in the County but work in the City, and in fact help pay her salary.
As for myself, I currently live in University City, but I own a business in the City of St. Louis, and have worked in the City for the last 35 years. I may not get to vote for or against Gardner, but I certainly am entitled to express my opinion on her performance.
- 3,235
Anyone that can stick up for Gardner despite overwhelming evidence her office is a trainwreck loses significant credibility. Take the riff she has with SLPOA out of the equation and she is still a disaster.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You can believe there is racism in our police department AND that Gardner is not fit for her position..
This is a devastating blow to justice. I believe Gardner should resign immediately.
This is a devastating blow to justice. I believe Gardner should resign immediately.
- 2,386
^An absolute and complete failure.
This is 100% unacceptable, unprofessional and shows an objective lack of fitness for the position.
"News 4 made calls, sent emails and went to the courthouse to get those answers. In person, Circuit Attorney Kim Gardener assured a reporter someone would call back, but no one ever did."
This is 100% unacceptable, unprofessional and shows an objective lack of fitness for the position.
"News 4 made calls, sent emails and went to the courthouse to get those answers. In person, Circuit Attorney Kim Gardener assured a reporter someone would call back, but no one ever did."
- 9,576
From the CAO-
“The CAO asked for a continuance on this case. It was denied by the judge. CAO dismissed the case in order to refile, which we plan to do. The CAO did not double book.”
“The CAO asked for a continuance on this case. It was denied by the judge. CAO dismissed the case in order to refile, which we plan to do. The CAO did not double book.”
- 2,929
^Hold up here... The explanation is that the Circuit Attorney's Office dropped the case not because they're uninterested in seeking justice, but rather because the chief prosecutor's office cannot properly file? (If you fail Civil Procedure in real time on the job, then you shouldn't be the Circuit Attorney)
What exactly did the judge object to from the prosecution that threw the case off the docket? A: Lack of counsel, that the court denied a continuance on this case for the explicit reason that it was an overbooking, that apparently not just the CA herself but no one else in her office was ready to prosecute this case... Is the CAO's justification founded in blaming their own internal employee turnover leaving them unable to properly administer cases? That's pretty farking terrible.
What exactly did the judge object to from the prosecution that threw the case off the docket? A: Lack of counsel, that the court denied a continuance on this case for the explicit reason that it was an overbooking, that apparently not just the CA herself but no one else in her office was ready to prosecute this case... Is the CAO's justification founded in blaming their own internal employee turnover leaving them unable to properly administer cases? That's pretty farking terrible.
- 2,419
I think this has to be the final nail in her coffin, though I'm sure we'll be given more nails before the election.