The Chainlink

Bobby Cann Updates: Ryne San Hamel Pleads Guilty, Receives 10 Days in Jail

Jason Jenkins at ActiveTrans is helping to coordinate community response.  If there is any chance you can attend proceedings, please reach out to him: 

jason@activetrans.org.

 

Views: 43830

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Did they teach you in court advocate school to go on the Internet and try to get all non-court-advocates to stop talking about the case? Because it sure does seem like it. Perhaps one of you court advocates should get some guidance about whether or not you should even be participating in this discussion. And that includes those of you who are just egging others on.

The more people tell others not to talk the more talk there is about not being able to talk. This is not a chicken and egg problem. Stop telling people they can't talk and they will stop talking about you telling them not to talk. I don't understand why this is so hard.



Marina Fichera said:

Being a court advocate creates a bigger presence in the court room, to the judge, and is documented throughout the whole process. We had to go to a training. We were told to not speak about the case. Just in case we say something the wrong way and it could hurt what we are in the end trying To accomplish.
I'm not suggesting that people don't talk about it. I was explaining why the court advocates aren't so the "code of silence" crap could be dropped. If your read it properly you would've caught on to that. Maybe you need to go back to grammar school??
And you're going to tell me not to participate In this discussion when you preach about being able to talk freely?! I'm not telling you not to talk about it. Quite the opposite. But stop judging the people who take the time to be the presence in the court room instead of hiding behind a computer and pointing the finger at one another.br/>



Tom Dworzanski said:

Did they teach you in court advocate school to go on the Internet and try to get all non-court-advocates to stop talking about the case? Because it sure does seem like it. Perhaps one of you court advocates should get some guidance about whether or not you should even be participating in this discussion. And that includes those of you who are just egging others on.

The more people tell others not to talk the more talk there is about not being able to talk. This is not a chicken and egg problem. Stop telling people they can't talk and they will stop talking about you telling them not to talk. I don't understand why this is so hard.



Marina Fichera said:

Being a court advocate creates a bigger presence in the court room, to the judge, and is documented throughout the whole process. We had to go to a training. We were told to not speak about the case. Just in case we say something the wrong way and it could hurt what we are in the end trying To accomplish.

Listen, if you follow this thread (and I guess some people are erasing their comments now so it may not all be available anymore) there was a huge discussion during which many people advocated silencing those who wanted to talk about this case. One comment even said that the posts of those who dared talk about the case should be deleted. This was followed by ridiculous lamenting about CL being an open forum. That is the "code of silence" crowd. It's not court advocates doing their duty and choosing not engage in this discussion (like you have commendably done). I'm glad you're not telling us we can't talk about it. I guess I mistook your position and I apologize for that.

I respect what you're doing for your friend. It's a wonderful thing. Please understand though that for some of us there are bigger issues to this situation than the case itself. We've already talked about these things on previous pages. Such bigger issues aren't necessarily always best advocated for from the benches behind the prosecution.


Marina Fichera said:

I'm not suggesting that people don't talk about it. I was explaining why the court advocates aren't so the "code of silence" crap could be dropped. If your read it properly you would've caught on to that. Maybe you need to go back to grammar school??
And you're going to tell me not to participate In this discussion when you preach about being able to talk freely?! I'm not telling you not to talk about it. Quite the opposite. But stop judging the people who take the time to be the presence in the court room instead of hiding behind a computer and pointing the finger at one another.br/>

Thank you Marina

Marina Fichera said:

Congratulations. You're getting a real life court advocate , and also a very dear friend of Bobby's, to speak up. First of all, I know I'm probably talking to a brick wall and you're only going to hear what you want. But I'll say it anyway.
Being a court advocate creates a bigger presence in the court room, to the judge, and is documented throughout the whole process. We had to go to a training. We were told to not speak about the case. Just in case we say something the wrong way and it could hurt what we are in the end trying To accomplish. Which is justice. The "code of silence" as you so put it is in place for a reason. No one owes you any information. Jason so kindly tells you all what happens. Which isn't much. Dude wants his car and can't drive. That's it. Plus, it's really hard to hear what goes on in there anyway.
I don't know why you're so adamant about creating a fuss over it. If you really care and want to make a difference, show up to court a couple times, instead of whining that you don't know what's going on. This process is frustrating for all of us involved without some hero with a plea bargain petition (which I signed) complaining about it.
I'm pretty sure you're a grown man. And I don't like talking to people this way, but you need to chill out. Obviously my last post went unnoticed. Tear my post up all you want, but I've kept my mouth shut for awhile. And while I am a court advocate, I won't be posting updates, because it's my responsibility not to. We all want justice. And I'll say again, like I posted before, it's amazing that you all care and want to keep up with everything. It's awesome the outpouring of support. It's important that we all do that for each other, whether you know the person or not. Bobby was my friend, and I won't jeopardize anything for anyone that could stand in the way of a smidgen of justice for this great man not being in our lives anymore. Respect each other, respect us. You will be informed. But there's isn't a whole lot happening, so just relax



b
Bob Kastigar said:

Morgan 6 mi said:

This was the update I was looking for (about the car specifically) and thought we would be getting in this thread.

I, too, thought we would be getting a lot more specific information and reporting from the Active Transportation Alliance.  I thought they would be more response to reporting facts to the bicycling (and walking and transportation) community than honoring any "code of silence" commitment they made. 

They should never have entered into such an commitment. 

Greenfield's reporting on the blog has been much more complete and factual.  I don't see how what he reported could have harmed the trial outcome.  I don't see why all the Courtroom Advocates and so intent on refusing to share information.

I'm very disappointed in the Active Transportation Alliance in their participation in the reporting; hopefully they will do better in the future.

Although critical, I will continue to support the Active Transportation Alliance and continue paying my dues and encouraging others who ride bicycles to do the same.

Your perspective may be different, but I wouldn't recommend characterizing it as "bigger".


Tom Dworzanski said:

Please understand though that for some of us there are bigger issues to this situation than the case itself. 

Good point. I didn't mean to imply a higher importance. Maybe "broader" would have been a better choice.

Will said:

Your perspective may be different, but I wouldn't recommend characterizing it as "bigger".


Tom Dworzanski said:

Please understand though that for some of us there are bigger issues to this situation than the case itself. 

I want to pipe up in support of all Marina has been doing in this thread. I am a trained courtroom advocate for this case; I did not know Bobby, but I feel that we would have been friends when we did meet; I bike-commute year-round; I was deeply disturbed by his death, and I am intent on seeing justice done in this case.

This concept of a "code of silence" is ridiculous. If you are truly invested in seeing a beneficial outcome from all this, maybe try to think about why the approach of Active Trans and the CPD makes sense. I understand your emotional reaction. But are you sure you know how to make change happen in the justice system? They do. And they are not doing what they're doing to fuck over the cyclists of the city 

Marina, please keep doing what you're doing, and don't let poorly informed hotheads drag you down.

Marina Fichera said:

I'm not suggesting that people don't talk about it. I was explaining why the court advocates aren't so the "code of silence" crap could be dropped. If your read it properly you would've caught on to that. Maybe you need to go back to grammar school??
And you're going to tell me not to participate In this discussion when you preach about being able to talk freely?! I'm not telling you not to talk about it. Quite the opposite. But stop judging the people who take the time to be the presence in the court room instead of hiding behind a computer and pointing the finger at one another.br/>

First, thanks to all that have put so much time into this. We all have a common goal - to see justice for Bobby. 

As for people wanting Active Trans to do more reporting in this forum.....I'm a member and supporter of the organization and I would much rather they work towards their mission: 

"The mission of Active Transportation Alliance is to make bicycling, walking and public transit so safe, convenient and fun that we will achieve a significant shift from environmentally harmful, sedentary travel to clean, active travel. We advocate for transportation that encourages and promotes safety, physical activity, health, recreation, social interaction, equity, environmental stewardship and resource conservation." (http://www.activetrans.org/mission-vision)

The more time they spend trying to keep people in online forums aware of the innerworkings of a court case is less time they can spend advocating for more bike lanes, educating drivers and bicyclists AND encouraging more people to bike.

Carry on Active Trans. Keep organizing court advocates (which I believe ANYONE on this forum is invited to participate in) and making things better. 

 

Marina thank you for having the guts to say what I'm sure a lot of us have been wanting to say. Also thank you for the ability to be a strong, passionate, and articulate human being.

Now for everyone else.. can we please get back to what this thread is about which is Courtroom Updates. Please stop attacking one another. If you don't like the way something is being done the show up to court and hear it for yourself. The court date are updated and posted by Jason.

Let's all treat each other with some compassion. Please remember that we lost a dear friend and we are trying to do right by him. We are all doing the best we can to make sure this trial goes smoothly.

Just to  make it easier to get updated Couttroom Updates information and keep track, here's a list (which may not be complete) of comprehensive stories, listed by date, from John Greenfield's "Streetblog" web-site:

June 3rd

http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/06/03/bobby-canns-killer-charged-wi...

June 12th

http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/06/12/hamstrung-by-idot-city-plans-...

Aug 9th

http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/08/09/cann-family-lawyer-we-need-to...

Oct 2nd

http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/10/02/driver-who-killed-bobby-cann-...

Oct 9th

http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/10/09/judge-turns-down-san-hamels-r...

If I missed any, please add them. 

The link to John Greenfield's complete blog is http://chi.streetsblog.org/

Hello all. A good piece of news just came our way that we can now share. 

The Assistant States Attorney has been working with the Secretary of State to revoke the defendants drivers license. Today we learned that The Administrative Revocation was filed by the ASA and granted.  The offender now has his license revoked.  He will be unable to ever drive until he participates in a hearing with the Secretary of State office.  They would not give him it back until at least the case is over.  if he is incarcerated, it stays revoked until he is released and shows he is capable of driving responsibly.  This could take many years. Possibly never.

This is a stiffer and more encompassing restriction on his driving privileges than the simple suspension of his license as part of the bond (which has also taken place) and much more difficult to reverse or appeal.

This is something that the ASA has been working on for some time, quietly, which some family members, advocates and others close to the prosecution have been aware of. However allowing this work to be done out of the public eye has helped prevent the Defense team from learning of it and blocking or appealing the revocation while it was still in process and vulnerable.

Hopefully this helps illustrates to some who have been critical about limited information sharing why those close to the case and those with experience in legal strategy have advised or been advised against sharing all the information available at any given time, especially in a public format like this.

Now that this Administrative Revocation has been secured we are happy to share the news with you. 

Thank you again for your support and interest in the case.

Jason Jenkins

Crash Support Programs Manager

Active Trans

RSS

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service