Monday, December 01, 2008

Cincinnati NAACP Celebrates a Win with the Freedom of Timothy Reed

Posted by Media Release

Timothy Reed walked out of court a free man today with charges dismissed. Mr. Reed went from a $500,000 straight bond to freedom. This case would have ended very differently without intervention from the Cincinnati NAACP.  The Cincinnati NAACP commends Attorney Elizabeth Tye for her excellent work on the case. Also, the Cincinnati Branch thanks Channel 5 for taking the time to cover the case today. Branch president, Christopher Smitherman says, “ Mr. Reed must attend a parenting class, but otherwise has a clean record and is a free man.” The Cincinnati NAACP looks for Mrs. Edwards and Mrs. Slaby whose children died in the back of their vehicles to attend a parenting class.

Judge Mock was fair. The Cincinnati NAACP cannot ask for anything more from a judge than fairness. The Cincinnati NAACP president thanks the NAACP membership and its Executive Committee for their commitment to justice for all people.  “I still remain concerned by the disparity of charges, prosecution, and punishment by the Hamilton County Criminal Justice System. It is my hope that our community will support the Cincinnati NAACP legal fund with contributions so we can expand our efforts for fighting for freedom and justice,” says Smitherman.  Freedom is not free!

Socializer!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

Good Job says:
02 Dec 2008  at  07:52 am | #

From what I see of the facts in the case, the NAACP did a great job of getting justice for this guy.

Half a million dollar bond!?!!?  For issues like this, things need to change.

Any parent who’s kid gets hurt (they all do), could get treated like this guy.

says:
02 Dec 2008  at  05:41 pm | #

Yes Kudos to SmitherMan!

cincysuz says:
03 Dec 2008  at  05:27 pm | #

Here’s another reason to celebrate. This guy didn’t get any time at all for beating his 23 month old with a belt! Four of his five children have already been removed to foster care with only an infant remaining with the mother. Maybe when the infant ends up injured or dead, she can get off and it will be another red letter day!

Justice is sweet. But not for the children.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20081203/NEWS0107/812030311/1168/NEWS

says:
03 Dec 2008  at  10:11 pm | #

Cincysuz this guy went to jail for being poor!  Certainly no one condones harming children. But what’s the point of seperating him from his kids for 5 years? Sure he should be punished and won’t win father of the year, but this was a bad move on the part of Judge Nadel.

cincysuz says:
04 Dec 2008  at  06:24 am | #

CAJD - I figured you’d defend the abuser. First, could you try to learn to read? He didn’t go to jail. He got off. Rejoice. He was ordered to pay child support but I guess that’s also unfair and the mom should keep the $1700 a month she’s getting and neither should have to make an effort to support the 5 kids. He won’t stay away from the kids. You see it time and again. The little boy that was killed around the time of the Marcus Feisel case, I believe his name was Tristan Blue but I’ll have to look it up. That mother’s boyfriend was also ordered to stay away from him. He’s dead now. Tortured to death if I remember correctly. There was some late justice there and the guy went to jail. Must have broken your heart CAJD. Hell, all he did was kill a baby.

Clearly the NAACP position is that every non-white should get a freebie on injuring or even killing a child because Slaby and Edwards got away with it. Even the suggestion that a parenting class is in order was met with sarcasm.

Protect everyone but the babies.

JFD says:
04 Dec 2008  at  08:40 am | #

I hear Smitherman is going to file suit against Skyline for his next trick. He’s angry they serve the crackers first.

says:
04 Dec 2008  at  01:02 pm | #

Cincysuz

I’m blessed, truly blessed, to write a youth column for a local weekly newspaper that has a primarily African-American audience.  In my column that appeared in the newspaper date April 26-May 2, 2008, I wrote a column about beautiful Trustin Blue. I will never forget his beautiful name or face. Lamont Hunter was the monster that killed the child.  You don’t know anything about me or how I serve the community.

The forum here at the Beacon is different from my column writing, blog writing, etc.  My newspaper column specifically focuses on the achievements, plight, etc… of mostly youth of color.  I’m in control of my blog and I write about whatever I darn well please.  When I comment on the Beacon I respect the Beacon’s rules.

But there you go again… If you’re not telling people what cause they should take up, it appears you’re writing from far left field.

Get a life!

JFD--what an awful joke!

CHARMpop says:
04 Dec 2008  at  02:03 pm | #

Justice is not just an application of law.
It comes in the form of how a society’s expectations are set
and applied, hopefully, for all.
Hopefully, in fairness.
Like ‘liberty and justice FOR ALL’.

What we see and hear in the Enquirer is never the complete story.
What we get in snippets/politicized medi spin from the Prosecutor’s office, courthouse whispers, the police and sheriff’s departments do not tell the whole story.
What we see from our individual perspectives is not always
the complete story (unless we are involved in a part of such a story)
and have such knowledge. It’s many times based on our assumptions of someone we have never met by their ‘location’ in life, economic affluence, blood or married ties.  Joe E. Blow the banker and Joe M. Blow the dock worker do not receive the same justice in our prejudiced eyes even before they hit the justice system. That’s why the need for Judges to see these cases - not have them adjudicated outside the system based on prosecutorial feelings or assumptive beliefs.

My personal business respect of Deters was always held high until he drop kicked justice for children secured in a courtroom over playing to the political economic grandstands. Deters used to be better than this. He’s lost his love for law AND Justice. Probably on the Heimlich Character Juice.

When a person dies, at any age, there should be an investigation if it
is of some form of malice or neglect. If you have a sphere of influence
that can grant you cover, many of us would take it. But that’s not justice
across society. That is privilege no matter

Agree or disagree with Chris’ use of placing local justice under a microscope, with different members of the local NAACP stances on these issues (who also have different opinions and express them),
or with Joe Deters or CAJD as you will,
but, Suz or JFD,
answer if you feel real justice was meted out
for the deaths of Cecilia Jane Slaby or Jenna Edwards?
What if either of their killers does this again?

Smitherman nor the local NAACP is about privilege in matters of justice.
If there is one justice for a privileged few, and another for the rest of
us CHARMpops, there is no democracy. The local NAACP stand for Justice in our
Democracy.

says:
04 Dec 2008  at  03:17 pm | #

Timothy Reed spent at least 6 days in jail.

says:
04 Dec 2008  at  03:35 pm | #

Charmpop Wow!

JJ six looooooong days in jail-- and if the NAACP had not provided for his legal fund, he’d be just another poor person lost in the system.

cincysuz says:
04 Dec 2008  at  06:13 pm | #

I think Slaby and Edwards should be in jail. They should have been charged with murder and gotten the maximum. But that doesn’t mean that I’m willing to sacrifice other children because those two bimbos got away with murder. The white woman that got 15 years for abusing her 3 foster children deserved every single day that she’ll serve. Over the past weeks several white men have gotten stiff, well-deserved jail time for child abuse as well. It didn’t occur to me to think they shouldn’t be charged because Slaby and Edwards killed their kids. Makes no sense.

Now, CAJD, I remember the sad case of Trustin Blue as well. I remember that Lamont Hunter was ordered to stay away from the child but the mom snuck him back in anyway. That’s why judges order homicidal maniacs or those with the potential to be so, to stay away from children. Maybe to buy them a little time. Trustin had grandparents, aunts and uncles that wailed and cried in the courtroom but didn’t lift a finger to step in to save the baby while the abuse was going on. They babysat, bathed, dressed him, talked to him, claimed to love him and be a part of his life. Why wouldn’t they stand up? First, because child abuse is a dirty little secret that families don’t want to acknowledge and second, they’d come up against a community that finds every excuse for the abuser. Mother or father (or boyfriend). It doesn’t matter. Just like you say, what’s the point of separating a man from his children? Saving their lives isn’t enough of a reason for you. I guess Hunter was just a poor guy that was a victim of the system, huh?

I’d like to see the NAACP show up at just one of the many local sickening, heinous child abuse cases and advocate for the child. Declare zero tolerance for burning, shaking, starving, beating, raping helpless children. I won’t hold my breath though.

Monica says:
04 Dec 2008  at  06:34 pm | #

Sue,

You really should be more careful when you make sweeping misstatements. I seem to recall that it was the family members who reported that Mr. Hunter was in fact back in contact with Trustin’s mother. However their reports were not acted upon in a timely manner. Your logic is flawed as usual. Just because the NAACP supports equal justice for all does not mean that the NAACP supports the abuse of children. Why do you continue to make these inane insinuations?

cincysuz says:
05 Dec 2008  at  07:08 am | #

Monica = you should have more sense. Any family worth a shit that knew their nephew, grandchild was being raped and tortured would physically remove him. Hell, guns are raised everyday over something as inconsequential as a parking space or a look or a word. And they knew it. But you put that on the system to fix. The unfair, unjust system apparently is supposed to sit outside 24/7 and make sure this so-called mother, doesn’t let somebody torture her child to death. Please. The baby is dead. Many more will be dead. Many more abused behind closed doors. Read the papers. The most remote issues--white people’s pensions, red light cameras--become battle cries for the NAACP. But not the care, protection and nurturing of children. There was even a snide remark about a parenting class. You support equal justice for anyone BUT the children. When will the NAACP stand up for a zero tolerance policy for child abusers? Never. They’ll just make sure the abusers get fair treatment. Don’t for a minute think I’m the only person that has this impression of the Cincinnati NAACP. Many, many peopls say the same thing.

says:
05 Dec 2008  at  12:29 pm | #

Cincysuz as usual you are speaking out the side of your neck. In case you don’t know what that means--it means you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.  Why don’t you form your own organization and call it something charming like Suz Enforcement Agency or whatever.  That way you could go around and support as many causes as you darn well please. Than you would have little time to criticize groups and citizens who are MAKING A DIFFERENCE!

Happy Friday you...oh yeah I can’t say.

Monica says:
05 Dec 2008  at  03:47 pm | #

Sue,

Where have you been? There have been many cases of the years were family members of abused children were prevented by the state from interfering. In this case family members attempted to gain custody of the children which is why the older siblings were placed with members of the family. The state determined that Trustin should have been returned to his mother over the objections of the family. It was the family that alerted the state of Mr. Hunter was still being in the home. At what point has the NAACP shown that it supports abusers over children? You do not know the facts of the Reed case and you ignorance has clouded your judgment. You are a master of misstatement but I guess we all should be good at something.

cincysuz says:
05 Dec 2008  at  05:49 pm | #

Like I said Monica, any right thinking person would protect a child regardless of what the courts say. But obviously you wouldn’t. I would. That’s where we differ. The family said this about Trustin: “He felt terrible, horrible fear, bullied, helpless and terrified,” said Loyce Page, Trustin’s step-grandmother. “He was basically abused his whole life. This was physical abuse by Lamont, but the system abused him just as much.” So the family had full knowledge of the boy’s torture. They were complicit in not protecting him. People can’t depend on “the system” to do the work that the family is supposed to step up and do. The system is expected to provide protection, financial support, food, housing, clothing, counseling, mediation, education. What’s the family’s contribution? At least there’s some justice. Luzmilda Blue’s sorry butt is sitting in jail. Excuses. Excuses. Zero tolerance for child abuse. It’s a no brainer. That’s what we should all demand. How come you and CAJD have such a problem with that?

says:
06 Dec 2008  at  06:09 am | #

I don’t think cincysuz is listening to anything that we’ve said. If she spent half as much time listening as she does trying to shift blame, well, she’d be a better human being!

cincysuz says:
06 Dec 2008  at  03:06 pm | #

I’ve read everything you’ve said. What stands out is that you CAJD stood up for the guy that beat his baby bad enough that it had to be hospitalized. He didn’t get any time at all--which I think is a travesty--but you still thought he was unfairly treated because he was banned from seeing the children. If that were an adult that was severely beaten, you would never suggest that a relationship between the abuser and the abused be continued. Teach a child that abuse is love and they grow up to be a violent adult. You say, “Certainly no one condones harming children. But...” That “but” says volumes. It says, yes, it is okay. You’ve made it clear where you stand.

What stands out with you Monica is that you shift all responsibility onto the “system” to take care of children and thus, like CAJD, let the abuser off the hook.

I’m looking forward to watching the next cause celebre. Maybe it’ll be the HIV positive guy that raped a women a couple of days ago. He has a high bail.

Sue says:
08 Dec 2008  at  09:56 am | #

Sue,
If you think that a family member can just come in and take physical custody of a child without consequences than you are obviously not dealing with reality. As I actually work in the legal field I can attest to it being very difficult for families to intervene. You continue to make grandiose statements about what you would do in a given situation, but I suspect those statements are born from ignorance more than anything else. You do not know what you are talking about, you simply think that you do. Lastly as usual your insights lack foundation.

cincysuz says:
08 Dec 2008  at  02:34 pm | #

Sue er, I mean Monica - don’t be ridiculous. From running red lights, to dealing drugs, to cheating on taxes, people break the law everyday and for reasons far less noble than saving the life of a child. Putting all responsibility on “the system” is easy, isn’t it? I don’t have to protect babies. Let the system do it. When I see the NAACP sitting in court, demanding that just one of the child abusing maniacs that regularly comes before the courts, gets the max, I’ll believe they have some interest in protecting kids. But like I said, I won’t hold my breath.

Sue says:
10 Dec 2008  at  03:17 pm | #

Once again your inability to grasp nuance is striking.

cincysuz says:
10 Dec 2008  at  07:07 pm | #

Monica, er, Sue—That’s why you don’t get it. You see something as straightforward as child abuse as, “nuance.” It’s like, “yes, we beat him unconscious with a belt, but it’s okay because it was a Gucci belt.” Let me guess, you’re part of the crowd that says kids have gone bad because the state won’t let you discipline (i.e., beat) them. Or 241-KIDS is an evil agency that tears families apart. Or certain children don’t respond to anything but being hit. Or no matter how low down drugged-out, violent and useless a parent is, it’s their right to have contact with their kids. Kind of like property. Get it? Zero tolerance for child abuse. No nuance. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Sue says:
11 Dec 2008  at  01:34 pm | #

Once again you have illustrated my point. The nuance in this case is not child abuse or alleged child abuse rather the adjudication and administration of our system of justice.

cincysuz says:
12 Dec 2008  at  07:32 pm | #

No, you’ve proven mine. I alledge, and you confirm, that there’s zero interest in actual stopping child abuse. Efforts are strictly limited to making excuses for the abuser, depicting the abuser as either a hero or victim, assuring the abuser gets at the least fair but preferably preferential treatment by the courts, and finally no interest in protecting the real victims--the children. You prove MY point time and again. It’s a sad statement.

Monica says:
15 Dec 2008  at  07:34 pm | #

Sue,

Your allegations like your argument lack any foundation whatsoever.

cincysuz says:
17 Dec 2008  at  12:51 pm | #

The facts are there. The NAACP never has and never will show up in court to defend the rights of defenseless children. Only their abusers. You make children unsafe. I should say that it’s the Cincinnati NAACP specifically that has this peculiar proclivity. If you review other NAACP sites nationally, you’ll find fantastic and admirable things being done on behalf of children. Those are the facts.