Arizona Revised Criminal Code can be found at http://www.azleg.com/.
DID YOU KNOW that
~AZ statutes give our peace officers the right to LIE to our children and manipulate them into confession. This includes twisting their words so that their INTENT becomes something other than what the child MEANT. Do children really have that mature a grasp of language, that they understand SEMANTICS and CONTEXT? For heaven's sake, people-- teenagers these days can't even properly answer a telephone!
~AZ statutes give our peace officers the right to question your child anywhere, at any time, WITHOUT your knowledge or consent. Does YOUR CHILD understand that if they are not free to leave, they have been legally detained, which can be considered--for all intents and purposes-- UNDER ARREST, regardless of being read their Miranda warnings? Did you?
~AZ statutes provide for the public school system to cooperate with peace officers WITHOUT your knowledge or consent. School officials THEMSELVES have the right to question your child, again without your knowledge or consent, as an extension of law enforcement, if they believe they have "probable cause." That's a pretty vague guideline.
~The Prosecutor's Office, Mesa Public Schools and the media claim that Brent had a "history" of disciplinary actions in his public school record. Just under half of those NOW appearing on his records have been falsified. And if suspending a child for putting too much toilet paper in the commode is a precursor to violent tendencies and terroristic behavior, then we'd better LOCK UP 75% of the elementary school population! Better yet: let's lock them up AS ADULTS for what they MIGHT THINK later! NEVER MIND THAT BRENT WAS JUST INVITED TO JOIN THE NATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY-- BY THE SCHOOL!
~Once a child is CHARGED as an ADULT, they have no right to psychiatric evaluation or mental healthcare as a juvenile-- and apparently police don't NEED a UA if they think it might be a "mitigating factor" somewhere down the road, UNLESS it aids in prosecution. A child is treated with less respect than a DUI suspect in this regard.
~Once a child is charged as an ADULT, they are considered an adult in all but their FINANCIAL matters. Even though parental rights have NOT been removed, parents have no input regarding their child, with whom they have lived their entire lives, yet remain responsible for financial debts imposed upon the child who has been sentenced as an ADULT.
AZ Criminal Code 13.501 gives the Prosecutor the right to choose whether to charge a juvenile as an adult for specific compulsory crimes, stating that the juvenile's social, family, community and criminal histories will be considered in said choice.
ONCE CHARGED under this statute as an adult, there is absolutely NO RECOURSE to the Juvenile Judicial System without the Prosecutor's blessing. Not even if a Judge's opinion is in direct contradiction. WHY would AZ statutes remove this power of decision from our Justices? They USED to be attorneys who had to prove themselves: they NOW sit as judges due to their demonstrated competence in making fair and impartial decisions. Why would the law give more power to an unproven person with the same educational background and less experiential activity?
Brent is a FIRST-TIME offender with a proven medical, behavioral incapacity and an exemplary background in his community. So why does NOTHING about his life PRIOR to one incident count? We have provided LIFELONG documentation showing that he has been an outstanding member of the community, a good student, proactive in both veterans and youth organizations, and a demonstrated role model among his peers.
Maricopa County Prosecutor Andrew Thomas refuses to take a single iota of Brent's previous history into consideration: his response to the INTENT of the law SEEMS to be that he is EXEMPT from the law (just look at the Ethics investigations currently being conducted by the AZ State Bar with regard to this man's CONTINUED and ONGOING disregard for the laws he claims to uphold!) Doesn't America still operate under the premise that, "All men are created equal..."?
Then WHY is he trying to quash those efforts through the courts IF HE HAS NOTHING TO HIDE? (see The AZ Republic front page story on 5/28/2008: Former and current SUPREME COURT JUDGES HAVE FILED COMPLAINTS TO STOP ANDREW THOMAS from making a mockery of the Arizona Judicial System.)
An ethical person, acting upon established morals, has no need to defend their actions, if honesty is in their heart. An ethical person, acting for the greater good of the community, has humility rather than hubris.
