Responsibility lacking in drunk driving case
Responsibility as defined in the dictionary: A) The state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something; B) The state of being the person who caused something to occur; C) Moral accountability for one’s actions. Ultimate responsibility would be acountability — the willingness to account for ones actions.
On March 3 I attended the sentencing of Coulter E. Mann for the death of Kenneth Jones in an alcohol-related car crash. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers. He was given three years on charges of driving under the influence and causing injury. He did more than cause injury; he killed an innocent family man on Dec. 21, 2012.
Judge Richard Kalustian changed the decision made the very next day. Despite the fact that he made the statements, “He did commit a crime, which was something he could have prevented,” and “I call it exceedingly bad judgment, criminal bad judgment,” he decided that a “90-day evaluation” was in order. He didn’t feel Mann was a detriment to the community at large. How is that possible with the crime he committed?
California law states: No drinking and driving. There are no allowances if it were “only a beer or two.” Mann stated numerous times that he drank several that night.
Mann was a vice principal who was teaching all of our children. He certainly didn’t teach them responsibility and accountability for one’s actions. He is an arrogant man who felt he did nothing wrong but “make a mistake.” Excuses for everything. The worst thing is everyone around him (family, friends, business owners and school officials) back him like he did nothing wrong. Responsibility — who taught them and him?
Mann turned himself into custody on March 10, 2014, to begin his 90-day evaluation. The jury decided three years in prison, and that didn’t seem fair, but we accepted the jury’s decision for the crime committed. Justice for Jones is all we asked and were sorely denied. This 90-day evaluation for the death of Kenneth Jones seems unfair knowing Mann was responsible. All he needed to do was accept responsibility and be held accountable for his own actions. No excuses. “Man(n) up,” as they say. Kenneth Jones is the victim here, not Coulter E. Mann.
Prayer a matter between individuals and Creator
Recently, Supervisor Gitlin has been quite vocal about his desire to have prayer before the supervisors meetings, going so far as to post a letter on the Crescent City Times website asking “Patriots” to participate in an online survey and vote yes so he can take the results before the supervisors for a vote.
Prayer is a personal matter between an individual and their Creator, whomever he or she may be according to their individual personal beliefs. The nature of prayer makes it an activity that can be done anytime, anywhere and if members of the Board or audience want to pray during public meetings they may do so silently in their seats and be assured that their Creator is hearing them.
Mr. Gitlin would be advised to consider the words of Christ, where he clearly states in Matthew 6:5, “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.”
Please, Supervisor Gitlin, step out of the pulpit, re-read your job description as a county supervisor and focus on the larger issues facing our community.