Josh Katcher just became Commonwealth’s Attorney in Arlington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her son’s wealthy killer essentially received a year of house arrest. She has every right to be upset at Parisa.

That said, it seems the judge was the bigger problem.

Why? Josh said he would've done the same thing and not have charged him as an adult, because that's the law in Virginia. And Parisa's office asked for the maximum punishment of 3 years detention, it was the judge who downgraded it.

Watch the video. She never talked about the sentence, she talked about how she was treated by the CA’s office.

So it's a personal grudge?

No it’s not a “grudge.” She wasn’t treated well by the CA and is sharing her experience. You can evaluate it however you like - it’s a free country. She can speak up and you can choose to ignore her. That’s how America works, remember?

Sorry to be dense, but what does it mean that she wasn't treated well? I can't imagine her pain, but I would think that she would want the stiffest possible sentence for the offender, and it seems like that's what Parisa advocated for. And Josh hasn't articulated anything he would have done differently in seeking justice on her behalf. I find this entire line of attack very confusing.

[Anonymous]

She wanted him charged as an adult, which isn’t unusual for vehicular homicide defendants two months shy of 18. Parisa refused, and now the wealthy spoiled killer will be a free man when he’s 19 and eventually have the conviction expunged from his record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She wanted him charged as an adult, which isn’t unusual for vehicular homicide defendants two months shy of 18. Parisa refused, and now the wealthy spoiled killer will be a free man when he’s 19 and eventually have the conviction expunged from his record.

Thank you. Has Josh said publicly anywhere that he would have charged the criminal as an adult?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She wanted him charged as an adult, which isn’t unusual for vehicular homicide defendants two months shy of 18. Parisa refused, and now the wealthy spoiled killer will be a free man when he’s 19 and eventually have the conviction expunged from his record.

Are there examples of this happening in Virginia? I understand there are not.

Also, Parisa's office asked for 3 years confinement and the judge only gave 1 year. That tells us there's no way that judge would've approved a transfer from juvenile to adult court for that defendant.

Josh knows this yet he's willing to use a grieving family's pain to score political points. That's not the kind of person I want as our county attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wanted him charged as an adult, which isn’t unusual for vehicular homicide defendants two months shy of 18. Parisa refused, and now the wealthy spoiled killer will be a free man when he’s 19 and eventually have the conviction expunged from his record.

Are there examples of this happening in Virginia? I understand there are not.

Also, Parisa's office asked for 3 years confinement and the judge only gave 1 year. That tells us there's no way that judge would've approved a transfer from juvenile to adult court for that defendant.

Josh knows this yet he's willing to use a grieving family's pain to score political points. That's not the kind of person I want as our county attorney.

+1. Could not agree more. He's just slimy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wanted him charged as an adult, which isn’t unusual for vehicular homicide defendants two months shy of 18. Parisa refused, and now the wealthy spoiled killer will be a free man when he’s 19 and eventually have the conviction expunged from his record.

Thank you. Has Josh said publicly anywhere that he would have charged the criminal as an adult?

Actually, the opposite. He is on record saying he would have done the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She wanted him charged as an adult, which isn’t unusual for vehicular homicide defendants two months shy of 18. Parisa refused, and now the wealthy spoiled killer will be a free man when he’s 19 and eventually have the conviction expunged from his record.

I don’t think it’s a given that the conviction will be expunged. Some juvenile offenses, if grievous enough, won’t be. Or at least there is a lengthy process to get it done and it’s certainly not automatic.

One of the things Parisa’s detractors argue is that Parisa didn’t show up to the sentencing. I don’t think she shows up to many, if any, sentences. Now you can argue that she should show up to more, but she just doesn’t and (appropriately, IMO) lets her employees handling the case attend those sentencing hearings. So while the Meade case is tragic, why should his case get more attention from the CA than other tragic cases in our area? Why does his family expect special treatment? It’s not unusual for DAs (or CAs in our area) in larger areas not to get personally involved in every case. Josh’s focus on this case really sits wrong with me.

[Anonymous]

It’s getting attention because the outcome seems fundamentally wrong—a rich kid shouldn’t get such a light punishment for killing someone while driving drunk at 95 mph. As far as I can tell, neither Parisa nor her supporters take issue with the ultimate result, even if it’s not the sentence she asked for initially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s getting attention because the outcome seems fundamentally wrong—a rich kid shouldn’t get such a light punishment for killing someone while driving drunk at 95 mph. As far as I can tell, neither Parisa nor her supporters take issue with the ultimate result, even if it’s not the sentence she asked for initially.

I am not happy with the result. I do wish that Parisa had at least tried to remove the case to adult court, although I don’t think she would have been successful. Nevertheless, I voted for Parisa because my decision is not based on one case or situation, no matter how tragic it is. I’m sure there are others who feel similarly, so I don’t think it’s accurate to claim that Parisa’s supporters don’t take issue with the ultimate result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Paris is stuck trying to explain why the judge wouldn’t follow her recommendation for a heavier sentence and why she wouldn’t pander to the victim’s family. And when you’re explaining, you’re losing.

Checkmate !!!

While I agree with you I don’t think he’s going to win. The past month I have been inundated with campaign literature from Parisa’s office saying that Josh is endorsed by republicans and calling him the republican candidate. Arlington voters are going to see this and vote for Parisa. Most people don’t know the details of what happened with the case in the clip you shared. They will see Katcher and assume republican and vote for him. Also Parisa’s campaign is clearly better funded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wanted him charged as an adult, which isn’t unusual for vehicular homicide defendants two months shy of 18. Parisa refused, and now the wealthy spoiled killer will be a free man when he’s 19 and eventually have the conviction expunged from his record.

Thank you. Has Josh said publicly anywhere that he would have charged the criminal as an adult?

Actually, the opposite. He is on record saying he would have done the same thing.

I’m most disturbed with the incivility the occupying CA’s sock puppets are displaying towards Josh and his campaign. Josh answered the question about what he would have done, which is to charge the McLean kid as a juvenile and to seek the three year maximum.

But unlike the occupant, Josh would have WON that three-year sentence. Why? Because the judge LIKES Josh. So too do the other Arlington judges, the police, and all sorts of fine people who just want to be treated with the respect they deserved and to which they’re entitled based on their contributions to the livability of the County and the Arlington Way.

If Josh had known then what he knows now about what he needs to do to win this race, of course he would have supported charging the kid as an adult. But he hadn’t yet established his “reform better” bona fides, which was critical to peel off voters in a Democrat primary. Plus he couldn’t have imagined at the time that the victim’s mother would be so passionate in her hatred of the occupant. So he feared coming across as bloodthirsty. In November, coming off MMH candidates for County Board getting 70% of the vote, he had to figure there weren’t enough Libbytarians and crossover GOP to sneak out of the primary, that he had to throw a bone to people who want to lock down parts of the County but also appear progressive at cocktail parties.

But running a culture war campaign revolving around the mother’s rage at the interloper allows Josh to slam the occupying CA via proxy. While at the same time he reassures successful citizens and parents whose kids don’t run over other well-off kids that he’s not letting silly Soros concerns stop him from using the Arlington PD as the hammer they yearn to be. The occupant is so distracted with the attacks that Josh can reassure homeowners that they’ll be treated with respect. Neither homeowners nor judges nor prosecutors nor court clerks will be forced to confront alleged injustice in prosecutions and sentencing. The CA’s office will get back to using its discretion to cut breaks to the right people and nailing people who could be threats. That’s the kind of judicious CA I want, looking past “principle” to serve the way I know in my gut is best. Josh knows how to do that while being a 21st-century friendly CA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wanted him charged as an adult, which isn’t unusual for vehicular homicide defendants two months shy of 18. Parisa refused, and now the wealthy spoiled killer will be a free man when he’s 19 and eventually have the conviction expunged from his record.

Thank you. Has Josh said publicly anywhere that he would have charged the criminal as an adult?

Actually, the opposite. He is on record saying he would have done the same thing.

I’m most disturbed with the incivility the occupying CA’s sock puppets are displaying towards Josh and his campaign. Josh answered the question about what he would have done, which is to charge the McLean kid as a juvenile and to seek the three year maximum.

But unlike the occupant, Josh would have WON that three-year sentence. Why? Because the judge LIKES Josh. So too do the other Arlington judges, the police, and all sorts of fine people who just want to be treated with the respect they deserved and to which they’re entitled based on their contributions to the livability of the County and the Arlington Way.

If Josh had known then what he knows now about what he needs to do to win this race, of course he would have supported charging the kid as an adult. But he hadn’t yet established his “reform better” bona fides, which was critical to peel off voters in a Democrat primary. Plus he couldn’t have imagined at the time that the victim’s mother would be so passionate in her hatred of the occupant. So he feared coming across as bloodthirsty. In November, coming off MMH candidates for County Board getting 70% of the vote, he had to figure there weren’t enough Libbytarians and crossover GOP to sneak out of the primary, that he had to throw a bone to people who want to lock down parts of the County but also appear progressive at cocktail parties.

But running a culture war campaign revolving around the mother’s rage at the interloper allows Josh to slam the occupying CA via proxy. While at the same time he reassures successful citizens and parents whose kids don’t run over other well-off kids that he’s not letting silly Soros concerns stop him from using the Arlington PD as the hammer they yearn to be. The occupant is so distracted with the attacks that Josh can reassure homeowners that they’ll be treated with respect. Neither homeowners nor judges nor prosecutors nor court clerks will be forced to confront alleged injustice in prosecutions and sentencing. The CA’s office will get back to using its discretion to cut breaks to the right people and nailing people who could be threats. That’s the kind of judicious CA I want, looking past “principle” to serve the way I know in my gut is best. Josh knows how to do that while being a 21st-century friendly CA.

How do we get rid of the corrupt judges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This race sets a record for the amount of political mailings I've received for one election. By far. Today's from Katcher is viscerally shocking, with a picture of the mother of the deceased boy on the front saying "When a drunk driver killed my son, Parisa didn't even listen to us."

I cannot begin to imagine this woman's pain and grief.

I have been undecided about who to vote for, but this kind of ad doesn't sit well with me.

The CA position serves the entire community. The election shouldn’t be centered around this one family.

And pushing this tragedy so prominently into campaign marketing materials feels slimy.

Yes, I'm the PP, and it makes me feel really uncomfortable, like he's using this woman's pain for his own advancement.

My big issue with the ads are the fact that the mother thinks her kid’s live is worth more than others because of his activities, etc. And that the outcome should be any different because of that. The entitlement really rubbed me the wrong way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wanted him charged as an adult, which isn’t unusual for vehicular homicide defendants two months shy of 18. Parisa refused, and now the wealthy spoiled killer will be a free man when he’s 19 and eventually have the conviction expunged from his record.

Thank you. Has Josh said publicly anywhere that he would have charged the criminal as an adult?

Actually, the opposite. He is on record saying he would have done the same thing.

I’m most disturbed with the incivility the occupying CA’s sock puppets are displaying towards Josh and his campaign. Josh answered the question about what he would have done, which is to charge the McLean kid as a juvenile and to seek the three year maximum.

But unlike the occupant, Josh would have WON that three-year sentence. Why? Because the judge LIKES Josh. So too do the other Arlington judges, the police, and all sorts of fine people who just want to be treated with the respect they deserved and to which they’re entitled based on their contributions to the livability of the County and the Arlington Way.

If Josh had known then what he knows now about what he needs to do to win this race, of course he would have supported charging the kid as an adult. But he hadn’t yet established his “reform better” bona fides, which was critical to peel off voters in a Democrat primary. Plus he couldn’t have imagined at the time that the victim’s mother would be so passionate in her hatred of the occupant. So he feared coming across as bloodthirsty. In November, coming off MMH candidates for County Board getting 70% of the vote, he had to figure there weren’t enough Libbytarians and crossover GOP to sneak out of the primary, that he had to throw a bone to people who want to lock down parts of the County but also appear progressive at cocktail parties.

But running a culture war campaign revolving around the mother’s rage at the interloper allows Josh to slam the occupying CA via proxy. While at the same time he reassures successful citizens and parents whose kids don’t run over other well-off kids that he’s not letting silly Soros concerns stop him from using the Arlington PD as the hammer they yearn to be. The occupant is so distracted with the attacks that Josh can reassure homeowners that they’ll be treated with respect. Neither homeowners nor judges nor prosecutors nor court clerks will be forced to confront alleged injustice in prosecutions and sentencing. The CA’s office will get back to using its discretion to cut breaks to the right people and nailing people who could be threats. That’s the kind of judicious CA I want, looking past “principle” to serve the way I know in my gut is best. Josh knows how to do that while being a 21st-century friendly CA.

Seems like a tremendous amount of posturing and second-guessing in aid of trying to get Katcher, who seems way too ambitious for his own good and almost pathologically opportunistic, elected.

I admire Parisa for keeping her head down and actually doing the job she was elected to do, consistent with the values that got her elected in the first place. If she or those around her (or the judge in the Meade case, for that matter) were prepared to sacrifice them just to appeal to the most conservative and/or vengeful voters in Arlington, that would have suggested they never really held those values in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wanted him charged as an adult, which isn’t unusual for vehicular homicide defendants two months shy of 18. Parisa refused, and now the wealthy spoiled killer will be a free man when he’s 19 and eventually have the conviction expunged from his record.

Thank you. Has Josh said publicly anywhere that he would have charged the criminal as an adult?

Actually, the opposite. He is on record saying he would have done the same thing.

But unlike the occupant, Josh would have WON that three-year sentence. Why? Because the judge LIKES Josh.

This is a really bizarre claim on which to hinge a campaign. One of the most outlandish things I have read in a while.