Wow. A 17-year-old is basically gutted, stabbed to death, on a West Bloomfield street.
West Bloomfield is a nice community, only a couple of other homicides in the past decade, one case involving domestic violence and the other still a mystery (a woman killed in her garage on Saturday morning).
Click here to read the story about the killing of Jonathan Rickman, 17.
It's a shocking crime due to the violence and the scene, a quiet neighborhood street. But it also is shocking because police say a 15-year-old acquaintance of the victim is the suspect.
What is surprising to me is the extent that leaders in Oakland County are going to protect the accused. The young man is charged with open murder.
I know everyone is presumed innocent, but we live in an open society and we are allowed to know what the state is doing. When the juvenile court referee (essentially, a judge) David Barnes ordered reporters to not name the accused, otherwise barring them from the open courtroom, that seemed to reach too far in protecting the accused killer.
I know the referee can bar photographers, so in allowing them in, he can ask or demand that they not photograph the accused; that's fair, because the camera does not have a right to be in the courtroom (yet!, but that's a different beef).
We can debate whether the prosecutor's office is soft on crime or appropriately sensitive in not charging the youth as an adult, instead leaving it up to a judge down the road. That's the right of the prosecutors in determining charges.
However, the entire handling of the case gives the appearance of caring more about the young man who, according to police, stabbed another human being to death. Used to be, we would see who the culprit was and we would be debating whether it was fair for a 14-, 15, or 16-year-old to face life-in-prison without parole, because they were charged as an adult.
And in Oakland County, traditionally the people, especially the voters, like the tough-on-crime model. We don't approve of stabbing people to death on our neighborhood streets.
Pictured: Referee David Barnes

I like today's Detroit Free Press editorial about the Farmington Hills murder case involving a lawyer whose death has been ruled an accident.

When murder charges were announced against Laura Lynn Johnson, 46, I wondered why the Oakland County Medical Examiner's Office refused to offer a cause and manner of death of her husband, Lloyd Johnson, 47. We were told they were both pending. But it's a murder, police and prosecutors believe.

Well, it's still a murder charge but not a homicide, the Medical Examiner's Office has ruled. The manner of death is accidental and, on top of that, poor health is a contributing factor, not mistreatment or abuse.

Accidents can still be manslaughters, but now that they've gone down the path of second-degree murder, it seems the case against Laura Johnson is over.

Of course, we don't know yet because police and prosecutors won't answer questions about the case. They'll charge murder, but they hide behind the 'ongoing investigation' and feeling they are prevented from saying anything further.

It seems the problem with this case is the secrecy and lack of facts offered to the public. A murder charge is serious business and is noted within the community. They cannot order us from asking about the case and they cannot order you from wondering about what is happening or reading about it.

I've long felt that Prosecutor Jessica Cooper ordering her attorneys to not discuss their cases with reporters is a sign of lack of trust of her staff and even her office. I covered the county courthouse for four years and came to believe the attorneys within the prosecutor's office to be trustworthy, highly skilled, knowledgeable, and very reasonable. Telling them they cannot explain their cases and the law creates a needless barrier in knowing and understanding what is happening and why.

Meanwhile, in Hazel Park, a man was killed after a fight and the death has been ruled a homicide, even though the fighter may have not intended to kill the victim, it could still be murder, or manslaughter, or just assault. It could be that no crime was committed. But here's a case that could be charged murder, because it is a homicide.

Wow. That was quick. It only took a few hours for L. Brooks Patterson to back down from his threat to sue the state over its impending ban on public smoking. Early on Thursday, Patterson said Oakland County would not enforce the ban.
By 4 p.m., Patterson had backed down, so quickly that our reporter was editing video from Patterson's Democratic counterpart on the county commission.
That shows just how quickly news and public opinion can be delivered. No more waiting two or three days to see how a proposal sounds. You can find out instantly.
And our readers responded forcefully, commenting furiously and mostly against Patterson.
The longtime county executive and former tough-on-crime prosecutor was stuck in the details and nuances, arguing that this new law was an unfunded mandate and the county's Health Division could never enforce it. In fact, he's a nonsmoker and supports the ban. Oh, but he stepped into it, probably hoping that anti-tax furor could help this effort.
What readers and listeners of radio today heard was a Republican saying he wasn't going to follow a law he didn't like. Ouch. It was like saying, We're not going to enforce drunken driving.
Just two years ago, polls we ran showed about 60 percent of readers were against smoking bans. Then last year, it evened out, and this winter, nearly 60 percent favored the ban.
Today, so far, and it's very early, more than 80 percent said the county should enforce the ban.
People are ready, and they were quick to respond. Luckily, some politicians are still smart enough to listen.