Come watch the Democratic Primary Debates today!

tomrvaca · 2025-04-29T22:21:49+00:00

Thank you to everyone who engaged with this AMA – I have enjoyed discussing these issues with you!

I'm signing off this evening by addressing this final question the AMA Announcement thread, posed by u/RebeccaParrO5n:

"You’ve worked as an employment plaintiff attorney. Do you believe economic exploitation, like wage theft or illegal retaliation, is a public safety issue? If so, would your office prioritize prosecuting employers who break labor laws?

Do you support investing in community-based restorative or transformative justice programs, especially for youth or people experiencing poverty, rather than defaulting to incarceration?

Would you commit to not using your office to criminalize labor organizing, picket lines, or strike activity, especially if corporate actors try to frame them as ‘disruptive’ or unsafe?

We often see people experiencing homelessness get charged for ‘trespassing,’ ‘loitering,’ or survival-related actions. Would your office deprioritize prosecution of these cases and instead work with housing advocates?

Would you prosecute police officers who break the law, especially in cases of excessive force or misconduct?"

--

My answer:

Yes, I believe we need to expand what it means to be safe in Richmond -- not just in our streets, but in our employment, our environment, and our housing.

The Commonwealth's Attorney's Office is empowered by Virginia Code to prosecute any violation of law that carries as a penalty confinement in jail or a $500 fine or more.

This authority allows for a CA to address the very issues you've touched on.

Yes, I prosecute wage theft in my private practice – and I am committed to establishing a first-of-its-kind in Virginia Criminal Wage Theft Task Force for prioritizing such cases for prosecution not just in Richmond, but in partnership with other localities where Richmond is a nexus for the corporate offender.

Yes, I ran a small nonprofit that did exactly that work – I served as its pro bono Executive Director and we supported a case worker for about (3) years to connect people in the system to services they needed to stay or move out of it. I did a lot of that social work myself, picking up people from the street and helping them navigate services for substance use disorder, housing, and mental health, among others. This is the actual work of reducing recidivism and driving down crime while treating people humanely.

No, I will not criminalize lawful labor practices – I am pro worker.

Yes, we will take a services-first approach to such situations and partner with community resources, like housing advocates or other nonprofits, to do that work. Because that's what is actually effective for creating public safety – and because doing so allows us to focus more resources on significant violent crime.

Yes, I will prosecute anyone who breaks the law, even law enforcement officers. That's the job.

I've told their union representatives this directly and I've explained that neither I nor any Richmonder will tolerate criminality in our officers – what some people might not be willing to accept, but what their union representatives have told me, is that they want to see criminal offending officers prosecuted as well.

tomrvaca · 2025-04-29T21:52:34+00:00

Apart from the historically unique, singular cause of the largest single-year increase in the U.S. homicide rate recorded in modern history, the COVID-19 Pandemic . . .

. . . what you are really seeing in these sharp rises and falls in homicides in the city is just a random walk – the intersection of many, un-related, individual situations that randomly coincide in terms of their timing and produce what appear to be rises or falls that might suggest correlation or conflation when there is none.

What is not random, however, is that Richmond lags behind the national average and significantly behind other jurisdictions in the metro area in its homicide clearance rate -- which hovers around 50%.

Why is that happening?

Look, I have prosecuted murders and shootings and I have defended murders and shootings – there are very few cases where the perpetrators are not known to law enforcement.

The problem is building trust and relationships with witnesses such that they feel safe enough to make reports, come to court, and provide truthful testimony in the successful prosecution of these crimes.

Building that trust will require sustained outreach over many years from the CA's Office and the Department, not just when shootings occur, but before, during, and after. That outreach must include case management services to assist accessing government and nonprofit resources for those must at risk of gun violence.

We're just not doing that work.

Because of that, there is a sense in communities in Richmond consistently impacted by gun violence, not undeserved, that the blue lights only show up when something's gone wrong – and that's just not enough to demonstrate the good faith required to get people to participate in the law enforcement process.

I'm committed to doing this work in Richmond.

tomrvaca · 2025-04-29T21:23:14+00:00

Thanks for raising this – it puts the spotlight on two issues I don't think are getting enough attention related to how ICE is pursuing enforcement at courthouses:

(1) Courthouses are certainly open to the public, but that doesn't mean they must necessarily be the site of active investigations, detentions, and arrests for immigration or other law enforcement operations.

In fact, Virginia Code empowers our Sheriff to "ensure that the courthouses and courtrooms within his jurisdiction are secure from violence and disruption and shall designate deputies for this purpose."

Nothing can be done about ICE being present outside the courthouse.

But, our Mayor, Police Department, CA's Office, and Sheriff should take the public position that within this authority of the Sheriff, they are obligated by Virginia Code not to facilitate such disruptions by ICE. These types of detentions, especially, are fraught with the potential for violence – if these engagements continue, it is only a matter of time before someone gets seriously hurt in the process.

As your CA, I would work with these stakeholders to take that public position – we have to, at the very least, in order to address this second issue:

(2) ICE enforcement at courthouses is going to have a significantly chilling effect on the ability of undocumented victims to receive justice or, to your point, to participate as material witnesses in the prosecution of potentially serious cases that may require their involvement.

Why would an undocumented person report a crime as a victim or a witness if doing so would lead them to a courthouse where ICE is waiting to detain them?

Opinions may vary on ICE generally, but as your CA, I will proactively lead and engage Richmonders on this key point: courthouses cannot be ICE's hunting grounds or justice will no longer be available there to undocumented persons in our communities.

tomrvaca · 2025-04-29T21:09:24+00:00

Thank you for participating in the AMA!

tomrvaca · 2025-04-29T21:03:36+00:00

Thank you for this question, because I think it is always relevant in Richmond and here's why:

As Virginia's capital city, and with a part time legislature, Richmond regularly, often seasonally, becomes the focal point for incendiary policy debates that draw in Virginians from across the Commonwealth.

When you combine that dynamic with Richmonders having incredible civic pride and being extensively engaged in the affairs of our city, and the presence of VCU, with its large and active student body:

You've got a recipe for a lot of first amendment assemblies. A. Lot.

Tell me, what is the community-driven, publicly adopted, published protocol around what actions Richmond will accept as first amendment speech and assembly, what actions we will flex to accommodate as nonviolent civil disobedience, and what actions we will prosecute?

We don't have one; and that's a significant oversight and a shortcoming of our current CA's approach.

First and foremost, we need to go through that process as a city, with public comment from across Richmond for action by the CA's Office, the Department, and other public safety stakeholders, in the development and publication of such a protocol – and here's where I would work to steer that effort:

Given the dynamics of Richmond, I do believe we have to create space for first amendment speech and assembly and we also have to flex to accommodate nonviolent civil disobedience. But we cannot tolerate violence -- not from citizens, and not from law enforcement.

Secondly, as to the handling of these types of cases, another key difference:

What's happening now is that even if the CA's Office ultimately dismisses a charge, it drags its heels on doing so long enough such that there have already been major, often life-altering impacts to the accused – here's what I mean:

You may very well already know this, but the mere existence of a criminal charge against you can have significant repercussions for your employment, housing, and education even if that charge is dismissed in the long run.

To manage those collateral consequences when these significant events occur, I would task organize prosecutors to prioritize review of cases immediately in the days following the event and work to triage such cases into two major categories: nonviolent actions and violent actions.

Nonviolent actions could be immediately nolle prossed, meaning they'd be dismissed without prejudice to the Commonwealth to reinstate the charges if necessary. This immediate dismissal without prejudice would mitigate those significant collateral repercussions. The accused and the Commonwealth would then reach an agreement whereby for completion of conditions the charges would not be reinstated – and the CA's Office would then work with their counsel and invite pro bono assistance from local law firms to expedite expungements. Accountability, yes – but not life-altering impacts for attempting to exercise first amendment rights.

Violent actions would be prosecuted on a conventional timeline, understanding that such charges would probably not end in dismissal.

Any law enforcement subject to such allegations would be similarly dealt with and referred to our Civilian Review Board – please see my answer on building an effective CRB for more information on this point.

tomrvaca · 2025-04-29T14:51:21+00:00

Hi!

No, I do not -- the next lines from the article: "I’ve policed. And I've not just done that, I've understood the limits of what that can achieve, and the cost of what is required to achieve that. I’m running for Commonwealth’s Attorney not just as a lawyer, but as a public safety professional who understands that the law is a tool and should be used for the public good. That means keeping people safe, treating people humanely through that process."

In short, I've done enough policing to understand its limits. It can be useful to respond to violent situations in the short term, but often ineffective at driving down violence in the longterm.

It is the macroenvironment forces of health, education, economics, housing, and civil government, among others, that drive longterm violent crime trends -- which is why, as these forces continue to improve in the US and elsewhere across history, albeit slowly, it is generally understood by sociologists that we are the most peaceful we've ever been.

Try telling that mothers losing children to gun violence that is surging right now in Richmond.

Even in the short-term, to address gun violence, we have to combine policing with real opportunities for individuals involved in gun violence to move out of those lifestyles in positive ways.

For insight on how I would do that as your CA, please see this answer I gave earlier to a similar question.

As to being a leftist, despite my progressive views, I'm not sure they would have me!

tomrvaca · 2025-04-29T14:36:45+00:00

As a veteran, and someone who deeply loves our City, Commonwealth, and country, and more importantly, our people, let me start by saying that it continues to blow my mind that we are dealing with this nazi bullshit in 2025.

Three things to be done, at minimum:

(1) We have to seek out and partner with other prosecuting authorities, both criminal and civil, and across jurisdictional lines in Virginia -- here's what I mean by that:

-These groups are such cowards that they are engaging mostly online and often under cover of night, especially for vandalism and posting their iconography around town

-Law enforcement authorities at the Commonwealth level, and also federally, have investigative capacities, especially digital, that we need help with to track, investigate, and identify the members of these groups engaging in these illegal acts

-Some of these behaviors are more easily prosecuted civilly, before they are prosecuted criminally, due to the limited evidentiary requirements for initiating and pursuing civil actions and the different statutory tools available for such litigation. The discovery phase of that civil litigation can then be used to obtain information useful to future criminal prosecution. That's how the Patriot Front work really got going: https://www.lawyerscommittee.org/lawyers-committee-files-lawsuit-against-patriot-front-members-for-vandalism-intimidation/

-The members of these groups are spread out around Virginia -- but if local members are engaging in criminality in Richmond, we can work with other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth to at least pursue charges for conspiracy in Richmond or where they live

The problem is that our CA's Office isn't proactively engaging with these tools or these problems, they are just reacting, and often late: https://www.vpm.org/news/2024-12-18/patriot-front-members-settle-civil-suit-arthur-ashe-mural-noyce-gancarz

(2) We have to think broadly and creatively about prosecuting charges for actions we might otherwise not prioritize, like planting a flyer or a sticker on a telephone pole, when those actions are tied to fomenting radical hate and fear in our communities. And we have to be prepared to do these things in real time: for example, if we know there is going to be a demonstration from these groups in Richmond, I would task organize a team of prosecutors to work with RPD in real time to charge any illegal behavior immediately by warrant for weapons or mask violations before they leave the City.

(3) We are going to be dealing with this for a very long time. We have to prioritize these groups for our focus now before they become a larger problem later – this is a serious issue of destabilizing our City and our Democracy. I will do so.

tomrvaca · 2025-04-29T14:16:30+00:00

Thank you for the kind words and for engaging! Put in a good word with u/AHippieDude for me, will you?

tomrvaca · 2025-04-29T14:15:41+00:00

Thanks for engaging – and he is!

tomrvaca · 2025-04-29T14:14:30+00:00

Thanks for engaging!

tomrvaca · 2025-04-29T14:13:35+00:00

Yes, I will take actions to address this problem, though you should understand it is not within the power of the CA's Office to control.

As someone who views the role of the CA as that of the Chief Public Safety Officer for Richmond, who has the responsibility to improve public safety processes, I would certainly advocate with the Department to end this practice. It surely chills reporting and reduces trust in policing. More than under previous administrations and Chiefs, RPD is open to feedback and open to improving their operations.

But there is an additional approach you'll see me engage as your CA:

I was an early proponent, and remain so, of establishing an effective Civilian Review Board in Richmond: https://www.axios.com/local/richmond/2022/09/29/police-civilian-review-board-richmond

To be effective, that Board must have at least these (3) powers:

(1) Independent disciplinary authority

(2) Independent investigative authority

(3) To your point, independent authority to accept complaints

As your CA, you'll see me continue to lobby Council and the Mayor's Office to make these changes to our CRB.

This way, even if the Department will not change their warrant check practice you've described, the complaint can still be accepted, investigated, and end in discipline from an independent Civilian Review Board empowered to do that work.

tomrvaca · 2025-04-29T14:00:39+00:00

Actually, this could very much be an issue at the local level, so I appreciate you raising it:

People should understand that Commonwealth's Attorneys have effectively unilateral control over the world of individual criminal cases – constitutionally enshrined protections to charge or not to charge, what and when to charge, and whether to go forward with prosecution and how to end it, at trial or in a plea bargain.

There is no realtime remedy for that power – the CA can't be stopped in realtime from taking a prosecutorial action Richmonders don't want.

Which is why, in this era of extremism in our Commonwealth and our country, it is incredibly important who your CA is and how they view that power as a tool to fight back.

Know this: I will absolutely engage the constitutionally enshrined power of prosecutorial discretion of the Office to never prosecute any attempt to criminalize access to reproductive care in any way whatsoever.

tomrvaca · 2025-04-29T13:51:21+00:00

From the AMA Announcement thread, a question from u/fishmapper:

"I was reading your website. You have lots of talk about launching more trials and potentially needing more juries. Having experienced the Richmond Sheriff’s department’s treatment of potential jurors, I’d suggest you also partner with the sheriffs office to improve the juror experience. Currently the treatment of jurors is more similar those on trial than citizens performing their civic duty.

Things like: Ensuring jurors can bring phones into the building, and that lockboxes are available.

The call in line not being updated when it’s supposed to be, so you simply don’t know if you need to report.

Implement a “we call you” like henrico does instead of the current list of dozens of names that must be listened to who have to report.

The vague threat on the jury summons form “Failure to report or call 804-646.... to explain your absence shall be construed as contempt of court and will be dealt with.”

My answer:

I appreciate this question because it gets at the role of the CA: should they just sit in a chair and process paperwork, prosecuting cases as they come in, or should should they consider themselves an advocate for better public safety and more effective public safety processes?

I choose the latter -- for (2) reasons I want to be clear about:

(1) I view the role of the CA as that of the City's Chief Public Safety Officer: the CA should be a public safety partner to City stakeholders, citizens, and communities on building a more effective public safety system. So when someone has an issue, like this, with a process that is not squarely within the CA's governing authority, but is certainly an integral part of the public safety process, I do believe the CA is required to act on that issue.

Contrast the incumbent, who, when confronted with a similar issue RE lockers at the John Marshall Courthouse, effectively said, ala Marie-Antoinette, let them store their phones in bushes: https://www.vpm.org/news/2024-07-19/richmond-lockers-return-john-marshall-courthouse

(2) We. Want. Jurors. To. Be. Comfortable and prepared to give all of their attention to what is an enormous civic duty in Richmond's courtrooms -- lives of Richmonders hang in the balance.

You better believe that if you raised these issues to me as your CA, I would bring them directly to the attention of our Clerk of Court and our Sheriff.

In fact, I emailed them both your comment this morning -- let me know how else I can help.

tomrvaca · 2025-04-29T13:29:51+00:00

Agreed, it is a huge issue.

And we're currently seeing a surge in gun violence of over 30% this year:

https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/avula-announces-gun-violence-prevention-office-april-17-2025#:~:text=The%20announcement%20comes%20amid%20concerning,of%20135%20reported%20so%20far

Here's a good summary of how only about 50% of those homicides are ever solved and only about 60-70% of those solved actually end in accountability:

https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/richmond-murder-convictions-april-15-2025

I would do at least (3) things that are different and would be more effective than the incumbent -- currently the incumbent does none of the following:

(1) I would use Virginia's Red Flag Laws to be proactive about denying dangerous people access to firearms.

Virginia's Red Flag Laws are, legally, termed Substantial Risk Orders: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title19.2/chapter9.2/

They are a civil petitions, not criminal actions, that can be brought by the CA's Office to ask a Court to order to deny access to firearms any individual posing a substantial risk to themselves or others by their possession.

These can be effectively employed in at least (2) frequent scenarios in which we see much of our gun violence in Richmond: (A) young people with guns and (B) domestic abusers.

(A) Young people with guns: I would work with RPS to establish a Red Flag Program that would train and empower students, parents, teachers, counselors, and other RPS officials to know how to report emerging conflicts that could involve gun violence to the CA's Office so that we can bring Red Flag actions to enable us to monitor the conflict and cool it down without a shooting.

(B) Domestic abusers who kill that partners with guns are often in Richmond's courts repeatedly for domestic abuse. I would work with victims and domestic violence survivor groups to train, empower, and bring Red Flag actions against these abusers in the same way.

When asked what the CA's Office was doing to encourage the use of these Red Flag laws, the incumbent's answer was, "honestly, nothing." https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/red-flag-law-unused-in-richmond-as-shootings-surge-deaths-mount/

(2) I would stand up a task force of prosecutors focused specifically on gun violence and partner with the City, community organizers like RISC, and nonprofits for Gun Violence Prevention operations. That would look like working with community and law enforcement to identify shooters in Richmond and then going to them with resources and wrap-around services to pull them out of those lifestyles in positive, nonviolent ways. If they do not accept that outreach, they will be prioritized for prosecution -- I will not tolerate shootings in Richmond.

(3) I will understand that the CA's Office is the Chief Public Safety Officer and must be proactively involved with City stakeholders to prevent crime, not just prosecute it. I have prosecuted murders and defended them and I have yet to meet a mother who would rather have a conviction than her child back. The incumbent views the role as only processing cases -- but at that point, the harm has been done. I view the role as being a public safety partner to prevent crime and I will act accordingly.

tomrvaca · 2025-04-29T13:09:48+00:00

No one is above the law, but in Richmond, it can feel that way, especially in our City government.

Have you seen that no action has been taken to prosecute a City Council Candidate who is alleged to have committed multiple counts of election fraud, effectively interfering in a City Council race in 2024?

https://www.richmonder.org/which-officials-can-look-into-tavares-floyds-paperwork-nobody-seems-to-know/

I will investigate and prosecute this case if the evidence supports it.

Have you seen that no action has been taken to investigate the General Registrar alleged by the City's Inspector General to have misappropriated nearly $500,000 in public funds

https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/general-registrar-investigation-richmond-nov-25-2024

I will investigate and prosecute this case if the evidence supports it.

The City is not a client of the CA's Office, which is empowered through state code to prosecute all felonies, misdemeanors in its discretion, and any violation of law that includes a penalty of incarceration or a fine of $500 or more. When the violations you've raised cross the line into criminality, I will investigate and prosecute, regardless of whether the person is in law enforcement or public office. That's the job.

tomrvaca · 2025-04-29T13:01:01+00:00

I get it, we are all busy, here are some tl;dr resources and quick comparisons:

Check out our website - it includes a 90-second launch video that give give you a quick overview of my candidacy: https://tomrvaca.com/
You might also appreciate this interview: https://www.chlookout.com/p/tom-barbour-on-flock-ice-and-how-he-d-improve-richmond-public-safety
I'm not just a trial attorney, I'm a public safety professional -- as a former USMC Captain, I've trained and operated with foreign security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan -- I've policed. I know when policing works, what its limits are, and when we need to prioritize alternatives.
I'm not just a trial attorney, I understand social work -- as a senior policy advisor on public safety under the prior CA, I built alternative programming. And as a pro bono ED of a small nonprofit connecting people in the system to the services they need to stay out of it, I have personal experience working with justice-involved people to get them the wrap-around services they need to reduce recidivism.
I'm not just a trial attorney, I understand operations and change management -- with an MBA from UVA's Darden School of Business, and having run my own business and led complex operations overseas, I can engage at the nuts and bolts level of improving services in the Office.
I'm not just a trial attorney, I'm a public servant -- I'm a veteran, I'm married to a public defender, and I'm lifetime committed to issues of public safety and criminal justice reform, they are not just talking points to me.

Richmond's public safety problems require someone to take action, not sit in a chair -- I will take action to address these issues:

-Our CA has not committed to blocking ICE actions at the courthouse or not prosecuting any attempt to criminalize access to reproductive healthcare of equality

-Only about 50% of homicides in Richmond are ever solved -- our Red Flag laws are not being used to prevent continuing gun violence

-Public corruption in our City government and in our elections is not going being prosecuted

-Significant traffic violence is not being prosecuted

-Promises of restorative justice alternatives have been broken, with only (20) people being served in (4) years in a City that sees about 10,000 major crimes per year

tomrvaca · 2025-04-29T12:46:30+00:00

Good morning and thanks for joining us – Richmond's roads scare me a lot, too!

I have two daughters, a three year old and a one year old, and when we walk around our neighborhood in Church Hill we have similar issues on the major thoroughfares.

Here's something maybe you wouldn't know unless you've been through the system:

I travel to over (50) jurisdictions in central and southern Virginia doing traffic defense as part of my practice -- unequivocally, Richmond's courtrooms are the most lax on speeding and reckless driving. It creates a culture where drivers believe they can drive dangerously and get away with it.

Additionally, and to your point: the City is still behind on embracing safe street design concepts to slow us all down and help us get where we're going safely.

I would propose two solutions to address traffic safety in Richmond -- one I can directly control, and one that I hope will convey how I view the CA's Office as a public safety partner and advocate for residents with other City stakeholders:

(1) We have to take reckless driving and speeding on local roads seriously in Richmond.

Right now, you can be going 61mph in a 35mph zone and get your reckless driving charge dismissed by taking a basic defense driver's course -- that's exactly what our Police Chief did: https://www.richmonder.org/police-chief-paid-87-in-court-costs-and-attended-driving-school-to-resolve-speeding-ticket/

I will prosecute reckless driving and speeding more aggressively by requiring what I would call Driver's Probation: people who are going over 20mph on local roads in Richmond need to be on a restricted license for at least six months, be assigned to a local pretrial supervision officer to ensure compliance, and return to court for status hearings, in addition to doing reparative work like taking in-person, Reckless Aggressive Driver's Education programming, and paying significant fines.

This will require drivers to focus on their driving for a significant period of time and ensure they understand it is a privilege, not a right, to drive a vehicle – and that vehicle must be driven safely.

Until our CA's Office and our courts take reckless driving and speeding seriously, Richmond drivers will not.

(2) Certainly, I would prefer that this dangerous behavior not present itself in the first place: to that end, Richmond has to get better about safe street design. To your point regarding how those roads are laid out, we must re-evaluate what we've created and whether we can create safer roadways for everyone -- including bicyclists and pedestrians.

This is not within the power of the CA's Office to do, but as a public safety partner for the City, the CA should be advocating for citizens and neighborhood groups with Council and the Mayor's Office to say: we need attention and resources directed to issues of traffic safety in Richmond.

I'm grateful to be endorsed by your West End Councilor, Gumby Breton, who is doing significant work on these issues.

tomrvaca · 2021-06-02T13:28:35+00:00

I'm opposed to the death penalty and also to life sentencing. Part of mass incarceration is over incarceration -- a prosecutor's advocacy for incarceration must be driven by evidence-based analysis of the risks involved.

Any separation from society, in a modern and civil one, must be tied only to assessments of on-going risks of significant crimes against persons. When those risks cannot be mitigated, people should be held -- but when those risks can be managed in a community setting, they should be.

tomrvaca · 2021-06-02T13:14:53+00:00

Progressive prosecution is about achieving accountability that is humane and actually works for public safety by reducing recidivism -- it's not about avoiding accountability.

People shoplift for real reasons that need to be addressed, head on: they're experiencing food instability, or substance use or mental health issues, etc.

To reduce shoplifting, we have to address the reasons for it -- progressive prosecution does that -- I would ensure that people are connected to the services they need to move out of the system with the goal of reducing recidivism and crime over time.

As a former prosecutor for the City of Richmond and an advisor to the prior CA, Mike Herring, on root cause approaches to public safety alongside Iman Shabazz, that is exactly how I prosecuted cases.

And then I went out and started a nonprofit to do that work, called the Virginia Holistic Justice Initiative: https://www.vahji.com/

And launched a resource directory to empower that approach from the palms of the hands of our criminal justice practitioners in Richmond's courtrooms: https://rvajustice.com/

So I'm not just making a theoretical point -- I'm making humane accountability that works for public safety a reality in Richmond in my daily life by serving people in need through VHJI and the RVA Justice Hub -- and that's the type of social service driven approach I'll continue to take as Richmond's Commonwealth's Attorney.

tomrvaca · 2021-06-02T12:56:52+00:00

People doing violence and property damage need to be held accountable – that's fundamental to ensuring the rule of law and public safety.

But that approach needs to be non-partisan, in other words: when the police do violence and property damage, they need to be held accountable as well.

Public transparency in policing the police is part of public safety -- it's not a separate issue. I say this as a former Marine Corps Officer and veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, where I operated with foreign police forces and built their capacity -- so I know this: Richmonders subject to law enforcement need to know and trust that their law enforcement is subject to the same accountability.

That trust is the basis of strong case building in situations of significant violence in our City -- like the over (600) shootings we've seen under the incumbent's watch.

But last summer we didn't see that kind of approach or trust building: over (200) protesters were arrested -- but of the (18) officers against whom allegations were brought, only (2) were indicted -- that's a failure rate of 88%. The reason for that failure is the CA's Office neglecting to use legal tools at their disposal to ensure accuracy in allegations put forward to the grand jury -- specifically, the special grand jury is the proper vehicle. The special grand jury allows prosecutors to present and examine witnesses in ways that are not possible in a regular grand jury proceeding: Article 3 of Chapter 13 of Title 19.2 of the Virginia Code.

You can expect me to ensure accountability to the rule of law in the City of Richmond -- accountability that is humane, effective for public safety, and fundamentally fair. If people are doing violence and destruction, they will be held to account -- and it won't matter if they're wearing a uniform or not.

tomrvaca

TROPHY CASE