Letter to the Editor: Question for the attorney general

I have but one simple question regarding the attorney general’s decision to not prosecute any of the 22 protesters that were recently arrested in Camden.

While I do not have access to all the material that the attorney general utilized in reaching her decision, I will rely upon the public reports of the incident, which do not appear to be disputed. A protester stood in front of a police vehicle and, when asked to move so that the officer could report to a different location, refused to move and was subsequently arrested. Obstructing an emergency service provider would seem to me to be an act that exceeds any legal justification. How would the attorney general react if a protester were to stand in front of the door of a firehouse refusing to move and thus obstructing the exit of a fire engine?

The actions of our attorney general appear to align with those of other Democratic attorneys general in our country, who have adopted the appeasement movement in the administration of the duties of their respective offices. Appeasement does not work on the international levelor the the local level. Such actions only serve to embolden those offenders to escalate their actions.

I have known Kathy Jennings professionally for more than 35 years. During her early years as a prosecutor in the Department of Justice, she earned an excellent reputation for her knowledge, dedication to her professional responsibilities and her work ethic. It is truly a sad day for me to find myself penning this letter, but this is not the Kathy Jennings who I have long admired and respected.

Robert Gouge