Posted 8 months, 4 days ago in 
Loading ...
In The Daily Sentinel article published March 20, describing the death of sexual-assault suspect Ralph Ridenour, I was quoted as saying that his death was a “relief for public safety.” While I did in fact say that to Gary Harmon immediately upon learning of Mr. Ridenour’s passing, I sincerely regret the comment. It was a weak attempt at sarcasm and humor and was not intended by me to be taken literally.
While the charges he was facing were certainly serious, he was also confined to a wheelchair and hospitalized and, therefore, probably was not any threat to public safety.
I am certain that he had family members who are greatly mourning his death and by no means did I intend to insult them. I would like to offer them and any others offended by my comment my profound apologies.
PETE HAUTZINGER
District Attorney
21st Judicial District
Grand Junction
6 Responses to “DA regrets comments on Ridenour death”
Posted March 21st, 2008 at 9:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
As you well know Pete, I am not a fan of yours, at least if you ever read stuff here, however.
On the death of the child in Plateau canyon.
While the “law” doesn’t recognize life until birth, BIOLOGICAL FACT requires that life precedes conception.
A LIVE egg needs a LIVE sperm cell for conception to occur.
Attorneys, politicians and anybody else can play semantics all day, every day, but rhetoric and semantics will never change biological fact.
So, my suggestion is:
Take the issue to the highest level you need to in order to protect the safety of the citizenry from the miscreant in our society.
Posted March 21st, 2008 at 9:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t think that you should use this forum to address another issue, Mr. Johnson.
I am not a “fan” either. I think any elected official has a hard job, and one basic truth is you can’t please everyone.
I understand that Mr. Ridenour has family that are mourning his passing, but Mr.Hautzinger still has a right to his opinion. I don’t think it should have been printed in the first place. It an attack on Mr. Hautzinger, a blind man can see that.
Posted March 21st, 2008 at 9:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Pete,
Your comment may be regrettable. However, the real heat in this instance should be taken by Ridenour’s public defender, Steve Colvin. Your office is not responsible for keeping tabs on the defendant’s attorney or the defendant. It is reprehensible that Colvin did not do more to contact his client prior to the hearing. Good lord! And still no comment from that office. . .
Posted March 21st, 2008 at 9:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think the whole situation need scutinized a whole lot more. Here we have public officials debating about someone who has been dead for a month?? And I’m not sure if anyone else has noticed but this gaff has made national news now. How does this make our city and its officials look now? Mr. Hautzinger is lucky most people in the valley don’t give a hoot about who is representing us or they may be calling for his resignation.
Posted March 21st, 2008 at 6:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Gosh Jami,
I did not intend to offend you.
And yes, it should not have been printed.
HOWEVER, if it had not been said, it could not have been printed, and, given the circunstances, it shows a deeply held disdain for men such as Mr. Ridenour.
Mr Ridenour actually SERVED his country, and in spite of peteys usual total lack of social graces, does DESERVE the RESPECT of people of peteys ilk.
Now, you were going to defend mr hautzinger on what grounds?
Posted March 21st, 2008 at 11:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Like I said Willis, I am no fan, I am not defending Mr. Hautzinger. Just his right to have an opinion.
I appreciate and respect all veterans as well as currently enlisted Americans. I have family who serve. Unfortunately, being a soldier doesn’t automatically make you a good person. Please don’t use that as you grounds for defending Mr.Ridenour.
It seems to me the article would have stood on its own merit without the quote from Pete. It was about the lame mistake of all the parties involved, not just his comment.
I respect your opinions too ( from the list of recent comments, you have many…)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.