"No," I said. "Why?"
He told me to go look. And this is what I saw.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Snitches get stitches.
A few weeks ago, I was returning to my office after a morning in court when I ran into an attorney I know. "Did you see the hood of that Mazda?" he asked me, indicating a small car parked some thirty feet past the front door of my office building.
"No," I said. "Why?"
He told me to go look. And this is what I saw.
"No," I said. "Why?"
He told me to go look. And this is what I saw.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I hope your post is not an endorsement of violence against cooperators.
I take no position... I just thought it was a funny hood decoration.
It's not so funny. The idea that a witness to a crime who does his or her civic duty should suffer violence is disgusting and repulsive. That you "take no position" on this is telling.
You know, it's not unknown for defense attorneys to let violent criminals know the identities of witnesses. Given your attitude, it's not surprising that less ethical attorneys would do such a thing.
Hopefully, you will never be in a position whether you are a victim of crime and "snitches" won't come forward. A hell of a lot of people are. And I doubt they'd see the humor in the windshield poster.
I never endorse violence. When I said, "I take no position," I meant that I didn't feel like discussing the matter at length. Now, that I've written that disclaimer:
First of all, when you're a criminal defense attorney, you have two choices: you can laugh or cry at what you see and go through. I choose to laugh. Perhaps 'normal' people find this offensive, but a certain gallows humor exists with many of us.
Next, "snitches" is a term that generally refers to defendants who cooperate with the authorities in exchange for some sort of consideration in their own cases. They're not the most trustworthy source of information.
And for your information, jailhouse informants are the leading cause of wrongful convictions (the second being incorrect eyewitness identifications).
Finally, defendants are entitled to know the identities of witnesses against them. It's in the Bill of Rights -- the right to confront one's accuser. It's one of those fundamental rights that is afforded to everyone. That includes the violent criminals you refer to... and me, and you, too. Trust me, if you're ever a criminal defendant, you'll be glad you have that right.
yeah, you're entitled to confront your accusers, you're just not necessarily entitled to know their home addresses. It is not unheard of for some defense attorneys to let that info slip.
As for "snitches", I beg to differ. The "stop snitching" thing goes to all cooperators, not just co-defendants. It is being used to intimidate law-abiding people too. It is not funny, and it contributes to a lot of misery.
I agree that jailhouse informants can be problematic, especially when cops feed info to them that "only the defendant could know".
Oh, well there you have it. I'd never give out a home address. And as far as "snitches" go, I suppose you're right. But I was thinking of jailhouse snitches specifically.
The part that I didn't mention in my post was that I turned to the attorney in question who showed me the car and said, "You think he gets pulled over a lot?"
His response: "He sure as hell should."
When you post as anonymous, nobody can slip up and give your name.
Yeesh, this got heated! I enjoyed your post Saucy Vixen, always a funny read.
Merry, I don't think that my posts were really all that offensive--what's wrong with a little anonymity?
Redbird, yeah, things can get a little heated, so what? Here's an extreme example of a snitch winding up with something more than a stitch. The cute little message about snitches getting stitches ain't so cute when two little girls are executed for happening to be in the same house as the snitch.
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/061001P.pdf
Post a Comment