“Do As I Is Not As I Did”
I have been thinking quite a bit lately about the difference between who people are and what people do. Many persons would believe this to be one in the same, but I have come to conclude that conclusion is not true. In fact, in many ways the inability to recognize the difference between the two is the basis for a great deal of the misunderstanding, fear, hatred, violence and intolerance we have seen boil over in recent years.
Oh, now don’t misunderstand me, racism, misogyny, xenophobia and sexism have always been with us and this I do not deny. However, what does make me “worried” is the sudden acceptance of white supremacy as a legitimate let’s call it point of view that is worthy of preservation as part and parcel of American greatness.
Well Phil, when you put it that way, it is unsettling and in the past, we hoped that those who would promote such an agenda would one day see the errors of their ways, yet here we are.
The recent events in Atlanta have done nothing except sharpened my observations and put into an even closer focus on the harmful, deleterious and murderous results of systematic racism practiced for the most part by a group of malcontents who all too conveniently blame all of their faults and misfortune on anyone but themselves.
As a recovering lawyer, (I’m retired after 20 years of practice) I found the words of Cherokee County Sheriff Reynolds rather chilling to the degree I felt sick to my stomach as I can already see (not that it was all that unexpected) the “legal” defense for this mass murderer being set up right before our eyes.
Do you believe lawyers “play up” their clients to the potential jurors who in Robert Aaron Long will be his peers that eventually determine as a matter of jurisprudence and hence justice, the guilt or innocence of this mass murderer? I do. I know they do, and yes, so do you.
Shocking? No, not really, but when the defense is laid out at a press conference by a sheriff, well, this isn’t merely a defense attorney trying to protect his client, but one of the most bald-faced examples of white privilege being used to exonerate a defendant, clearly based on who, meaning in this case white and religious, and not on what he did, which is reprehensible, heinous and beyond any reasonable justification as legitimate actions to be taken in response to his having, as Captain jay Baker had no problem pointing out, a “really bad day” and “this is what he did about it.”
So, what to do? Why, change the narrative away from what Long did, and pivot to who they, both the shooter and the victims “are”. Try to confuse the jury by playing on their sympathies and fears and attempt to change their perception as to exactly who is the offender and the victims are. And why, even if he did it, it wasn’t his fault. It was in reality, the victim’s fault and these “foreign women” should have known better than to tempt a good Christian with their wicked ways and charms.
Right about now, you might and quite rightly saying to yourself, hey, Professor, you got all that out of one press conference? And I would not fault you. So, let me break it down as I see it. Don’t worry, it won’t take long. In fact, I’ll make it even easier and to avoid being accused of taking things “out of context” by including a video link and transcript of the entire press conference, the part I’m specifically referring to begins with Captain Jay Baker at 6:57. See for yourself.
Note: If you are a conspiracy theorist and believe the video/transcript has been altered or tampered with in any way by “main stream media, please unfriend me now. TY.
JB: “Let me go into a little bit of detail.”
Seems innocent enough, but what I hear is an opportunity to tell you, the jury/audience what you may and may not know. Now, I can begin to spin my narrative, because that’s right, you don’t know the whole story, so let me tell you.
JB: “So the suspect did take responsibility for the shootings. He said that early on once we began the interviews with him.”
Naturally. He’s an “honest” kid and the fact he is a mass murderer is not in dispute. The fact he did go on a killing spree ending in cold blooded murder of six Asian women in several massage parlors is not in dispute. So why not admit it?
JB: “He claims that these, and as the chief said, this is still early, but he does claim that it was not racially motivated.”
Note both the location of this comment, up front, as if it needs to be dealt with first, because it does, as if a racist, is what Long is, he gets “bumped up” to a person consumed with unreasonable hatred for innocent persons he had no reason to hate or fear, much less murder. An in-court loser for sure, for then Long would be the “bad guy” and not the victim and that is the last thing his attorney wants.
JB: “He apparently has an issue, what he considers sex addiction and sees these locations as something that allows him to go to these places, and it’s a temptation for him that he wanted to eliminate.”
And here we go. Long has a sex addiction not he’s a really horny red but cold blooded young man in his early 20’s, but, he as an affliction, that he can’t control, and that ladies and gentlemen of the jury makes him vulnerable, subject to forces he can’t or can’t be expected to control, (this will play well with the men) and therefore, makes him a good “target”, and clearly, a potential victim himself due to forces he can’t control and well, let’s just say those greedy wanton and unfeeling foreign whores who tempted, surely you didn’t think I was going to let that pass did you?
A chance to portray my client as a good Christian who was obviously “lured” by those evil Jezebels who claim to give “massages” for a living? Wow, it writes itself, doesn’t it?
JB: “Like I said, it’s still early on, but those were comments that he made.”
No, he didn’t. I find it all but unbelievable that this punk ass little bitch with a gun (don’t forget, we don’t want to go there! 2nd Amendment Rights and all) had the basic intelligence much less the legal savvy to use those words and phrases in that order. It just didn’t happen.
Still doubt me? Then why did the Male Reporter immediately thereafter at 7:33 ask,
Male Reporter: “Did he discuss any kind of religious motivation for this or was he just …”
He saw religion creeping into the mix. To which Captain Baker replied at 7:38,
JB: “Not that I’m aware of. Not that I’m aware.”
Oh? Again, I might beg to differ. For while Long is religious, he would never use the words of our Lord as a basis for a hate crime. Another example of is versus did. Are we all getting the hang of this?
After some banter about politics which amounts to no, he wasn’t wearing a red MAGA hat, and some questions related to social media, which will probably end up being the equivalent of no, not yet, the final question posed by Male Reporter at 7:51,
Male Reporter “Sheriff, did you have a sense that he understood the gravity of what he did?”
In other words, does he understand that what he did is indefensible and I would also tuck in there, is he capable of and did he show any remorse for what he did?
To which we now have the infamous response/defense of as I believe I have made a case for, there is not defense to what he did, so, when in doubt, after trying to place your client as the victim, and the victim’s as the perpetrator’s, or at least some form of “they deserved it” you got to the hocus pocus of illogic and hope at least one juror gets confused and votes to acquit.
But the fact that all of this is already starting at a press conference the day of the mass shooting itself from a member of law enforcement? Add in the fact Long was taken alive without so much as a shot fired, if this isn’t the perfect example of systematic white privilege in America, I don’t know what is.
