Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Well, yeah. When an attorney does something that would normally be considered extremely stupid--in this case, allowing his client to waive his Fifth Amendment rights--that attorney, if at all competent, must have a compelling reason to do so. My guess is that he put the Kid through multiple mock testimony drills and concluded, probably to his surprise, that doing so would help rather than hurt his client. The Kid's performance, while lacking verisimilitude, was sufficient to win over the audience (scrunch).
This makes me reflect on the "justice" (ha ha ha) system that relies more on individual performances than the facts, the law, or logic. The attorneys for either side, the witnesses, the defendant, even the judge--all have roles to play a la Shakespeare--"all the world's a stage." And how well they play those roles has an outsized influence on the outcome of the trial.
This is the crux of the problem that comes from being tried by "a jury of one's peers." Those "peers" are more often than not immune or resistant to logic, easily swayed by emotional appeals, ignorant of or at least unfamiliar with the law, and statistically, most will lack any higher education. So the "system" is calibrated based on appealing to the emotions of a dozen "average citizens"--yecch. If I was ever a criminal defendant, I would beg the judge for a bench trial rather than my fate being decided by a troop (as in, twelve baboons) of the ignorant. For one thing, statistically, at least three or four of them would be Trumpers. (And Boiler would probably have a similar objection to three or four woke liberals being on the jury, if he were in such a spot.) I consider my "peers" to be university-educated professionals, not some clown who works at Starbucks and whose favorite entertainment is attending monster truck rallies. Elitist of me, I know.
Unlike you, I can't see the remotest justification for the Kid's actions. I see where you're coming from--but for God's sake, the Kid didn't have to be there at all. Doesn't the "duty to retreat" include refraining from deliberately entering a volatile and violent situation? And if we don't have that duty, haven't we all regressed to the Wild West days? One of the first signs back then that a community was maturing was when it delegated authority and the right to use lethal force to its peace officers, NOT the ordinary vigilante schmo.
This might turn out to be a "split the baby" decision that will probably not make anyone happy. They could decide to nail him on any of a variety of lesser offenses--including those involving his illegal possession of a manly man gun--but murder--? Probably not. Becuz, yer allowed to kill people if you're indignant enough, or something.
To be clear, which maybe I wasn't, I'm guessing that the jury will see "the remotest notion" of justification, having been instructed before deliberations by that crabby old white guy of a judge who already has it in for the prosecutor. Certainly baby face shoulda stayed home and painted somebody's fence instead of "here I come to save the day" with a weapon bigger than he is.
And if they buy into the scrunch crying act.
I can practically feel my mom, when I was 17, grabbing me by the nape of my neck, "Girl get back in this house, clean up your room, let the dust fly with that broom, get all that garbage (i.e. the gun) out of sight, and you don't go anywhere tonight." Yakkity yak! LOL.
Candy
