A Democrat lawyer’s view of just where Bieber went wrong

posted at 8:31 am on January 25, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

Before we get started I’d like to assure some of our likely nauseous readers that this isn’t a story about Justin Bieber. It is, however, a story about a story about Bieber. As most of you were probably unable to avoid hearing, “the Biebs” was arrested again this week on a variety of charges including – but not limited to – drag racing, driving while intoxicated, driving without a license, being high on drugs and resisting arrest. That’s a pretty hefty night’s work in anybody’s book, and clearly he’s done something wrong.

Enter CNN, where their celebrity legal expert, attorney and radio host Eboni K. Williams, struggled to explain that the pop star had indeed done something wrong… he didn’t keep his mouth shut.

In a few terrible seconds, teen star Justin Bieber made his attorney Roy Black’s job a heck of a lot harder.

Bieber, who was arrested in Miami Beach on Thursday for drunken driving, resisting arrest and driving without a valid license, decided it would be a good idea to spill his guts to the Miami Beach Police Department.

According to Miami Beach Police Chief Raymond Martinez, during his arrest, Bieber “made some statements that he had consumed some alcohol, and that he had been smoking marijuana and consumed some prescription medication,” before getting behind the wheel of a yellow Lamborghini.

On the surface, this could look like Bieber was just being an honest guy, admitting to his wrongdoings. But look a little further, and you’ll see a young man who has done the worst possible thing a defendant in any case could do. He opened his mouth. And in doing that, he’s also doing the state’s job for them.

Justin Bieber should have just shut up.

Williams goes on to explain the fine tradition and constitutional foundation of the right to remain silent, and what a horrible mistake Bieber made by explaining to the law enforcement agents presents exactly what he had done. This, she proclaims, is a pretty awful thing.

Defending a client against an impaired driving charge is no easy task. The public interest in keeping impaired drivers off the road is understandably great. No one wants to see our society in harm’s way because of irresponsible drivers.

However, the integrity of our justice system requires that every defendant get an opportunity to have his guilt or innocence determined according to the evidence against him.

By making statements against his own interests, Bieber actually helps to undermine the whole process. His lawyer’s job is not to get him “off.” Black’s task is to hold the state accountable to its burden of providing evidence — beyond a reasonable doubt — that Bieber is in fact guilty of the crimes charged against him.

Perhaps it’s just me, but those last couple of paragraphs are frankly shocking. Apparently – at least to her way of thinking – a criminal is undermining the entire process of trial by jury if they confess their actions to the police. What new madness is this?

Call me old fashioned. Point out that I don’t have a law degree. But I was under the impression that the various – and highly generous – rights allotted to the accused in our country are there for the purpose of ensuring that the innocent are not unjustly convicted or railroaded by the legal system. We strive to guarantee that the accused has each and every opportunity to prove their innocence and not be unjustly jailed for crimes they have not committed.

But in Williams’ world, as much as she claims to be arguing the exact opposite, the legal system is in place to also give the admittedly guilty each and every opportunity to scam the system and beat the rap. Were Bieber being accused while loudly proclaiming that he broke no laws, she would be exactly right. At that point it’s up to the prosecution to prove him a liar and obtain a conviction by a jury of his peers. But Bieber has already admitted that he did the crime(s). Is it not fitting that we move on briskly toward his doing the time?

It would seem not. Even knowing – and saying in front of the police – that he had broken the law, apparently the guilty party is still supposed to use up the resources of the criminal justice system to fight the best lawyers that he can afford. And if his lawyers manage to obfuscate the case well enough, he gets to walk free with a smile on his face and a really annoying song in his heart. To me, this is simply a twisted perversion of justice, not an undermining of the system which is supposed to protect the truly innocent and wrongly accused.

As a side note, if you read the CNN article, Ms. Williams is listed as a criminal defense attorney and legal analyst based in Los Angeles. She has worked as a public defender, private trial lawyer and also provides commentary on legal and political issues from a pop culture perspective. That doesn’t give you much of a hint as to where her ideological leanings might run. But in this Fox News debate with our own Katie Pavlich, she is also introduced as a “Democratic strategist” so take from that what you will.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Defending a client against an impaired driving charge is no easy task.

Really? The “affluenza” defense is now on the books as precedent for him. Not only has he never been told “No”, but his father was reportedly one of the people who blocked a public street so baby boy could drag race while stoned.

Marcus on January 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM

But in Williams’ world, as much as she claims to be arguing the exact opposite, the legal system is in place to also give the admittedly guilty each and every opportunity to scam the system and beat the rap.

Yup. Welcome to why people hate lawyers and think the legal system sucks.

Are you sure? Because legally, I’m allowed to shake him by the ankles to see if something falls out. It was established in the case; “Lawyers vs. Justice”. Ha-ha-ha, that was a big day for us. — Attorney speaking to Manjula from the Simpsons

Stoic Patriot on January 25, 2014 at 8:38 AM

How about Beiber is a Stupid Canadian…

Keep it simple.

workingclass artist on January 25, 2014 at 8:41 AM

Apparently – at least to her way of thinking – a criminal is undermining the entire process of trial by jury if they confess their actions to the police.

Because integrity no longer matters.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 8:45 AM

Apparently – at least to her way of thinking – a criminal is undermining the entire process of trial by jury if they confess their actions to the police. What new madness is this?

She obviously must be a moron. What else can you expect from somebody who spells “ebony” with an i?

The sad part is that these kinds of “down is up” rationalizations seem to have become all too common.

ghostwriter on January 25, 2014 at 8:45 AM

Perhaps it’s just me, but those last couple of paragraphs are frankly shocking. Apparently – at least to her way of thinking – a criminal is undermining the entire process of trial by jury if they confess their actions to the police. What new madness is this?

Jazz, you ignorant slut, this is very well-known by now. There are videos on youtube explaining exactly why you should never talk to the police. Any decent lawyer will tell you this. Do your homework.

gh on January 25, 2014 at 8:48 AM

This is a prime example of why I no longer practice law. This woman is typical of the DBs practicing law these days. The entire profession, with a few exceptions, are nothing more than paid whores willing to do the bidding of whatever scumbag pays them. I left because I was disgusted and everyday I see reminders of why I gave it up.

Doomsday on January 25, 2014 at 8:49 AM

Seriously?

Well, Democrat strategist. Could have just stopped there.

Liberals work to shift the blame rather than accept responsibility for their actions.

ProfShadow on January 25, 2014 at 8:51 AM

“Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer,” is usually attributed to 18th Century English jurist William Blackstone.

Blacstone’s Commentaries on the Law would have been the basic (and maybe only) lawbooks colonial American lawyers had. This is likely how it got into our legal tradition.

Wethal on January 25, 2014 at 8:52 AM

Someone cue the South Park song, “Blame Canada.”

Wethal on January 25, 2014 at 8:54 AM

Maybe we should start holding the lawyers that get impaired drivers off accountable for the consequences of future acts of their clients’ impaired driving.

talkingpoints on January 25, 2014 at 8:54 AM

Bieber “made some statements that he had consumed some alcohol, and that he had been smoking marijuana and consumed some prescription medication,” before getting behind the wheel of a yellow Lamborghini.

Soon to be legal in a few states……

Electrongod on January 25, 2014 at 8:55 AM

Jazz, you ignorant slut, this is very well-known by now. There are videos on youtube explaining exactly why you should never talk to the police. Any decent lawyer will tell you this. Do your homework.

gh on January 25, 2014 at 8:48 AM

I don’t think that was his point.

Does a confession undermine the process?

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 8:55 AM

I know this sounds rather shocking to the general public, but what she’s saying is Rule #1 for every defense lawyer working in this country today. To the point that one day, early on in my 2nd year Criminal Law classes, our Professor started off by saying “many of you students have asked me what kind of advice working attorney’s give to their clients. I will tell you that when you start working, the one thing that you will say to every client you ever have is “Shut UP, shut UP, shut UP!!!!”

and then she added “but it won’t matter, because no matter how much you tell them to stop talking, they won’t, so you’ll just have to deal with that.”

It’s not bad advice, really – think about the gun owner who was recently harassed on a Maryland turnpike, all because his wife decided to play Chatty Kathy with the officer. You know what a lawyer would have advised to that couple? “Shut UP, shut UP, shut UP!!!” Divorce cases and lawsuits are very often decided based on who follows that rule, and who doesn’t.

You really shouldn’t blame Ms. Williams for her comments – she’s just displaying, rather openly, the kind of reasoning that the law schools all call “thinking like a lawyer”. And also demonstrating why we usually keep that kind of talk amongst ourselves.

Tom Servo on January 25, 2014 at 8:58 AM

But in Williams’ world, as much as she claims to be arguing the exact opposite, the legal system is in place to also give the admittedly guilty each and every opportunity to scam the system and beat the rap.

That’s not what she’s saying. She’s saying that a defense attorney’s job is to force the state to prove their case, regardless of how guilty the defendant is, and that by failing to remain silent, Bieber handed the state a major advantage in prosecuting him. She says this is a bad idea because the state doesn’t have to work as hard to do its job.

Considering the abuses we’ve seen in recent years at the hands of the state, can you really disagree with that?

In any justice system you have the potential for error. I’d rather that error be that a guilty man goes free than an innocent man goes to jail. Williams is arguing for that same idea. Democrat or no, she’s right.

Caiwyn on January 25, 2014 at 8:58 AM

…Stupid Canadian…

workingclass artist on January 25, 2014 at 8:41 AM

Brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department™.

bigmacdaddy on January 25, 2014 at 8:59 AM

the legal system is in place to also give the admittedly guilty each and every opportunity to scam the system

…well…lawyers basically run the country in our governmental halls…who would have guessed?

KOOLAID2 on January 25, 2014 at 8:59 AM

“Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer,” is usually attributed to 18th Century English jurist William Blackstone.

Blacstone’s Commentaries on the Law would have been the basic (and maybe only) lawbooks colonial American lawyers had. This is likely how it got into our legal tradition.

Wethal on January 25, 2014 at 8:52 AM

The problem is that she took this otherwise laudable ideal and twisted it into a caricature of itself. A person has a right not to be forced by the state to incriminate themselves. This observation does not imply that the system somehow works better when the accused does incriminate themselves. In fact, I’m quite certain that the optimal case is one in which the accused credibly does incriminate themselves, saving society a costly trial to adjudicate the case.

ghostwriter on January 25, 2014 at 9:02 AM

Actually, I agree with her to the extent that police (and therefore the state) have become to too roughshod with citizens rights. Not in this brat Bieber’s case perhaps, but it is a disturbing trend in my view. I don’t give the police the benefit of the doubt, at all. Their militarization and use of excess force is in the news every day.

RUReady2RNR on January 25, 2014 at 9:02 AM

But in Williams’ world, as much as she claims to be arguing the exact opposite, the legal system is in place to also give the admittedly guilty each and every opportunity to scam the system and beat the rap.

No Jazz, she’s upset that some lawyer was denied a payday. It means that the leeching class of lawyers can’t get their blood.

nobar on January 25, 2014 at 9:03 AM

That’s not what she’s saying. She’s saying that a defense attorney’s job is to force the state to prove their case, regardless of how guilty the defendant is, and that by failing to remain silent, Bieber handed the state a major advantage in prosecuting him. She says this is a bad idea because the state doesn’t have to work as hard to do its job.

Considering the abuses we’ve seen in recent years at the hands of the state, can you really disagree with that?

In any justice system you have the potential for error. I’d rather that error be that a guilty man goes free than an innocent man goes to jail. Williams is arguing for that same idea. Democrat or no, she’s right.

Caiwyn on January 25, 2014 at 8:58 AM

The justice system isn’t a game show. The lawyer’s job is to represent his client’s interests, and to ensure that his client is treated fairly. At times, this may include forcing the state to prove their case. However, if your client willingly provided the state with compelling and incriminating evidence, then the interests of justice have been served.

ghostwriter on January 25, 2014 at 9:07 AM

I don’t care if he does time or not. Just deport him to Polarbear Land.

msr on January 25, 2014 at 9:07 AM

Bieber “made some statements that he had consumed some alcohol, and that he had been smoking marijuana and consumed some prescription medication,” before getting behind the wheel of a yellow Lamborghini.

This sounds like it may be a self-serving explanation. Considering what he did, in the absence of alcohol, drugs and dope, you might think he was insane and belonged in a psychiatric facility.

KW64 on January 25, 2014 at 9:09 AM

Actually, I agree with her to the extent that police (and therefore the state) have become to too roughshod with citizens rights. Not in this brat Bieber’s case perhaps, but it is a disturbing trend in my view. I don’t give the police the benefit of the doubt, at all. Their militarization and use of excess force is in the news every day.

RUReady2RNR on January 25, 2014 at 9:02 AM

It might her case help her case if we were actually talking about a case in which the police over-stepped their bounds. In the current context, she just sounds foolish.

ghostwriter on January 25, 2014 at 9:09 AM

Before we get started I’d like to assure some of our likely nauseous nauseated readers that this isn’t a story about Justin Bieber.

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nauseated.html

nauseous = causing nausea

nauseated = feeling nausea

BuckeyeSam on January 25, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Don’t Talk To The Police

PointnClick on January 25, 2014 at 8:59 AM

…I’m saving that for my kids…they are too honest!

KOOLAID2 on January 25, 2014 at 9:13 AM

have had a bunch of felony speeding tickets (racing) in the past.
and the cops and prosecutors always treated me fairly and with respect as I treated them with respect.
on one time when doing 153 in a 25 and you hear the scanner say nothing we got can catch him but I know who he is…then what I did was pull over and as the cop blew by I laid on the horn to flag him down.
surprised him.
he asked why?
I said you saw me and know me, I did it and will take the punishment.
so instead of jail I just got a summons. in court cop stuck up for me too. specifically stated I pulled over and flagged him down.
the other guy that night tried to run. damn camaro just didn’t have what it took. he went to jail.
we met up son after and compared notes, it cost me 400$ or so and cost him almost 4K $.

have also had 2 speeding tickets where the officer was wrong and I fought and won them.

when I do the crime I pay the time. when I don’t do it I won’t.

I had a point when I started typing, but now I seem to have forgotten it. guess its man up and take responsibility or something.

dmacleo on January 25, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Jazz,

Um, where to start. Prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers have different jobs. The former is to see that justice is done and the guilty are sifted out from the innocent and justly punished. The latter is to see that our process is followed and if not, that the defendant walks, even if it’s John Wayne Gacy or Jeffery Dahmer. No one wants to see those two walking around, but if the process has been abused, and in too many instances it has been abused then an objectively guilty person walks free.

rbj on January 25, 2014 at 9:14 AM

I don’t think that was his point.

Does a confession undermine the process?

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 8:55 AM

He is clearly completely ignorant of this issue. I see that someone above provided a link.

I did not read the part I quoted very carefully but at a glance, it seemed consistent with the advice given in numerous youtube videos and what I have been told be a recent (conservative) member of the bar in Ontario.

A confession does not undermine the process IF you are dealing with HONEST policemen. It is a big “if” and depends on how flexible you are with the meaning of the word “honest”. I follow my father’s advice being as polite as I can possibly be whenever I have been stopped by the police. I’ve had a few traffic tickets, which I just pay. It’s not worth my time to fight them. Other than that I have had no personal dealings with “the law”.

gh on January 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM

she just sounds foolish.

ghostwriter on January 25, 2014 at 9:09 AM

And you are obviously completely ignorant. Probably a libertarian?

gh on January 25, 2014 at 9:17 AM

I think what applies here is an old saying: “There is often a vast gulf between what is legal and what is just. Lawyers are only concerned with what is legal.”

Having quoted that, I will say that I agree with Eboni (!) that Mr. Bieber would have been well advised to say nothing of substance to the police. To imply that doing so somehow undermines the legal system, is, however, a bit of a stretch.

tngmv on January 25, 2014 at 9:17 AM

You also should consider what a system with opposite incentives looks like, and whether you would want to live and be judged by such a system. In China, ever since the Revolution, virtually *every* case is resolved by a full “confession”, and the State gets that “confession” one way or another. (You know how). Even in today’s Russia, lawyers are expected to help the State to convict those that they represent, and if they don’t, the lawyers themselves can be thrown in jail. Some people here would like that very much.

Do you really think anyone is ever found “innocent” in the Russian or Chinese systems, once the State has decided that they’re not? And because of that, do you think that many citizens ever dare to upset the State? That is the number one way in which totalitarians keep control – they use the “justice” system to intimidate the population on a daily basis, and they constantly spread the message that ordinary people dare not ever oppose Authority, in the name of efficiency and for “the good of all”.

Thank God that I still live in a country where I can tell Authority to go pi** up a rope when they ask me questions, and that Authority can’t force me to talk if I don’t want to. Thank God I live in a country where I can tell other people to do that, too, and not be jailed. This is not only one of the only countries in the world today where you can get away with that; it is one of the only nations in the history of mankind that has ever allowed that.

Cherish that while you still have it – I doubt it will last too much longer. Maybe for my lifetime, if I’m lucky. Will my grandchild live in that kind of a country? Most likely, he’ll only have the stories from people like me, about the unbelievable Freedoms that existed, once upon a time.

Tom Servo on January 25, 2014 at 9:18 AM

I hear what some of you are saying about not giving the government the benefit of the doubt and the desire to ensure that no innocent person goes to jail. But that’s not the case at hand, is it? He already confessed. He’s not in danger of being an innocent person going to jail as a victim of the state running roughshod over him. He’s guilty and already said as much.

Jazz Shaw on January 25, 2014 at 9:20 AM

If he had kept his mouth shut they’d likely only get him on underage drinking and reckless driving, at most.

But he was exercising poor judgement to begin with, so I don’t know why there would be any expectation that he’d wise up upon being arrested.

forest on January 25, 2014 at 9:21 AM

Jazz Shaw on January 25, 2014 at 9:20 AM

“already confessed” is the problem

gh on January 25, 2014 at 9:21 AM

You can hate lawyers and hate the system all you like. Still doesn’t change the fact that when you are arrested you DON’T SAY ANYTHING.

Period.

deadrody on January 25, 2014 at 9:25 AM

OT: I’ve seen her before. She’s very yummy. She has a website on which she’s posted recent videoclips.

http://www.ebonikwilliams.com/videoaudio/

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say that she’s the designated liberal black woman that FNC consults. I suspect that FNC viewers got tired of looking at Jemu Green.

BuckeyeSam on January 25, 2014 at 9:26 AM

Perhaps it’s just me, but those last couple of paragraphs are frankly shocking. Apparently – at least to her way of thinking – a criminal is undermining the entire process of trial by jury if they confess their actions to the police. What new madness is this?

Jazz Shaw on January 25, 2014 at 8:31 AM

.
Jazz, you [REDACTED], this is very well-known by now. There are videos on youtube explaining exactly why you should never talk to the police. Any decent lawyer will tell you this. Do your homework.

gh on January 25, 2014 at 8:48 AM

.
Wow ….. I went to the “File” button in the upper left-hand corner, and saved as ‘Web Page Complete’, before the comment gets deleted, and the user banned.

listens2glenn on January 25, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Jazz Shaw: willing to throw out Constitutional protections because he’s old fashioned.

Free clue: you NEVER talk to the police. But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of a lawyer AND a cop:
Lawyer’s point of view
Cop’s point of view

tphillip on January 25, 2014 at 9:29 AM

We strive to guarantee that the accused has each and every opportunity to prove their innocence

You are ever so wrong! Is this how they do it in New York? Nowhere in our Constitution or legal framework is your assertion true. It is up to the prosecutors to prove the accused guilty. I am surprised that an opinion leader of Hot Air can be so Constitutionally wrong about something this important! This is one of the main reasons we have the Fifth Amendment. I am so disappointed in you.

Old Country Boy on January 25, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Found a pic of the Bieb’s arrest the other day:

http://i.imgur.com/QXuWycj.jpg

JetBoy on January 25, 2014 at 9:30 AM

However, the integrity of our justice system requires that every defendant get an opportunity to have his guilt or innocence determined according to the evidence against him.

Nothing about the truth, right. So where’s the justice in this view of the justice system?

Longhorn Six on January 25, 2014 at 9:32 AM

“He’s guilty and already said as much.”

Jazz, you’re probably too young to remember back when every black man who was arrested for talking to/”molesting” a white woman in the deep south “confessed” as soon as he was arrested, which was why no trial was necessary. Who needed a trial? “He’s guilty and already said as much.”

We like to think that that never happened here, but it did.

Tom Servo on January 25, 2014 at 9:32 AM

Really Ed? Only Democrat lawyers try to manipulate the law to their interests? Girl, bye.

libfreeordie on January 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Jazz, you ignorant slut, this is very well-known by now. There are videos on youtube explaining exactly why you should never talk to the police. Any decent lawyer will tell you this. Do your homework.

gh on January 25, 2014 at 8:48 AM

You’re not undermining due process by talking to the police. You’re undermining your own defense. That’s stupid, but it’s not a violation of one’s rights.

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 9:38 AM

I hear what some of you are saying about not giving the government the benefit of the doubt and the desire to ensure that no innocent person goes to jail. But that’s not the case at hand, is it? He already confessed. He’s not in danger of being an innocent person going to jail as a victim of the state running roughshod over him. He’s guilty and already said as much.

Jazz Shaw on January 25, 2014 at 9:20 AM

And Eboni, speaking as a criminal defense attorney, is saying do not confess, make the prosecution prove their case. That is sound legal advice from a criminal defense attorney’s point of view. There’s a difference between an objective, wanting to see justice done, point of view, and a partisan, defending one side, point of view.

rbj on January 25, 2014 at 9:38 AM

You know what word is missing from most Justin Bieber coverage, “thug.”

Which person would you call a “thug:”

A. The guy caught on camera screaming at and physically threatening a photographer? The person arrested for drag racing and admittedly driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol? The guy being sued for assaulting a photographer? Or,

B. An NFL football player who gave a very animated interview moments after making the game winning
play in the biggest game of his career? The graduate of Stanford University who started a foundation to raise money to buy supplies for impoverished inner city schools?

Simple question, right? The answer would be A. except I forget to mention one fact: A is white and B is black. And that’s all the difference some people need in deciding whom to label a “thug.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/23/justin-bieber-or-richard-sherman-who-s-the-thug.html

libfreeordie on January 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM

…I’m saving that for my kids…they are too honest!

KOOLAID2 on January 25, 2014 at 9:13 AM

I’ve had my oldest (18-year-old boy) watch it twice. He’s a good kid, but he can be really clueless sometimes.

CJ on January 25, 2014 at 9:40 AM

libfreeordie on January 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM

That word may be missing from the coverage, but folks of your ilk embrace the media. So own it, libwit. Bieber is a thug, and all kinds of other unsavory words I can’t mention here. I couldn’t care less what his skin color is.

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 9:41 AM

“I had the right to remain silent… but I didn’t have the ability.”

Ron White

Nathan_OH on January 25, 2014 at 9:43 AM

listens2glenn on January 25, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Meh … was a quote from SNL … s/Jazz/Jane/

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 9:38 AM

You are hampering your lawyer’s ability to defend you. So you are being an idiot.

gh on January 25, 2014 at 9:43 AM

Oops … repeated what you said … did not read carefully enough.

gh on January 25, 2014 at 9:44 AM

You are hampering your lawyer’s ability to defend you. So you are being an idiot.

gh on January 25, 2014 at 9:43 AM

But leave it to the Dems to make it an issue of “rights.” You have the right to be silent, but that doesn’t mean your rights are being violated because you choose not to exercise that right.

Let me put it to you another way: A conscious choice to not own a gun is not a violation of the 2nd amendment anymore than yapping to the police is a violation of the 5th.

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 9:46 AM

But leave it to the Dems to make it an issue of “rights.”
gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 9:46 AM

The whole concept of “rights” is flawed.

It is much better to begin with “responsibilities” as fundamental.

gh on January 25, 2014 at 9:53 AM

Jazz Shaw: willing to throw out Constitutional protections because he’s old fashioned.

tphillip on January 25, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Justin Bieber spoke to the cops of his own free will. Saying that he should do time for what he admitted to doing is not “throwing out constitutional protections.” It’s an accepted aspect of American jurisprudence and if Biebs doesn’t like it, he can always go back to Mother Canada, salve regina.

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 9:53 AM

Girl, bye.

libfreeordie on January 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM

You only wish you could be called a thug you effeminate freak.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 9:53 AM

Eboni K. Williams

That’s a joke name, right? Like “Naughtius Maximus” or “Biggus Dickus”?

RoadRunner on January 25, 2014 at 9:54 AM

OT: Just noting the dearth of coverage at Hot Air in the GOP cave on amnesty.

Just going along?

BuckeyeSam on January 25, 2014 at 9:54 AM

The whole concept of “rights” is flawed.

It is much better to begin with “responsibilities” as fundamental.

gh on January 25, 2014 at 9:53 AM

The whole concept of civil rights is flawed. I’m a firm believer in natural rights. But even there, failure to exercise one’s own natural rights does not constitute a violation of them.

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Really Ed? Only Democrat lawyers try to manipulate the law to their interests? Girl, bye.

libfreeordie on January 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM

This was one of Jazz’s posts. FAIL.

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 9:55 AM

RoadRunner on January 25, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Now I have to watch the video … I am always turned off by seeing “democrat” but you have raised sufficient doubt …

gh on January 25, 2014 at 9:55 AM

OT: Just noting the dearth of coverage at Hot Air in the GOP cave on amnesty.

Just going along?

BuckeyeSam on January 25, 2014 at 9:54 AM

HotAir hasn’t said a blessed thing about Scott Walker’ state of the state address, either. Just another week for Ed and the gang, apparently.

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 9:55 AM

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Your distinction is pointless in a legal sense. When you write them down, they become “civil rights”.

gh on January 25, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Because telling the truth flaws the process or something?

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Really Ed? Only Democrat lawyers try to manipulate the law to their interests? Girl, bye.

libfreeordie on January 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM

This was one of Jazz’s posts. FAIL.

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Really is that what Ed said?

Fail . Girl.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Your distinction is pointless in a legal sense. When you write them down, they become “civil rights”.

gh on January 25, 2014 at 9:57 AM

The distinction is not pointless in the least. Natural rights are the rights you have whether they are written down or not, and they don’t go away because government refuses to recognize them. Do you remember what you learned in school about the tussle over whether there should even be a bill of rights in the constitution and why or why not?

Biebs was stupid for talking to the police, but he cooked his own goose and I feel no sympathy for him. But I suppose I’ve been hoping that little shit would be deported back to Canada for years now, so there is that to consider as well.

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:00 AM

I keep thinking that this whole thing had to be a huge publicity stunt. I mean, nobody could be so stupid to try drag racing on a residental street at 4 in the morning with groups of TMZ gawkers chasing you around with cameras and expect to get away with it. The guy has enough money to rent a race track and do it right anyway so why try to find vacant streets in the middle of the night? It’s just so stupid.

Dollayo on January 25, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Really Ed? Only Democrat lawyers try to manipulate the law to their interests? Girl, bye.

libfreeordie on January 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM

This is a post by Jazz, honey, not Ed Morrissey.

Wethal on January 25, 2014 at 10:01 AM

His lawyer’s job is not to get him “off.” Black’s task is to hold the state accountable to its burden of providing evidence — beyond a reasonable doubt —

Couldn’t agree more…..

repvoter on January 25, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Because telling the truth flaws the process or something?

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Telling the truth cooks your own goose if the truth is that you committed a (or several) crime(s). I say deport the little bastard back north of the border.

/ptooey

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:01 AM

The whole concept of civil rights is flawed. I’m a firm believer in natural rights. But even there, failure to exercise one’s own natural rights does not constitute a violation of them.

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Orvil Faubus says “Here, Here!!!”

Tom Servo on January 25, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Jazz Shaw: willing to throw out Constitutional protections because he’s old fashioned.

tphillip on January 25, 2014 at 9:29 AM
—————————————

So many good people putting words in others’ mouths.

Libfree “good people” doesn’t include you. For the rest of my comment..you’re included.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Its about time that Bieber started to grow up… stand by to write a BIG check and hope the term “time served” is in the judge’s vocabulary…

Oh, and a stay at Betty Ford Clinic in Rancho Mirage is probably warranted at this point…

Khun Joe on January 25, 2014 at 10:04 AM

Orvil Faubus says “Here, Here!!!”

Tom Servo on January 25, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Oh puh-leez.

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:04 AM

Its about time that Bieber started to grow up… stand by to write a BIG check and hope the term “time served” is in the judge’s vocabulary…

Oh, and a stay at Betty Ford Clinic in Rancho Mirage is probably warranted at this point…

Khun Joe on January 25, 2014 at 10:04 AM

Or we could just deport him…

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:05 AM

I can’t get very excited about the comments on our legal system made by a defense lawyer, they are just plain common sense and good advise for anyone. The legal system is adversarial. Whether guilty or innocent, LEO’s and prosecutors will never put your interests above their own and this does not even consider cases of LEO or prosecutorial zeal or misconduct (Duke lacross, George Zimmerman). My father, a decorated WW2 bomb group commander and air transport pilot for 25 years was never in legal trouble in his life yet he always told me “if you ever get in trouble NEVER admit anything and g.et a lawyer”. Advice I have given to my own children.

morbius on January 25, 2014 at 10:05 AM

libfreeordie on January 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM

I’ve called Bieber a thug, and think Sherman’s interview was no big deal. Football players trash talk all the time. I defended him.

If you want to blame somebody, blame the main stream media, who see a big strong black guy, capable of violence in-game, and assume he must be a member of a gang. Then look at Bieber and see a skinny white guy who couldn’t beat up Pee Wee Herman, and figure he’s a just reckless.

Sherman lost me when he equated ‘thug’ to the n-word, but when it comes to the last bastion of racism in this country, leftists and the Democrat party; people such as yourself, he may have a point.

Fenris on January 25, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Having tangled worked with trial lawyers, I tend to view anything they say with a very jaundiced eye.

In my checkered past, on several occasions I had the opportunity to ask such counselors (outside of the court, lawyer-client privilege, and etc.) a few simple questions, to wit;

1. If you knew your client was guilty, would you plea bargain or try to get him off?

Answer; Plea bargain only if there’s no chance of avoiding conviction at trial. Otherwise, if I can get him off, I will.

2. If your client admits to you that they committed the crime, would you still try to get them acquitted?

Answer; Yes.

3. Would you help your client conceal or destroy evidence?

Answer; Yes.

4. If you knew your client was having witnesses against them threatened or intimidated, would you still represent them?

Answer; Yes.

Keep in mind that this was back in the Seventies. Today, I expect the attitude is even more biased toward “my client, right or wrong” as opposed to “officer of the court”.

On the flip side, most attorneys I spoke with said that if the offense was “minor” (traffic, etc.), they would tell the client to plead guilty even if they were innocent. Why?

Answer; A minor case isn’t worth my time.

Put bluntly, a lot of trial lawyers are just in it for the money. And don’t much care where it comes from as long as the billable hours add up to a big enough payday.

clear ether

eon

eon on January 25, 2014 at 10:06 AM

I can’t get very excited about the comments on our legal system made by a defense lawyer, they are just plain common sense and good advise for anyone. The legal system is adversarial. Whether guilty or innocent, LEO’s and prosecutors will never put your interests above their own and this does not even consider cases of LEO or prosecutorial zeal or misconduct (Duke lacross, George Zimmerman). My father, a decorated WW2 bomb group commander and air transport pilot for 25 years was never in legal trouble in his life yet he always told me “if you ever get in trouble NEVER admit anything and g.et a lawyer”. Advice I have given to my own children.

morbius on January 25, 2014 at 10:05 AM

“Don’t talk to the cops” is one thing. Yes indeed, that is sound advice. But whining about someone’s “rights” being violated because they were dumb enough to get sauced up, break a bunch of laws, and admit to it in the immediate aftermath? That’s a whole different creature right there.

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Girl, bye.

libfreeordie on January 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM

“~~~rolls eyes~~~”

Leave your gay slang out of this. Weird.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 10:07 AM

I fully appreciate that we need a just legal system, but my experience has been that defense lawyers I meet are among the worst scum of humanity, worse than the criminals they defend.

thuja on January 25, 2014 at 10:09 AM

And more “small government” conservatives fighting to give the State an expressway to putting its people in cages.

Criminal defense attorneys do more to protect the constitutional rights of the american public than all the politicians in the republican party put together.

bingsha on January 25, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Eboni (lol) said,

In a few terrible seconds, teen star Justin Bieber made his attorney Roy Black’s job a heck of a lot harder.

Justin Bieber should have just shut up.

She filters reality through a lawyerly, argumentative mindset – she’s an unethical idiot.

Anyone who defends her stupid mentality doesn’t get why the typical lawyer is so disliked by people who like straight talkers.

Anti-Control on January 25, 2014 at 10:09 AM

And more “small government” conservatives fighting to give the State an expressway to putting its people in cages.

Criminal defense attorneys do more to protect the constitutional rights of the american public than all the politicians in the republican party put together.

bingsha on January 25, 2014 at 10:09 AM

If you choose not to remain silent, anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law.

In cages is where the lawbreakers belong, dimwit.

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:10 AM

I fully appreciate that we need a just legal system, but my experience has been that defense lawyers I meet are among the worst scum of humanity, worse than the criminals they defend.

thuja on January 25, 2014 at 10:09 AM

I’d daresay in my experience, most prosecuting attorneys are concerned primarily with the truth. Most defense attorneys are concerned primarily with gaming the system.

/KABOOM

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Orvil Faubus says “Here, Here!!!”

Tom Servo on January 25, 2014 at 10:02 AM

I think you mean “Hear, hear!!!”

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Eboni K. Williams

Is Rachel going to change her name to “Ivory” Maddow?

RoadRunner on January 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM

I’d rather that error be that a guilty man goes free than an innocent man goes to jail. Williams is arguing for that same idea. Democrat or no, she’s right.

Caiwyn on January 25, 2014 at 8:58 AM

No one wants to punish the innocent.

However, it would be nice if the justice system was more about justice and less about the wealthy and famous getting off scott free because of a flawed system.

Does it really make sense that 10 drunk drivers whould be set free rather than one innocent person get a speeding ticket?

I’ll take a bad speeding ticket or parking ticket if it means that people who are a real menace to society, like impaired drivers, are locked up.

There’s no question Bieber was impaired. There’s no question he put people’s lives at risk. Wouldn’t society be better served by trying to rehabilitate him and prevent him from making similar mistakes in the future than instructing people how to break the law without consequences?

talkingpoints on January 25, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Orvil Faubus says “Here, Here!!!”

Tom Servo on January 25, 2014 at 10:02 AM

What type perverse bigotry does one have to have to even know who Orvil Faubus is, if you are under 40 years of age? I had to google him.

thuja on January 25, 2014 at 10:15 AM

There’s no question Bieber was impaired. There’s no question he put people’s lives at risk. Wouldn’t society be better served by trying to rehabilitate him and prevent him from making similar mistakes in the future than instructing people how to break the law without consequences?

talkingpoints on January 25, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Or we could just deport him. He’s still a Canadian national.

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:15 AM

I always thought that the purpose of a trial was to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused suspect, not to give the famous, wealthy and well-off a chance to game the system and get off scot-free for a crime that they are guilty of committing (cough – OJ – cough).

RoadRunner on January 25, 2014 at 10:18 AM

I always thought that the purpose of a trial was to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused suspect, not to give the famous, wealthy and well-off a chance to game the system and get off scot-free for a crime that they are guilty of committing (cough – OJ – cough).

RoadRunner on January 25, 2014 at 10:18 AM

In a perfect world…

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Natural rights are the rights you have whether they are written down or not, and they don’t go away because government refuses to recognize them.
gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Exactly. So writing them down opens a big can of worms.

The differences between the left and right are religious ones[1] and the argument is emotional, not rational.

[1] The religion here is the left’s progressive/marxist one.

gh on January 25, 2014 at 10:18 AM

And more “small government” conservatives fighting to give the State an expressway to putting its people in cages.

bingsha on January 25, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Really? How so?

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 10:19 AM

eon on January 25, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Ouch.

talkingpoints on January 25, 2014 at 10:19 AM

What type perverse bigotry does one have to have to even know who Orvil Faubus is, if you are under 40 years of age? I had to google him.

One has to be ignorant enough to not know the difference between “hear, hear” and “here,here”.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Exactly. So writing them down opens a big can of worms.

The differences between the left and right are religious ones[1] and the argument is emotional, not rational.

[1] The religion here is the left’s progressive/marxist one.

gh on January 25, 2014 at 10:18 AM

That’s what the federalists thought. But the anti-federalists won out because the constitution probably wouldn’t have been ratified otherwise. And here we are. We’ve made a lot of mistakes over the years in how we’ve handled issues of constitutional law. Some of them we’ve owned up to (Prohibition), others we have not (16th and 17th amendments). Regardless, it shouldn’t matter. I do have the right to defend my life and property and I do have the right to refuse to be coerced into testifying against myself just like Justin Bieber does. And none of those rights were violated in the least in what happened to him.

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:22 AM

By making statements against his own interests, Bieber actually helps to undermine the whole process

Which process she talking about? Heh. Dont answer

Something about Bieber, TMZ reported 1-20-14 about raid on Bieiber mansion

There were styrofoam cups scattered throughout the house that had elaborate drawings on them … including the names of the people who used them. The cups, we’re told, were used for Sizzurp (also called lean) — which is Justin’s drug of choice. We’re told he likes to draw on the cups with markers after using them.

And speaking of Sizzurp … Sprite is usually part of the mix, but we’re told Justin preferred pineapple Fanta instead. There were empty Fanta bottles that were discolored … we’re told from the codeine.

COnservativetreehouse had done research on Trayvon web postings, connecting Trayvon with a drug mix called ‘lean’

The stuff makes you crazy. Acts like PCP. PCP was a hot drug in the hippie era, until folk found out it could make you crazy, permanently

Someone on PCP not only might incriminate himself, he might kill himself, and he might kill you

Give TMZ credit for honest reporting. The rest of the MSM is acting like gawkers, but this game isnt funny. He can fry his brains. They want to save football players. They should want to save the Lean Bieber as much

entagor on January 25, 2014 at 10:24 AM

No Jazz, she’s upset that some lawyer was denied a payday. It means that the leeching class of lawyers can’t get their blood.

nobar on January 25, 2014 at 9:03 AM

Yep!

Eboni and her ilk are self-important parasites.

Anti-Control on January 25, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3