Goffman responds
-
So, yeah, I knew the guy had left town, and I knew they wouldn't really hurt the guy who they thought had killed their friend even if we did find him.
Right...
The other points are meh, but this one still smells pretty rotten to me. Not the criminal charge side of it, but the ethics of it.
-
I like how she presented some credible evidence to back up her claims. Though we still don't know how prevalent these behaviors are, at least we know that her informants could have indeed experienced what she claimed they did (i.e. being arrested for being in a stolen vehicle, etc).
A stronger response of course would have included documentation from her actual informants showing that they did experience what she claimed they experienced.
Nevertheless, overall, I thought it was a solid, politically-savvy response.
Other people in the news recently, like Mike LaCour, could learn a few things from AG: keep it short, focus on main points, provide credible evidence of what you say, and don't get personal with your critics. AG does take a swing at Lubet but it doesn't feel heavy handed to me. However, I am a sociologist so I may be partial to anybody who invokes Howie Becker in a debate.
-
Exactly. I thought that the rest of her reply was pretty strong though.
^ agreed. And why not state that. You can't sell yourself as being close to the badass action of the 'hood only to later claim, "it's all just a play." If it's all just a play, then say that. That's something important to explain. Can't have it both ways.
-
So…suddenly she knew (or thinks) the guy they were hunting was out of town but still drives the car full of armed men crashing around in the dark looking for someone to kill? Did *they* know he was out of town? Mike supposedly left the car, with his gun, to chase down someone who looked like Chuck's killer. That sounds like more than idle talk to me. What if "the talk" about the killer was wrong and he was in the target neighborhood? What if Mike had shot someone who just kind of looked like him?
-
a couple problems with her claims. First, the appendix and her new version are so fundamentally different that one can't help but wonder how many other exaggerations are throughout the text. Second, her argument about the car avoids the main critique: Tim was 11 at the time (kinda important) and public defenders aren't "at the top" in this case, so why is she trying to use Becker there? I call bull on that. Also, the Sanders case is really different--not only was she an adult, and she had weed and a handgun on her when searched. it was, i believe, the search that was being challenged, not any arrest for receiving stolen property (I did not see, in a quick skim, anything about a charge of receiving stolen property against Sanders).
-
These are the sorts of questions to which she needs to respond. Also, they're the sorts of questions that one should anticipate.
So�suddenly she knew (or thinks) the guy they were hunting was out of town but still drives the car full of armed men crashing around in the dark looking for someone to kill? Did *they* know he was out of town? Mike supposedly left the car, with his gun, to chase down someone who looked like Chuck's killer. That sounds like more than idle talk to me. What if "the talk" about the killer was wrong and he was in the target neighborhood? What if Mike had shot someone who just kind of looked like him?
-
These are the sorts of questions to which she needs to respond. Also, they're the sorts of questions that one should anticipate.
So�suddenly she knew (or thinks) the guy they were hunting was out of town but still drives the car full of armed men crashing around in the dark looking for someone to kill? Did *they* know he was out of town? Mike supposedly left the car, with his gun, to chase down someone who looked like Chuck's killer. That sounds like more than idle talk to me. What if "the talk" about the killer was wrong and he was in the target neighborhood? What if Mike had shot someone who just kind of looked like him?
-
So her argument boils down to this:
* There is a difference between driving around looking to murder someone seriously, and driving around looking to murder someone without serious intent.
* Whenever we drove around, we did not have serious intent to find/murder this person.It's a fair point; the drives could have been purely or partially theraputic in nature.
What she never specifies is, how does she know what driving someone around with serious intent to murder looks like? The reason that people are mad at her is not because she helped counsel an upset friend, but because she counseled an upset friend by potentially being an accessory to murder. If she wants to argue that the intent to murder was not there, she needs a perspective on driving around a friend who does have intent. Otherwise, she is simply guessing as to the nature of the danger.
-
Or maybe she's just grasping at a retroactive justification that will hopefully get people off her back.
So her argument boils down to this:
* There is a difference between driving around looking to murder someone seriously, and driving around looking to murder someone without serious intent.
* Whenever we drove around, we did not have serious intent to find/murder this person.
It's a fair point; the drives could have been purely or partially theraputic in nature.
What she never specifies is, how does she know what driving someone around with serious intent to murder looks like? The reason that people are mad at her is not because she helped counsel an upset friend, but because she counseled an upset friend by potentially being an accessory to murder. If she wants to argue that the intent to murder was not there, she needs a perspective on driving around a friend who does have intent. Otherwise, she is simply guessing as to the nature of the danger.