Monday, August 22, 2011


THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS POST: Nor is it a post castigating lawyers. Well, most lawyers. When Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden, they lived God's laws. Even after they were cast out, they lived God's laws, cause they knew no other. I don't know at what point man's laws began to come into effect, but it was probably sometime after Cain killed his brother. I do know that lawyers are mentioned in the scriptures. I also know that Judges are also listed in the scriptures, and so it only follows that if there are judges, there needs to be someone trained in the law to present a case to the judge. I have a cousin who is a retired criminal defense attorney. My wife has a cousin who is a retired attorney. Don't know just what kind of law he practiced. I have a daughter in law who is an attorney. I think she practices corporate or business law. I understand and accept that there needs to be attorneys in all manner of life's events. If you have made it this far, know that these statements were only to explain my opinion of lawyers. I might add, well guess I will add, that I understand the need to have man's laws, since man don't want to live God's laws. Too bad, the world would be so much better off if we would. Thus the need for those trained in the law. Now, to the point of this blog.
Here, in the grand ol' State of New Mexico, there are now two cases in the courts that almost boggle the mind. The first one. In 2006, a man, wanted by the police as a suspect in a murder, was pulled over by a County deputy. Did the deputy know who he was pulling over. We will never know, for shortly after he pulled the man over, the deputy was shot and killed. His killer was caught and jailed. Fast forward to 2010, when the New Mexico State Legislature abolished the death penalty as a form of punishment. The deputy killer was subsequently tried and found guilty, and the death penalty was listed as a form of punishment for his crime. Hold on , his attorney said, the death penalty has been abolished. yes, the State said, but years after the killing for which his client was convicted for. Before the killer can be sentenced, a decision has to be made by a judge on whether the death penalty is in place for him. A play on the writing of laws, I assume, but who am I to decide.
Next case. A man robs a bank in Albuquerque. As he leaves, the police are alerted by the bank teller. The police gives chase. There are two women, one 28 years old and one 34, in a car, on their lunch break, sitting in traffic at a red light. The robber, in his attempt to elude the police, crashes into the car with these two women, killing both of them. The robber is unhurt and is arrested. He is now charged with several crimes, including robbing the bank and for killing the two women. Not so fast, says his attorney. He did rob the bank, but the killing of the women was not his fault. So whose fault is it? The bank tellers for alerting the police and the police for giving chase. If they had just let him get away with the robbery, the two women would still be alive. True, says I, but if that is the case, then why have police. Just let people do whatever, and all would be well. NOT. If this man had not robbed the bank in the first place, he wouldn't be in trouble, the women would be alive, raising their children, and the police could have continued eating donuts. Then the man could be arrested for causing the death of the police men for causing them to have a heart attack. HUH! guess the man will end up in jail in any case. And THAT'S THE VIEW FROM THE DITCH BANK!

1 comment:

  1. 1. I get that.

    2. It's just a defense attempt - he was clearly guilty and needed some sort of defense. Not that he'll be found innocent on that charge.


Answer here if you feel the need