The panel headed by former NC Supreme Court Justice Willis Whichard and charged by Durham’s Mayor and City Council with investigating police conduct that led to the arrest and indictment of three innocent men includes members who’ve served as police officers and one who’s been a DA.
That’s caused some citizens to ask whether the panel will perform its work free of what in gentle terms we’ll call “professional courtesy.”
On the thread of this post, Anon @ 10:23 considered the matter and offered informed and incisive commentary that was understanding of those about whom she spoke at the same time she made clear that understanding people’s behavior doesn’t excuse it.
Anon @ 10:23’s comment drew a response from another Anon to whose comment I then responded.
First, Anon @ 10:23 (comment unedited):
There is antidotal evidence that individuals have trouble punishing peers or people they work with.In response to that, Anon @ 10:44 commented:
The DA’s office and the DPD are really a small community. Over the years they go from just professionals in their field to friends. You go to conferences; you go to each other’s offices: there are celebrations; maybe there’s soccer; or church; or farmer’s market. You get to know wives and children and their parents. You wonder what will happen to them. You wonder “Could I have gotten caught up in this?”
My husband was a police polygrapher for many years. He said that most everyone had secrets. There was one judge who was often driven home in a cruiser because of his drinking habit. There was an ADA who was a terrible womanizer. Others had expensive meals with wives or friends comp’ed. The city was about the same size as Durham.
I know nothing about Mr. Whichard. I do hope he follows the evidence wherever it leads.
I hope that he draws a line in the sand that says breaking the law will not be tolerated in the DPD or the DA’s office.
While the whole country is watching, he has the opportunity to help restore the damage that was done by Mr. Nifong and others.
I wish him well
What is antidotal evidence?To Anon @ 10:44 I said:
I think in this case “What is antidotal evidence?” is a response by a prig to a very thoughtful comment that contained a spelling or word usage error.I used “prig” as defined in the dictionary: a person who displays or demands of others pointlessly precise conformity, fussiness about trivialities, or exaggerated propriety, esp. in a self-righteous or irritating manner.
Message to Anon @ 10:23 – I hope you keep visiting and commenting.
Message to everyone – A few years ago I posted on some English king whose name I can’t remember. But I’ll never forget the Anon comment I got a few hours after I posted. It went something like this:
You have a nice blog and I don’t mean to flame you, but it’s his reign, not rain.I made the correction and still smile when I think of that comment.
BTW – Does anyone know weather it’s supposed to reign tomorrow?
4 comments:
No, but the reign in Speign stays meignly in the pleign. Bob Hyde, Duke '67
Thanks for reminding the prig to focus on content and not the tiny error. I made such an error myself one time and a "prig" so embarassed me that I stopped writing.
But on the topic at hand, what are the chances that a fair investigation will happen? Would this Judge-with-a-record-for-integrity actually be able to pull this off and live? As in other historical cover-ups the second sin seems at least as odious as the first, indeed perpetuated the first to an even greater degree.
I think that what blogger was saying is that cronyism exists everywhere...within law enforcement, and educational institutions, and govenment. And that is understandable from a human side.
What is intolerable is that so many people were willing to hang INNOCENT young men out to dry to protect a parasite in their little clique.
That takes cronyism to the level of criminal behavior.
And THAT is neither understandable nor defensible.
Don't let the Prigs get you down. Their mission is to look for spelling and punctuation errors and try to embarrass folk. They are the net english teachers. It si about content and not spelling errors.
One would think that evidence could cure a rogue prosecutor and a lynch mob. The irony of anonymous' comment is that no evidence served as an antidote to the "social disaster" of the Spring of 2006.
Brant Jones
Post a Comment