I suppose a little should be said about this.
First, the killing of Michael Brown is a triggering event, not the real reason for the rioting and looting. So the relative merits of justifying Michael Brown’s shooting death by a police officer are largely beside the point. Even if you could call the shooting justified there are problems in Ferguson that transcend Brown’s killing, as Professor Turley makes abundantly clear in this post.
Second, Greenfield is quite right about the effort to smear the deceased, and I think it’s just more fuel on the fire for the police to release the video. Bad judgment, even if you think the video supports the view that the police claim. Releasing it has had the predictable result of provoking further rioting in response. Moreover, this is a revealing series of events about the mindset of the police: even their style of “argumentation” tends towards efforts to overpower. The lack of subtlety in a situation like this is….disturbing. And counter-productive.
And I appreciate SHG’s link to Judge Kopf’s blog post, not least because of the truly frightening anomaly that I agree with a federal judge on both counts.
Beyond that. however, two observations about SHG here: first, for whatever reason he’s gone a bit off the rails on this one. Despite the stupidity of releasing that video, it is certainly relevant to the claim that the police officer shot after being attacked. Arguing otherwise is untenable.
Second, there’s this table-pounding, unequivocal – and one can therefore conclude questionable – assertion:
I would throw whatever I could at the case if I was repping Wilson [that is, the police officer who shot and killed the kid - ed.]. Not because it was relevant, or that its prejudice didn’t outweigh its probative value, but because my sole duty is defend my client, reason be damned.
But that’s because I’m a defense lawyer. My duty isn’t to the public, or truth, justice and the American way. If pandering to stupidity and emotion serves my client’s interest, I’m obliged to do so.
I’m not saying Greenfield is wrong here, exactly. Maybe all I’ll say for now is that first, it sets forth a false dilemma: how can you know for sure in advance that “pandering to stupidity and emotion” serves a client’s interest? It’s not impossible that it could, but more importantly can’t SHG understand that even if it’s true, stating this openly – and to a judge no less – is virtually destroys his credibility? Is he now going to appear in front of juries and argue stuff, when a juror has probably looked up his blog, read that quote, and not unfairly concluded based upon it that he can’t trust anything SHG says?
And when he says that all defense lawyers believe that, isn’t he potentially hurting them and their clients also, by discrediting them in advance?
This is a big problem, and not just for SHG. SHG should address it, methinks.