Articles Posted in General

Like seemingly everyone, I’ve watched this incident take over the media cycle for the past several days, and sweep across the globe (as in the world, not the Boston Globe,) who seem to be doing all they can to ring the racism bell, with frightening speed. I shook my head when I saw Al Sharpton jump in. But when I saw the President of the United States not only address this incident during a nationally televised press conference, but essentially endorse Mr. Gates’ version of these events, I was truly shocked.

As a Boston criminal defense attorney who has seen his share of racially-motivated crimes and offenses, from assault and battery to rape and murder, I’m offended that Henry Gates Jr. dared to blame this incident on racism. “Racism”, by the way, is a vastly overused term, by both the public and the media. In its purest form, “racism” is a virulent, hateful belief system that regards certain categories of people (whether based on ethnic background or national origin,) to be inherently inferior – and undeserving to live or enjoy any of the dignities or freedoms that a “superior” race enjoys. The most notorious examples of this: Hitler’s death camps in World War II; the mass exterminations in Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. If this incident occurred as Gates described it – which by all credible accounts it did not – then it would be accurately characterized as “bigotry” or “prejudice”. But most people don’t know or care to know the difference, and the media loves the word racism.

So unrealistically sympathetic has been the overall media reporting of Gates’ version of these events, the vast majority seem dare not even suggest what all the objective facts indicate: That Gates’ overblown and bombastic ego caused him to make accusations against the arresting officer, which have no basis whatsoever in reality.

Here’s an interesting story about Massachusetts crime, which features (among other Massachusetts communities) a Cape Cod town near and dear to me, and where I own property: Wellfleet, Massachusetts.

It seems that without much public knowledge, and under the radar, several communities in Massachusetts that are not exactly known as hotbeds of criminal activity, have received high-powered and high-tech assault rifles and combat weapons from the U.S..military. Few people would question the need for or wisdom of having such weapons in large, urban police departments like Boston, Lawrence, Brockton or Springfield (not to disparage those communities, just to note that they are large urban cities that have seen more than their share of urban violence and gang warfare.) However, the sleepy summer resort community of Wellfleet, and the upscale town of Belmont?

Those towns aren’t alone in quietly receiving such assault weapons, either: At least 82 local police departments in Massachusetts have obtained more than 1,000 assault/combat weapons over the last 15 years, under a little-known federal program that distributes surplus guns from the U.S. military. At Salem State College, where recent police calls have included false fire alarms and a goat roaming the campus, school police received two M-16 military assault rifles. In West Springfield, police acquired even more powerful weaponry: two military-issue M-79 grenade launchers.

As the Boston Globe has reported, recent high-profile accidents in the Boston area caused by elderly drivers, has raised a lot of discussion about the subject of elderly drivers in this state. Seven people were recently injured in Plymouth after a car driven by a 73-year-old woman jumped a curb and ran into a crowd gathered at a war memorial. It was the woman’s third accident since turning 70, authorities said. In Danvers, a 93-year-old man recently drove his car into the entrance of a Wal-Mart, injuring six people, after he mistook the gas pedal for the brake. These incidents have caused a lot of people to re-think the idea that elderly drivers have a right to drive ‘just like anybody else.’

In my view as a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney as well as a Massachusetts personal injury attorney, that idea is plainly ridiculous. Simple deductive reasoning can expose this, if more people took the time to actually think about a problem as serious as this, before spouting out unfounded and unjustified opinions. Try to defeat this reasoning: Every state in the United States, including Massachusetts, legislates that persons under a certain age – usually but not always age 16 – are unqualified to operate a motor vehicle. Unqualified in what respect? According to almost all states, persons under age 16 lack the mental, emotional and developmental skills necessary to operate two tons of glass and steel on the public roads. Wisely and logically, we require that such persons be of a certain age or older before they can apply for a driver’s license and operate a motor vehicle on the public roads. That makes sense; it always has.

Yet on the extreme other end of the spectrum – when persons have reached an age that I think all reasonable people could logically conclude disqualifies them from operating a motor vehicle – we dare not say so. Why? Two reasons: 1) Because senior citizens have the right to vote – minors do not. (Hence, legislators in any state don’t care what minors think, but pay scientifically close attention to what elderly voters think. And 2) The numbers of those elderly voters are growing every day. The U.S. Census Bureau projects there will be 9.6 million people aged 85 and older by 2030, up 73% from today. Don’t think every elected state legislator and governor doesn’t have those numbers emblazoned in their minds.

As we wind down 2008, here are a few wishes from me:

That my readers will be spared from the violent crime that infects so much of our world, near and far.

That if accused of a crime, my readers will benefit from a system that presumes innocence before guilt, and that provides due process for all.