Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceTo Nick Welsh: How is it that you have no problem affording [Officer] Kasi Beutel the presumption of innocence, yet you freely refer to [reporter] Peter Lance in a manner that presumes guilt? You do so with a reckless disregard for the truth: Nobody, not even the police, ever even hinted or suggested that Mr. Lance ever fell asleep behind the wheel of his car.
You also misstate that “all police cars once had cameras.” Obviously you did not do any research before going to press with that lie. Even in agencies like the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department and California Highway Patrol, who have cameras in a lot of cars, or even most of their cars, there are not cameras in “all of the cars.”
And to say that the First Amendment exists primarily for lingerie ads is patently offensive, and just plain ignorant. If it were not for freedom of speech, you, sir, would be jobless.
You seem also to have a problem with the amount of quotes Mr. Lance got from me. I know you did not research the fact that almost all the local lawyers were reluctant to be quoted by name; and obviously the fact that I am the only lawyer in the county whose practice is exclusive to driving under the influence eluded you, even though my ad almost always runs immediately opposite your Angry Poodle commentary. I guess you only read your own writing. You should know that I—who represent Mr. Lance—also advertise in your paper that it is not illegal in California to drive after drinking, yet you imply that such conduct by itself is criminal.
Editor's Note: A police spokesperson said Lance was pulled over because he appeared to have fallen asleep, as Welsh stated. An incident report said he did not respond to the green light and "was looking down at his lap."
Previous Month
Comments
Liberals like Welsh believe in free speech as long as they agree with it, otherwise not so much.
Liberals are also all about diversity as long as everyone thinks the same.
jukin (anonymous profile)
July 7, 2011 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"And to say that the First Amendment exists primarily for lingerie ads is patently offensive, and just plain ignorant."
There should be Pass/Fail testing for Reading Comprehension. . . .
And, while I think that the first sentence (question) of this letter makes sense, it would make more sense, were it true. If you read the linked article, Welsh only states that his "main concern" is the situation(s) which cast doubt on Lance's motives, and does not even seem to actually paint him with any guilt.
However, kudos to Mr. Genis, as I think defending (alleged) drunk drivers is a necessary job in our society. And, while I certainly do not condone drinking while under the influence, I also know that the Law is less concerned with rehabilitation, as it is with revenue, or punishment, and many "regular folks" who find themselves caught DUI may find themselves screwed for a lifetime, because court-ordered directives often do not work in a reasonable manner. [As with most "common" crimes, society has no clear understanding of how to deal with criminals, other than to separate them from that self-same society!] Unfortunately, DUI/DWI is a simple mistake, which can lead to some very tragic results--and often not for the person at fault.
equus_posteriori (anonymous profile)
July 7, 2011 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So what was the BA level? :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
July 7, 2011 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Regarding police car cameras, Genis makes a minor and wholly insignificant squabble out of Welsh's acknowledgement that Lance's series (although it leaves a weird after-taste in my brain) was notable for bringing to light our city's finest don't have cameras in all their cars.
Furthermore, all one needs to do is read Welsh's column to know Genis is totally incorrect when he contends that Welsh said the First Amendment exists for lingerie ads. What Welsh said is it exists to support investigative journalism *and* lingerie ads. In a profession like the law where details matter, Genis misses the mark again.
Hey, but pretty good advertising eh?
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
July 7, 2011 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Genis, not to be confused at all with genius.
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
July 8, 2011 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Noletaman, not to be confused at all with contributing to the conversation but pretty good personal attacking. Can't argue the facts so might as well attack.
jukin (anonymous profile)
July 8, 2011 at noon (Suggest removal)
Well, as long as some people bought Genis' arguments, one could conclude that he would be a successful attorney.....
montSQ (anonymous profile)
July 8, 2011 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Notwithstanding the glaring conflict of interest and failure to pass the basic laugh test for an accused drunk driver to write a long series of complaints about his arresting police officer, all under the charade of Newspress investigative "journalism", why again is the fact that Genis advertises in the Indy so relevant here that he had to mention it in a rant against the Indy and its chief news and opinion writer?
That would not be intended as a threat to stop advertising, would it? Or an implication that Genis somehow deserves special favors, would it?
Trixie Don't Play That.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2011 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I notice that the SBPD is pretty good at milking income streams from supposed drunk drivers but not so much with dealing with the gang problem.
Go figure.
jukin (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2011 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)