Good To Know That Swamp Is Safe Now

Thursday, January 15, 2004
by Scot H. Laney

The things a person can learn here at BassFan. We've had religious debates fit for any self-respecting school of theology, debates about economic fairness in a pay-to-play system, debates about the role that gender plays in fishing, and now, courtesy of Plaquemines Parish district attorney Darryl Bubrig, a neatly presented synopsis of how the legal system works based on the extensive 37 years of experience that Bubrig brings to bear.

The D.A. made some pretty good arguments. For example, he's right that we're fortunate to live in a country where guilt is not presumed, and where there's a tough standard of proof required to judge someone as guilty.

He's also right in the point he makes about the press. The press needs to be unbiased in the reporting that they do. Dig out the facts. Present all sides. Like BassFan.

But Bubrig also cloaks his argument -- aside from the usual pandering about who "does" and "does not" understand the law -- in the velvet glove of legality. That's the easiest place to hide when the going gets tough, as it most certainly did for him in this case.

The "I'm the D.A. and I decide who will (and more importantly, who will not) be prosecuted" card: We've seen this one get played before. Anyone ever heard of the civil rights protests? Remember the smug trash that walked regardless of how many witnesses there were to the bombings, the dark-of-the-night hangings?

Does this case compare? No way. But is the argument the same? You bet. Does anyone really ever want to see this genie out of the bottle again?

What Bubrig does not bother to mention is that "proof" and "beyond reasonable doubt" are fluid when you think about them, and are local too. Remember O.J. and you kind of see the point here.

I think what Bubrig really meant to say, or at least what it seems to me he meant to say, was that he feared that he could not get a jury to go along with this case. When I think about what a jury might be like in Plaquemines Parish, I'm sympathetic to his plight.

Knowing this, could a videotape seem a little less clear? Could identifications seem a little less reliable? He's right. I don't know the facts of this case. I'm just wondering if this could happen.

Could the end of a neighbor's shotgun get pretty big when you picture it in your mind? Pointed at you when you're out there in the swamp?

All Done

This thing is over. The good D.A. has seen to that. Remember, he has 37 years of experience in these things, and we know nothing about the law. Thankfully, he understands and excuses us for our shortcomings.

I'm just glad that Gary Klein wasn't hurt.

I'm also thankful that in the decade I spent putting the bad guys away (Editor's note: Laney is a former police officer), I never had to work with a D.A. who thought it was okay to preempt the system based on his interpretations of the facts. We won some and we lost some, but we always let the jury decide. Put your best foot forward and let them go to work. That was their job. That's how the law works, 37 years of experience or not.

As for BASS going back? Sure, when Bubrig assures them that he has personally made certain that the citizens in his little slice of heaven exercise the same discretion and respect for rights that he so smugly asks of visitors.

I just get the feeling that we shouldn't hold our breath.