NOT GOOD FOR BUSINESS
Previously I have commended President Trump on his efforts to increase the business of criminal defense attorneys. It is appreciated. However, we have a small bump in the road here - - killing suspected drug runners. This is contrary to the monetary gains that we are to expect otherwise.
We now just kill people who are suspects. As I say, this is contrary to the normal process of giving people a chance to hire an attorney and it diminishes our income. We can still say we are at war. In war time, the number of people coming under fire is considerably higher than in normal times. We have been at war against drugs now for several decades and it has been quite a windfall for the criminal defense bar and we just can't, of a sudden, go around killing people we suspect of having drugs for delivery or this source of income will disappear.
I think we need to find a way to allow them, the suspects, to hire an attorney before we shoot them; at least start the process of legal representation. This would be a reasonable compromise. It is really not too much to ask, is it? You can always shoot them, that's the easy part. A suspect's attorney would then at least have worked up a few legal fees; you know, like calling the prosecutor a couple of times, trips to the jail to see the suspect, maybe a court hearing or two.
The government can always claim an attempt to escape as a reason for shooting somebody. This usually works and the public will accept this is a satisfactory result. After all they were a suspect, and hence, probably guilty of something so they deserved getting shot anyhow and therefore no big deal. But let's give this some additional thought. There are always more ways than one to accomplish some well deserved outcome. It is true that the War on Drugs can reach new levels of accomplishment with killing people just suspected of dealing drugs. It is a tried and true method originating in the Philippines with their president, Rodrigo Duterte. They killed thousands of suspects there. It was very efficient I might add, but a disaster for the criminal defense bar. We have precedent, but some dithering shouldn't hinder the process.
Since most people who use illegal drugs provide them to others simply so they can afford to buy more for themselves, we can without too much of an extrapolation say that anyone who uses illegal drugs is either a drug dealer, has been a drug dealer, or will be a drug dealer in the future. Hence, anyone who uses is a suspect and eligible to be shot.
Once again this is a perspective from the criminal defense bar realizing that some may find my suggestions and comments contrary to current views of acceptable behavior. I'm simply suggesting that if shooting suspected drug dealers does become normal practice, there will be people who will not benefit and this should be a consideration when weighing the pros and cons.
Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo
