Brent Marks Series 4-6 by Kenneth Eade - Today, Talking about Unreasonable Force!

No matter how many times I have seen, heard about, or thought of those men who have been, "seemingly", murdered by police, I immediately, first, think of Eric Gardner, who died in 2014--the first video I have ever seen of extreme, in my opinion, police action against an individual--after being held down by so many men that he could not even get up...and definitely could not breathe, due to a choke hold... What was he doing? Selling cigarettes--one at a time! My mind still cannot comprehend how this could be the only way for police to have handled the issue. Yes, he was a big man, but why was force even needed for such a minor crime... Surely, surely, what we saw could never be justified...or could it? NOT IN MY MIND!

This has been marked Age-appropriate... Do you think this is a correct decision?

Eades  provides an Afterword to his book Unreasonable Force that I felt was important enough to share first... This is today's reality in America...

AFTERWORD 

This is a fictional story, but it strikes at the heart of something which is tearing our country apart.  We have become desensitized to violence  and we have never been able to come to terms with our racist past.  We have objectified people.  We classify them and see them as objects instead of human beings.  Our police forces are paramilitary forces that are in constant search of an enemy, and we have become too willing to accept war and violence as part of our existence as a country.  The prologue in this book is based on a true, real life story.  The only difference is that the two boys were not black.  If they had been, it could have been a completely different outcome. This is not what this country is all about.  This is not the country that I grew up in, where war was a bad thing and tolerance a good thing.  We are a country of immigrants.  We all belong here.  The jury in the case depicted in this novel came to the right conclusion, but it could have just as easily gone the other way.  If we speak out against the abuses in our government and educate our children to be blind to skin color and tolerant of our neighbors, perhaps we can rise above our checkered past and we will not have to worry that the police will abuse their power.

The boys dropped to their knees, ignoring the pain of the asphalt grinding into their skin. They saw the silhouette of an approaching officer, which was eclipsed by a blinding light from his baton flashlight, fixed directly at their eyes. 

“That hurts!” said William. 

“Shut up!” said the officer. They didn’t even see the other cop approach. He snuck up on them from behind like an alley cat after a mouse and slapped their wrists in handcuffs.
“Man, what’s this about? We didn’t do anything!” William protested, as the Officer picked him off the ground by the collar and slammed his body against the police car. 

“I told you to shut up. You been stealin'?” he asked as he patted William down. “No.” 

“Do you realize you could have been shot?” 

“Shot?” William recoiled in fear. He turned to face the Officer, who slammed him back into the car. He felt like crying, but he was a man and he knew that a man had to be brave, so he forged an expression of hardened steel. “Your buddy knows you did wrong. Look, he’s pissed his pants.” 

William looked over at TJ, who was also against the car, being searched, his head bent in shame. “You got any drugs?” asked the Officer. 

“No, I don’t do drugs.”
“Don’t mouth off. I’m asking you a question,” the officer said, as he emptied William’s pockets. 

“No, I don’t have any drugs.” 

“I found a weapon!” he called to his fellow officer.
“That’s no weapon. It’s my pocket knife.” The officer slipped William’s Swiss Army Knife into his shirt pocket. “My dad gave me that.”
“He should have known better,” said the cop, his smiling eyes betraying the stern look on his face as he pocketed the knife...
In an instant, the cop smacked William in the knee with the baton in a rage. William felt a fire in his knee as he heard it crack, lost his balance, and fell. The cop kicked William in his balls and then his stomach, which made him heave. “You barfed on my shoe, nigger!” There was nothing after that, only bits and pieces. The only thing William could remember was the deafening pop as the gun went off, and the cop’s partner hitting the ground like a fallen bowling pin.

~~~

A routine event--friends want to go out for an evening, knowing it would probably lead to some drinks. So, William, who happens to be a lawyer himself, accepts the role of "designated driver." I applaud this decision and, if it wasn't for what happened when the police came along and saw them, it would have ended with all of the friends safely arriving home... 

Eade decided to make it even more dramatic when he places the cops in a location where there wasn't a reason for them to be... And, further, that there might be questionable actions as well. Of course, this made is more complex and intriguing for readers, but, rarely, even in today's world, do we know whether or not the police involved are "good guys" or "bad guys." What we see, primarily, is... unfortunately... prejudice. And, if not prejudice... a stereotyping of Black people which is totally unacceptable for the majority of us!

William, upon the police approaching, explained that he was the designated driver. Yes, even acknowledging that his friends had been drinking, excessively. However, an open can was noticed in the car and the police immediately assumed... Do you know what assumed usually means? William was asked to get out of the car so that he could go through the normal tests for sobriety. But, the police officer immediately started using "unreasonable force" and William wound up in the hospital after having been badly beaten by the officer's with his baton. Based on his injuries...for because of the traumatic stress, William was unable to remember what happened...

Brent and William had worked on a case many years ago. William was a good lawyer and they had become friends. Although Brent was not taking too many criminal cases these days, he knew he wanted to help William if at all possible, even knowing that the case would be stacked against the Black man...

“It’s Jim Crow, all over again.”      

“Brent, that policeman stopped me for nothing.  And even after he stopped me, he should have seen who I was.  But he didn’t see a human being.  He didn’t see a man with hopes and dreams, with disappointments and accomplishments.  All he saw in front of him was just another nigger.” 

Brent knew that William’s case emphasized the black and white line that had been drawn between police and people of color in the United States.  Police organizations followed a paramilitary structure and protocol, and their members had all been trained in a military fashion.  Through years of desensitization, the public had come to accept the “us” or “them” mentality, and had looked the other way to violence on its own soil in the name of “safety,” especially after the war on terror was announced after

September 11, 2001.  Just as the military in war objectify and dehumanize the enemy, the enemy in the war on the streets of America had a face, and it was not white...

~~~

Have you noticed on the news that those officers who stood around, while George Floyd was murdered, are now also being convicted? I certainly applaud those actions. However, given just how many times, since then, that there have been questionable events that we've all seen reported, it is still a known fact that America has gained a climate of violence that is, so often, based upon the years where we watched as those in right-wing groups were incited over and over to hate, to be biased against those who are different--in any way.

Yesterday, we listened as the Attorney General spoke about ensuring that ALL involved in the January 6th Insurrection would be acted upon by his Office. One thing that I just had not thought of, which was so understandable to anybody who has worked in America, was that his unit, although very large, does not have the resources necessary to act any faster than they are doing... Wow, So Simple an answer for all of us who have been, somewhat impatiently, waiting and wondering just when those we all know that are involved (and those, especially, who have been identified through the January 6 Bipartisan hearings, including by many republicans who worked and testified about the day in which the first-ever attack on the United States Capitol took place.) I hope that, if at all possible, that additional staff are added to the Attorney General's office to handle the thousands of individual cases that must be investigated and acted upon to legally bring those individuals before the courts! We must be patient, but we must also do our own analysis and act accordingly to vote to ensure individuals who support a culture of violence are NOT in Congress!

We now know details of just who, how, when, and, of course why, planning was happening... Many of those have come forward on their own initiative to share what--and how they felt--about what took place during that heinous event... And many have shared just how they were persecuted by doing so by members of those promulgating "The Big Lie..." 

We MUST work to ensure that this never happens again! By voting OUT anybody that supports lies, conspiracy theories...and anything that results in the loss of rights now given to all Americans. Only we can speak for those who are constantly attacked for...just...being...a little...different...than...white, supposed, christians...

When we do not acknowledge that all individuals are due the same rights as anybody else, we are complicit in that violation of those rights provided to ALL through the Constitution. And we NOW know what happens when we don't personally get involved to fight AGAINST SUCH HATE, LIES, AND ACTS AGAINST ALL AMERICANS... IT IS OUR AMERICA THAT WE MUST PROTECT FROM ANYBODY WHO INCITES VIOLENCE WHERE IT IS NOT NEEDED! 

And that includes voting against anybody who refuses to support the ban of military-style guns that are being used to kill Americans! Every vote is Important!

During this series book, Brent was involved in another issue that is creating problems in America! Anonymous Lies! Posted online! Let me point out that Kenneth G. Eade, continues to prove to me JUST WHY HE IS MY FAVORITE LEGAL FICTION AUTHOR. He takes today's important issues and brings them into a setting where we all learn, as well as understand and support the actions to ensure that those who are being abused, in any way, receive justice! If you want to learn more, including indepth research and background on issues happening NOW, I recommend you start with the entire Brent Marks Series!

What is the simple definition of justice?

b(1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action. (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness the justice of their cause. c : the quality of conforming to law. 3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : correctness admitted that there was much justice in these observations— T. L. Peacock.

Does the First Amendment protect lying?  Depending upon the context, the answer is either "no," "yes," or "maybe."  It is an interesting question which the Supreme Court is almost certain to revisit.

Not Your Normal Legal Fiction! Lincoln's Last Trial: The Murder Case That Propelled Him to the Presidency!

Mister Robert Roberts Hitt, the well-known steno man, arrived in Springfield late on the sweltering afternoon of August 28, 1859. As he stepped down onto the platform of the new station, he paused briefly and nattily patted the beads of sweat from his forehead, then vainly attempted to tug the wrinkles out of his jacket. The Alton Express had covered the two hundred miles from Chicago in a quite acceptable nine hours. 
Hitt had tried with limited success to practice his shorthand on the ever-shaking rails. It had not surprised young Hitt that the carriage was far more crowded than he had previously experienced: the Peachy Quinn Harrison murder trial had attracted considerably more attention than might otherwise have been expected once it became known that Abe Lincoln was going to defend the accused killer. 
A fair number of people were coming to Springfield to take the measure of Abraham Lincoln. His seven debates with incumbent senator Stephen Douglas the previous fall had gained him a national reputation, and the bigwigs were predicting he was going to make a run for the presidency in 1860. There was great interest in the man, and all the regional newspapers were covering the trial, including the Chicago Press and Tribune. The country had been introduced to him, thus far liked what it saw, and his conduct during the murder trial might help determine if this early flirtation would turn into a serious courtship. 
Hitt already knew the cut of the man. Although he dismissed it humbly when offered credit, it was his fine work that had helped bring Lincoln into prominence. As a student at the Rock River Seminary and DePauw University, Bob Hitt had taken a keen interest in phonography, the skill of rapidly converting spoken words to print, and became quite an expert at this form of shorthand. It was a well-paying trade, and he opened his own office in Chicago in 1856, working regularly for the state legislature, the courts and on occasion newspapers, which were rapidly adopting this new form of journalism. 
He had first met Abe Lincoln in ’57, when he had been hired by the Chicago Daily Press to cover the Effie Afton trial, a landmark case that was to determine the balance between traditional river navigation rights and the construction of railroad bridges over a waterway. During that trial Lincoln had taken a liking to the energetic young reporter. 
The great stir created when Lincoln and Douglas announced they would debate the complex moral, legal and economic economic issues of slavery and state’s rights throughout Illinois caused Press and Tribune co-owner and managing editor Joseph Medill to hire Hitt to bring a word-for-word account of the debates to his readers. Hitt’s transcriptions caused quite a stir. As newsman Horace White recalled, “Verbatim reporting was a new feature in the journalism in Chicago, and Mr. Hitt was the pioneer thereof. The publication of Senator Douglas’ opening speech in that campaign, delivered on the evening of July 9, by the Tribune the next morning, was a feat hitherto unexampled in the West.” Hitt’s transcriptions were sent by telegraph to newspapers throughout the entire country, including Horace Greeley’s important New York Tribune, and in several weeks transformed a little-known Illinois lawyer into a widely admired political figure. 
Lincoln was so taken with these transcripts that he requested two copies from the Press and Tribune’s co-owner Charles H. Ray, offering to pay “for the papers and for your trouble. I wish the two sets, in order to lay one away in the raw, and to put the other in a Scrap-book.” That “Scrap-book,” as he referred to it, was eventually published and sold more than thirty thousand copies, which added to his luster. 
Lincoln spoke plainly and forcefully, the power of his words defining his character for many thousands of Americans; but he also was shrewd enough to appreciate Hitt’s value to his ambitions. So much so that at the second debate, in Freeport, Lincoln was dismayed when Hitt was not present onstage and refused to begin until the steno man could be lifted out of the throng and seated on the platform, his papers on his lap. The two men, the tall, angular Lincoln and the small and slender Hitt, had become good friends, and were brought together again at this murder trial. 
Lincoln had already agreed to defend Harrison when Hitt was hired by the Illinois State Journal to provide a daily transcript for its readers. But as the trial began both the families of the accused, Quinn Harrison, and the victim, Greek Crafton, purchased copies of that transcript, which would prove a valuable tool should an appeal be necessary, paying $25 each. Lincoln subscribed for an additional copy from his friend Hitt, for which he paid $27.50. Hitt also was permitted to provide copies of his transcript to newspapers. If that recording might also prove beneficial in spreading Lincoln’s reputation, well, certainly none of his admirers would find that objectionable. 
Hitt was quite pleased to accept this opportunity. In addition to his substantial fees, the attention given to the trial would also boost his own growing reputation as a pioneer in the field. Trial transcriptions were still extremely rare. There existed no devices to assist the reporter, meaning every word had to be captured by hand, an extraordinarily time-consuming and difficult process. Especially in a courtroom where complicated legal terms and phrases were proudly bandied about. And, in most instances, there didn’t seem to be much need for every word to be written down. Judges didn’t rely on transcripts to make their decisions. Summaries of the proceedings had long been sufficient. And when necessary lawyers were expected to be truthful in their memories. 
Like most early practitioners of this profession, Hitt had developed his own system. Although relying mostly on the phonemic orthography method introduced in 1837 by the Englishman Sir Isaac Pitman, in which symbols represented sounds that could later be transformed into words, he had added those flourishes necessary for American English. He usually made his own transcriptions from those notes, but when pressed for time his assistant, a French Canadian named Laramie, would assist him with them. 
In addition to a change of clothing, Hitt carried in his carpetbag the necessary tools of his trade: several of the new Esterbrook pens with long-lasting steel nibs, a supply of ink and a sufficient number of loose sheets of machine-produced paper. 
While the potential benefits to Lincoln’s political future that could be gained by providing an exact transcript to the Chicago newspapers—and beyond—were obvious, there also was an element of risk: Lincoln’s reputation was relatively untarnished; he had won the popular vote in the Senate election of ’58, but at that time senators were appointed by state legislatures, and the Democratic majority in the Illinois legislature had awarded the seat to the Democrat Douglas. Should he lose the trial, should he even make a major misstep, should Peachy Harrison be convicted of murder, the spotlight now focused so brightly on him might be dimmed. 
Creating an aura of invincibility is the goal of every person who stands for election, and a loss in the courtroom might easily damage that perception.

~~~

You may also want to check out an interview with the author

on Arts and Entertainment By Rachel Bozek...

Dan Abrams on Lawyer Abraham Lincoln's 

Little-Known Last Murder Trial

This extraordinary book, based upon a recently found transcript by Robert Roberts Hitt, is a pleasure to read...There are so many pieces to absorb beside the actual last trial by Lincoln. The time itself was in the midst of now being able to make available full transcripts of trials, speeches, and more. Robert Hitt was one of the earliest individuals who we normally called stenographers; i.e., there was no machine involved, it was one individual taking down what each individual said and then presenting a full documentation of what had occurred. 

Yes, I was one of those stenographers at one time early in my life; but it was as part of full secretarial duties, so I can't imagine taking notes hour after hour, within a trial environment.  I found myself, since Mr. Hitt, serves as the book's narrator, paying attention to what he was going through... speaking of his fingers cramping but unable to stop  writing...running out of ink and missing a few words which he would try to fill in later...  And just imagine that he had become a personal friend to Abe Lincoln and had a personal desire to ensure his work for him was the best it could possibly be...

The second point of interest was that laws were being written as a result of crimes being committed and trials taking place. It seemed a bit haphazard; on the other hand, the men who were lawyers at that time, loved the law and were personally dedicated to improving the processes as they handled each case. In order to move justice forward, lawyers would take turns acting on behalf of the defendant, as the prosecutor, and even the judge. Men like Abraham Lincoln had gained their reputation through their won cases and trust in the individual proved to be a deciding factor on which lawyer someone would select.

A perfect illustration of this was being asked to handle the case for Quinn Harrison, by his grandfather, who within the political area. Lincoln and he were mostly enemies... Yet, Lincoln was requested and he accepted, even though he was already in the midst of, having decided to run, working to promote his candidacy as president of the United States.

What was most refreshing, however, was the atmosphere of the setting of a trial. First, this was a highly controversial murder in a small town where the two men involved had family and friends. Everybody had already taken sides as to who was guilty... Indeed, at that time, entire communities would come to watch legal cases, using it as a high form of entertainment, even beyond their possible personal interest. While basic structure was maintained, still one lawyer or another felt free to stand, interrupt, and propose a thought, without anybody objecting. Then, too, most of the lawyers knew and liked each other and rarely would treat the other without complete respect. 

All in all I enjoyed the historical perspective of the whole book, well beyond the murder case itself...The research beyond the found transcript certainly increased the awareness of the time period as well as the people involved.

For me, the murder case was cut and dry...There was no doubt in my mind that the defendant was not guilty--perhaps I've read too many novels by Kenneth G. Eade who gives us thrills and suspense! Kinda kidding, but, truly, there was such a difference...everything straight forward, nothing but the law being reviewed, applied and acted upon to pull together the facts that ultimately allowed a clear decision to be made... Or was it?

Because the closing argument by Lincoln was "one of those speeches" he was known for and held all within the building spellbound... Just as I was for the entire book! For legal fiction fans...This is a Must-Read. For Historical non- and fiction fans...This is a Must-Read. And let's face it, just for the value of learning about our great president's last murder case... Well, I recommend it as a Must-Read...for Everybody!

Abe Lincoln had the knack for making his complete preparation look casual, from the choice of his words to the cut of his cloth. He dressed to satisfy the jury. To his closing argument in a high-profile libel case argued in Vermillion County, where he was not well-known, he had worn a fine broadcloth suit, a silk choker and thoroughly polished boots. But here in Springfield the people knew him well and would not be impressed by any highfalutin silk ties. So he wore his almost-threadbare black frock coat, a vest, an old-fashioned stock tie and handmade suspenders, and shapeless brown trousers. His boots were dull from use, although they had been soaped clean. He was a Sangamon man. 

He walked to the jury box and took in all twelve of them with a glance. He wished them “afternoon,” and said hello to those five or six men he knew by first name. He was following the first rule of good criminal lawyering, Hitt realized; he was building a relationship with the jury. He was just Abe, their neighbor, the man who shared their values and their lives, standing here hopin’ they could solve this sticky problem together. 

Years earlier, Hitt knew, Lincoln had given practical advice about talking to a jury to a young man he was mentoring, it might have even been Broadwell, and that advice had been passed along and passed along until he had heard it. “Talk to the jury as though your client’s fate depends on every word you utter. Forget that you have any one to fall back upon, and you will do justice to yourself and your client.” He spoke to the jury in a soft voice, often dropping the final g of a word, and yet it did not come across to Hitt as an affectation or a ploy; rather a tone the State Journal would describe as “earnest, natural and energetic.” And it was natural to him; like the clothes he wore; he spoke the language of the jurors...

~~~

GABixlerReviews

Dan Abrams is the Chief Legal A​nalyst​ for ABC News and the host of "Live PD" on A/E Network. He was previously the co-anchor of ABC's Nightline, host of “The Abrams Report” and the acclaimed “Verdict with Dan Abrams” on MSNBC, as well as the long time Chief Legal Correspondent for NBC News. His co-author is David Fisher.

The Floater by Sheryl Sorrentino Insightful Yet Fun!

"Oscar...lowered his voice and said,
"Well you gotta open it. And whatever it
says, it'll be okay. We both know that
much."
"No it won't!" Norma cried.
"C'mon now. Is it the end of the world if
you failed the bar exam?"
"No, but my whole life depends on my
passing."
"Now, that just silly," he said softly. "Your
life's way bigger than that, and you know it."
"Is it? If I failed the bar exam, this whole
EEOC thing will be for nothing. Four years of
law school will have been for nothing!
There won't be any lawyer job or back pay.
It'll mean the firm was right about me all
along--I'm just some dumb, low-class spic
who's not good enough to be an attorney..."

The Floater

By Sheryl Sorrentino


The cover of Sorrentino's novel, The Floater is eye-catching and fun, but there are surprising scenes behind it that are thought-provoking, revealing...and so very human... Readers enter into the life of one woman, Norma Reyes. While she may not in any way match your own personal profile, she and her friend, Oscar, do well represent today's life style. In fact, it is "kinda" scary just how much you may find in this novel to relate to...

Sorrentino places us squarely into the hardship of Norma's family life, including flashes of memories from her father's abuse. And how that affects intimacy issues in her adult relationships. But a very important part of her story is the extensive harassment and discrimination she found when trying to enter the legal profession.

Once I finished the novel, I wondered whether there was just too much that happened in Norma's life to be believable, but while you are reading it, it feels real and the emotions displayed easily pull you into the story. No matter what, the author has bared the

internal lives of, especially, two people who are trying to find a stable relationship and be able to maintain it. That struggle is sometimes more than bearable, isn't it?!

Norma had just graduated and taken the bar exam, although she had not yet received the results when she applied at a large firm at which she had worked the previous summer. She and her boss at that time had developed a good working relationship and Norma was confident of being accepted there.

She was, but not as a lawyer...

Needing the money, Norma became "The Floater," a secretary who moved throughout the firm whenever and wherever she was needed.

She soon began to feel the humiliation and pressure routinely given to the support staff... and more...

While at the same time, Oscar shared a letter he had been given, that documented the intent of the firm to discriminate against her. Later, it was Oscar, after they had acknowledged how they felt about each other, that supported her in filing a discrimination charge against the company.

I loved the ending of this novel, showing what was really important in making decisions for the future. But I was amazed at the complexity of the lives revealed, for instance, as Oscar, a divorced man with two children he loved, tries to deal with his own family responsibilities while attempting to meet the needs of the woman he now loved. At the same time, if Norma was to move into any type of personal relationship, she had to confront her past demons, especially about intimacy, and work through all the pain and fear of the past and learn to trust.

This is a remarkable story in many ways, delving deeper into the internal lives of people than most books, while yet sending a message of potential growth and love even though it comes later in life. I enjoyed that frankness not with a peeking tom mentality, but rather from how much we learn that people, no matter what sex, age, race or profession all have the same emotional burdens that we seem to think can only happen to ourselves...

That leaves a very satisfactory feeling in closing the book, The Floater, by Sheryl Sorrentino...


GABixlerReviews

A practicing attorney herself, Sheryl Sorrentino is the author of two previous Indie titles: Later With Myself: The Misadventures of Millie Moskowitz (a work of autobiographical fiction that tells the riveting story of the author's devastating pregnancy at age twelve), and An Unexpected Exile (which takes readers on a relentless, romantic ride with Risa, a 29-year-old Jewish fashion merchandiser, and Arturo, her charismatic Sandinista pursuer). Ms. Sorrentino is also an editor for California Continuing Education of the Bar's treatise series; a frequent contributor to the Alameda County Bar Association's Business Law Section newsletter; and a Goodreads Author and blogger. She lives in the California Bay Area with her husband and daughter.