What is the effect of Bob Costas' gun comments?

This week Bob Costas has created a firestorm of controversy over his comments on Monday Night Football against guns and what seemed like a pitch for stronger gun control laws.  Some have applauded him and others are quite irate that he would use that particular forum to attempt to advance his political agenda.

I on the other hand, am quite ambivalent about the whole thing.  On one hand it is his first amendment right to express himself and he exercised that right.  Although his employer may think differently, it is his right to express his opinion and he did so.  On the other hand, he gets paid a whole lot of money to be a sports broadcaster.  If he wants to comment on law, politics, and national policy, then he can go on any of the news networks that are dedicated to reporting on those issues.  I’m sure they’d be happy to have him on as a guest or even a regular correspondent.  I don’t think the outrage was with the fact that he expressed his opinion, I think it was the forum that he chose that was the problem.  People that tune in to watch an NFL game, tune in to do just that, watch an NFL game.  On Monday night I think they felt like there was a bit of a bait and switch pulled on them, and rightfully so.

As for one lawyer’s humble opinion, the only problem I had was that a lot of the message was just inaccurate.  "If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun," Costas told a television audience of more than 20 million, "he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today."  Not only is this an irrational leap of logic, it is also inflammatory speculation with no basis in fact.  Costas overlooks the fact that there is more than one way to kill someone, ask Nicole Brown Simpson’s family.  Furthermore, Costas ignores the mountain of evidence that shows the number of lives that are saved every year because people defend themselves with guns, but that's another topic for another time.  My point on this whole situation is this: if you’re going to take a stand on something as political and as polarizing as the issue of gun control, you better back it up with facts, studies, and other data.  Conclusory statements like the ones Costas made on Monday night will not suffice.  Although Costas is brilliant at what he does and he has built a reputation as a very credible individual, I think he did himself a disservice by saying what he said, and I think he lost just a bit of legitimacy with a whole lot of people. 

Is Osama Bin Laden’s son right to condemn the Obama Administration for not giving him the opportunity to stand trial?

Today it was reported that the adult sons, especially Omar bin Laden, 30, have publicly condemned the killing of their father Osama bin Laden.  They have accused the United States of killing an unarmed man, shooting his family members and disposing of his body in the sea.   (Shane, Scott, New York Times, May 10, 2011, Bin Laden Sons Say U.S. Violated International Law)  Osama Bin Laden’s sons posed the question of why their father “was not arrested and tried in a court of law so that the truth is revealed to the people of the world.”  They went on to state, “We maintain that arbitrary killing is not a solution to political problems…justice must be seen and done.”  Supra. 

Although it may be extremely difficult, if not impossible, one must at the very least try to see this from the bin Laden family’s perspective before we judge anyone.  As ridiculous as these statements may seem to the average American, we must understand that these are human beings that just lost their father.  As evil as he may have been, to Omar bin Laden and his other sons, he was a father first.

Perhaps these statements were prepared and released too soon.  After all it has only been 8 days since the Unites States' operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan.  It may have been wise for Omar and family to allow some time to pass before attacking the Obama administration’s actions.  But of course, we are dealing with human emotion here, and I think in this instance emotions got the best of them.  Simply stated, even if the United States wanted to take Osama bin Laden alive, he doesn’t strike me as the type of character that would have raised his hands in the air and allowed himself to be taken into custody.  In all likelihood he would have grabbed the nearest assault rifle within reach and started shooting at will a la Tony Montana, minus the bad Columbian accent.

The most enraging statement made is the one calling for the “truth” to be “revealed.”  What more truth do you want?  It is true that Osama bin Laden has been responsible for thousands of American deaths.  It is true that Osama bin Laden wanted more Americans dead.  It is true that he would not rest until he saw more Americans die.  It is true that he caused thousands of Americans an unquantifiable amount of pain and suffering. It is true that Osama bin Laden used women as shields during the raid.  And it is true that no country on this planet would have allowed his corpse inside its borders.  Thus, although I feel for the bin Laden family as human beings who lost a family member, I whole heartedly disagree with their stance that a better solution was to capture their father alive and put him through trial.  Even Osama bin Laden would have preferred to go out the way he did, and although the bin Laden family is clouded by emotion at this time, maybe one day they will realize that "justice was seen and done."

Written by Ivan U. Cisneros

http://twitter.com/ICisnerosEsq

Is it ok to celebrate Osama bin Laden’s Death?

I’ve been struggling with this question for the last week.  There are few events in my life that cause me to remember exactly where I was when I heard the news for the first time.  One was in November 1992 when Magic Johnson announced to the world that he had contracted HIV.  Another was when it was announced that Don Drysdale had died suddenly from a heart attack.  Then of course, I remember where I was as I watched the events of 9/11 unfold.  And I think I will always remember walking into my Mom’s place and the first thing that came out of her mouth was, “They just caught Osama bin Laden.”  At first I assumed that we had captured him alive.  Then I quickly learned that he had been killed. 

I can’t really describe the feeling I got when I learned that he was dead.  I wasn’t exactly happy, or elated, but I definitely wasn’t sad to see him go.  I guess I was more concerned about the ramifications of such an action.  Then after processing all of the information, I found myself saying, “Good, good, I’m glad we got him,” in somewhat of a somber tone.

A lot has been said about America’s reaction to Osama’s death.  Some feel it was not inappropriate to celebrate in the streets and waive the American flag.  Others feel that a death of a human being should never be celebrated with elation under any circumstances.  In this instance there certainly are international relations issues to consider.  Excessive celebration may hasten terrorist attacks against the west.  Just today, al Qaeda confirmed Osama’s death and vowed revenge.  I don’t know that the celebrations in the streets had any effect on al Qaeda, but I can’t say for certain that they didn’t.

The way in which people deal with the death of another is highly personal.  So I guess my answer to the question is:  I don’t know if it’s ok to celebrate Osama’s death.  However, I would warn that excessive celebration may only fuel the hatred that these extremists feel against Americans, which in turn may escalate and hasten their attempts at terrorist attacks.

Written by Ivan U. Cisneros

http://twitter.com/ICisnerosEsq

The Dodgers' Dark Era

There is a reason why attorneys rarely, if ever, act as their own attorneys when they are personally involved in litigation.  We’ve all heard the saying “A lawyer that represents himself has a fool for a client.”  Well, there’s actually some reasoning behind that saying.  Lawyers must try to see every situation from an objective standpoint.  Now what does that mean?  It means that attorneys try to look at most situations from a neutral point of view.   This allows for more effective analysis of facts and legal theories without those nuisances like bias, feelings, or emotion.

For those reasons I had refrained from chiming in on this particular subject because I am obviously bias and emotionally attached to the subject.  I love, baseball, I love the Dodgers, and I bleed Dodger Blue.  But as Popeye would so eloquently put it, “That's all I can stands, and I can't stands no more!”  The McCourts are solely responsible for what I call the Dark Era of Dodgers Baseball.  The details of the debacle that is the McCourts has been well documented and talked about and I will not bother to rehash those details here.  What I will say is that Frank McCourt needs to bow out gracefully like a man.  For all intents and purposes it is over for Frank McCourt, and everyone seems to realize this except for Frank McCourt.  Apparently he did not take the hint when fans booed him as he introduced Joe Torre during Torre’s farewell speech.  Apparently he doesn’t pay attention to Twitter or Facebook, because if he did, he would quickly come to the realization that he has become the laughing stock of the greater Los Angeles area and everyone wants him out.

Listen, we all make mistakes, we all make bad decisions, and we will all fail at something at one point or another.  It is how a person handles those situations, which really shows the true character of the person.  As for McCourt. he is holding on to some absurd notion that he may be able to hold on to the Los Angeles Dodgers.  Despite the obvious public sentiment that he sell the team with all due haste, he has taken to making a media blitz and talking to anyone that will give him air time.  Today, David Vassegh, a reporter at KLAC 570 AM, will interview Frank McCourt at McCourt’s request.  In addition, McCourt will join the Petros and Money show on KLAC 570 AM sometime next week.  The question is:  For what?  Better yet, who cares?

Whatever it is he has to say is too little too late.  McCourt has taken one of the most hallowed franchises in sports and stripped it of its identity, hope, enthusiasm, mystique, and of course, its monetary capital.  From now until the end of time, the name Frank McCourt will be linked with names like Jackie Robinson, Vin Scully, Rick Moday, Don Drysdale, Roy Campanella, and Tommy Lasorda, and that’s just a damn shame.

Mr. McCourt, if you are any kind of a man, take the little dignity you have left, sell the team and bow out with grace.

The Lakers' Not-So-Secret Weapon

It is interesting that my first ever blog entry would be about the Los Angeles Lakers.  After all, I am a die hard Dodger fan, I practice law for a living, and I love politics.  Needless to say, basketball is a bit out of my comfort zone, but after watching Game 5 between the Los Angeles Lakers and the New Orleans Hornets I couldn't help but make an interesting observation.  Granted, I was falling in and out of consciousness as I had worked a full day and played softball game immediately thereafter, sleep was beginning to get the better of me.  But I made an interesting observation nevertheless.

While the Hornets were concerned with shutting down Kobe Bryant (and his now famous ankle) and Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum quietly put together a rather impressive playoff performance.  Bynum finished with 18 points, second only to Bryant's 19.  He also ended up with 10 rebounds and went 6 of 7 from the free-throw line. Comparatively, Gasol and Odom combined for 15 rebounds and went 8 of 9 from the line.  So Bynum did almost as much as Odom and Gasol combined.  Not bad for a guy who took a lot of heat this year for several reasons and who some fans were calling to be traded.

Should the Hornets allow a similar performance from Bynum in Game 6, he will put the final nail in their coffin.

http://twitter.com/ICisnerosEsq