For a guy who is employed as a lawyer, I don’t think James Weary tactically thought things through before advertising that he settled a lawsuit with the RCMP in a recent edition of the Gazette. You wanna know why?
Just imagine, a lawyer, who is supposed to be an 'officer of the court,' meaning that he is supposed to respect the rule of law, comes ambling out of a beer parlour at 1:30 a.m., and that beer parlour isn’t known as the classiest establishment in town. Not exactly the behaviour I would expect of someone potentially representing me in any type of legal matter.
Yet still, after being approached by the police and questioned about possibly getting behind the wheel of a nearby idling car and driving away, he simply doesn't articulate how that is not the case (which, one would think that any lawyer would be able to do quite well), but instead, by his own admission in a similar article published in the Edmonton Journal ("RCMP settle St. Albert lawyer's lawsuits over arrest outside pub," July 12), admits, "... he was “sarcastic” toward the officer and swore at him ...". I am quite sure that that phrase, along with the phrase ‘co-operation with the police,' are mutually exclusive.
This story seems to exemplify how there seems to be less and less respect for people in authority anymore.
I wonder if that would be the behaviour he would exhibit towards a judge in court?
And being drunk to any degree? I always thought that 'drunkeness is not an excuse' in trying to explain away deviant behaviour.
Conclusions / presumptions, anyone?
Randy Kish, St. Albert