We are here today to review the case
of Mr. Jacob Garner.
Judge, the defense pleads that your Honor discards this case immediately. It only serves to impugn the
character of an innocent man, nay a hero, who the prosecution seeks
to slander, in absentia.
No speeches, this is not a public
hearing. The prosecution may proceed.
Your Honor, the prosecution has a tale
to relate, one which will initially appear so convoluted that its
purpose will remain obscured until the conclusion. Rest assured we
will deliver clear evidence that the deceased does not deserve the
dedication afforded him. He shouldn't be shrouded but shadowed.
The Defendant is Mr. Garner, but
unsurprisingly considering recent events, Mr. Langdon Jones is the
pivotal actor, along with the equally relevant Ms. Evans, and Mr.
Allen. Their collaboration is the source of the recent violence. It
is nearly unnecessary to state, but Garner held the position, Chief
of Police. He was responsible for those who served in his
department…
Objection!
Yes?
Garner may have been the head of the
organization, but he wasn't responsible for any crimes they may have
committed. Certainly you are not also accusing the Mayor or the Town
council of guilt related to Mr. Jones' actions?
We have no evidence connecting either
of those persons to the crime, but documentation in Garner's own hand
indicates he knew of the plan Jones' enacted. The connections are
unmistakable. Their relationship dates back eons. As an experienced
deputy chief, Garner hired Jones, and then went on his first
assignment with him. Was this unusual?
Everyone knows
Garner was focused on detail, on personal relationships. He took the
time to get everything right.
He mentored Jones.
He fired Jones.
Judge, let me explain. One day it
became clear to Garner, then Chief of Police, that Jones' had
violated his sacred duty. He chaffed against protecting people who
didn't value his service. He couldn't respect people who failed to
revere the uniform or the duty he did. It was small inequities
initially. Withheld aid from those who, in his words, “didn't
deserve it.” He suffered minor penalties. But then he began
inflicting punishment on his perceived detractors. He pulled over
the same people again and again for speeding infractions. Nothing he
did ever registered as significant, no violence, but Garner was sharp
eyed and keen witted. He knew about the behavior. One day, he
called Jones into his office and...
And fired him.
Wait your turn counselor.
He did, but he'd hesitated for too
long. Jones was the best cop when he was on his game. He was
curious, he was inventive, he was tenacious, he was dedicated, and he
was proud.
All good qualities.
Exactly. A person like that develops a
following, a collection of devotees. Ms. Evans and Mr. Allen admired
his courage, his persistence, and his sense of justice. They didn't
see when justice was perverted to avenge personal slights. By the
time he'd been ejected, Evans and Allen wanted to follow. They
failed to perceive his subtle transformation.
Is the Police Chief responsible if
some cops two or three levels below him liked an disreputable cop.
But didn't you say the Boss took a
particular responsibility with everyone. “Garner was focused on
detail, on personal relationships,” you said just a minute ago.
Evans and Allen didn't misbehave, but they were in Garner's care. It
didn't take long, after he was released, for Jones to begin his
vendetta. In his decade on the force, he'd developed hundreds of
adversarial relationships.
The Chief isn't...
In the Chief's desk, we found extensive
records of Jones' bad behavior. They stretched back years, and
though Garner didn't know initially of his protege's actions, the
documents detail his first post-police crimes. Garner investigated
Jones' past actions. Muggings for small amounts of money. Break ins
when the owners were away. Nothing big, nothing too painful. Garner
didn't report it. He did warn Evans and Allen. He told them to
beware of Jones, but he didn't provide a clear rational for his
warning.
What could Garner been thinking?
What could Jones have been
seeking?
Those are irrelevant to the case at
hand. Your honor the Prosecution seeks to tag Garner with Jones'
atrocities. But...
Go ahead.
Yesterday, Jones attacked a local
high school. Garner arrived first at the scene, and went alone into
the building. Evidence from hall cameras show how Garner ushered out
students, shielding them with his body. In the chaos Jones disarmed
him, then he toyed with him, tortured him. Shot him in both hands,
and the feet, before shooting him in the lungs. Garner sacrificed
himself to protect the suffering and needy. He should be honored,
not befouled.
If yesterday was the whole story, but
we've already demonstrated this case is decades in formation.
Judge, end this.
The prosecution will continue. I
assume you have further connections?
Jones maintained a low level,
non-violent feud against those he despised, until one day violence
arrived unexpectedly. Garner's notes indicate that one day Jones
attempted to break into an apartment he believed deserted. But it
wasn't, and when the man tried to defend his castle with force, Jones
responded more ably. It's not clear whether Jones suspected that
Garner was keeping tabs on him, but he became desperate. He made the
fateful call. He dialed Evans' number and spun her a story about an
unintentional death. He needed her aid. He needed Allen too. They
had trusted him, they still did. They were devoted to his supposed
virtue, now long forsaken.
They came to help him?
They covered up the murder.
The chief didn't know about it.
He knew everything. His files
demonstrate as much.
And Evans and Allen?
The records aren't as clear, but Garner
tapped some of their conversations, and he kept the recordings.
These detail calls between the three accomplices. Evans and Allen
expressed regret, but felt trapped by their action. Though they
suspected Jones' ethical degradation they couldn't come clean, they
couldn't admit to their mistake. The Chief seemed ready to eject
them from the force, as he had done with Jones, but was searching for
the opportune moment. Guilt weighed on him, because he could have
protected them, and had failed. He had known Jones would target
them, would use them, and corrupt them. He hadn't done enough to
shield Evans and Allen.
He is not responsible for their
actions. While the evidence points to examples of serious
misjudgment, he enacted a great service in his final hours.
Judge, how many students died at the
shooting?
Seven.
He can't be responsible.
He knew about the attack in advance.
There were calls between Jones, Evans, and Allen, which the Chief
intercepted days before. Jones was vague, but pushing for their
assistance. He didn't need warriors, but spies and scouts. The
date, the location were spoken. The objective was obvious except to
those intent on deluding themselves. Garner could have stopped them
in advance. He knew, because he was in a car in the lot, waiting for
the emergency call.
Wow.
The rest has already been detailed by
the defense. Garner played the sacrifice, letting some die, to earn
eternal glory when he rescued the rest.
In conclusion, he mentored the
murderer, tolerated his growing sense of victimhood, let him lead
others astray, ignored his decent into crime, and allowed him to
oversee a massacre only so he could be honored. He could have halted
the spree at any point along this path.
Why didn't he?
He escaped culpability, with public
opinion in his favor. Perhaps he was fascinated by Jones'
development until the problem became too serious to solve without
dirtying his own reputation. This was
his PR way out.
We disagree. Garner sacrificed
himself to redeem those who had failed. He was deified by the public
prior to this incident. He rescued the system when crime was
overwhelming the city thirty years ago. He held the city in his
hands, and if he made one mistake, is it enough to vilify his name
forever? He was a god!
Then we say all all gods should fall!
Especially any who believe they made the world. Those who inflicted
suffering should bleed for it as well. The culprit has played a
great game of deception. In his rescue attempt, he acted as if he
were the rescuer, suffering to aid mere mortals. In the final
reckoning, Garner was he who needed redemption, who had crimes to
atone for, and this must have been his only option. That he should
bleed the same blood others had bled because of his failure. He
suffered as an act of personal penance for how he had harmed the
public.
Unbelievable!
And yet it is the complete story,
Judge. We leave it with you.
Recent:
Relevant:
Comments
Post a Comment