Rules of thumb for defense attorneys of potential criminals.
Following the story about the suspicions against Rabbi Tao and especially in light of the reactions of his associates, the following dilemma arose in me. What can be expected from associates who have lived and worked in the environment of a certain man for many years, sincerely believe in his path, and perhaps have never seen a flaw in his conduct that is even remotely reminiscent of the serious accusations against him? On a superficial level, it seems to me that expecting them to say something like: We are suspending our relations with him until his innocence is proven seems unfair to me. What is fair? Maybe they will say something that expresses their attempt to walk between the drops.
What do you think?
Obviously. What’s the question? As long as the facts haven’t been clarified, there’s no reason to take any action against him. And in general, all those who take so-and-so’s books out of the house because he did something are just populist demagogues. By the way, a very common practice in “Kav.”
And of course, if you know someone closely, it’s natural and legitimate to have a position on the likelihood that they did things. But you still have to be open to the possibility that you were wrong.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
