Wednesday, June 3, 2009

In Amherst, it matters.


The Gazette and Republican (and a few TV stations) covered today's court hearing. And as I just said on Gazettenet feedback: if that pretty boy, over paid attorney had the audacity to come up to me in a public setting and offer his condolences after his client had run over, say, my daughter--I would have kicked him upside his pretty boy head.

The Republican Reports:

Original Post: Sometime this afternoon (it all starts to blend)

So my Anon commenter reminded me why “religion” had anything to do with the local media coverage of the sorry saga of 33-year-old Misty Bassi and her exceedingly tragic interaction with 75- year-old Parvin Niroomand (both Amherst residents) on that fateful Memorial Day sunny morning on a normally busy but--at the time--almost abandoned roadway, specifically designed for heavy traffic.

Ms. Niroomand piloted a 4,000-pound car, Misty was navigating a 20-pound bicycle; and the collision was head-on because Ms. Niroomand went well over the centerline of the roadway into the other lane (and beyond). Misty is now ashes.

Since Tommy Devine, the local blogesphere guru, is now doing a retrospective—bringing into Blogger, stuff he published many years ago on a pioneering website about to vaporize—it reminded me of why "religion” matters in the People’s Republic of Amherst.

Even a complete neophyte knows that if the roles had been reversed: had 33-year-old Misty Bassi shredded Parvin Niroomand with an automobile then fled the scene; and the Gazette discovered that Ms Bassi patronized the “pagan club” at Umass and Ms. Niroomand was a devout “Muslim,” you can bet they would never have published a puff piece extolling the virtues of Ms. Bassi days before the funeral.

Amherst sponsored Pro-Muslim Rally one month after 9/11


Anonymous said...

Please, God, make him stop.

Rich Morse

LarryK4 said...

Or Brahman, Allah, Yahweh, Krishna as the case may be.

You once said I would make a lousy "sympathetic" witness/victim/perp... whatever (my institutional memory fades.)

You of all people can't possibly believe justice is blind and treats EVERYBODY the exact same?????????

Anonymous said...

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven........
....A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak....."

This was an unspeakable tragedy, from any perspective, and not an occasion to seize upon to advance an agenda.

You've said enough, Larry. Give this one a rest.

LarryK4 said...

Could not agree with you more on the "unspeakable tragedy" part.

But strongly disagree with the "advance an agenda" crap.

Just speaking the raw truth--and doing so openly, while NOT hiding behind the cloaking shield of an Anon.

Anonymous said...

The accident and the result exists in its own right.

Religion has noting to do with the accident and the result in its own right. In spite of the newspaper's horrible decision to illuminate those facts (but not factors) can we just let it go, as we should, and not politicize the god-fearing narrative, 9/11 and so many other things that have zero to do with the accident?

Did you know it was a crime to yell Yahway in a crowded movie theatre?

Anonymous said...

Your problem should be with the Gazette. They've showed a lack of judgment in the timing and content of their coverage of this tragedy.

A bicyclist was killed, the crash has been investigated and the driver has been charged. Justice is in progress.

Anonymous said...

...Larry being Larry.
"I would have kicked him upside his pretty boy head."
How sad all the way around in more ways than the blogger will ever understand.

Anonymous said...

As a practicing attorney and as a prosecutor, I can tell you that going up to the bereaved family and offering condolences was the most decent and respectable thing for a defense attorney to do in that situation.

I salute him for doing that. That couldn't have been easy. In addition, it's altogether possible that the defendant asked him to do that.

Although we work in an adversarial system in which the defense attorney is duty-bound to represent his client zealously, it should not separate us from some of the fundamental decencies and courtesies.

Rich Morse

Anonymous said...

is it a psychopathic need for people to read his blog?

he has gone so far beyond good taste. if I was in either family I would be pretty upset he is blogging.

who gives a flip about what that gazette rag prints anyways?

Anonymous said...

I think that sadly you have introduced religion into this out of your own prejudice.

Anonymous said...

Larry-I usually find agreement with you, even if at times our methods might be different. However this time, I feel you have gone too far. No one saw religion in this until you brought the issue into it. You have the right to write whatever you want, but this time you are wrong and I believe you have alienated many people who often see things your way with this column and have probably lost credibility on issues where you can make a difference. With a town in budget turmoil, a Town Manager who has run amok without restraint, a rudderless Select Board, understaffed police and fire departments, a July 4th parade fiasco, there are so many issues this space could be devoted too, but this topic should not be one of them.

LarryK4 said...

Actually the Gazette brought up the religion (or lack thereof) of the victim.

And obviously they know they made a HUGE mistake publishing that front page puff piece on Ms. Niroomand. Notice in today's weekly Bulletin they did not republish that article.

Of course religion had nothing to do with the accident neither did gender, but maybe age...maybe.

All I'm saying is had the situation been reversed--a 31 year old hit and killed a 75 year old and then fled the scene the justice system and Gazette would have handled things a tad differently.

Yes I believe Ms Niroomand has tremendous remorse and has suffered enough. Take away her license forever, throw in a fine and some community service (which she does anyway)and justice will be served.

Yes Mr. Morse attorney Pucci was probably acting in behalf of his client when he offered condolences to Misty's aunts. But it would have been far more effective if his client had done so as well.

And this past Monday I had to offer my condolences to friends of over 25 years who lost their 21-year-old son in much the same manner as Misty:

He was in his worktruck on a beautiful morning and another driver ran a stop sign at full speed hitting him sidways.

That driver was at fault, but did not run from the scene because everybody perished.

Anonymous said...

The wise man knows what he does not know, and speaks accordingly.

LarryK4 said...

The grumpy prosecutor is an attorney so he knows; and his silence to my question (You of all people can't possibly believe justice is blind and treats EVERYBODY the exact same?????????) is telling.

Anonymous said...

Amherst sponsored Pro-Muslim Rally one month after 9/11

why should that matter?
America was attacked by terrorists, not the muslim people. To say all Islamic people are connected to 9/11 is an incredibly false and damaging statement.

LarryK4 said...

I don't believe I said that. Pay attention!

The REAL Ed said...

Enough is enough, lets call this what it is: Townie v. UMass Student.

So she was older (as am I) she still was considered a UM student, associated with UM student groups. And hence this lovely and so-tolerant community does not consider her a human being.

Bluntly, she deserved to die. She got in the way of an AMHERST TOWNIE and hence -- like France just before the Revolution -- she should be liable to the nobility for the damage that her body did to the vehicle.

As a taxpayer, Rich Morse might want to take a look at some of the stuff that his hometown police department is doing because the coming class action suit for CORI violations is going to go way beyond (by an expedential factor) the town's liability insurance which I believe maxes out at $2M.

Larry is tripping over stuff that he doesn't quite realize, but which is quite real. There is a real anti-UMass bigotry that came to play here.

And all should be aware of "Justice For Brad" - when the criminal stuff against him gets tossed, as it will, I *will be* talking to the FBI about criminal prosecutions of the Amherst police, UMass police, Witness/Victim Advocates and quite possibly ADAs as well.

It really is this big, it really is this bad...

Amherst Taxpayers, prepare to loose some lawsuits.....

Anonymous said...

Sit down, you made a fool of yourself.

Anonymous said...

Would the last remaining human being with any sense of decency and fairness reading this blog please turn out the lights on your way out?

I guess we have Mary Streeter to thank for this blight on the Net.

LarryK4 said...

And don't let the cyber door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Anonymous said...

"Actually the Gazette brought up the religion (or lack thereof) of the victim."

Yes, because they were trying to paint a picture of the woman who lost her life. They are not saying it's why she had the accident or whether she deserved or didn't deserve to be run over.

You on the other hand brought it up as an excuse for why the person who caused was not castigated in the press. This is not the same thing at all. You have no evidence at all it was a factor.

Far from being the objective observer, which laughably you claim to be, you introduced religion, gender and age as factors in the press coverage without reporting on any evidence at all to support it other than the "this is Amherst" line of reasoning. Did you interview the Gazette writers and editor? No, you just made assumptions baed on your own personal agenda which is 1. Always slam the Gazette. 2. Amherst is liberal and therefore women, Muslims, the elderly get special treatment.

What a bunch of b.s. Mr. Objective.

LarryK4 said...

Actually I did talk to Mr. Grabbe (he called me as a matter of fact)

Anonymous said...

So, he called you before you made the statement about gender, religion, etc.?

LarryK4 said...

No after, in response, as a matter of fact (nice to know they are paying attention.)

Thus violating the Wall Street Journal's new rules of "professional conduct" in dealing with bloggers. (a variation of the "never apologize, never explain" credo I was taught 25 years ago.)

And you notice the grumpy prosecutor has not answered my question (because he knows his boss may read it) about whether the American Justice System is TRULY blind and does not take into consideration race, creed, color, gender, age, religion, income, etc.

Anonymous said...

I've told you several times now, don't comment until you get a dictionary and learn how to use it!
"Expedential" is not a word!

Anonymous said...

"You of all people can't possibly believe justice is blind and treats EVERYBODY the exact same?????????"

Courts take age into account all the time. They also factor in whether or not you have prior convictions. They also factor in remorse.

The expression that justice is blind does not mean that the court automatically gives the same punishment each time for the same offense. They weigh factors and use judgment. That's why they are called judges.