In the aftermath of Shirley Lasseter's pleading guilty to bribery charges, one of her supporters has set up a legal defense trust fund and is soliciting donations. A defense fund for someone who has plead guilty to bribery charges? Apparently, the bribe money is to be replaced with donations, which will also serve as testimony to the concept that if you have enough friends who are both sympathetic and myopic, crime just might pay.
As might be expected, articles referencing establishment of the defense fund have drawn strong reactions from Patch readers. Their comments present a wide range of opinions about Lasseter, her decision to take a bribe and the way she should be dealt with in the future. Although Lasseter is largely condemned for her actions, some of the comments suggest that while her crime isn't justified in the strictest sense of the word, it's understandable because she needed the money.
History has shown that irrespective of the crime, the perpetrator always has supporters, especially if that perpetrator is, or has been, a public figure. The Lasseter case certainly fits that mold. Supporters justify her crime by citing her financial distress, which is said to include a house lost to foreclosure and the lack of funds to repair a vehicle with a gas gauge that doesn't work. What's left unsaid is that county commissioners are paid approximately $30,000 a year; that's not a particularly high annual income, but it's not bad money for a part time job. Surely Lasseter has enough capabilities to secure the type of employment that would boost her total earnings to at least $60,000 a year. Apparently, she either didn't find that an option worth considering, or refused to reduce her living expenses to a level she could afford. Rather than make the necessary lifestyle adjustments, Lasseter chose to sell out for the relatively paltry sum of $35,000.
As a defense, one of her supporters commented that Lasseter isn't a snake in the grass, she's just a victim of hard times. To gain additional perspective on Lasseter's guilt, the supporter suggests we consider, “there are two sides to every story.” That may be true, but the existence of two sides doesn't imply one is right and the other is wrong. In this instance, side one is that Lasseter needed money; side two is that she had a choice as to the method by which she secured that money. She chose an illegal, rather than legal means.
Attempting to help someone with financial problems is unquestionably a noble pursuit. However, when that pursuit attempts to defend criminal behavior, it becomes ignoble. Shirley Lasseter is no different than the myriad other financially distressed criminals who lie, steal and cheat at the expense of others. Yet those criminals never receive any more consideration than being provided with a public defender. Lasseter is deserving of nothing more. In fact, she deserves less; not only did she commit a crime, she did so while serving as an officer of the county. In so doing, she not only broke the law, she violated the trust of the people who elected her, and became an embarrassment to the citizens. The only saving grace is that she admitted her guilt, rather than attempting to hide behind a charade of innocence.
That may elevate her above “snake-in-the-grass” status, but it doesn't entitle her to special treatment. Nor does it lessen the tarnish she has brought to the county.
Jason Brooks
3:22 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
The folks supporting this are as out of touch as the guys running the National Football League Players Association. Sheesh...
Brian Crawford
4:05 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
Oh Geez, here I go. You know I can't resist playing devil's advocate Dave. I'm also a sucker for folks who hit hard times, had a few myself over the years.
What Lasseter did was certainly wrong and deserves to be punished, and will be. But in the big scheme of things it appears to be fairly small potatoes compared to most political corruption, including the financial shenanigans of our current Governor, Nathan Deal.
From what I know of Lasseter's past there doesn't appear to be a pattern of corruption that funded any lavish lifestyle. In fact it appears that Lasseter served her community humbly and honorably for many years before making what was obviously a very bad decision. So if some of her friends want to raise money to help her out, what's the big deal? I don't see where that's any of our business.
David
6:08 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
Does the size of the sin make it any less sinful?
Brian Crawford
6:17 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
Nope, so I guess that makes you and her even.
David
11:58 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
Then that seals it. I certainly don't deserve a defense fund. And no argument you attempt will make a difference.
HRPufnstuf
8:24 am on Tuesday, June 5, 2012
"Served her community humbly and honorably"
Ahahahahahaha!
m k
12:42 pm on Tuesday, June 5, 2012
It becomes our business when donations are being sought! Corruption is corruption and should not be portrayed as just a bad decision!
Dave Emanuel
5:27 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
Brian, consider the implications of your statements.You're essentially saying that if a public official engages in illegal activity and pleads guilty or is found guilty of committing a crime, it's really no big deal if in involves "small potatoes"-- and that it's "the right thing to do" for friends to raise money to pay for the legal representation which will be able to do little more than petition for minimal penalties.
Brian Crawford
5:50 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
Not exactly Dave. I never said this was something that should be overlooked or go unpunished. I detest political corruption. I simply believe in this case, considering Lasseter's long history of honorable public service and the fact that this appears to be an aberration of character brought on by personal tragedy, it is not unreasonable to think that some members of the community may choose to forgive her once she has accepted her punishment. Forgiveness is good for the soul. And yes, I do think it's the "right thing to do" for friends to aid and comfort friends in their darkest hours, even when they've royally screwed up. Sometimes good people do really stupid things.
Patrick T. Malone
6:54 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
well said Dave
Kenneth Stepp
8:52 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
It sounds like she pled guilty because she was caught red handed. Not because she was taking the high road. The FBI has her on tape and heard by an undercover agent that she was fine with helping more drugs come to Gwinnett. Not to mention the money laundering and other gangster activity she was willing to bring to our doorstep. The children that could have been in danger or even killed by this is obvious. It's sad that people would forgive that willie nillie like that wasn't part of the equation. The bottom line is she was willing to allow drug dealers to murder children so she could get money. There is no other way to look at this. The fact that Danny Porter was willing to turn this over to the feds speaks volumes about his integrity. If you knew me personally you'd know that opinion doesn't come easily to me. That was a tough decision for him that was selfless. It will be interesting to see how her "talking" reveals more about other problems we have.
Kenneth Stepp
8:52 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
It sounds like she pled guilty because she was caught red handed. Not because she was taking the high road. The FBI has her on tape and heard by an undercover agent that she was fine with helping more drugs come to Gwinnett. Not to mention the money laundering and other gangster activity she was willing to bring to our doorstep. The children that could have been in danger or even killed by this is obvious. It's sad that people would forgive that willie nillie like that wasn't part of the equation. The bottom line is she was willing to allow drug dealers to murder children so she could get money. There is no other way to look at this. The fact that Danny Porter was willing to turn this over to the feds speaks volumes about his integrity. If you knew me personally you'd know that opinion doesn't come easily to me. That was a tough decision for him that was selfless. It will be interesting to see how her "talking" reveals more about other problems we have.
M.K. Osborne
9:45 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
This county needs a enema ! go into that little booth and let it rip ! and dont forget to wash your hands !
Tammy Osier
10:06 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
Seems to me corruption is corruption no matter how big or small. If you'll compromise a little today, you'll compromise a lot tomorrow. Your conscience gets a little more seared each time you do. My line of work brings me in contact with criminals; even gang members, and among them are some really nice people. I've come to like a lot of them and show them the same respect that I would show anyone else. But while nice and likeable, still criminals in the eyes of the laws that they have broken.
When you make excuses for her, ask youself this question: How many did NOT compromise? How many are still serving the people that elected them? Excuses, excuses, excuses. Sounds like some are saying, "Well, yeah, I broke into the house but I only stole $25 worth of stuff. It could have been $2500". Give me a break.
I agree, let people raise money and give all the support they feel is necessary; not our business to judge what they do. In the end, it comes down to what a judge says anyway.
Tammy Osier
10:16 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
Someone help me here....falling on hard times? $30,000 a year (and part time at that)? That's more than I make. Not an excuse. Good gosh, I remember trying to raise 3 kids on a salary in the low twenty thousands. Just reduced living expectations such as eating beans 3 times a week, not going out often, and shopping thrift stores. Nope. compromise once, you'll do it again and again. In the end, you have betrayed the people who trusted you.
Dave Emanuel
11:17 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
Tammy- there's a thin line between judging and expressing an opinion. If some people feel a need to contribute to Lasseter, that is certainly their right. But it's also the right of other people to express their disagreement. What I find particularly disturbing about some of the opinions expressed here is that people complain abut political corruption on one hand and make excuses for it on the other.
Had Lasseter been an employee of a private business, and she took a bribe or embezzled money, sentiments would be considerably different because her crime would be the only thing known about her. The fact that Lasseter may have done some good things doesn't lessen her guilt nor entitle her to special treatment. Or rewards.
HRPufnstuf
8:30 am on Tuesday, June 5, 2012
"it's also the right of other people to express their disagreement."
How about absolute DISGUST and CONTEMPT for those who would support a drug supporting criminal who betrayed the public trust! I can't believe those of you who think that it's OK because she fell on hard times. Taking money for votes is contemptuous, and taking drug money is the lowest of the low. Hope she gets a lot of prison time.
Rosemary Vollmar
7:38 am on Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Hello People,
What would the tone of these comments be if the person that started the bank account had entitled it "Food, Shelter, & Utilities Fund" instead of the "Legal Defense Fund"? Would there even have been an "Opinion" article even written? Not all human beings forget what was taught in church on Sunday as soon as they put their key in the car's ignition.
Rosemary Vollmar
North Georgia Weather
8:12 am on Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Rosemary, "Thou shalt not steal."
Is is amazing what people forget... And people apparently forget there are natural consequences for those actions.
American Patriot
9:15 am on Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Amen @ Rosemary. Also everyone is entitled to a defense guilty or not. She still has rights and they need to be protected. Although I must admit I will not be contributing to this fund. i will pray for her instead.
Dave Emanuel
11:18 am on Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Rosemary & American Patriot- You're ignoring an important point-- Lasseter has already plead guilty. Neither her right to a defense nor any other rights have been denied. As such, what purpose does a "defense fund" serve? And if the fund is to provide food, shelter and utilities, why wasn't it established as such? It appears that the "legal defense fund" is simply a charade to play on the sympathies of people who feel sorry for a public figure who was caught participating in an illegal activity. And no matter how you slice it or dice it, any fund, irrespective of its name, that is established to benefit a criminal is simply rewarding criminal activity. I don't believe that rewarding crime is something you were taught in church.There's a big difference between forgiving and forgetting, and rewarding.
Susan Chauncey
9:46 am on Tuesday, June 5, 2012
She should have set aside some of her "bride" money for the eventual defense it would require! There are consequences to choices.
Jerry Fuchs
11:40 am on Tuesday, June 5, 2012
If people want to donate to her defense, no skin off my nose. She admitted her guilt, and will serve her time. There really isn't much more to add.
Tammy Osier
3:03 pm on Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Dave, totally agree with you. I guess I was saying that it is their right, just as you said, but it is also our right to expose it and let it be known to the public (maybe I should have added that). Personally, when a person has taken bribes, I'd be pretty embarrassed to be among those raising money for her. From the christian perspective, many get this one wrong. Pray for her, give her moral support, and be kind to her (in hopes that she will turn it around) but nowhere does it say defend her actions. In fact, I can show them where it says that you become a party to someone's sin yourself when you do. Forgiveness is one thing, but excusing actions is another. Totally differnent things.
I've been poor and without food as well but did not steal. I doubt this woman was without food. It appears that she wanted a more lavish lifestyle without considering that her way of obtaining it is to let a criminal element into my neighborhood and my children's schools.There are much better people out there to serve our community. Let's elect them.
MDC
11:04 am on Sunday, June 10, 2012
Apparently Lasseter has friends who are willing and able to help financially. So why didn't she avail herself of those resources rather than choosing the criminal path. One obvious answer is that she chose her pride over her ethics and morals. We can forgive the sinner without excusing the sin.
I also have to wonder about her ethics in appointing her son to the Zoning Board of Appeals. REALLY?!? - does Gwinnett County not have an anti-nepotism policy??? Obviously relying on our elected officials to do the right thing hasn't been working out too well.
Harry Dorfman
6:51 pm on Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Not quite big enough for an episode on CNBC series Money and Greed, but ya gotta wonder who/what triggered and FBI sting. Seems like going after what appears to be a down on their luck public servant is a little too easy. Yeah appointing her son is a dumb move as is compromising your supposed values and falling for the trap, but it really smells funny...is this to deflect attention from the bigger fish?
YouHaveGotToBeKidding
11:28 am on Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Harry i think you are on to something. Shirley appeared to be the most honest Commissioner on the board. The others were very questionable characters