Lately, Mark Shurtleff has been in the news a bit and seems to have some confusion about the meaning of words. First, let’s look at the definition of the word in question.
What exactly is a “scandal”?
According to the New Oxford American Dictionary:
Ok. Now that we have the definition of the word at issue, let’s get to the meat.
Last Wednesday evening, the Salt Lake Tribune tweeted about an event it was hosting at the Salt Lake library regarding the Shurtleff/Swallow scandal.
Just a couple hours until our town hall on Swallow/Shurtleff scandal at the Main library. It’s free, open to public. http://t.co/iEV7ADv3lW
— Salt Lake Tribune (@sltrib) September 10, 2014
This whole episode reminded me of a Seinfeld episode. You all know the one. It’s “The Comeback”, where George goes out of his way to make a comeback to a comment. Albeit very delayed. And well, it doesn’t end well.
And here come the tweets.
Note to @sltrib: It’s not a “scandal” until it’s proven. Will you invite me to your Town Hall when I’m acquitted. #utpol #presumedinnocent — Mark L. Shurtleff (@MarkShurtleff) September 15, 2014
Yes. Mark Shurtleff waited four days to respond to a tweet. Which in turn many people decided to fire back and let him know how they felt about his definition versus, you know: the dictionary.
@MarkShurtleff @sltrib Many lost their homes including me, because your office refused to enforce Utah Law. #corruption #rigged #system — Jeffrey L. Shurtliff (@shurtcircuit) September 15, 2014
Scandal? @MarkShurtleff @utahpolitics @sltrib an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage.
— the Retweet within (@Monsterwithin) September 15, 2014
@MarkShurtleff @sltrib wrong. http://t.co/pJgw7ZDSlL — aaron wignall (@caffeineguru) September 15, 2014
Everyone knows the first rule of being a good client for your legal team is to stop talking. Shurtleff seems to have forgotten this. In fact, his co-defendant John Swallow was fired by his attorney as a client. It boggles my mind that in light of everything that has happened in this case, Shurtleff continues to fire off on social media. There is nothing wrong with wanting to respond, or interact with people. But when it could potentially affect the outcome of your case, it seems to me that it would be prudent to just ignore anything that could possibly raise the eyebrows not only in the press, but of members of the community who could end up being a part of the jury pool that is asked to serve (if this case isn’t settled by a plea bargain as some have speculated).
While it is fun to snicker at, it makes me wonder what the upsides to these continued interactions between Shurtleff and members of the community are. I, for one, do not see any. I see it as doing more harm than good. I realize that in this country everyone is afforded the right to presumed innocence before judgement is passed, but the continued social media of Shurtleff seems to taint the opinions of everyone who sees them.
He could be well served to avoid the “jerkstore” comebacks, and take a lesson from John Swallow’s playbook. Lay low, stay quiet and let the facts pan out.
