Dear Editor
I am not acquainted to/with Ryan Crawford in any way/manner, thus whatever comments/opinion offered, are done as a citizen, exercising his constitutional right; as well as, free of any form of prejudice, or otherwise.

Crawford’s horrible tirade as shown via video is not surprising. It is traditional; and a well-known and continuous trade mark of some representatives of the known professions who are of the view that their professional status, family name and societal standing has earned them the right to be above the law and be abusive to the latter, and not even conform to its dictate, when required.

From the expletive-laced broadside, it would seem that Crawford is questioning the reason for being asked to stop by the police officer; and even after being given an explanation, was not satisfied, and continued his verbal assault.

It is instructive to note that in the course of the invective assisted rant, Crawford resorted to the well-known tactic of invocation of his family name to perhaps, emphasise his connections. It is a most disgusting strategy that has been known to cow many a police officer in the execution of duties. In fact, it was a tactic that created that now infamous category, the “untouchables”, during the 23 years of PPP/C rule.

It stands to reason, that even if Crawford felt there was no good cause to ask him to stop, as would have been the experience of countless other Guyanese road users, such a response was not only ugly, filthy and despicable; but also, thoroughly disrespectful and entirely unnecessary, and not within the best traditions of human conduct, especially coming from one who should understand the law, being one of its sworn officers.

I now turn to the position of the Guyana Bar Association which could have been predicted, as the day follows the night. Its posture of refraining “at this time” from offering comment, because of the ongoing investigation is noted. But is this a position, being taken, because it perceives that there may be some good reason that justified Crawford’s conduct, thus releasing it from a reprimand?

The fact that the Association reiterated that it “holds its members to the highest standards of ethics…befitting that of our most noble and esteemed profession”, indicates an acknowledgement that its code of conduct has been breached.

So why not a condemnation of the attorney’s gutter behavior? Why should it await the outcome of an investigation, which even if does not conclude that charges should be laid against Crawford, cannot in anyway prejudice reprimand for such an invective-filled harangue?

To the police, I must ask, why seek legal advice in this extant case, when it is quite clear that an offence, unprovoked, has been committed, which would have resulted in not only the instant arrest of any other citizen, but also arraigned, and already convicted?
It is noted that Crawford has tendered an apology. Is this going to be accepted, in lieu of charges being laid, if recommended?

Editor, I am looking to see how this particular matter will culminate.

Regards
Troy Garraway