- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Prosecutor says De’Andre Johnson’s victim committed no crime
Posted on 7/9/15 at 1:28 pm to lsupride87
Posted on 7/9/15 at 1:28 pm to lsupride87
quote:
They do?
Pretty much, yes.
0
Posted on 7/9/15 at 1:28 pm to lsupride87
quote:
What are you talking about?
no crime
no time
due time
your arse
its always mine
Posted on 7/9/15 at 1:29 pm to Chad504boy
Some top prosecuters do attend cases. Albeit very rarely. Is this the district attorney quoted in the OP or the prosecuter on the case?
Posted on 7/9/15 at 1:30 pm to Spirit of Dunson
quote:
So I guess this prosecutor just decided the gal's innocence.
Ummm....yeah man. Totes.
Posted on 7/9/15 at 1:33 pm to lsupride87
Posted on 7/9/15 at 1:35 pm to Chad504boy
I wonder if Ol' Meggs will be the attorney that stands trial in this case. I imagine he will. Ol boy loves him some camera time 
Posted on 7/9/15 at 1:36 pm to SystemsGo
quote:This may be the most eloquent diss I have ever seen on this board. This is how the Queen of England would talk shite
It appears that you are unfamiliar with the basics of our adversarial criminal justice system.
The fact that you just quoted this as having conclusive weight makes me feel a great deal of empathy for your future offspring and a great deal of hope that you never produce any. The prosecutor is an advocate for his client. What you fullblownretardingly posted as being legally meaningful carries no more legal significance than the quote from Johnson's lawyer from an article that I'm sure is coming soon
Posted on 7/9/15 at 1:37 pm to lsupride87
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/9/15 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 7/9/15 at 1:38 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Some top prosecuters do attend cases. Albeit very rarely. Is this the district attorney quoted in the OP or the prosecuter on the case?
I actually don't think there's a great deal of conceptual distinction between ;a DA and a prosecutor. The DA is basically just the head prosecutor and so he gets a different title.
The legal insignificance of the quote remains the same.
The question of who should we bring charges against and who has the best case legally speaking are certainly different questions. The DA's office is a lawyer. The state is his client. The decision of who to bring charges against is motivated by politics first and foremost. Sometimes this overlaps completely with the actual legal merits of the case; sometimes it doesn't at all.
Posted on 7/9/15 at 1:38 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:Yeh. My whole wife's side of the family is around there. Most of them attorneys too.
Familiar with south Florida politics?
Posted on 7/9/15 at 1:39 pm to lsupride87
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/9/15 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 7/9/15 at 1:41 pm to SystemsGo
quote:Oh I know. I was just responding that often the prosecutor that one actually sees in the courtroom was not the one that decided to bring charges as the head prosecutor(or DA) usually appoints an assistant to run trial. But yes you are right unfortunately they are in the business of being re-elected, so them choosing who and what to charge is often politically motivated
I actually don't think there's a great deal of conceptual distinction between ;a DA and a prosecutor. The DA is basically just the head prosecutor and so he gets a different title.
The legal insignificance of the quote remains the same.
The question of who should we bring charges against and who has the best case legally speaking are certainly different questions. The DA's office is a lawyer. The state is his client. The decision of who to bring charges against is motivated by politics first and foremost. Sometimes this overlaps completely with the actual legal merits of the case; sometimes it doesn't at all.
Posted on 7/9/15 at 2:20 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
Meggs believes that Johnson initiated the contact with the woman, and that the woman was acting in self-defense. She will face no charges.
“A person’s entitled to use self-defense if they’re being battered by someone else, and she certainly was entitled to do what she did,” Meggs said. “She didn’t commit a crime is the reason she’s not charged with a crime.”
I agree with this. When he pushed her, then grabbed her, she was reasonably fearful.
This post was edited on 7/9/15 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 7/9/15 at 2:27 pm to SystemsGo
quote:
The prosecutor is an advocate for his client
what in the frick
Posted on 7/9/15 at 2:28 pm to ManBearTiger
quote:You confused?
what in the frick
Posted on 7/9/15 at 2:28 pm to lsupride87
Who exactly is the prosecutor's "client"?
Ironic of you to have accused someone of retardism earlier in the thread. You're a moron.
"Hello, can you put me through to a prosecutor please"
"May I ask who is calling and the nature of what you wish to discuss?"
"Yes, I, lsupride, would like to contract his services to prosecute my neighbor for playing rap music too loud last Monday"
dial tone
Ironic of you to have accused someone of retardism earlier in the thread. You're a moron.
"Hello, can you put me through to a prosecutor please"
"May I ask who is calling and the nature of what you wish to discuss?"
"Yes, I, lsupride, would like to contract his services to prosecute my neighbor for playing rap music too loud last Monday"
dial tone
This post was edited on 7/9/15 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 7/9/15 at 2:32 pm to ManBearTiger
quote:Did you not read the rest of his post. He said the prosecutors "client"(the state) He was trying to put it in simple terms who the prosecutor represents
Who exactly is the prosecutor's "client"?
quote:
The question of who should we bring charges against and who has the best case legally speaking are certainly different questions. The DA's office is a lawyer. The state is his client. The decision of who to bring charges against is motivated by politics first and foremost. Sometimes this overlaps completely with the actual legal merits of the case; sometimes it doesn't at all.
This post was edited on 7/9/15 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 7/9/15 at 2:33 pm to SystemsGo
quote:
The prosecutor is an advocate for his client. What you fullblownretardingly posted as being legally meaningful carries no more legal significance than the quote from Johnson's lawyer from an article that I'm sure is coming soon.
quote:
It appears that you are unfamiliar with the basics of our adversarial criminal justice system.
Lol
Posted on 7/9/15 at 2:34 pm to WDE24
quote:He is 100% correct. Not sure what is funny about what he said. Once the prosecutor decides to bring charges he is 100% an attorney trying to win a case for his own personal gain
Lol
This post was edited on 7/9/15 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 7/9/15 at 2:36 pm to lsupride87
quote:Nope
He is 100% correct.
He is equating a prosecutor not bringing charges against someone with an attorney retained to represent someone. Not correct at all.
A prosecutor not charging someone has much more legal significance than a lawyer advocating for his client in an article.
This post was edited on 7/9/15 at 2:38 pm
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News