re: Unglesby to ask Les to lift JJ's suspension (with link)

quote:

---

Again, the evidence you are using as fact is word of mouth.

---

Yes. And the police should have at least given an ear to that word of mouth. It's called interviewing witnesses and doing quality investigative work.

quote:

---

Just like the evidence that you are dismissing as fact.

---

I haven't dismissed shite. I've called it into question.

quote:

---

Be consistent. If you can't trust the police and the witnesses that they have, why can you trust employees of Shady's and a lawyer?

---

Why not interview all of them first, then make credibility determinations?

See, that's how its done in a competent investigation.

quote:

---

Assuming of course that any of that is true.

---

So your position is that these witnesses were actually interviewed by police and then lied to the AP about being interviewed?

It's your position that Fisher lied about presenting the videotape to the BRPD, only to have it turned away?

quote:

---

I saw slackhouse raping a dog. He should be arrested immediately.

---

Maybe the dog shouldn't have worn such a provocative collar.

quote:

---

So in your awesome fantasy world of police work, we should accept the evidence given by someone accusing another of a crime and not try to corroborate that account with other available evidence.

---

No. I'm saying that the police have a reason that:
1. Employees of Shady's refused to give testimony initially and are now acting like the police didn't want to have anything to do with them.

Or.

2. The police have a reason for not needing the employees testimony (i.e., the employees were inside and other witnesses have said that no shady bouncers, employees were outside to witness the fight).

Again. Either way, you are taking one person at their word while not taking another. So, essentially, you trust a bar employee more than you do the police. That's fine. Just stop saying these things like they are fact. They are not.

quote:

---

So your position is that these witnesses were actually interviewed by police and then lied to the AP about being interviewed?

---

Maybe so. The main attraction at that bar is LSU athletes. They have an interest in the players coming out unscathed.

quote:

---

It's your position that Fisher lied about presenting the videotape to the BRPD, only to have it turned away?

---

Maybe so. The lawyer has an interest in making the case seem shaky and painting his client in the best light possible.

quote:

---

I saw slackhouse raping a dog. He should be arrested immediately

---

No it was just an attorney...not sure that is even a crime

I'm not saying this is a perfect investigation. Only that the concept that the police and witnesses are all incompetent, and the players and shady employees are all honest is absurd.

It's more likely to be some where in the middle.

quote:

---

+1. Took you long enough.

---

I just have an issue with someone who trusts drunk athletes, a bar owner, and bar employees (who have an interest in the players being innocent) over the victims and witnesses (who have an interest in the players being guilty). Add to that the fact that he is bashing the police department based off zero facts, just word of mouth, is absurd.

quote:

---

Maybe so. The main attraction at that bar is LSU athletes. They have an interest in the players coming out unscathed.

---

See, I thought the attraction was cheap alcohol for underaged drinkers and loose whores dancing to shitty music. I guess I didn't get the "Yo, LSU Football Players Love Shady's" flyer.

quote:

---

One attorney posted a definition. He posted the definition of a related but different term. A "third party" is not a "third party witness." It's okay. I corrected his error.

---

I love it when an internet poster boldy announces his own victory. Perhaps I should respond with something equally vacuous: "No, I won!. Hehe!"

You didn't correct any error. I actually recused myself from that thread because I couldn't squander another moment arguing with a contumaceous, self-aggrandizing fool. But as this thread proves, you continually invent new ways to prove yourself an arrogant spalt.

(I'm still waiting on an citation to a source - any legitimate source; a case, a treatise, a hornbook, a legal glossary; anything but your dusty and apocryphal reminiscences of glory days past - that uses the phrase "third party witness" as you suggest. Just one citation. I think I am going to have an interminable wait.)

Further, I do find it amusing that you have declared your own legal analysis of the brawl to be "100% accurate given facts then known." Not only is that wildly vain, it's also inconsistent with established board history. As you may recall, you prematurely decreed that JJ "probably wasn't" the target of the second degree battery charge - the very charge he now faces! Your attempt at deduction was risible, as subsequent events demonstrated. Everyone errs. There is no sin it. You erred as well. Just admit it.

But here's the essential problem with you as a poster: rather than arguing from fact and logic, rather than engaging in civil discourse, rather than conceding error and thereby building credibility, rather than attempting to graciously educate and illuminate with whatever rudimentary knowledge you do possess, you endeavor instead to overwhelm everyone with an aura of feaux erudition which is as transparent as it is desperate. If you were truly Darrow reborn, you wouldn't have to spend time on an anonymous LSU internet board proclaiming your own suppposed genius and reminding posters of the debt of gratitude they owe you for your incomparably trenchant "contributions." The truth is, you have no more insight into the depths of the brawl than any other poster here, nor any more insight into the legal complications than the dozens and hundreds of other attorneys that frequent this board. Your vanity is as tiresome as it is unfounded.

Now, I'm sure you're going to dredge up some fabricated war story or cryptic allusion to erstwhile Olympian legal feats which will justify your your disdainful demeanor and divert attention from your well-documented errors. I'm equally certain that I have no interest in being regaled with such nonsense and that I won't read the resulting post.

I leave you with one final thought. Abraham Lincoln once said: "If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what you will, is the great high-road to his reason, and which, when once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing his judgment of the justice of your cause." If you are really interested in persuading posters on this site - rather that simply preening about your supposedly superior intellect - you would do well to treat them with some respect, rather than presuming yourself to be some latter-day Aristotle at the Lyceum. You aren't. The people here are smart, don't condescend.