- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: 60% of Baltimore gun offenders have sentences suspended - judges refuse meeting with gov.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:22 am to Dale51
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:22 am to Dale51
quote:
So you have a learned bias.
The ad hominems on this board are astounding
Literally the only subjective statement in my original post was that holding long stretches of jail time over someone's head and putting them on supervision is "likely more effective" at limiting future criminal behavior than simply having them serve a few extra years in prison.
The entire rest of my post was a rendition of objective fact based on extensive experience. So unless you are claiming that I'm making it all up, I'm not sure why my "bias" would be relevant.
quote:
Have you ever defended anyone you believed to be guilty based on actual evidence?
You would need to define "defended". I've certainly represented their interests, yes.
This post was edited on 8/26/17 at 10:26 am
1
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:24 am to Joshjrn
quote:
A career as a criminal defense attorney?
Just curious. Working in any field does not exclude one from conscious or unconscious bias. "Why, I'm a professional car salesman. You can trust my judgement as to what you need in a car....I'm a trained professional!".
Even tho you had nothing to do with the case, how would your professional unbiased judgement as a defense attorney answer this question? Based on the evidence, was Trayvon Martin a victim or was he the aggressor in the events that led to his death?
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:24 am to conservativewifeymom
quote:
As long as you have to label things 'hystrionic' there can be No conversation. Do answer my comment about the victims. What is the consideration given? How do you deal with the very real possibility that they may kill or maim again?!?! There ARE other sides, views and possibilities besides the ones you think you know all about.
Sure, you roll your eyes at me, but I'm the one making conversation difficult
But you know what, I'll play ball, at least for a little while: as a starting point, please define "gun crime" in the context of the 60% statistic cited in the article.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:25 am to Tiguar
quote:What makes you think it was totally reasonable?
maybe fricking law school?
he's a lawyer and his response was totally reasonable
***My Dale51 impersonation.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:27 am to Dale51
quote:He was just explaining how it works. Now you could question his opinion regarding the effectiveness of it, but he wasn't pretending his opinion was infallible.
Just curious. Working in any field does not exclude one from conscious or unconscious bias
So in this case, his expertise is important in understanding how the system works at least.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:27 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Couple that with the multiple cases of police planting evidence and acting unlawfull
I bet that shite sounded great in your head before typing it.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:30 am to Joshjrn
quote:
instead of a three year sentence, he would plead to a recommended sentence of 12 years.
Wait - it is possible to change the parameters of the original sentence??
never heard that before - I thought all of those kinds of negations were done prior to trial.
sounds like a good program to me - unless it can be manipulated in reverse.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:32 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
If you commit a crime with a gun -- especially a stolen gun -- you should serve some SERIOUS time.
Absolutely - no question about it. and parole should be a twinkle in the eye not an expectation.
quote:
Tougher enforcement of gun crimes should be the NRA's number 1 focus. Because criminals with guns are the biggest enemy of legal gun owners.
totally agree
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:33 am to Joshjrn
quote:
So unless you are claiming that I'm making it all up, I'm not sure why my "bias" would be relevant.
It's not an "either or" situation. Individual bias is most likely an learned and unconscious condition.
quote:.
You would need to define "defended". I've certainly represented their interests, yes.
You add evidence to my point.
Dodging the question shows an unwillingness to be honest. It can be a product of conscious or unconscious bias or a learned defense mechanism.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:34 am to Dale51
quote:
Even tho you had nothing to do with the case, how would your professional unbiased judgement as a defense attorney answer this question? Based on the evidence, was Trayvon Martin a victim or was he the aggressor in the events that led to his death?
While I followed the case generally, I did so as a layman being I'm not licensed to practice in the state of Florida.
Answering from the perspective of pretending as though those events occurred in the state of Louisiana (also a firm stand your ground state), I believe the law would consider Martin the aggressor. There is a bit of nuance there concerning whether a reasonable person would believe they were under threat of imminent harm by their pursuer even though physical contact hadn't been made, but it's my professional opinion that most jurors would consider that too attenuated. I think the more interesting question at trial would be whether the use of deadly force were reasonable under the circumstances, but again, I think the average juror would likely say yes.
There's your answer, though I genuinely have no idea why you just asked it
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:35 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
***My Dale51 impersonation.
Keep your day job.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:36 am to Joshjrn
quote:
While I followed the case generally, I did so as a layman being I'm not licensed to practice in the state of Florida.
if there was any doubt you were a lawyer, this response right here should put that to rest
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:37 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Wait - it is possible to change the parameters of the original sentence??
never heard that before - I thought all of those kinds of negations were done prior to trial.
sounds like a good program to me - unless it can be manipulated in reverse.
I'm... not following your question?
I just read the article again, and they only made reference to "convictions", nothing about convictions at trial. As such, convictions would include pleas. So yes, what I described is extremely common, but I would agree that it's vastly less common after a conviction at trial.
So, I think I answered your question?
This post was edited on 8/26/17 at 10:37 am
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:41 am to Joshjrn
quote:
There's your answer, though I genuinely have no idea why you just asked it
You didn't answer the question. I genuinely have no idea why you were unable to answer a simple question of what your evaluation of the case was, based on the actual evidence. Your response seemed a trained dodge...i.e conscious or unconscious bias or defense.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:42 am to conservativewifeymom
quote:
No, pretty please, no!
We have learned not to let a crisis go to waste! After Katrina we were able to export to Houston and Atlanta very efficiently!
How about, you and your family join the stolen vehicle recovery team? Y'all could be paid to relocate to Sportsman's Paradise! We would love to welcome a new conservative wife and mother!
Just thinking out of the box.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:43 am to Dale51
quote:
You add evidence to my point.
Dodging the question shows an unwillingness to be honest. It can be a product of conscious or unconscious bias or a learned defense mechanism.
I didn't dodge your question. You used a term that could be defined in multiple ways, so I rejected it and replaced it with a term that I believed was more accurate.
I'll explain:
If you are asking me whether I have had clients who I knew beyond any reasonable doubt was guilty of the exact crimes they were charged with and I advocated for their interests to the ADA handling their case in order to reach the best resolution possible for my client? Absolutely.
If you are asking me whether I have had clients who I knew beyond any reasonable doubt was guilty of the exact crimes they were charged with and I "defended" them at trial? The answer is actually no, because I'm extremely good at my job. It's not in my clients' interest for me to try dead losers for my own amusement, and because I generally don't ask my clients if they are guilty or not, it's rare that I know something uber incriminating that the state is unaware of.
Now, to answer your inevitable next question: if I were ever presented with the situation I just described, I would absolutely "defend" them at trial with everything I had, because I take my duty to my clients as seriously as most of you take your religions. So, take that as you will.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:45 am to Gaspergou202
Oh, no worries, we already have plenty of family connections in the Sportsman's Paradise! Including lawyers! 
Relocation is not an option, much better salaries up here! ;-)
Including lawyers! Relocation is not an option, much better salaries up here! ;-)Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:46 am to Dale51
quote:
You didn't answer the question. I genuinely have no idea why you were unable to answer a simple question of what your evaluation of the case was, based on the actual evidence. Your response seemed a trained dodge...i.e conscious or unconscious bias or defense.
W...what?
quote:
Answering from the perspective of pretending as though those events occurred in the state of Louisiana (also a firm stand your ground state), I believe the law would consider Martin the aggressor.
I'm not sure how I could have made "my evaluation of the case" any more clear. I suppose I could find a way to reword it if you'd like?
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:46 am to conservativewifeymom
Friend of mine used to be in the NOPD. Judges not enforcing firearm violations was his biggest gripe with the local justice system.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:49 am to Joshjrn
quote:
You used a term that could be defined in multiple ways, so I rejected it and replaced it with a term that I believed was more accurate.
Because that fit your dodge.
I asked if you ever defended someone you knew was guilty. Not that complicated a question.
quote:
if I were ever presented with the situation I just described, I would absolutely "defend" them at trial with everything I had, because I take my duty to my clients as seriously as most of you take your religions.
So justice does not concern you as much as your trained profession. Got it.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News