- 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 10:52 am to Dale51
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:52 am to Dale51
quote:
Because that fit your dodge.
I asked if you ever defended someone you knew was guilty. Not that complicated a question.
Oh this is beautiful...
You say that your question wasn't complicated, yet, had I answered it as you intended it by your gotcha comment at the end of your post...
the correct answer would have been no...
Sounds like you're the one who needs to keep their day job
1
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:53 am to Dale51
quote:
So justice does not concern you as much as your trained profession. Got it.
This is the oath I swore:
quote:
I solemnly swear (or affirm) I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Louisiana;
I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;
I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land;
I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law;
I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client and will accept no compensation in connection with a client's business except from the client or with the client's knowledge and approval;
To opposing parties and their counsel, I pledge fairness, integrity, and civility, not only in court, but also in all written and oral communications;
I will abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged;
I will never reject from any consideration personal to myself the cause of the defenseless or oppressed or delay any person's cause for lucre or malice.
So help me God.
My word means quite a bit more to me than yours does to you, apparently.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 10:59 am to Joshjrn
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?
Yes ..you could reword it by simply answering what your opinion on whether the Martin shooting was a justifiable case of self defense based on his acts of aggression.
What your evaluation was...not "the law".
This was simply stated in my initial question. I agree with your evaluation of lawyers being like fundamentalist true believer preachers though. Do you ..you.. think this is a good quality to have when evaluating situations? Is there any bias involved with people who so strongly follow those dogmas?
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:06 am to conservativewifeymom
quote:
much better salaries up here! ;-)
You geaux, girl!
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:08 am to Joshjrn
quote:
You say that your question wasn't complicated, yet, had I answered it as you intended it by your gotcha comment at the end of your post... the correct answer would have been no...
Your bias is showing. You seemed to claim that you would defend someone you knew was guilty. Pointing out that holding that position indicate a greater interest in the profession of legal defense than justice is not a "gotcha" observation.
But maybe I'm not understanding your point. How is that a "gotcha" comment?
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:12 am to Dale51
quote:
Yes ..you could reword it by simply answering what your opinion on whether the Martin shooting was a justifiable case of self defense based on his acts of aggression.
What your evaluation was...not "the law".
Are you serious?
You ask an attorney for their opinion about a criminal case, then accuse them of "dodging" and "bias" because they answer the question based on their understanding of the application of the law? Because what you really wanted was their personal opinion? Of what? What the law should be? Who on earth cares?
If you want me to answer such an asinine question, at least have the courtesy to ask it outright; don't expect me to intuit it.
Yes, I agree with the law that Martin was the aggressor. Just because I'm following you doesn't give you the right to jump me, and just because you decided to fight with fists doesn't mean I'm limited to fists as well. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Are we happy now that the highly trained professional has given their utterly pointless personal feelings on the subject? Can this response now being considered "unbiased" and "not a dodge"?
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:14 am to Joshjrn
quote:
This is the oath I swore:
And? By your...seemingly implied point..everyone who "Swears an oath" is miraculously freed from any possible future bias or corruption....except for all those other "oath swearers" who you disagree with! Got it?
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:14 am to 10888bge
The point, of course, is that these judges are uber-partisan and are substituting their personal opinions for the law. That high a percentage of sentence suspensions reflects a systematic pattern of (mis)behavior by those judges. Simply, they don't like the law and are not applying it.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:18 am to Dale51
quote:
Your bias is showing.
bullshite. Admit that your original question wouldn't have netted you the answer you actually wanted. To save you the effort, here it was:
quote:
Have you ever defended anyone you believed to be guilty based on actual evidence?
The answer is no. Flat no. Would you have been happy with that? Or would that have been a dodge?
For you to get the answer you were actually looking for, I not only had to dissect your question, but then answer a question you hadn't even asked. Yet, you're so bought into your "bias" narrative that my intuiting the gotcha you wanted and giving it to you still isn't good enough.
And it's a gotcha because my belief that I have a duty under the Constitution and my oath to defend actual clients who I believe are objectively guilty has absolutely nothing to do with my giving an objective rendition of reality on an anonymous fricking message board.
Ask me a question that affects one of my clients and I'll admit my bias all day long. But I'd love to hear you explain how that client specific bias translates to posting on this thread. Which, you know, pertains to fricking Baltimore.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:18 am to Joshjrn
quote:
I answered it as you intended it by your gotcha comment at the end of your post
Again...you're dodging a simple question. I didn't ask for you professional opinion...I asked for your personal opinion. If you can't separate yourself from your profession, your own observation of being like a true believer religious zealot is more believable.
Thanks for the honest answer.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:20 am to Dale51
quote:
And? By your...seemingly implied point..everyone who "Swears an oath" is miraculously freed from any possible future bias or corruption....except for all those other "oath swearers" who you disagree with! Got it?
Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit.
My citation of the oath was a direct response to the segment of your post that I quoted: accusing me of somehow not being concerned with what you perceive to be "justice".
Try to keep your arguments straight.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:23 am to Joshjrn
quote:
If you want me to answer such an asinine question, at least have the courtesy to ask it outright;
I did ask you outright. You spun it into a question of law. It was..obviously, and quite clearly..a question of personal evaluation of the case.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:24 am to Dale51
quote:
Again...you're dodging a simple question. I didn't ask for you professional opinion...I asked for your personal opinion. If you can't separate yourself from your profession, your own observation of being like a true believer religious zealot is more believable.
Thanks for the honest answer.
You're either lying or confused.
This was your question about the Martin case:
quote:
Even tho you had nothing to do with the case, how would your professional unbiased judgement as a defense attorney answer this question?
So clearly asking my "professional" opinion.
This was your question about my defending clients:
quote:
Have you ever defended anyone you believed to be guilty based on actual evidence?
That's not a question calling for professional or personal opinion. It's a question asking for a response of objective fact. I felt uncomfortable answering your question as posed because I didn't know exactly what you meant, so if I misread how you intended your question, it wouldn't be a matter of opinion, my answer would simply be wrong.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:26 am to Dale51
quote:
I did ask you outright. You spun it into a question of law. It was..obviously, and quite clearly..a question of personal evaluation of the case.
Oh, good, so lying.
Again, this was your question:
quote:
Even tho you had nothing to do with the case, how would your professional unbiased judgement as a defense attorney answer this question?
If you believe that question was clearly asking for my personal opinion of what the law should be, you are sorely in need of a course in rhetoric. Or vocabulary, I guess.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:34 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Bull shite. Admit that your original question wouldn't have netted you the answer you actually wanted.
You seem angry about something.
All I wanted was an honest answer.
quote:
The answer is no. Flat no. Would you have been happy with that? Or would that have been a dodge?
I would have been very happy with that honest answer, and no..it would not have been a dodge, it would have led to my next question which would have been:
"Would you?"..... which you already answered....yes you would...because you take your job as "seriously as some take their religion".
This led to my observation that you're more interested in your job of defense than you are in justice. You took that as an ad hominem.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:42 am to Dale51
quote:
All I wanted was an honest answer.
And all I wanted was to give you one, which I could only do by figuring out exactly what you were asking. Your question wasn't clear. I happened to get lucky on what you meant, but you just as easily could have meant "defend" to also include advocating for my clients short of trial. I've gotten cases dismissed when my client was guilty as sin. Is that "defending" them? Maybe. It just depends on how you define the term. If you defined it this way, my answer of "no" would have been objectively false, even though I was intending to answer honestly.
See the problem here?
quote:
This led to my observation that you're more interested in your job of defense than you are in justice. You took that as an ad hominem.
No I didn't. I took as an ad hominem the fact that my factual rendition of objective reality was dismissed as "biased" because I'm a criminal defense attorney. If you'd like to say that the one subjective statement I made, namely that I think hanging more time over people's heads is generally more effective. You're welcome to say that position is biased, and it very well may be. Even with my bias, my opinion likely carries far more weight on the subject because I have actual knowledge and experience in the area, but still potentially biased.
But my simply explaining how the system works based on experience? Not subjected to bias, unless you think I'm simply lying. Which, if you do, say so. That would at least make more sense.
This post was edited on 8/26/17 at 11:43 am
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:42 am to Joshjrn
quote:
My citation of the oath was a direct response to the segment of your post that I quoted: accusing me of somehow not being concerned with what you perceive to be "justice". Try to keep your arguments straight.
Your bias is showing...but you can't seem to keep it straight. Again...swearing an oath does not free oneself from ulterior motives, either conscious or unconscious. You stated that you would defend someone you knew was guilty. THAT mind set does not show an interest in justice, no matter how much you "swear". Try to keep your reasonings consistent.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:46 am to Dale51
quote:
Your bias is showing...but you can't seem to keep it straight. Again...swearing an oath does not free oneself from ulterior motives, either conscious or unconscious. You stated that you would defend someone you knew was guilty. THAT mind set does not show an interest in justice, no matter how much you "swear". Try to keep your reasonings consistent.
My reasoning is consistent; your definition of justice and apparent understanding of the legal system both betray an almost astounding level of ignorance.
If your definition of "justice" requires that no objectively guilty person is ever represented by counsel, then the Constitution is fundamentally unjust. You should probably speak with your state legislature about passing an amendment. Because our current reality is that, hypothetically, were every attorney to refuse to represent guilty people, said guilty people could never be tried, and would have to be let free.
Literally the only way "justice" can be served is if the guilty individual has competent and zealous defense. Otherwise, congratulations Dale, you just let all the criminals go free.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:53 am to Joshjrn
quote:
You're either lying or confused.
This was your question about the Martin case:
quote:
Even tho you had nothing to do with the case, how would your professional unbiased judgement as a defense attorney answer this question?
So clearly asking my "professional" opinion.
You're leaving out context. My question was directed at the hypocrisy of your claim..a sarcastic observation made clear by the part you conveniently omitted. Which is this.
quote:
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?
I compared the veracity of claiming someones "profession" equaling being free of person bias with that of a used car salesman and any questions asked either are free from personal bias.
You're waaay too sensitive.
Posted on 8/26/17 at 11:54 am to Dale51
quote:
What would you estimate the ratio of cops planting evidence to gun offender hand slaps is? Just a ballpark guess.
I have no idea. One does not justify the other. They're both morally and legally reprehensible
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News