| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote: Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was? That it wasn’t a defamation case against the New York Times? | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 14 2016 05:02 OuchyDathurts wrote: That still assumes the other attorney isn't an idiot who fails to point out that rape has little to nothing to do with attractiveness and more to do with power. I mean yeah you can take that shot but that's certainly not the odds on play. Good luck getting the average juror to accept the intellectual argument. | ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
On October 14 2016 05:03 xDaunt wrote: Good luck getting the average juror to accept the intellectual argument. trumps campaign messaging in a nutshell | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On October 14 2016 05:03 xDaunt wrote: Good luck getting the average juror to accept the intellectual argument. You also assume you have to make that argument and they didn't come into jury duty already understanding that its a power dynamic thing. That one of those 12 jurors doesn't believe that to start with seems an unbelievable long shot. That one of those 12 can't be convinced of that argument an even longer shot. Yeah you can do it but man that's some playing with fire. If you've got literally nothing else though you gotta do what you gotta do, but you should buy a powerball and mega millions ticket beforehand. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 14 2016 04:56 Thieving Magpie wrote: Although what he said was disgusting and deplorable--that wasn't actually what XDaunt was saying. The evidence had is that Trump having a recording of him saying he goes after pretty women. Trumps defense is that accuser is not pretty, hence does not fit the description of the evidence. Still shitty, but its a different thing than what you're framing. This would all fall under character evidence, which is relevant but is not what people go to trial for. Just like saying "I would sexually assault hot women" is not evidence that he assaulted every hot woman he came across, it's not a defence against him assaulting one particular woman who isn't "hot". So basically this line of defence would only confirm the character evidence, and do nothing to refute the direct case evidence. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 14 2016 05:08 OuchyDathurts wrote: You also assume you have to make that argument and they didn't come into jury duty already understanding that its a power dynamic thing. That one of those 12 jurors doesn't believe that to start with seems an unbelievable long shot. That one of those 12 can't be convinced of that argument an even longer shot. Yeah you can do it but man that's some playing with fire. I think you're counting the wrong way; you only need to get one juror to vote not guilty, as long as one person buys the argument you're in decent shape as a defender. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 14 2016 05:00 xDaunt wrote: Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was? Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this: ![[image loading]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/19/article-1388875-0C26F21C00000578-570_468x618.jpg) And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 14 2016 05:10 zlefin wrote: I think you're counting the wrong way; you only need to get one juror to vote not guilty, as long as one person buys the argument you're in decent shape as a defender. Except we don’t know if we are talking about a civil or criminal case, both with have very different rules on burden of proof, evidence and so on. It also depends on the states. This is why the “It depends on the case” excuse is always viable without clear facts. But it also doesn’t make every argument applicable to the majority of cases. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On October 14 2016 05:14 xDaunt wrote: Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this: And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice. Interesting that Arnold was in fact willing to have sex with a supposedly ugly woman. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On October 14 2016 05:14 xDaunt wrote: Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this: + Show Spoiler + And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice. Did you just try to say that Arnold having an affair with a less attractive women means that someone could claim that they found a women was too ugly to assault and hence could not have done it? Isnt this further evidence that regardless of attractiveness someone with a proclivity for sexual assault could go for anyone? I dont even.... Edit: tldr Arnold had an affair with unattractive women therefore Trump could not have assaulted what he thought was an unattractive women. | ||
|
brian
United States9641 Posts
On October 14 2016 05:14 xDaunt wrote: Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this: And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice. I feel like your example is a counterpoint to your argument. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 14 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote: It is also a narrative that doesn’t help Trump, since even if he proves that isn’t attracted to the woman, he won’t help his case against the Times. At all. That doesn’t prove the story isn’t’ news worthy or that the knowingly published an inaccurate story to defame Trump. I do not disagree with you. I don't think its a line of argument that should be made--and its a bad argument regardless. Just wanted to make sure that we aren't attacking a stance XDaunt wasn't actually making. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22372 Posts
On October 14 2016 05:14 xDaunt wrote: Alright, I'll answer my own question. The most surprising thing was that Arnold, a dude who could have anyone he wanted, had an affair with a woman who looked like this: And this surprising revelation was discussed quite a bit at the time. So don't tell me that the argument that a woman can be too ugly for a guy to sexually assault doesn't potentially have some juice. You just defeated your own argument by showing men will fuck mud if given the chance... Seriously, every time 'Lawyer xDaunt' talks I am more and more surprised your actually a lawyer, saying such dumb shit. User was warned for this post | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On October 14 2016 05:23 brian wrote: I feel like your example is a counterpoint to your argument. I tought it was hilarous that Arnold withdrew support from Trump after some audio tape given he did his nanny while married. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9208 Posts
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6008 https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/57bhjf/they_killed_scalia_they_killed_scalia_they_killed/ I'm crying with laughter at those comments, unreal | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On October 14 2016 05:32 GoTuNk! wrote: I tought it was hilarous that Arnold withdrew support from Trump after some audio tape given he did his nanny while married. Cheating isn't illegal nor on trial. No one cares that Trump cheats on his wife, they care that he rapes and assaults women. Arnold never raped or assaulted his ugly maid, he just stuck his dick in her, it was consensual. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22372 Posts
On October 14 2016 05:32 GoTuNk! wrote: I tought it was hilarous that Arnold withdrew support from Trump after some audio tape given he did his nanny while married. Did Arnold have an affair or did he sexually assault the nanny? Right then, there is your answer about the difference... | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 14 2016 05:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: I do not disagree with you. I don't think its a line of argument that should be made--and its a bad argument regardless. Just wanted to make sure that we aren't attacking a stance XDaunt wasn't actually making. One of the main problems with how Xdaunt talks about law is that he is super vague to start the discussion, waits for people to respond, then provide more details to show how his previous statement was valid. And then calls everyone super dumb for responding to his vague comment. Every argument can be valid if the fact set supports it. Of course lawyers are going to use good arguments if the case allows. This case is a classic example. He says he would use the argument that his client wouldn’t be attracted to the victim/plaintiff. But doesn’t let us know if it’s a criminal or civil case. People respond, say the argument is high risk, might back fire, the jury might find it insulting or dislike him for making it. Then the details of the case are back filled to counter those arguments. Its like advanced legal knowledge shit posting. Say vague shit about law, get a rise out of people. Say people are all dumb, I’m a lawyer, let me explain why my point is valid by providing you with details I am making up right now. | ||
KwarK
United States43989 Posts
On October 14 2016 04:54 xDaunt wrote: For all of you junior attorneys out there who clearly have no idea how any of this works, let me explain how trial lawyering works: you pick the best narrative that you can that accomplishes what you seek to accomplish at trial while also best fitting the available facts. If I'm representing a defendant in a sexual assault case where there's some ambiguity over whether the sexual assault occurred (let's face it, these are the only cases that would go to trial anyway unless we're talking about consent issues), where the plaintiff is ugly, and where the defendant can show a rich history of dating/fucking/whatevering hot women, then I am very strongly going to consider promoting the narrative that the defendant didn't sexually assault the because the plaintiff is out of the defendant's league. If I have some evidence suggesting that the plaintiff has credibility problems or greed problems, then I most certainly will promote that narrative. Y'all's problem is that you can't fathom the scenario where there's some gray area regarding what happened. Your problem is that you have no idea how sexual predators work and yet mean to present yourself as an expert before a jury. | ||
| ||
|
|
IPSL
Bonyth vs Napoleon
G5 vs JDConan
BSL
OyAji vs JDConan
DragOn vs TBD
Replay Cast
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
GSL
Replay Cast
GSL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
