|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 02 2013 14:52 omnic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 14:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 14:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 14:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:36 AndAgain wrote:On July 02 2013 13:07 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 02 2013 07:38 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:27 Infernal_dream wrote:
[quote]
I wouldn't say worst ever. Maybe if he immediately shot him or something. But not for shooting him when he was in a fight. There's people at my work actually convinced that GZ slammed his own head into the ground to cause the cuts. My building has a Neighborhood Watch, and we have managed to kill 0 relatives of the people that live here. *pats himself on the back* Is there something other than race (besides being pissed off that the racial victimology and outrage angle you've been jumping on mercilessly has been shot below the waterline) that causes you and Magpie to be snarky mean girls towards Zimmerman? The idea that he profiled and stalked Martin intending to harm or restrain him is totally without credibility after today. The police testifying have basically all said that they, men who are trained and experienced in being cynical and cutting through bullshit, said they believe Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman said he only left his car to get a street name to give to the police and that he was going back to his car when Martin jumped him unprovoked and starting beating on him. I'll say it, George Zimmerman: Best. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. If more George Zimmermans were around punk kids of any race would be less likely to think pounding the crap out of a stranger is the solution to being pissed off at that stranger. Looks like you've got it all figured out man. If more George Zimmermans were around and killed punk kids, we'd have less punk kids because they'd be getting killed. It's actually pretty smart. I like that your idea of a good solution is to kill the people. Got problem? Punk kids bothering you? Just fucking kill them. Let me get this straight: are you saying that it's never justified to kill in self defense, or are you saying Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense? The former is clearly a ridiculous position and the latter seems to be contradicted by the evidence that has been presented. I'm not saying it's never justified to kill in self defense but I have to say that I'm quite disgusted by the fact that someone should get praise for it. As for what Zimmerman was doing, I wasn't there and I'm not enough of a dumbass to pretend that I have the truth based on "evidence" cleverly brought forward by people who's jobs revolve around deceit (lawyers). My point is, best case scenario: this is a case of self defense, so why say "Best Neighborhood Watch Ever"? Look at the outcome. I've seen better. And look at the events. To my knowledge at least, Zimmerman disobeyed the cops at some point did he not? Either way, kid's dead - it's a shit neighborhood watch, even if it wasn't his fault. Hell, best case scenario, a dude who's job has to do with security had to resort to a firearm to deal with a 17 year old 150 pounds kid. Had that been me, I'd have thought maybe I was outside of my area of expertise. Maybe I should work in an office where I won't have to use lethal force at the slightest inconvenience. I'll say this - had it been me, I may have done the same thing as the "best case scenario". I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong. I could have sucked at my job and then managed to pull off a lethal self-defense. But how in hell would it make it the best neighborhood watch ever? How would that reduce the number of annoying punk kids? Not properly, I can say that. assuming qualified advocates as we have here, the advocacy system is the best system for getting the truth. the fact that you think the judicial system is a deceitful system makes you look like an idiot. Isn't the post you quoted talking about how a neighborhood watch that shoots people, even when justified, can't qualify for best neighborhood watch ever? I'm just lost as to why advocacy is being discussed when Dj is talking about being a night watchman? learn how to read better. On July 02 2013 14:41 omnic wrote:On July 02 2013 14:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:36 AndAgain wrote:On July 02 2013 13:07 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 02 2013 07:38 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:27 Infernal_dream wrote:
[quote]
I wouldn't say worst ever. Maybe if he immediately shot him or something. But not for shooting him when he was in a fight. There's people at my work actually convinced that GZ slammed his own head into the ground to cause the cuts. My building has a Neighborhood Watch, and we have managed to kill 0 relatives of the people that live here. *pats himself on the back* Is there something other than race (besides being pissed off that the racial victimology and outrage angle you've been jumping on mercilessly has been shot below the waterline) that causes you and Magpie to be snarky mean girls towards Zimmerman? The idea that he profiled and stalked Martin intending to harm or restrain him is totally without credibility after today. The police testifying have basically all said that they, men who are trained and experienced in being cynical and cutting through bullshit, said they believe Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman said he only left his car to get a street name to give to the police and that he was going back to his car when Martin jumped him unprovoked and starting beating on him. I'll say it, George Zimmerman: Best. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. If more George Zimmermans were around punk kids of any race would be less likely to think pounding the crap out of a stranger is the solution to being pissed off at that stranger. Looks like you've got it all figured out man. If more George Zimmermans were around and killed punk kids, we'd have less punk kids because they'd be getting killed. It's actually pretty smart. I like that your idea of a good solution is to kill the people. Got problem? Punk kids bothering you? Just fucking kill them. Let me get this straight: are you saying that it's never justified to kill in self defense, or are you saying Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense? The former is clearly a ridiculous position and the latter seems to be contradicted by the evidence that has been presented. I'm not saying it's never justified to kill in self defense but I have to say that I'm quite disgusted by the fact that someone should get praise for it. As for what Zimmerman was doing, I wasn't there and I'm not enough of a dumbass to pretend that I have the truth based on "evidence" cleverly brought forward by people who's jobs revolve around deceit (lawyers). My point is, best case scenario: this is a case of self defense, so why say "Best Neighborhood Watch Ever"? Look at the outcome. I've seen better. And look at the events. To my knowledge at least, Zimmerman disobeyed the cops at some point did he not? Either way, kid's dead - it's a shit neighborhood watch, even if it wasn't his fault. Hell, best case scenario, a dude who's job has to do with security had to resort to a firearm to deal with a 17 year old 150 pounds kid. Had that been me, I'd have thought maybe I was outside of my area of expertise. Maybe I should work in an office where I won't have to use lethal force at the slightest inconvenience. I'll say this - had it been me, I may have done the same thing as the "best case scenario". I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong. I could have sucked at my job and then managed to pull off a lethal self-defense. But how in hell would it make it the best neighborhood watch ever? How would that reduce the number of annoying punk kids? Not properly, I can say that. assuming qualified advocates as we have here, the advocacy system is the best system for getting the truth. the fact that you think the judicial system is a deceitful system makes you look like an idiot. He didn't say the judicial system is deceitful he said lawyers. Their job isn't to uncover or release the truth. Their job is to either defend or prosecute in these cases. two equal opponents fighting over the truth is the best way to get to the truth. the process is good; it is not deceitful. The process can be good just as it can be deceitful. Don't get me wrong i'm all in favor of the judicial system but i'm not going to act like lawyers put the truth before their client. Plenty of lawyers will admit to defending (and even successfully defending) a client that they believed to guilty.
Defending a guilty client and not presenting the truth to their client are two entirely different things. A lawyer is liable if he don't show his client the truth, and in fact, there is absolutely no reason for an attorney to do that. None. They get sued, and there is no upside. As to defending guilty clients, well, duh, everyone has the right to an attorney, so whether they are guilty or not isn't relevant, especially since they aren't guilty until conviction.
|
People are really reaching for straws to explain some story supporting Z's guilt. Nancy Grace just had a caller that claimed that when Z reached in his pocket looking for his cell phone to call 911 was an "aggressive move". Of course, in another hour on HLN will be the grand daddy of them all, when that ridiculous "juror" provides her "theory of the case". I'm telling you thread participants, record this show if you can't watch it. Most ridiculous thing you've ever seen.
|
On July 02 2013 14:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 14:52 omnic wrote:On July 02 2013 14:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 14:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 14:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:36 AndAgain wrote:On July 02 2013 13:07 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 02 2013 07:38 Defacer wrote:
[quote]
My building has a Neighborhood Watch, and we have managed to kill 0 relatives of the people that live here. *pats himself on the back* Is there something other than race (besides being pissed off that the racial victimology and outrage angle you've been jumping on mercilessly has been shot below the waterline) that causes you and Magpie to be snarky mean girls towards Zimmerman? The idea that he profiled and stalked Martin intending to harm or restrain him is totally without credibility after today. The police testifying have basically all said that they, men who are trained and experienced in being cynical and cutting through bullshit, said they believe Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman said he only left his car to get a street name to give to the police and that he was going back to his car when Martin jumped him unprovoked and starting beating on him. I'll say it, George Zimmerman: Best. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. If more George Zimmermans were around punk kids of any race would be less likely to think pounding the crap out of a stranger is the solution to being pissed off at that stranger. Looks like you've got it all figured out man. If more George Zimmermans were around and killed punk kids, we'd have less punk kids because they'd be getting killed. It's actually pretty smart. I like that your idea of a good solution is to kill the people. Got problem? Punk kids bothering you? Just fucking kill them. Let me get this straight: are you saying that it's never justified to kill in self defense, or are you saying Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense? The former is clearly a ridiculous position and the latter seems to be contradicted by the evidence that has been presented. I'm not saying it's never justified to kill in self defense but I have to say that I'm quite disgusted by the fact that someone should get praise for it. As for what Zimmerman was doing, I wasn't there and I'm not enough of a dumbass to pretend that I have the truth based on "evidence" cleverly brought forward by people who's jobs revolve around deceit (lawyers). My point is, best case scenario: this is a case of self defense, so why say "Best Neighborhood Watch Ever"? Look at the outcome. I've seen better. And look at the events. To my knowledge at least, Zimmerman disobeyed the cops at some point did he not? Either way, kid's dead - it's a shit neighborhood watch, even if it wasn't his fault. Hell, best case scenario, a dude who's job has to do with security had to resort to a firearm to deal with a 17 year old 150 pounds kid. Had that been me, I'd have thought maybe I was outside of my area of expertise. Maybe I should work in an office where I won't have to use lethal force at the slightest inconvenience. I'll say this - had it been me, I may have done the same thing as the "best case scenario". I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong. I could have sucked at my job and then managed to pull off a lethal self-defense. But how in hell would it make it the best neighborhood watch ever? How would that reduce the number of annoying punk kids? Not properly, I can say that. assuming qualified advocates as we have here, the advocacy system is the best system for getting the truth. the fact that you think the judicial system is a deceitful system makes you look like an idiot. Isn't the post you quoted talking about how a neighborhood watch that shoots people, even when justified, can't qualify for best neighborhood watch ever? I'm just lost as to why advocacy is being discussed when Dj is talking about being a night watchman? learn how to read better. On July 02 2013 14:41 omnic wrote:On July 02 2013 14:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:36 AndAgain wrote:On July 02 2013 13:07 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 02 2013 07:38 Defacer wrote:
[quote]
My building has a Neighborhood Watch, and we have managed to kill 0 relatives of the people that live here. *pats himself on the back* Is there something other than race (besides being pissed off that the racial victimology and outrage angle you've been jumping on mercilessly has been shot below the waterline) that causes you and Magpie to be snarky mean girls towards Zimmerman? The idea that he profiled and stalked Martin intending to harm or restrain him is totally without credibility after today. The police testifying have basically all said that they, men who are trained and experienced in being cynical and cutting through bullshit, said they believe Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman said he only left his car to get a street name to give to the police and that he was going back to his car when Martin jumped him unprovoked and starting beating on him. I'll say it, George Zimmerman: Best. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. If more George Zimmermans were around punk kids of any race would be less likely to think pounding the crap out of a stranger is the solution to being pissed off at that stranger. Looks like you've got it all figured out man. If more George Zimmermans were around and killed punk kids, we'd have less punk kids because they'd be getting killed. It's actually pretty smart. I like that your idea of a good solution is to kill the people. Got problem? Punk kids bothering you? Just fucking kill them. Let me get this straight: are you saying that it's never justified to kill in self defense, or are you saying Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense? The former is clearly a ridiculous position and the latter seems to be contradicted by the evidence that has been presented. I'm not saying it's never justified to kill in self defense but I have to say that I'm quite disgusted by the fact that someone should get praise for it. As for what Zimmerman was doing, I wasn't there and I'm not enough of a dumbass to pretend that I have the truth based on "evidence" cleverly brought forward by people who's jobs revolve around deceit (lawyers). My point is, best case scenario: this is a case of self defense, so why say "Best Neighborhood Watch Ever"? Look at the outcome. I've seen better. And look at the events. To my knowledge at least, Zimmerman disobeyed the cops at some point did he not? Either way, kid's dead - it's a shit neighborhood watch, even if it wasn't his fault. Hell, best case scenario, a dude who's job has to do with security had to resort to a firearm to deal with a 17 year old 150 pounds kid. Had that been me, I'd have thought maybe I was outside of my area of expertise. Maybe I should work in an office where I won't have to use lethal force at the slightest inconvenience. I'll say this - had it been me, I may have done the same thing as the "best case scenario". I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong. I could have sucked at my job and then managed to pull off a lethal self-defense. But how in hell would it make it the best neighborhood watch ever? How would that reduce the number of annoying punk kids? Not properly, I can say that. assuming qualified advocates as we have here, the advocacy system is the best system for getting the truth. the fact that you think the judicial system is a deceitful system makes you look like an idiot. He didn't say the judicial system is deceitful he said lawyers. Their job isn't to uncover or release the truth. Their job is to either defend or prosecute in these cases. two equal opponents fighting over the truth is the best way to get to the truth. the process is good; it is not deceitful. The process can be good just as it can be deceitful. Don't get me wrong i'm all in favor of the judicial system but i'm not going to act like lawyers put the truth before their client. Plenty of lawyers will admit to defending (and even successfully defending) a client that they believed to guilty. you are still confusing the role of a single lawyer and that of the advocacy system. you need two equal sides seeking the truth, not one. thats why people dont go undefended, and courts admonish people who want to go pro per severely.
No i'm not. I'm pointing out as he did that lawyer by the very nature of their job do have to be deceitful at times.
On July 02 2013 14:58 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 14:52 omnic wrote:On July 02 2013 14:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 14:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 14:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:36 AndAgain wrote:On July 02 2013 13:07 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 02 2013 07:38 Defacer wrote:
[quote]
My building has a Neighborhood Watch, and we have managed to kill 0 relatives of the people that live here. *pats himself on the back* Is there something other than race (besides being pissed off that the racial victimology and outrage angle you've been jumping on mercilessly has been shot below the waterline) that causes you and Magpie to be snarky mean girls towards Zimmerman? The idea that he profiled and stalked Martin intending to harm or restrain him is totally without credibility after today. The police testifying have basically all said that they, men who are trained and experienced in being cynical and cutting through bullshit, said they believe Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman said he only left his car to get a street name to give to the police and that he was going back to his car when Martin jumped him unprovoked and starting beating on him. I'll say it, George Zimmerman: Best. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. If more George Zimmermans were around punk kids of any race would be less likely to think pounding the crap out of a stranger is the solution to being pissed off at that stranger. Looks like you've got it all figured out man. If more George Zimmermans were around and killed punk kids, we'd have less punk kids because they'd be getting killed. It's actually pretty smart. I like that your idea of a good solution is to kill the people. Got problem? Punk kids bothering you? Just fucking kill them. Let me get this straight: are you saying that it's never justified to kill in self defense, or are you saying Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense? The former is clearly a ridiculous position and the latter seems to be contradicted by the evidence that has been presented. I'm not saying it's never justified to kill in self defense but I have to say that I'm quite disgusted by the fact that someone should get praise for it. As for what Zimmerman was doing, I wasn't there and I'm not enough of a dumbass to pretend that I have the truth based on "evidence" cleverly brought forward by people who's jobs revolve around deceit (lawyers). My point is, best case scenario: this is a case of self defense, so why say "Best Neighborhood Watch Ever"? Look at the outcome. I've seen better. And look at the events. To my knowledge at least, Zimmerman disobeyed the cops at some point did he not? Either way, kid's dead - it's a shit neighborhood watch, even if it wasn't his fault. Hell, best case scenario, a dude who's job has to do with security had to resort to a firearm to deal with a 17 year old 150 pounds kid. Had that been me, I'd have thought maybe I was outside of my area of expertise. Maybe I should work in an office where I won't have to use lethal force at the slightest inconvenience. I'll say this - had it been me, I may have done the same thing as the "best case scenario". I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong. I could have sucked at my job and then managed to pull off a lethal self-defense. But how in hell would it make it the best neighborhood watch ever? How would that reduce the number of annoying punk kids? Not properly, I can say that. assuming qualified advocates as we have here, the advocacy system is the best system for getting the truth. the fact that you think the judicial system is a deceitful system makes you look like an idiot. Isn't the post you quoted talking about how a neighborhood watch that shoots people, even when justified, can't qualify for best neighborhood watch ever? I'm just lost as to why advocacy is being discussed when Dj is talking about being a night watchman? learn how to read better. On July 02 2013 14:41 omnic wrote:On July 02 2013 14:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:36 AndAgain wrote:On July 02 2013 13:07 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 02 2013 07:38 Defacer wrote:
[quote]
My building has a Neighborhood Watch, and we have managed to kill 0 relatives of the people that live here. *pats himself on the back* Is there something other than race (besides being pissed off that the racial victimology and outrage angle you've been jumping on mercilessly has been shot below the waterline) that causes you and Magpie to be snarky mean girls towards Zimmerman? The idea that he profiled and stalked Martin intending to harm or restrain him is totally without credibility after today. The police testifying have basically all said that they, men who are trained and experienced in being cynical and cutting through bullshit, said they believe Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman said he only left his car to get a street name to give to the police and that he was going back to his car when Martin jumped him unprovoked and starting beating on him. I'll say it, George Zimmerman: Best. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. If more George Zimmermans were around punk kids of any race would be less likely to think pounding the crap out of a stranger is the solution to being pissed off at that stranger. Looks like you've got it all figured out man. If more George Zimmermans were around and killed punk kids, we'd have less punk kids because they'd be getting killed. It's actually pretty smart. I like that your idea of a good solution is to kill the people. Got problem? Punk kids bothering you? Just fucking kill them. Let me get this straight: are you saying that it's never justified to kill in self defense, or are you saying Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense? The former is clearly a ridiculous position and the latter seems to be contradicted by the evidence that has been presented. I'm not saying it's never justified to kill in self defense but I have to say that I'm quite disgusted by the fact that someone should get praise for it. As for what Zimmerman was doing, I wasn't there and I'm not enough of a dumbass to pretend that I have the truth based on "evidence" cleverly brought forward by people who's jobs revolve around deceit (lawyers). My point is, best case scenario: this is a case of self defense, so why say "Best Neighborhood Watch Ever"? Look at the outcome. I've seen better. And look at the events. To my knowledge at least, Zimmerman disobeyed the cops at some point did he not? Either way, kid's dead - it's a shit neighborhood watch, even if it wasn't his fault. Hell, best case scenario, a dude who's job has to do with security had to resort to a firearm to deal with a 17 year old 150 pounds kid. Had that been me, I'd have thought maybe I was outside of my area of expertise. Maybe I should work in an office where I won't have to use lethal force at the slightest inconvenience. I'll say this - had it been me, I may have done the same thing as the "best case scenario". I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong. I could have sucked at my job and then managed to pull off a lethal self-defense. But how in hell would it make it the best neighborhood watch ever? How would that reduce the number of annoying punk kids? Not properly, I can say that. assuming qualified advocates as we have here, the advocacy system is the best system for getting the truth. the fact that you think the judicial system is a deceitful system makes you look like an idiot. He didn't say the judicial system is deceitful he said lawyers. Their job isn't to uncover or release the truth. Their job is to either defend or prosecute in these cases. two equal opponents fighting over the truth is the best way to get to the truth. the process is good; it is not deceitful. The process can be good just as it can be deceitful. Don't get me wrong i'm all in favor of the judicial system but i'm not going to act like lawyers put the truth before their client. Plenty of lawyers will admit to defending (and even successfully defending) a client that they believed to guilty. Defending a guilty client and not presenting the truth to their client are two entirely different things. A lawyer is liable if he don't show his client the truth, and in fact, there is absolutely no reason for an attorney to do that. None. They get sued, and there is no upside. As to defending guilty clients, well, duh, everyone has the right to an attorney, so whether they are guilty or not isn't relevant, especially since they aren't guilty until conviction.
Let me flat out say that I agree with what you're saying here. My point however is that if lawyers do have to argue against what they personally believe to be true is indeed deceitful. It's perfectly acceptable and i'll go even further and say it's good. That however still doesn't change that they are arguing for something that they believe to be false in a manner that is trying to convince others to believe what the lawyer personally believes to be false. That is being deceitful.
|
On July 02 2013 15:00 Kaitlin wrote:
People are really reaching for straws to explain some story supporting Z's guilt. Nancy Grace just had a caller that claimed that when Z reached in his pocket looking for his cell phone to call 911 was an "aggressive move". Of course, in another hour on HLN will be the grand daddy of them all, when that ridiculous "juror" provides her "theory of the case". I'm telling you thread participants, record this show if you can't watch it. Most ridiculous thing you've ever seen.
And when the ensuing riots come, the blood will be on their hands.
|
On July 02 2013 15:03 omnic wrote:
Let me flat out say that I agree with what you're saying here. My point however is that if lawyers do have to argue against what they personally believe to be true is indeed deceitful. It's perfectly acceptable and i'll go even further and say it's good. That however still doesn't change that they are arguing for something that they believe to be false in a manner that is trying to convince others to believe what the lawyer personally believes to be false. That is being deceitful.
It doesn't have to be deceitful. A lawyer can argue to the jury for example "The evidence will show" or "As you've witnessed the testimony to be...". An attorney's personal belief isn't relevant. An attorney presents the case and questions witnesses such that it is consistent with the best interest of their client subject to legal and ethical guidelines. They are prohibited from putting a witness on the stand when they know that their testimony will not be true, and various other things. It's really not deceitful.
Having said that, an attorney who disregards such constraints could be deceitful, but they do so at their own peril. The "role" of the attorney at trial is not deceitful.
|
On July 02 2013 15:00 Kaitlin wrote:
People are really reaching for straws to explain some story supporting Z's guilt. Nancy Grace just had a caller that claimed that when Z reached in his pocket looking for his cell phone to call 911 was an "aggressive move". Of course, in another hour on HLN will be the grand daddy of them all, when that ridiculous "juror" provides her "theory of the case". I'm telling you thread participants, record this show if you can't watch it. Most ridiculous thing you've ever seen.
Nancy Grace is one of the worst things on CNN in my opinion.
On July 02 2013 15:03 ConGee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 15:00 Kaitlin wrote:
People are really reaching for straws to explain some story supporting Z's guilt. Nancy Grace just had a caller that claimed that when Z reached in his pocket looking for his cell phone to call 911 was an "aggressive move". Of course, in another hour on HLN will be the grand daddy of them all, when that ridiculous "juror" provides her "theory of the case". I'm telling you thread participants, record this show if you can't watch it. Most ridiculous thing you've ever seen. And when the ensuing riots come, the blood will be on their hands.
Lets hope it doesn't come down to that. I remain skeptical though. It feels like we'll have another Rodney King on our hands. 53 people died during the LA riots.
|
On July 02 2013 15:03 omnic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 14:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 14:52 omnic wrote:On July 02 2013 14:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 14:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 14:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:36 AndAgain wrote:On July 02 2013 13:07 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:
[quote]
Is there something other than race (besides being pissed off that the racial victimology and outrage angle you've been jumping on mercilessly has been shot below the waterline) that causes you and Magpie to be snarky mean girls towards Zimmerman? The idea that he profiled and stalked Martin intending to harm or restrain him is totally without credibility after today. The police testifying have basically all said that they, men who are trained and experienced in being cynical and cutting through bullshit, said they believe Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman said he only left his car to get a street name to give to the police and that he was going back to his car when Martin jumped him unprovoked and starting beating on him.
I'll say it, George Zimmerman: Best. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. If more George Zimmermans were around punk kids of any race would be less likely to think pounding the crap out of a stranger is the solution to being pissed off at that stranger. Looks like you've got it all figured out man. If more George Zimmermans were around and killed punk kids, we'd have less punk kids because they'd be getting killed. It's actually pretty smart. I like that your idea of a good solution is to kill the people. Got problem? Punk kids bothering you? Just fucking kill them. Let me get this straight: are you saying that it's never justified to kill in self defense, or are you saying Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense? The former is clearly a ridiculous position and the latter seems to be contradicted by the evidence that has been presented. I'm not saying it's never justified to kill in self defense but I have to say that I'm quite disgusted by the fact that someone should get praise for it. As for what Zimmerman was doing, I wasn't there and I'm not enough of a dumbass to pretend that I have the truth based on "evidence" cleverly brought forward by people who's jobs revolve around deceit (lawyers). My point is, best case scenario: this is a case of self defense, so why say "Best Neighborhood Watch Ever"? Look at the outcome. I've seen better. And look at the events. To my knowledge at least, Zimmerman disobeyed the cops at some point did he not? Either way, kid's dead - it's a shit neighborhood watch, even if it wasn't his fault. Hell, best case scenario, a dude who's job has to do with security had to resort to a firearm to deal with a 17 year old 150 pounds kid. Had that been me, I'd have thought maybe I was outside of my area of expertise. Maybe I should work in an office where I won't have to use lethal force at the slightest inconvenience. I'll say this - had it been me, I may have done the same thing as the "best case scenario". I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong. I could have sucked at my job and then managed to pull off a lethal self-defense. But how in hell would it make it the best neighborhood watch ever? How would that reduce the number of annoying punk kids? Not properly, I can say that. assuming qualified advocates as we have here, the advocacy system is the best system for getting the truth. the fact that you think the judicial system is a deceitful system makes you look like an idiot. Isn't the post you quoted talking about how a neighborhood watch that shoots people, even when justified, can't qualify for best neighborhood watch ever? I'm just lost as to why advocacy is being discussed when Dj is talking about being a night watchman? learn how to read better. On July 02 2013 14:41 omnic wrote:On July 02 2013 14:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:36 AndAgain wrote:On July 02 2013 13:07 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:
[quote]
Is there something other than race (besides being pissed off that the racial victimology and outrage angle you've been jumping on mercilessly has been shot below the waterline) that causes you and Magpie to be snarky mean girls towards Zimmerman? The idea that he profiled and stalked Martin intending to harm or restrain him is totally without credibility after today. The police testifying have basically all said that they, men who are trained and experienced in being cynical and cutting through bullshit, said they believe Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman said he only left his car to get a street name to give to the police and that he was going back to his car when Martin jumped him unprovoked and starting beating on him.
I'll say it, George Zimmerman: Best. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. If more George Zimmermans were around punk kids of any race would be less likely to think pounding the crap out of a stranger is the solution to being pissed off at that stranger. Looks like you've got it all figured out man. If more George Zimmermans were around and killed punk kids, we'd have less punk kids because they'd be getting killed. It's actually pretty smart. I like that your idea of a good solution is to kill the people. Got problem? Punk kids bothering you? Just fucking kill them. Let me get this straight: are you saying that it's never justified to kill in self defense, or are you saying Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense? The former is clearly a ridiculous position and the latter seems to be contradicted by the evidence that has been presented. I'm not saying it's never justified to kill in self defense but I have to say that I'm quite disgusted by the fact that someone should get praise for it. As for what Zimmerman was doing, I wasn't there and I'm not enough of a dumbass to pretend that I have the truth based on "evidence" cleverly brought forward by people who's jobs revolve around deceit (lawyers). My point is, best case scenario: this is a case of self defense, so why say "Best Neighborhood Watch Ever"? Look at the outcome. I've seen better. And look at the events. To my knowledge at least, Zimmerman disobeyed the cops at some point did he not? Either way, kid's dead - it's a shit neighborhood watch, even if it wasn't his fault. Hell, best case scenario, a dude who's job has to do with security had to resort to a firearm to deal with a 17 year old 150 pounds kid. Had that been me, I'd have thought maybe I was outside of my area of expertise. Maybe I should work in an office where I won't have to use lethal force at the slightest inconvenience. I'll say this - had it been me, I may have done the same thing as the "best case scenario". I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong. I could have sucked at my job and then managed to pull off a lethal self-defense. But how in hell would it make it the best neighborhood watch ever? How would that reduce the number of annoying punk kids? Not properly, I can say that. assuming qualified advocates as we have here, the advocacy system is the best system for getting the truth. the fact that you think the judicial system is a deceitful system makes you look like an idiot. He didn't say the judicial system is deceitful he said lawyers. Their job isn't to uncover or release the truth. Their job is to either defend or prosecute in these cases. two equal opponents fighting over the truth is the best way to get to the truth. the process is good; it is not deceitful. The process can be good just as it can be deceitful. Don't get me wrong i'm all in favor of the judicial system but i'm not going to act like lawyers put the truth before their client. Plenty of lawyers will admit to defending (and even successfully defending) a client that they believed to guilty. you are still confusing the role of a single lawyer and that of the advocacy system. you need two equal sides seeking the truth, not one. thats why people dont go undefended, and courts admonish people who want to go pro per severely. No i'm not. I'm pointing out as he did that lawyer by the very nature of their job do have to be deceitful at times. Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 14:58 Kaitlin wrote:On July 02 2013 14:52 omnic wrote:On July 02 2013 14:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 14:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 14:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:36 AndAgain wrote:On July 02 2013 13:07 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:
[quote]
Is there something other than race (besides being pissed off that the racial victimology and outrage angle you've been jumping on mercilessly has been shot below the waterline) that causes you and Magpie to be snarky mean girls towards Zimmerman? The idea that he profiled and stalked Martin intending to harm or restrain him is totally without credibility after today. The police testifying have basically all said that they, men who are trained and experienced in being cynical and cutting through bullshit, said they believe Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman said he only left his car to get a street name to give to the police and that he was going back to his car when Martin jumped him unprovoked and starting beating on him.
I'll say it, George Zimmerman: Best. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. If more George Zimmermans were around punk kids of any race would be less likely to think pounding the crap out of a stranger is the solution to being pissed off at that stranger. Looks like you've got it all figured out man. If more George Zimmermans were around and killed punk kids, we'd have less punk kids because they'd be getting killed. It's actually pretty smart. I like that your idea of a good solution is to kill the people. Got problem? Punk kids bothering you? Just fucking kill them. Let me get this straight: are you saying that it's never justified to kill in self defense, or are you saying Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense? The former is clearly a ridiculous position and the latter seems to be contradicted by the evidence that has been presented. I'm not saying it's never justified to kill in self defense but I have to say that I'm quite disgusted by the fact that someone should get praise for it. As for what Zimmerman was doing, I wasn't there and I'm not enough of a dumbass to pretend that I have the truth based on "evidence" cleverly brought forward by people who's jobs revolve around deceit (lawyers). My point is, best case scenario: this is a case of self defense, so why say "Best Neighborhood Watch Ever"? Look at the outcome. I've seen better. And look at the events. To my knowledge at least, Zimmerman disobeyed the cops at some point did he not? Either way, kid's dead - it's a shit neighborhood watch, even if it wasn't his fault. Hell, best case scenario, a dude who's job has to do with security had to resort to a firearm to deal with a 17 year old 150 pounds kid. Had that been me, I'd have thought maybe I was outside of my area of expertise. Maybe I should work in an office where I won't have to use lethal force at the slightest inconvenience. I'll say this - had it been me, I may have done the same thing as the "best case scenario". I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong. I could have sucked at my job and then managed to pull off a lethal self-defense. But how in hell would it make it the best neighborhood watch ever? How would that reduce the number of annoying punk kids? Not properly, I can say that. assuming qualified advocates as we have here, the advocacy system is the best system for getting the truth. the fact that you think the judicial system is a deceitful system makes you look like an idiot. Isn't the post you quoted talking about how a neighborhood watch that shoots people, even when justified, can't qualify for best neighborhood watch ever? I'm just lost as to why advocacy is being discussed when Dj is talking about being a night watchman? learn how to read better. On July 02 2013 14:41 omnic wrote:On July 02 2013 14:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:36 AndAgain wrote:On July 02 2013 13:07 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:
[quote]
Is there something other than race (besides being pissed off that the racial victimology and outrage angle you've been jumping on mercilessly has been shot below the waterline) that causes you and Magpie to be snarky mean girls towards Zimmerman? The idea that he profiled and stalked Martin intending to harm or restrain him is totally without credibility after today. The police testifying have basically all said that they, men who are trained and experienced in being cynical and cutting through bullshit, said they believe Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman said he only left his car to get a street name to give to the police and that he was going back to his car when Martin jumped him unprovoked and starting beating on him.
I'll say it, George Zimmerman: Best. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. If more George Zimmermans were around punk kids of any race would be less likely to think pounding the crap out of a stranger is the solution to being pissed off at that stranger. Looks like you've got it all figured out man. If more George Zimmermans were around and killed punk kids, we'd have less punk kids because they'd be getting killed. It's actually pretty smart. I like that your idea of a good solution is to kill the people. Got problem? Punk kids bothering you? Just fucking kill them. Let me get this straight: are you saying that it's never justified to kill in self defense, or are you saying Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense? The former is clearly a ridiculous position and the latter seems to be contradicted by the evidence that has been presented. I'm not saying it's never justified to kill in self defense but I have to say that I'm quite disgusted by the fact that someone should get praise for it. As for what Zimmerman was doing, I wasn't there and I'm not enough of a dumbass to pretend that I have the truth based on "evidence" cleverly brought forward by people who's jobs revolve around deceit (lawyers). My point is, best case scenario: this is a case of self defense, so why say "Best Neighborhood Watch Ever"? Look at the outcome. I've seen better. And look at the events. To my knowledge at least, Zimmerman disobeyed the cops at some point did he not? Either way, kid's dead - it's a shit neighborhood watch, even if it wasn't his fault. Hell, best case scenario, a dude who's job has to do with security had to resort to a firearm to deal with a 17 year old 150 pounds kid. Had that been me, I'd have thought maybe I was outside of my area of expertise. Maybe I should work in an office where I won't have to use lethal force at the slightest inconvenience. I'll say this - had it been me, I may have done the same thing as the "best case scenario". I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong. I could have sucked at my job and then managed to pull off a lethal self-defense. But how in hell would it make it the best neighborhood watch ever? How would that reduce the number of annoying punk kids? Not properly, I can say that. assuming qualified advocates as we have here, the advocacy system is the best system for getting the truth. the fact that you think the judicial system is a deceitful system makes you look like an idiot. He didn't say the judicial system is deceitful he said lawyers. Their job isn't to uncover or release the truth. Their job is to either defend or prosecute in these cases. two equal opponents fighting over the truth is the best way to get to the truth. the process is good; it is not deceitful. The process can be good just as it can be deceitful. Don't get me wrong i'm all in favor of the judicial system but i'm not going to act like lawyers put the truth before their client. Plenty of lawyers will admit to defending (and even successfully defending) a client that they believed to guilty. Defending a guilty client and not presenting the truth to their client are two entirely different things. A lawyer is liable if he don't show his client the truth, and in fact, there is absolutely no reason for an attorney to do that. None. They get sued, and there is no upside. As to defending guilty clients, well, duh, everyone has the right to an attorney, so whether they are guilty or not isn't relevant, especially since they aren't guilty until conviction. Let me flat out say that I agree with what you're saying here. My point however is that if lawyers do have to argue against what they personally believe to be true is indeed deceitful. It's perfectly acceptable and i'll go even further and say it's good. That however still doesn't change that they are arguing for something that they believe to be false in a manner that is trying to convince others to believe what the lawyer personally believes to be false. That is being deceitful.
i know its the cool thing and all to say lawyers are liars. but lets have a reality check. lawyers dont create evidence; they elicit it from witnesses, documents, physical evidence, etc. plus, if a lawyer lies, we lose our license. lawyers are one of the most (if not the most) regulated professions out there. so, no, lawyers arent creating deceit; they are advocating their client's position, which assuming an advocacy system, allows people to know the "truth."
|
On July 02 2013 15:08 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 15:03 omnic wrote:
Let me flat out say that I agree with what you're saying here. My point however is that if lawyers do have to argue against what they personally believe to be true is indeed deceitful. It's perfectly acceptable and i'll go even further and say it's good. That however still doesn't change that they are arguing for something that they believe to be false in a manner that is trying to convince others to believe what the lawyer personally believes to be false. That is being deceitful.
It doesn't have to be deceitful. A lawyer can argue to the jury for example "The evidence will show" or "As you've witnessed the testimony to be...". An attorney's personal belief isn't relevant. An attorney presents the case and questions witnesses such that it is consistent with the best interest of their client subject to legal and ethical guidelines. They are prohibited from putting a witness on the stand when they know that their testimony will not be true, and various other things. It's really not deceitful. Having said that, an attorney who disregards such constraints could be deceitful, but they do so at their own peril. The "role" of the attorney at trial is not deceitful.
As you said: It doesn't have to be deceitful
But it can be and often is.
|
On July 02 2013 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 15:03 omnic wrote:On July 02 2013 14:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 14:52 omnic wrote:On July 02 2013 14:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 14:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 14:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:36 AndAgain wrote:On July 02 2013 13:07 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Looks like you've got it all figured out man.
If more George Zimmermans were around and killed punk kids, we'd have less punk kids because they'd be getting killed. It's actually pretty smart. I like that your idea of a good solution is to kill the people. Got problem? Punk kids bothering you? Just fucking kill them. Let me get this straight: are you saying that it's never justified to kill in self defense, or are you saying Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense? The former is clearly a ridiculous position and the latter seems to be contradicted by the evidence that has been presented. I'm not saying it's never justified to kill in self defense but I have to say that I'm quite disgusted by the fact that someone should get praise for it. As for what Zimmerman was doing, I wasn't there and I'm not enough of a dumbass to pretend that I have the truth based on "evidence" cleverly brought forward by people who's jobs revolve around deceit (lawyers). My point is, best case scenario: this is a case of self defense, so why say "Best Neighborhood Watch Ever"? Look at the outcome. I've seen better. And look at the events. To my knowledge at least, Zimmerman disobeyed the cops at some point did he not? Either way, kid's dead - it's a shit neighborhood watch, even if it wasn't his fault. Hell, best case scenario, a dude who's job has to do with security had to resort to a firearm to deal with a 17 year old 150 pounds kid. Had that been me, I'd have thought maybe I was outside of my area of expertise. Maybe I should work in an office where I won't have to use lethal force at the slightest inconvenience. I'll say this - had it been me, I may have done the same thing as the "best case scenario". I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong. I could have sucked at my job and then managed to pull off a lethal self-defense. But how in hell would it make it the best neighborhood watch ever? How would that reduce the number of annoying punk kids? Not properly, I can say that. assuming qualified advocates as we have here, the advocacy system is the best system for getting the truth. the fact that you think the judicial system is a deceitful system makes you look like an idiot. Isn't the post you quoted talking about how a neighborhood watch that shoots people, even when justified, can't qualify for best neighborhood watch ever? I'm just lost as to why advocacy is being discussed when Dj is talking about being a night watchman? learn how to read better. On July 02 2013 14:41 omnic wrote:On July 02 2013 14:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:36 AndAgain wrote:On July 02 2013 13:07 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Looks like you've got it all figured out man.
If more George Zimmermans were around and killed punk kids, we'd have less punk kids because they'd be getting killed. It's actually pretty smart. I like that your idea of a good solution is to kill the people. Got problem? Punk kids bothering you? Just fucking kill them. Let me get this straight: are you saying that it's never justified to kill in self defense, or are you saying Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense? The former is clearly a ridiculous position and the latter seems to be contradicted by the evidence that has been presented. I'm not saying it's never justified to kill in self defense but I have to say that I'm quite disgusted by the fact that someone should get praise for it. As for what Zimmerman was doing, I wasn't there and I'm not enough of a dumbass to pretend that I have the truth based on "evidence" cleverly brought forward by people who's jobs revolve around deceit (lawyers). My point is, best case scenario: this is a case of self defense, so why say "Best Neighborhood Watch Ever"? Look at the outcome. I've seen better. And look at the events. To my knowledge at least, Zimmerman disobeyed the cops at some point did he not? Either way, kid's dead - it's a shit neighborhood watch, even if it wasn't his fault. Hell, best case scenario, a dude who's job has to do with security had to resort to a firearm to deal with a 17 year old 150 pounds kid. Had that been me, I'd have thought maybe I was outside of my area of expertise. Maybe I should work in an office where I won't have to use lethal force at the slightest inconvenience. I'll say this - had it been me, I may have done the same thing as the "best case scenario". I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong. I could have sucked at my job and then managed to pull off a lethal self-defense. But how in hell would it make it the best neighborhood watch ever? How would that reduce the number of annoying punk kids? Not properly, I can say that. assuming qualified advocates as we have here, the advocacy system is the best system for getting the truth. the fact that you think the judicial system is a deceitful system makes you look like an idiot. He didn't say the judicial system is deceitful he said lawyers. Their job isn't to uncover or release the truth. Their job is to either defend or prosecute in these cases. two equal opponents fighting over the truth is the best way to get to the truth. the process is good; it is not deceitful. The process can be good just as it can be deceitful. Don't get me wrong i'm all in favor of the judicial system but i'm not going to act like lawyers put the truth before their client. Plenty of lawyers will admit to defending (and even successfully defending) a client that they believed to guilty. you are still confusing the role of a single lawyer and that of the advocacy system. you need two equal sides seeking the truth, not one. thats why people dont go undefended, and courts admonish people who want to go pro per severely. No i'm not. I'm pointing out as he did that lawyer by the very nature of their job do have to be deceitful at times. On July 02 2013 14:58 Kaitlin wrote:On July 02 2013 14:52 omnic wrote:On July 02 2013 14:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 14:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 14:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:36 AndAgain wrote:On July 02 2013 13:07 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Looks like you've got it all figured out man.
If more George Zimmermans were around and killed punk kids, we'd have less punk kids because they'd be getting killed. It's actually pretty smart. I like that your idea of a good solution is to kill the people. Got problem? Punk kids bothering you? Just fucking kill them. Let me get this straight: are you saying that it's never justified to kill in self defense, or are you saying Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense? The former is clearly a ridiculous position and the latter seems to be contradicted by the evidence that has been presented. I'm not saying it's never justified to kill in self defense but I have to say that I'm quite disgusted by the fact that someone should get praise for it. As for what Zimmerman was doing, I wasn't there and I'm not enough of a dumbass to pretend that I have the truth based on "evidence" cleverly brought forward by people who's jobs revolve around deceit (lawyers). My point is, best case scenario: this is a case of self defense, so why say "Best Neighborhood Watch Ever"? Look at the outcome. I've seen better. And look at the events. To my knowledge at least, Zimmerman disobeyed the cops at some point did he not? Either way, kid's dead - it's a shit neighborhood watch, even if it wasn't his fault. Hell, best case scenario, a dude who's job has to do with security had to resort to a firearm to deal with a 17 year old 150 pounds kid. Had that been me, I'd have thought maybe I was outside of my area of expertise. Maybe I should work in an office where I won't have to use lethal force at the slightest inconvenience. I'll say this - had it been me, I may have done the same thing as the "best case scenario". I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong. I could have sucked at my job and then managed to pull off a lethal self-defense. But how in hell would it make it the best neighborhood watch ever? How would that reduce the number of annoying punk kids? Not properly, I can say that. assuming qualified advocates as we have here, the advocacy system is the best system for getting the truth. the fact that you think the judicial system is a deceitful system makes you look like an idiot. Isn't the post you quoted talking about how a neighborhood watch that shoots people, even when justified, can't qualify for best neighborhood watch ever? I'm just lost as to why advocacy is being discussed when Dj is talking about being a night watchman? learn how to read better. On July 02 2013 14:41 omnic wrote:On July 02 2013 14:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:36 AndAgain wrote:On July 02 2013 13:07 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Looks like you've got it all figured out man.
If more George Zimmermans were around and killed punk kids, we'd have less punk kids because they'd be getting killed. It's actually pretty smart. I like that your idea of a good solution is to kill the people. Got problem? Punk kids bothering you? Just fucking kill them. Let me get this straight: are you saying that it's never justified to kill in self defense, or are you saying Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense? The former is clearly a ridiculous position and the latter seems to be contradicted by the evidence that has been presented. I'm not saying it's never justified to kill in self defense but I have to say that I'm quite disgusted by the fact that someone should get praise for it. As for what Zimmerman was doing, I wasn't there and I'm not enough of a dumbass to pretend that I have the truth based on "evidence" cleverly brought forward by people who's jobs revolve around deceit (lawyers). My point is, best case scenario: this is a case of self defense, so why say "Best Neighborhood Watch Ever"? Look at the outcome. I've seen better. And look at the events. To my knowledge at least, Zimmerman disobeyed the cops at some point did he not? Either way, kid's dead - it's a shit neighborhood watch, even if it wasn't his fault. Hell, best case scenario, a dude who's job has to do with security had to resort to a firearm to deal with a 17 year old 150 pounds kid. Had that been me, I'd have thought maybe I was outside of my area of expertise. Maybe I should work in an office where I won't have to use lethal force at the slightest inconvenience. I'll say this - had it been me, I may have done the same thing as the "best case scenario". I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong. I could have sucked at my job and then managed to pull off a lethal self-defense. But how in hell would it make it the best neighborhood watch ever? How would that reduce the number of annoying punk kids? Not properly, I can say that. assuming qualified advocates as we have here, the advocacy system is the best system for getting the truth. the fact that you think the judicial system is a deceitful system makes you look like an idiot. He didn't say the judicial system is deceitful he said lawyers. Their job isn't to uncover or release the truth. Their job is to either defend or prosecute in these cases. two equal opponents fighting over the truth is the best way to get to the truth. the process is good; it is not deceitful. The process can be good just as it can be deceitful. Don't get me wrong i'm all in favor of the judicial system but i'm not going to act like lawyers put the truth before their client. Plenty of lawyers will admit to defending (and even successfully defending) a client that they believed to guilty. Defending a guilty client and not presenting the truth to their client are two entirely different things. A lawyer is liable if he don't show his client the truth, and in fact, there is absolutely no reason for an attorney to do that. None. They get sued, and there is no upside. As to defending guilty clients, well, duh, everyone has the right to an attorney, so whether they are guilty or not isn't relevant, especially since they aren't guilty until conviction. Let me flat out say that I agree with what you're saying here. My point however is that if lawyers do have to argue against what they personally believe to be true is indeed deceitful. It's perfectly acceptable and i'll go even further and say it's good. That however still doesn't change that they are arguing for something that they believe to be false in a manner that is trying to convince others to believe what the lawyer personally believes to be false. That is being deceitful. i know its the cool thing and all to say lawyers are liars. but lets have a reality check. lawyers dont create evidence; they elicit it from witnesses, documents, physical evidence, etc. plus, if a lawyer lies, we lose our license. lawyers are one of the most (if not the most) regulated professions out there. so, no, lawyers arent creating deceit; they are advocating their client's position, which assuming an advocacy system, allows people to know the "truth."
I'm not saying all lawyers are liars but lets agree to disagree because what we're arguing about is 2 entirely different discussions and usage of the word deceitful
In a way we would be agreeing to disagree but agree what we're both talking about and possibly disagree on what only one of us is talking about.
Chalk it up to semantics caused by conceptual differences.
|
On July 02 2013 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
i know its the cool thing and all to say lawyers are liars. but lets have a reality check. lawyers dont create evidence; they elicit it from witnesses, documents, physical evidence, etc. plus, if a lawyer lies, we lose our license. lawyers are one of the most (if not the most) regulated professions out there. so, no, lawyers arent creating deceit; they are advocating their client's position, which assuming an advocacy system, allows people to know the "truth."
Going to nitpick a bit here. The advocacy system isn't perfect. There are many grey-area tactics lawyers use to hide the truth, including withholding evidence, delaying trial, tampering with evidence, pandering to the media, etc. Some of these tactics, skillfully done, are asymmetrically difficult to combat, requiring great amounts of legal manpower. Given the great expense of partaking in the legal arena, this creates an awfully uneven playing field in many situations.
Further, being disbarred is an extremely rare event. It's not even a realistic deterrent to many of the above tactics; a decent lawyer will never be disbarred doing the above. In this case, for example BDLR in this case withheld a lot of relevant information from the defence until the last moment, including questionable material from Trayvon's cell phone. Nothing is likely to happen to him.
|
On July 02 2013 15:23 FatChicksUnited wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
i know its the cool thing and all to say lawyers are liars. but lets have a reality check. lawyers dont create evidence; they elicit it from witnesses, documents, physical evidence, etc. plus, if a lawyer lies, we lose our license. lawyers are one of the most (if not the most) regulated professions out there. so, no, lawyers arent creating deceit; they are advocating their client's position, which assuming an advocacy system, allows people to know the "truth." Going to nitpick a bit here. The advocacy system isn't perfect. There are many grey-area tactics lawyers use to hide the truth, including withholding evidence, delaying trial, tampering with evidence, pandering to the media, etc. Some of these tactics, skillfully done, are asymmetrically difficult to combat, requiring great amounts of legal manpower. Given the great expense of partaking in the legal arena, this creates an awfully uneven playing field in many situations. Further, being disbarred is an extremely rare event. It's not even a realistic deterrent to many of the above tactics; a decent lawyer will never be disbarred doing the above. In this case, for example BDLR in this case withheld a lot of relevant information from the defence until the last moment, including questionable material from Trayvon's cell phone. Nothing is likely to happen to him.
withholding evidence - discovery abuse, can get sanctioned and disbarred for that. sanctions over a certain amount are automatically forwarded to bar association
delaying trial - judges delay trials, not lawyers
tampering with evidence - illegal, can get sanctioned or disbarred for that. in some cases you can go to prison.
pandering to the media - this is not exclusive to lawyers, indeed, it has nothing to do with law at all
i question whether some of the people expressing such wonderful knowledge about the legal system learned about the law from tv shows or sensationalist news articles. you are correct that the advocacy system is not perfect--nothing is. but it is far from the deceitful system people who know nothing think it is. you know nothing jon snow!
the judge said she would address BDLR's alleged violations after the trial. he has not got off. nifong sure isnt thinking withholding evidence was a good idea.
|
On July 02 2013 13:40 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 13:36 AndAgain wrote:On July 02 2013 13:07 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 02 2013 07:38 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:27 Infernal_dream wrote:On July 02 2013 07:25 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Tragic for the Martins but I'm kinda starting to feel bad for Zimmerman. He has a history of being sympathetic towards blacks but is having his life ruined because of perceived racism on his part. I don't feel bad for Zimmerman at all. He at least is getting his day in court, and is being tried by a court of law and his peers for his indiscretions Martin was sentenced to death by Zimmerman. It's like people are forgetting that he did technically kill a 17 year old who's only plans that night were to visit his dad. It might have been in self-defence but still. Worst. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. I wouldn't say worst ever. Maybe if he immediately shot him or something. But not for shooting him when he was in a fight. There's people at my work actually convinced that GZ slammed his own head into the ground to cause the cuts. My building has a Neighborhood Watch, and we have managed to kill 0 relatives of the people that live here. *pats himself on the back* Is there something other than race (besides being pissed off that the racial victimology and outrage angle you've been jumping on mercilessly has been shot below the waterline) that causes you and Magpie to be snarky mean girls towards Zimmerman? The idea that he profiled and stalked Martin intending to harm or restrain him is totally without credibility after today. The police testifying have basically all said that they, men who are trained and experienced in being cynical and cutting through bullshit, said they believe Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman said he only left his car to get a street name to give to the police and that he was going back to his car when Martin jumped him unprovoked and starting beating on him. I'll say it, George Zimmerman: Best. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. If more George Zimmermans were around punk kids of any race would be less likely to think pounding the crap out of a stranger is the solution to being pissed off at that stranger. Looks like you've got it all figured out man. If more George Zimmermans were around and killed punk kids, we'd have less punk kids because they'd be getting killed. It's actually pretty smart. I like that your idea of a good solution is to kill the people. Got problem? Punk kids bothering you? Just fucking kill them. Let me get this straight: are you saying that it's never justified to kill in self defense, or are you saying Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense? The former is clearly a ridiculous position and the latter seems to be contradicted by the evidence that has been presented. Hell, best case scenario, a dude who's job has to do with security had to resort to a firearm to deal with a 17 year old 150 pounds kid. Had that been me, I'd have thought maybe I was outside of my area of expertise. Maybe I should work in an office where I won't have to use lethal force at the slightest inconvenience.
Can we please stop this "150 pound kid" nonsense? Trayvon was 17, 1 year from being considered a legal adult, was 5' 11'' and weighed 160lbs. Exactly my size and I am 8 years older than him, he was hardly a kid.
|
On July 02 2013 14:49 Ghostcom wrote:
I would just like to point out that contrary to popular belief, police officers are no better than the average population at detecting lies - which is 50%. You really might as well just throw a coin.
I would really like someone to, within the parameters of the Zimmerman story, come up with a reasonable explanation for why Martin forced a confrontation, because as far as I can tell the only way that happens is if Martin acts irrational to the extreme - but I might simply have missed the explanation?
Quoting myself as no one has answered. Did I miss the explanation or is everyone else at a loss for Martins motive as well?
|
I've been following the trial on and off at work, having seen only fractions of the trial. How is it going for Zimmerman at this point do you think?
|
On July 02 2013 16:04 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 14:49 Ghostcom wrote:
I would just like to point out that contrary to popular belief, police officers are no better than the average population at detecting lies - which is 50%. You really might as well just throw a coin.
I would really like someone to, within the parameters of the Zimmerman story, come up with a reasonable explanation for why Martin forced a confrontation, because as far as I can tell the only way that happens is if Martin acts irrational to the extreme - but I might simply have missed the explanation? Quoting myself as no one has answered. Did I miss the explanation or is everyone else at a loss for Martins motive as well?
I thought I had already thrown out there that Martin was likely pissed because another "cracker" had treated him as suspicious simply because he was black and Martin when he thought Zimmerman was vulnerable thought he was going to get his revenge. Teach him a lesson. Hard to believe ?
|
On July 02 2013 16:16 TOCHMY wrote:
I've been following the trial on and off at work, having seen only fractions of the trial. How is it going for Zimmerman at this point do you think?
Well, experts are debating if the defense is even going to put on a case, if that helps. Every witness called by the prosecution has helped the defense more than the prosecution with the possible exception of Rachel Jeantel.
|
|
|
On July 02 2013 16:18 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 16:04 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 14:49 Ghostcom wrote:
I would just like to point out that contrary to popular belief, police officers are no better than the average population at detecting lies - which is 50%. You really might as well just throw a coin.
I would really like someone to, within the parameters of the Zimmerman story, come up with a reasonable explanation for why Martin forced a confrontation, because as far as I can tell the only way that happens is if Martin acts irrational to the extreme - but I might simply have missed the explanation? Quoting myself as no one has answered. Did I miss the explanation or is everyone else at a loss for Martins motive as well? I thought I had already thrown out there that Martin was likely pissed because another "cracker" had treated him as suspicious simply because he was black and Martin when he thought Zimmerman was vulnerable thought he was going to get his revenge. Teach him a lesson. Hard to believe ?
I simply missed it - and I would label it in the category of believable but not convincing. Is this "merely" your suggestion (not that it doesn't count of course), or have the defence hinted at this?
|
On July 02 2013 11:30 Kaitlin wrote:
Interesting, after watching the trial today, I'm watching all the commentary shows, and now everybody is all up on "why didn't Zimmerman tell Trayvon that he was neighborhood watch?". That's what came up in trial today, but really, given the evidence that we know, how would it have been different ? Rachel's testimony was that George hit Trayvon, wasn't it ? How does one claim he should have announced himself if they claim he physically assaulted Trayvon anyways ? Aren't they implicitly admitting that they know Trayvon attacked him for whatever reason ?
Trayvon appears to have been upset because he's an innocent black kid being followed simply because he's black. Does anybody think that if Zimmerman had said he was neighborhood watch, than Trayvon would have been like, "yeah, that's cool, it's ok that you're following me then, cracker." Based on the only evidence that we have, the tapes of GZ's explanation is that Trayvon wanted to beat him up, presumably because he was upset that he was being followed.
Had George told him he was neighborhood watch, how do people think things would have gone differently and based on what evidence ?
It's impossible to know for sure, but knowing that Zimmerman was just an average guy trying to play good samaritan might have helped. Maybe instead of turning into a fight, it's just a heated argument, or shouting match. In Trayvon's mind, he saw Zimmerman as 'creepy', like someone stalking him (based on his friends testimony).
|
On July 02 2013 11:39 dAPhREAk wrote:
Obama will offer him a beer in his garden.
LOL.
I don't think Obama said anything along the lines of Zimmerman being guilty, but more like 'if I had a son he would look like Trayvon' and 'this should be investigated' and 'being young and black kind of sucks this way.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
