|
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 03 2013 00:50 woody60707 wrote:
When 10 pedophiles go free to ensure no innocent is found guilty just means the system is working. So they're questioning the presumption of innocence now?
This always happens, I've noticed. Whenever the politically correct position can't be maintained because the rival arguments are too compelling, always the bleeding hearts will resort to "radical skepticism" as a last ditch effort, as if they're in a thread about postmodern philosophy rather than in one about law or politics.
Radical skepticism, or questioning tenets so basic that normally they're taken for granted. In the case of Islamic fundamentalism, adherents of political correctness wonder whether it's possible to make critical comments about a belief system without first being guilty of bigotry against the believers. When it comes to immigration, they speculate whether Thomas Malthus had it wrong and maybe the human population is self-correcting and can never become dense enough to lead to catastrophe. If we turn to feminism, we find that human beings are blank slates and only somebody who "hates women" could even imagine that the sexes tend to differ in psychology.
I remember they didn't like the presumption of innocence when Dominique Strauss-Kahn was exonerated.
|
On July 03 2013 01:16 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 01:11 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 01:06 RCMDVA wrote:On July 03 2013 00:42 ZasZ. wrote:On July 03 2013 00:33 RCMDVA wrote:On July 03 2013 00:27 ZasZ. wrote:On July 03 2013 00:21 Djzapz wrote:On July 03 2013 00:20 Judicator wrote:
How is that not splitting hairs? You are saying the lawyer should not do their job in certain situations, how the hell does that make sense? Does it make more sense to have a child molester back on the street? Or does the job supersede that? On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote:
Well yeah but are you also not even more ethically commanded NOT to put a pedophile back on the street if he's a danger to children? Or is that concern secondary to the job? No. Basically all other interests are subordinated to those of the client. The only exceptions are interests concerning the integrity of the legal profession and judicial system. For example, the lawyer can represent the pedophile, but he can't knowingly allow false or untrue testimony into evidence. Alright If the evidence is stacked so highly against this hypothetical defendant that you call him a child molester, chances are they will get convicted no matter how good their defense attorney is. You guys are making it sound like, with the right attorney and the right amount of money, anyone can get out of anything. A better attorney may be able to spin certain arguments, or pick apart testimony on the stand, but the evidence will always be the evidence, and if the jury is convinced someone is a child molester, he will get put away no matter how much money he spent on his lawyer. OJ Simpson.... IMO the jury accepted that the state tried to frame a guilty man. So your response when I use the phrase "chances are," is to cite the most high-profile American murder trial in the last 25 years? Yeah, a guilty man will go free from time to time, which is the price we pay for having a system in place that tries like hell to convict as few innocent people as possible. In that case however, and in most cases where an evidently guilty man walks, the fault lies with the police work or the district attorney's office in their inability to bring a strong enough case. Defendants are guilty until proven innocent, and the only way their guilt can be proven is if the state does everything within their power to prosecute and the defense attorney does everything within their power to get them acquitted. At that point, all that is left is the evidence. If you have one side or the other or both thinking about justice instead of their legal duty, someone's constitutional rights are going by the wayside, and the case becomes more about lawyering and less about evidence. I was more focusing on "if the jury is convinced someone is a child molester, he will get put away no matter how much money he spent on his lawyer." Jury knew OJ did it. Everybody knows OJ did it. But there was so many police screw ups that he was found not guilty. And we just had Casey Anthony. Everyone is 100% sure she is responsible for her kid dying. And she walked. (except for the lying to police). Also the state over charged wher for what they could prove. Happens every week all over the US. Juries find peolpe not guilty all the time when they still believe "they did it". It doesn't matter what we believe, it is the evidence that is presented to the jury that matters. Look at the case we are watching right now. Everyone "believed" that Zimmerman was guilty of something. But the evidence in the case is overwhelmingly against that. This is why we have courts, to cut through what people assume to be true and get down to what the state can actually prove happened. I agree with this, if it was a matter of belief, I firmly believed that Zimmerman was in the wrong. Maybe not for murder 2 but I did think he instigated the confrontation from the media coverage (months ago to be honest, stopped following this religiously sometimes in january). So far not a single piece of evidence has been provided that would back up that belief and I've pretty much admitted I was wrong roughly 20 pages ago. That is what a good legal system should achieve. Present the evidence and let the judge and the jury make up their mind. Admittedly I am somewhat flabbergasted why this thing even reached a trial if that is all the evidence they have, but that is a completely different discussion.
People were rioting all over the country and all the black "community leaders" came out demanding zimmerman be arrested.
Its probably better to just go though this sham of a trial then to try and justify jailing an innocent man and then just releasing him from jail, all things considered.
|
On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one).
I think in general, the average person perceives those that speak with an agenda or end-goal in mind as manipulative or disingenuous.
It's a totally unfair perception though, because if people where more honest with themselves, they'd realize ALL people have an agenda, and attempt to achieve it most social situations. Lawyers and politicians are just better at it.
|
On July 02 2013 23:45 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:41 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:32 Felnarion wrote:On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). Nothing fair about that perception...? I don't know..I mean, it's definitely a very common thing to repeatedly ask a question in differing ways to get a specific word choice you want a witness to say. And that's just one example, there are many. Is there too much distrust of lawyers, probably. But it isn't entirely unwarranted. Their job is at least partially to get into and out of situations on technicalities and half-truths. My point is that the perception is far less warranted than people think. There isn't as much grey area between "advocacy" and "misrepresentation" as most would believe. In fact, the most compelling advocates are the ones that are the ones stay closest to the truth. Jurors and judges have finely tuned bullshit detectors. If a lawyer tries to float something by them that is not true, the judge and especially jurors will punish the lawyer and his client for it. Perhaps more importantly, a lawyer does his client a great disservice when he is not honest with his client about the merits of a given argument, position, or case. Sure, my clients don't like it when I tell them that they're going to get killed at trial, but if I don't tell them as such, then I'd be exposing them to far greater harm than that to which they'd be exposed by merely trying to reach a settlement before trial. The overall point is that there are many cases where the truth is not found. Presumably sometimes it is never found, and sometimes someone gets released months of years after the case because someone made an oopsie. Daphreak was notably talking about how great the judicial system is, and I agree that it's pretty awesome, but let's not pretend that it's perfect.
i specifically said i didnt think it was perfect. i said it was the best system.
|
On July 03 2013 02:21 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:45 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 23:41 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:32 Felnarion wrote:On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). Nothing fair about that perception...? I don't know..I mean, it's definitely a very common thing to repeatedly ask a question in differing ways to get a specific word choice you want a witness to say. And that's just one example, there are many. Is there too much distrust of lawyers, probably. But it isn't entirely unwarranted. Their job is at least partially to get into and out of situations on technicalities and half-truths. My point is that the perception is far less warranted than people think. There isn't as much grey area between "advocacy" and "misrepresentation" as most would believe. In fact, the most compelling advocates are the ones that are the ones stay closest to the truth. Jurors and judges have finely tuned bullshit detectors. If a lawyer tries to float something by them that is not true, the judge and especially jurors will punish the lawyer and his client for it. Perhaps more importantly, a lawyer does his client a great disservice when he is not honest with his client about the merits of a given argument, position, or case. Sure, my clients don't like it when I tell them that they're going to get killed at trial, but if I don't tell them as such, then I'd be exposing them to far greater harm than that to which they'd be exposed by merely trying to reach a settlement before trial. The overall point is that there are many cases where the truth is not found. Presumably sometimes it is never found, and sometimes someone gets released months of years after the case because someone made an oopsie. Daphreak was notably talking about how great the judicial system is, and I agree that it's pretty awesome, but let's not pretend that it's perfect. i specifically said i didnt think it was perfect. i said it was the best system.
The best is susceptible to criticism and some amount of skepticism. We don't always end up with the truth. I think you're overreacting if you think I'm trying to shit on the judicial system, I appreciate it and I think it's largely good.
|
I wonder, to those who have changed their view of this trial from initial impressions and conclusions based on media coverage to actually observing the evidence at trial, to what extent do you intend to view your other perceptions formed by the media, such as political groups such as the Tea Party ? It's the same media outlets "covering" this case as those "covering" politics, so I wonder if anyone is going to take a second look at other topics these media outlets cover and possibly reconsider what they believe with the knowledge now that the media tends to be full of shit and coloring their coverage to suit their agenda.
|
|
|
Aw, yeah. Time for Hannity!
I still can't believe that Zimmerman was dumb enough to give this interview.
|
the problem with admitting this type of evidence (interviews, etc.) is you get the commentary of the person asking questions as well as the answers of the defendant. i wonder how much redaction O'Mare asked for pre-trial.
|
On July 03 2013 02:32 Kaitlin wrote:
I wonder, to those who have changed their view of this trial from initial impressions and conclusions based on media coverage to actually observing the evidence at trial, to what extent do you intend to view your other perceptions formed by the media, such as political groups such as the Tea Party ? It's the same media outlets "covering" this case as those "covering" politics, so I wonder if anyone is going to take a second look at other topics these media outlets cover and possibly reconsider what they believe with the knowledge now that the media tends to be full of shit and coloring their coverage to suit their agenda.
It's another reminder that you have to be careful, for sure. That said, the tea party's image is also largely based on stupid stuff that they've said or done. Michele Bachmann has said more than her fair share of crazy stuff.
Edit: And also sometimes they're just too far on the right, and us left-wing folks simply vehemently disagree.
|
This Hannity interview isn't really going to matter.
|
Missed it all. Did the friend say anything important?
|
On July 03 2013 02:53 FatChicksUnited wrote:
Missed it all. Did the friend say anything important?
A bunch of sympathy and hearsay testimony that the Defense could never have gotten in by itself.
|
On July 03 2013 02:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 02:53 FatChicksUnited wrote:
Missed it all. Did the friend say anything important? A bunch of sympathy and hearsay testimony that the Defense could never have gotten in by itself.
Fantastic. At this point the prosecution is just doing it to themselves. Please, just stop!
|
This interview really doesn't seem that damaging... am I missing something? Why is this being shown?
|
On July 03 2013 00:50 woody60707 wrote:
When 10 pedophiles go free to ensure no innocent is found guilty just means the system is working.
Ugly way to put it, but yes I believe this is the American founding fathers had in mind when they created the legal system. Benjamin Franklin wrote something to the same effect.
|
On July 03 2013 02:56 crms wrote:
This interview really doesn't seem that damaging... am I missing something? Why is this being shown?
Because the prosecution has decided for whatever reason that it is worth having Zimmerman tell his story 34593450934 times in exchange for the prosecution to have the opportunity to point out a few immaterial inconsistencies in his statements.
|
Is this lady going to tell us that Zimmerman's injuries are faked?
|
On July 03 2013 03:08 FatChicksUnited wrote:
Is this lady going to tell us that Zimmerman's injuries are faked?
I would love to see how she explains that.
"Well you see, through this crystal ball, I can see into the past and..."
|
Looks like she is just going to say that they are insignificant injuries. Whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
