What the Chauvin jury knows and we don't

vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
What I'd like is if lawyers actually wanted to serve justice instead of win cases at all cost. This is why people tell mean jokes about them.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
SamSpade said:
That doesn't work IF - justice would mean you let your OWN client go to jail. That is against the law.
Click to expand...

Help me understand that.

If your client is guilty as sin and there is evidence against him, what should be against the law is lying, cheating, and intimidating in order to get them found not guilty. In fact, I'm pretty sure those things are against the law, and yet lawyers do it anyway.

Conversely, prosecutors should be able to look at a case and determine whether or not the defendant is guilty and proceed honestly, not pay "experts" and manipulate evidence in order to get the win.

I think the worst job in the world would be public defender. Here's this awful person who preys on society, and it's your job to put him back on the street so he can victimize more people. You have to wonder about someone who'd take a job like that. I know they justify it by saying that everyone deserves legal defense but when someone is murdered by a guy with a rap sheet a mile long, guess who we have to thank for that?
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
vraiblonde said:
Help me understand that.

If your client is guilty as sin and there is evidence against him, what should be against the law is lying, cheating, and intimidating in order to get them found not guilty. In fact, I'm pretty sure those things are against the law, and yet lawyers do it anyway.

Conversely, prosecutors should be able to look at a case and determine whether or not the defendant is guilty and proceed honestly, not pay "experts" and manipulate evidence in order to get the win.

I think the worst job in the world would be public defender. Here's this awful person who preys on society, and it's your job to put him back on the street so he can victimize more people. You have to wonder about someone who'd take a job like that. I know they justify it by saying that everyone deserves legal defense but when someone is murdered by a guy with a rap sheet a mile long, guess who we have to thank for that?
Click to expand...

The freedom we enjoy (enjoyed?) has always been known to come with some pretty high costs. What you described above is one of them.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
Help me understand that.
Click to expand...

If you take measures to convict your own client - you'll be disbarred. Can't have lawyers prove their own clients guilty - as corrupt as it may seem, can you imagine a nation where you can't trust that your own lawyer might be bribed to convict you?

Or blab to the press or others what has been confided in secret?

What you CAN do - is refuse to represent them - and that happens a lot.

I think one of the best examples of this, is the Boston Massacre. We know that British soldiers fired on a crowd of civilians -but to make a very long story short, an unruly mob pelted them with stones, clubs and snowballs and had they not fired - the mob may well have killed them. So they fired.

Of the eight men tried - six were found not guilty. The other two were found guilty of manslaughter and branded on their hands.

Their lawyer? None other than our Founding Father, John Adams. Did they DO the deed? Yep. Did they have any reason to do it? They sure did. Just as surely as a cop has the right to shoot a group of people coming after them with baseballs bats and rocks having shown murderous intent.

The IDEA - is not just that a person deserves his day in court, but should be allowed to avail himself of the full extent of the law. He should be able to have faith that his lawyer isn't going to decide - you know what? I hate Republicans/Commies/black people/gay people and just betray them in court.

Now - it sucks that the law is pliable enough that critical, damning evidence is not allowed - but it's not for no reason. The court has to know that the source of the evidence is reliable - not illegally obtained - and so forth.

Most of the time, I have great faith in our court system. Most public defenders I've seen - lose, when their client is a dirt bag. Most judges I've seen while tough - usually know chit when they see it.

It's imperfect - but I can EASILY see how corrupt a system would be if BOTH SIDES colluded to seek "justice". We already see that in political circles.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Gilligan said:
The freedom we enjoy (enjoyed?) has always been known to come with some pretty high costs. What you described above is one of them.
Click to expand...

It's what I've observed is another cost of freedom - more freedom always means a little less order, a little more chaos. Curtailing freedoms means more order and those on the left somehow carve "justice" out of that.

I've observed before that one of the core differences between the right and the left is - the right would prefer anarchy if it meant being free - the left would prefer authoritarianism if it meant social justice.
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
If a prosecutor is beaten by a defense attorney has the guilty really been found not guilty because of his lawyer being better or because the prosecutor did a poor job with inadequate evidence.
 
PeoplesElbow

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
Hijinx said:
If a prosecutor is beaten by a defense attorney has the guilty really been found not guilty because of his lawyer being better or because the prosecutor did a poor job with inadequate evidence.
Click to expand...
Having sat on a federal jury and a local jury I have to say the difference in the quality of the prosecutors is huge. I wanted so bad to offer to take over from Fritz he was so bad.
 
P

phreddyp

Well-Known Member
Hijinx said:
If a prosecutor is beaten by a defense attorney has the guilty really been found not guilty because of his lawyer being better or because the prosecutor did a poor job with inadequate evidence.
Could be either , works the opposite way too .
Click to expand...
 
CPUSA

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
phreddyp said:
6th amendment insures that you have your day in court and the charges must be proven in that court , George was denied his day in court on whatever charges were to be issued that day. In other words since George was subdued and not a threat to the officers he was due his day in court to face the charges and mount a defense.
Click to expand...
Except it was his overdose of Fentanyl that killed George Kirby. Not Derek Chauvin.
Constitutional Comprehension eludes you. It's obvious.
 
black dog

black dog

Free America
phreddyp said:
Don't try to flatter me very blonde I come from a family of retired cops and three family members who are active LEO's. All three active LEO's agree that Chauvin was wrong . Face it folks Chauvin F**ked up now whether or not he will be convicted is another story entirely.
Click to expand...
Along with my friends and family in LE, once in cuffs you do not leave a person lying on the ground. Mush less with LE on top of them.
You sit them up. Which is constantly shown on Cops and Live Cops on TV. People after struggling are short on oxygen are really in trouble when placed in cuffs and put in a prone position.
 
black dog

black dog

Free America
Merlin99 said:
I can point out half a dozen places within the incident where G. Floyd could have saved his own life to start the judicial process.
Click to expand...

It makes no difference, once placed in cuffs he was under the custody of the State. His safety and welfare was then the responsibility of the State.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top