Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

Posting on the 21st page of a thread.

You mean like

?

Because my 2 y.o. niece can work out that Sylvester the cat talks funny. Try actually being intelligent before you attempt to insult others intellects.

Edited, Aug 17th 2010 9:52am by Tarub

So do you do that often, or...?

I never got the magic eyes to work. My eyes always focus backwards so the 3D image looks concave instead of convex.

No, I drew the only reasonable inference. Still, even differentiating the two conflicts because as I said, they are often one and the same (an attorney wiling to serve your interests is necessary for a free trial).

Catwho gave us an update, other than that, no.

That wasn't a reasonable inference at all. The previous sentence said the following:

"I always thought that criminal defendants weren't necessarily arguing about innocence but also the degree of the penalty"

This sentence says that criminal defendants sometimes debate for innocence and sometimes for plea bargains, which is a whole lot like differentiating the two. This was supported by catwho when she gave the different categories of lawyers.

I bold the word "often" because my original concern was if a lawyer was mandated to support something that s/he is in disagreement with. This was also addressed by catwho.

So, no. Nobody denied or contradicted anything you said. You jumped the gun. You made a mistake. Man up and move on.

During a trial, the issue is of innocence, guilt or culpability. Plea bargains don't begin in the courtroom, but are rather extended pre-trial, if at all, except under rare circumstances. The defendant never has the power to instigate a plea bargain; if the prosecutor wants to make an offer, they do, but there are no hearings for the purposes of bargaining. A defense attorney never requests a continuance to arrange a plea bargain hearing, because they don't exist.

When you say:



It first sounds like you're describing the punitive phase, leading to sentencing. That phase doesn't exist for all crimes, and, frankly...fUck it.


Do you understand how difficult it is to take you even remotely seriously when you demonstrate this manner of ignorance toward the most fundamental of concepts? You could learn this **** watching Law & Order reruns. I'm gonna go watch some fUcking Law & Order reruns and pretend my balls are Lenny and Benjamin Bratt.

The show has been on for like 20 years, and it's always on somewhere. The sun never sets on L&O reruns.

I think it's just soothing in its well-worn familiarity.

No you're not. You're full of it. I was talking to Catwho. By her responses, I can tell that she perfectly understood my statements. By your responses, it is apparent that you do not or we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

In any case, I told you exactly what I meant and you respond with "you're not saying that"! So, obviously you just have a refusal to admit that you had a misunderstanding.




WTF? You're just making stuff up.

I was making the differentiation between arguing for innocence vs taking a plea bargain. I stated that I thought there was a difference between the two. The evidence is in Catwho's response. She said the following.

"It depends on what the defendant wants to argue. If they want to claim innocence, and the lawyer thinks that they have a good shot of winning, then they'll claim innocence, even if they privately confide to the lawyer that they're really guilty. The lawyer, even a state issued one, is still required to argue their defense to the best of their abilities, whether the party is guilty or innocent.

Now, a competent lawyer is probably going to do their best to convince a guilty party to accept a plea bargain if the evidence is overwhelmingly against them, but they're going to do their damnedest if the defendant says they're innocent. "

That response wouldn't make any sense if I were saying what you claim I was saying.

Then I was asking for clarification because I thought the lawyer had a choice. She responded with the following:

"They do have a choice. They can:

1. Work as a pro bono lawyer for the state, defending perps, for 2-3 years to get their student loans forgiven

2. Try to get a job as part of the DA's office to take down criminals for low pay (for a lawyer. Most DA lawyers don't break 100K/year when they're working for the state.)

3. Work as a for-pay trial lawyer, basically becoming a lawyer ****, to make enough money to pay back their student loans

Most lawyers with ethical qualms about defending guilty criminals will do #1 or #3 for just long enough to break even from 3+ years of pricey law school, then go for #2 in order to try to bring criminals to justice. "

So once again. No one has said anything contrary to your beliefs. You're just making stuff up.

I was just skimming a few parts of this thread and wondered how well Alma's arguments would work in support of anti-miscegenation laws. Did the Founding Fathers (almost forgot to capitalize) carefully consider that when they were rewriting all the laws?