|
Florida has the worst loving prosecutors.
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:44 |
|
|
Time again for my true story (this time, in shorter form, because I'm getting tired of typing it). I sat next to some woman at the bar. My state's pass rate was something like 93% at the time. I could tell this woman was nervous, and in a rare act of charity, deigned to try to help calm her down. I asked her when was the last time she was ever in the bottom 7% of any standardized test, any class that she took, etc. She said, "Never." Then I told her, "So you've never been in the bottom 7% of anything. Only 7% of the people who take this test fail. Why do you think today is going to be the first time you are in the bottom 7%?" She actually seemed to brighten up, and seemed notably calmer for the rest of that day (and the next). Later, I found out she did indeed fail (at the time, you could tell whether the person next to you had failed, because they listed test results by seat number, and I knew she was the number one higher than me, and it was later confirmed by some friends I told the story to, who immediately recognized that they knew the woman from law school (and they knew from other friends that she had failed)). Sweet dreams!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
Mons Hubris posted:Florida has the worst. Fixed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Mons Hubris posted:Florida has the worst loving prosecutors. If prosecutors reviewed it and figured there wasn't enough there originally, seems like more of an example of why you don't give charging decisions to the media.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
zzyzx posted:If prosecutors reviewed it and figured there wasn't enough there originally, seems like more of an example of why you don't give charging decisions to the media. The problem was that it wasn't properly reviewed at the beginning. That was the major issue. However, I can see where reasonable doubt comes from. Remember that if the jury paid attention to the instructions, they only had to find some reasonable doubt as to murder. If they thought there is some possibility that he was acting in self-defense, they had to acquit. Apparently, FL's manslaughter laws are not as broad as California's, which would have caught him in an imperfect self-defense theory. Admittedly, many juries ignore reasonable doubt, but I have issues criticizing a jury in a close case like this. I think Zimmerman wanted to kill a black guy, buy I'm not 100% that that is beyond a reasonable doubt, maybe. Remember this is supposed to be a very high standard to reach. This is unlike Casey Anthony, where an arrogant prosecutor decline the lessers. Here they asked for them-- problem is that FL law sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
My incomplete conclusion was, prosecutors did a decent job, defense did a decent job, Zimmerman walks because of Florida law but is a bad person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
ragle posted:My incomplete conclusion was, prosecutors did a decent job, defense did a decent job, Zimmerman walks because of Florida law but is a bad person. Sounds right. FL law sucks hard. I think based on the jury's question, they were begging for something to convict him of but couldn't because of poo poo laws.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
nm posted:The problem was that it wasn't properly reviewed at the beginning. That was the major issue. Yeah, we use a similar self-defense instruction, and it leads to some odd verdicts sometimes. Not following the case very closely, my understanding's been that the DA looked at it, figured "we're not gonna win that one," turned it down, and then the governor got involved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
zzyzx posted:Yeah, we use a similar self-defense instruction, and it leads to some odd verdicts sometimes. I think it was less of a review than that. Generally murder cases take a lot longer to review and wait for coroners reports before they are officially turned down. At the DA's office in my county, it might have been "turned down pending further investigation" where it was when it was turned down, but not straight "turned down."
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
Hey, I suck at searching the internet and am having trouble finding the kids in the hall sketch with the lawyer interview/ dick sucking. Anybody have a link?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
Artic Puma posted:Hey, I suck at searching the internet and am having trouble finding the kids in the hall sketch with the lawyer interview/ dick sucking. Anybody have a link? Pretty sure that's Mr. Show, not Kids In the Hall.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 11:12
|
|
|
Artic Puma posted:Hey, I suck at searching the internet and am having trouble finding the kids in the hall sketch with the lawyer interview/ dick sucking. Anybody have a link? Here you go (it is Mr. Show as Phil Moscowitz mentioned), and here's a bonus related sketch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Here you go (it is Mr. Show as Phil Moscowitz mentioned), and here's a bonus related sketch. Thanks, no wonder I was having so much trouble finding it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
I've a general, broad-picture type of question for law types. I'm a Canadian working in health care if that matters, I'm not sure what preexisting bias I might have on this due to my very limited exposure to our law system. Why does a jury system exist nowadays? I think we can agree that what the majority of random people want (no matter subject size) is not always the appropriate or best choice/outcome, hence why we have professionals and experts who are in the minority but are better equipped to make important decisions on behalf of a group. Why not just present all the evidence in a trial to a judge? If worried about bias, why not a randomized group of judges? To support my argument, wouldn't it be silly if the outcomes of a trial were voted on by the residents of the city/state/country that the crime occured in? Even if it was possible for these residents to recieve the education etc that I'm sure is provided to jurors about their duty. It seems like a super old-school and irrational way of trying to arrive at the most appropriate conclusion at the end of a trial and to my eye seems to only serve to propogate a crowd-serving mentality. Why introduce human bias?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:I've a general, broad-picture type of question for law types. I'm a Canadian working in health care if that matters, I'm not sure what preexisting bias I might have on this due to my very limited exposure to our law system. The short answer is that judges are also susceptible to human bias and in the opinion of some practitioners make worse assessors of the truth than a jury. Second, there is the civil rights idea that a group of citizens serves as a final check on the power of the state. If the government cannot convince six to twelve ordinary people that the defendant should be punished then maybe the defendant shouldn't be punished.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Why not just present all the evidence in a trial to a judge? If worried about bias, why not a randomized group of judges? You just described, first, bench trials--which are done in many cases--and second, how most courts of appeals work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
Apparently, George Zimmerman really is clueless. I guess that makes everything better: Zimmerman wants to go to law school to help others like him - friends
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
San Bernardino County, CA is hiring several entry level public defenders. You need to barred. deadline 7/22
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
  http://www.pewforum.org/Other-Demographics/Public-Esteem-for-Military-Still-High.aspx
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
I wonder how far back lawyer hate goes. I know people probably hated them in Shakespeare's day. Despite what idiot judges occasionally say in speeches, the "kill all the lawyers" thing was meant to represent popular perception of what would be a good thing. Is there stuff from antiquity about how much people hated lawyers?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:I wonder how far back lawyer hate goes. I know people probably hated them in Shakespeare's day. Despite what idiot judges occasionally say in speeches, the "kill all the lawyers" thing was meant to represent popular perception of what would be a good thing. Is there stuff from antiquity about how much people hated lawyers? http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/17/nyregion/l-kill-the-lawyers-a-line-misinterpreted-599990.html quote:In reference to the review of ''Guilty Conscience,'' (May 20) Leah D. Frank is inaccurate when she states that when Shakespeare had one of his characters state ''Let's kill all the lawyers,'' it was the corrupt, unethical lawyers he was referring to. Shakespeare's exact line ''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,'' was stated by Dick the Butcher in ''Henry VI,'' Part II, act IV, Scene II, Line 73. Dick the Butcher was a follower of the rebel Jack Cade, who thought that if he disturbed law and order, he could become king. Shakespeare meant it as a compliment to attorneys and judges who instill justice in society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:I wonder how far back lawyer hate goes. I know people probably hated them in Shakespeare's day. Despite what idiot judges occasionally say in speeches, the "kill all the lawyers" thing was meant to represent popular perception of what would be a good thing. Is there stuff from antiquity about how much people hated lawyers? 5th Century BC (India) 4th Century BC (Greece) joat mon fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Jul 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
joat mon posted:5th Century BC (India) joat mon posted:4th Century BC (Greece)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
DevilStick posted:http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/17/nyregion/l-kill-the-lawyers-a-line-misinterpreted-599990.html Okay, stupid judges and New York Times reporters then. Like I said, their argument is wrong. The characters are talking about a utopia, and the specific character who says it is just echoing a common desire. Also thanks for the links, joat. Edit: Here's a good explanation: http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html I love how, by obnoxiously trying to prove that Shakespeare was complimenting lawyers, lawyers have just further proven that lawyers suck. Double edit: I think we actually went over this in this thread a couple years ago. MoFauxHawk fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Jul 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
It's apropos, the season premier of Newsroom on Sunday had the proper quote as its title.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:Double edit: I think we actually went over this in this thread a couple years ago. It came up WRT Aesop's fables hatin' on lawyers. People hate cops and their unthinking brutality ... until they're afraid. People hate doctors and their $15 tylenols ... until they're sick. People hate mechanics and their $800 'free brake checks' ... until their car won't start People hate car salesmen and their wheedling mendacity ... until they need a car. People hate artists and their $250,000 grants for Elephant poo poo ... until Beauty whispers in their ear. People hate the military and their killing ... until somebody needs killing. People hate teachers and their prisons-lite ... until they realize how much daycare costs. People hate scientists and their unbiblical eggheadedness ... until they want ... anything? People hate clergy and their hypocritical judgement ... until they need succor. People hate journalists and their inaccurate lies ... until they want to know anything that happened more than 3 miles away. People hate business execs ... because if halfwit sons did any of these other jobs, we'd be proper hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:Where is the option for "actively undermines society both domestically and abroad"? Lawyers are scum, but troop worship makes me want to loving puke. As a quick aside, if you haven't had a chance to tell Neil good job, you should.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:As a quick aside, if you haven't had a chance to tell Neil good job, you should.  Neil did a great job, you loving ingrate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
joat mon posted:People hate cops and their unthinking brutality ... until they're afraid. I think the difference is that people continue to hate lawyers even when they desperately need them, and will in fact come to hate lawyers to an even greater degree once they have benefited from their service.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:
That's the first time I've seen that. It's glorious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
I feel way behind on bar study, and I have to finish a federal court antitrust complaint by the end of the day today. I guess I could have worse problems though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
joat mon posted:It came up WRT Aesop's fables hatin' on lawyers. Some of these are just wrong. People especially hate mechanics when their cars break. Edit: People generally hate vocations like lawyers and mechanics because it feels like these people take advantage of them at the worst points of their lives. Also because criminal defense attorneys defend bad people who should have their rights taken away as soon as they're suspected of crimes. MoFauxHawk fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Jul 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:I think the difference is that people continue to hate lawyers even when they desperately need them, and will in fact come to hate lawyers to an even greater degree once they have benefited from their service. Didn't we play trivia together like...7 years ago?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:Didn't we play trivia together like...7 years ago? Yep, I lived in Atlanta until 2010 and used to go to the goon trivia all the time. It kind of ebbed in the last couple years until it was just me and my wife and NonBornKing, though, so 7 years ago is probably right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:Yep, I lived in Atlanta until 2010 and used to go to the goon trivia all the time. It kind of ebbed in the last couple years until it was just me and my wife and NonBornKing, though, so 7 years ago is probably right. Yeah, I moved away for law school in 2008...man that's depressing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
quote:Legal academics and journalists have marshaled statistics purporting to show that enrolling in law school is irrational. We investigate the economic value of a law degree and find the opposite: given current tuition levels, the median and even 25th percentile annual earnings premiums justify enrollment. For most law school graduates, the net present value of a law degree typically exceeds its cost by hundreds of thousands of dollars. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2250585 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:The mean annual earnings premium of a law degree is approximately $53,300 in 2012 dollars. I guess that means that but for my law degree, I'd be working part-time at McDonalds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I guess that means that but for my law degree, I'd be working part-time at McDonalds. But for my law degree, I'd be making negative dollars
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:44 |
|
|
Even by those insane metrics, take off 25% for tax and you're left w/ 750k - and take off the conservative 30k per year you'd make w/o the law degree for the first three years and you're left w/ 660k. If instead you put your 150k into a retirement fund with a conservatively estimated 5% return and you've made your entire law school premium back in about 31 years. For doing nothing. Congrats, now you don't have to be a lawyer. Now consider that even that 53k per year premium was extreme bullshit and recognize what a bad, loving, idea this stupid career is for all but the top candidates. No Wave fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Jul 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 18:25
|
|
