|
Spatula City posted:You have a jaundiced view of the justice system and the duties of an attorney. Every defendant has the right to an attorney who will work for their interests, and generally those interests are "not going to jail". It's the job of a defense attorney in that circumstance to try to get their client acquitted. If they succeed, the onus should be on the prosecutors for failing to convict someone that committed a crime, not the defense lawyer who did what they were hired to do. It's easy to bash defense attorneys as soulless assholes, but not remotely fair, and to argue Clinton shouldn't have taken guilty clients as a defense attorney is patently absurd. I mean, if you look at it a certain way, you're criticizing Clinton for not pulling a Kim Davis. That is, not refusing to do aspects of her job for moral reasons. It's not leadership to exclaim 'I was just doing my job' when your job results in an immoral, if ethical, outcome. Leadership is admitting to past mistakes and making appropriate restitution. If we cannot trust Hillary to pay hush money to a victim of rape, who can we expect Hillary to pay hush money? I think it may be appropriate for Congress to appoint a special prosecutor to examine whether Clinton engaged in any immoral legal practices during her time as a practicing attorney, and to see if any of the individuals she defended went on to commit further crimes. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Dec 26, 2015 |
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:02 |
|
|
If the person was acquitted, is there now permissible evidence that they were guilty? Did something new come to light since the trial? (Someone who committed a crime -- assuming some omniscient observer can tell us that's the case -- going free because law enforcement broke the rules is a morally fine outcome. It is vastly preferable to someone being convicted in the context of missteps by the vastly-more-powerful Justice System.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Well if the rapist hadn't died in the 90s, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
I don't think dying is generally seen as a sign of guilt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:If the person was acquitted, is there now permissible evidence that they were guilty? Did something new come to light since the trial? The point isn't whether the rapist is criminally guilty in a court of law, its to build a narrative that Hillary treats rapist with a light touch. After all, she's remained married to an accused serial rapist for how many years?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Oh sorry, I was referring to the permissibility of a retrial against a dead guy, not his guilt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The point isn't whether the rapist is criminally guilty in a court of law, its to build a narrative that Hillary treats rapist with a light touch. After all, she's remained married to an accused serial rapist for how many years? Then what immoral outcome are you saying she celebrated? Are you using some other reliable definition of guilt? I don't see how doing her job as a defense attorney -- avoiding disbarment, which I'm sure would be a great narrative -- is treating someone with a light touch. (An accused and acquitted rapist, mind.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Stop replying to MIGF you morons
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
botany posted:Stop replying to MIGF you morons Sorry, I'm new.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Then what immoral outcome are you saying she celebrated? Are you using some other reliable definition of guilt? I don't see how doing her job as a defense attorney -- avoiding disbarment, which I'm sure would be a great narrative -- is treating someone with a light touch. (An accused and acquitted rapist, mind.) Hillary did her job as an attorney, just as she did her job as a wife while First Lady: she stood by her man. Unfortunately for her, she chooses to stand by guilty men until they're able to get off. Most Americans aren't attorneys and don't care about whether you're obligated to represent a child rapist as a client. Most Americans do care about things which can connect with them, and boasting about defending a child rapist is a turnoff for the vast majority of Americans outside the legal profession. If a sufficient narrative can be built to take away 3 points of women's turnout for Hillary, that could be the election, so why not advance the narrative as much as possible?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
botany posted:Stop replying to MIGF you morons Who do we have to bribe/blackmail to get this set as the thread title? Not that it'll do any good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
D&D/RSF is a lot better if you put MIGF and a cop on ignore, FYI
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
This seems like a positive thing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/23/the-feds-just-shut-down-a-huge-program-that-lets-cops-take-your-stuff-and-keep-it/
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:This seems like a positive thing: quote:The DOJ is suspending payments under this program due to budget cuts included in the recent spending bill. Would've been nice if the reason was "this is awful and incredibly prone to abuse," and not "we, the beast, have been starved."
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Carrasco posted:Would've been nice if the reason was "this is awful and incredibly prone to abuse," and not "we, the beast, have been starved." Yeah, but a good thing for a bad reason is still a good thing right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Today in CNN is Garbage.  https://twitter.com/ICUDrEd/status/680881093411758080
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:Today in CNN is Garbage. i mean it is true, technically
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
blue squares posted:D&D/RSF is a lot better if you put MIGF and a cop on ignore, FYI a cop let's his guard and the trolling down some times and actually says reasonable things, so I like to think he gets a pass. Plus I can't never not smile at his avatar. It's the happiest drat cop, like he just shot someone  MIGF is just insufferable though, and I don't know how people haven't caught on to his gimmick yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:Yeah, but a good thing for a bad reason is still a good thing right? Mostly, except going by the end of the article it sounds like the DOJ wants to restore it the second they get their budget restored. In different circumstances, I'd be worried about the GOP campaigning on "look, spending cuts ended this abusive big government practice!" But with cops complaining there's no way they'll go for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:It's not leadership to exclaim 'I was just doing my job' when your job results in an immoral, if ethical, outcome. Leadership is admitting to past mistakes and making appropriate restitution. If we cannot trust Hillary to pay hush money to a victim of rape, who can we expect Hillary to pay hush money? Why not have Congress do it themselves, it's not like they have anything better to do. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Thump! posted:a cop let's his guard and the trolling down some times and actually says reasonable things, so I like to think he gets a pass 90% of his posting is sycophantic Trump worship. I don't care if it is honest or not. Luckily none of his posts are funny or interesting, so no one bothers quoting him as they do with every MIGF post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Moktaro posted:Why not have Congress do it themselves, it's not like they have anything better to do. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/congresss-surprisingly-productive-year/421314/
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Holy poo poo ya'll, Ta-Nehisi Coates weighed in on Star Wars The Force Awakens: http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/12/star-wars-and-the-benefit-of-low-expecatations/421593/
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Thank god I have the official correct opinion to share now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Holy poo poo ya'll, Ta-Nehisi Coates weighed in on Star Wars The Force Awakens: As much as people poo poo on JJ Abrams, dude is pretty good at saving floundering sci-fi franchises.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:As much as people poo poo on JJ Abrams, dude is pretty good at saving floundering sci-fi franchises. he did not save star trek though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:As much as people poo poo on JJ Abrams, dude is pretty good at saving floundering sci-fi franchises. As opposed to, you know, making the god drat DS9 movie like they should have ages ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:If by "saving" star trek you mean "turning it into an Avengers-type blow-em-up summer popcorn flick franchise to which the bros shall flock and the studios shall swim in $$$$" I guess. Shut up nerd
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:If by "saving" star trek you mean "turning it into an Avengers-type blow-em-up summer popcorn flick franchise to which the bros shall flock and the studios shall swim in $$$$" I guess. DS9 wrapped up really well and it's better they didn't take a giant Generations poo poo on the show afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:he did not save star trek though. Defenestration posted:If by "saving" star trek you mean "turning it into an Avengers-type blow-em-up summer popcorn flick franchise to which the bros shall flock and the studios shall swim in $$$$" I guess. Nemesis
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:he did not save star trek though. From a revenue standpoint perhaps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:he did not save star trek though. He turned it into sci-fi action instead of space opera saving it as a result. I'd beat up a white nationalist if it got us a new series in TNG style though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Star Trek The JJ Abrams Movie 2 was vile in a way that reminded me of what I find vile in American politics, and by the end I was cheering for the death of the federation. An Accelerationist Film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Star Trek The JJ Abrams Movie 2 was vile in a way that reminded me of what I find vile in American politics, and by the end I was cheering for the death of the federation. An Accelerationist Film. Did you not watch The Undiscovered Country? It was literally that with KHAAAAAAN.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Did you not watch The Undiscovered Country? It was literally that with KHAAAAAAN. Are you thinking of a different movie? The Undiscovered Country was basically End of the Cold War: The Movie. Edit- in SPAAAAAACE
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Did you not watch The Undiscovered Country? It was literally that with KHAAAAAAN. You mean "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan"...?  Edit: Oh, you mean that the re-boot #2 was Star Trek VI with Khan - nevermind. Horseshoe theory fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Dec 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
The conspiracy part where some jerk wants the federation to take over the galaxy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:If by "saving" star trek you mean "turning it into an Avengers-type blow-em-up summer popcorn flick franchise to which the bros shall flock and the studios shall swim in $$$$" I guess. The TNG films did that like 20 years before Into Darkness did. Paradoxish posted:Are you thinking of a different movie? The Undiscovered Country was basically End of the Cold War: The Movie. He's saying Into Darkness is Star Trek 6 + Khan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Are you thinking of a different movie? The Undiscovered Country was basically End of the Cold War: The Movie. Fond memories of ra3 Tim Curry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:02 |
|
|
I enjoyed the heck out of Into Darkness as an action flick. It's not old trek. Old Trek went away to the Celestial Temple with Sisko.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:29
|
|