|
BigHead posted:You just inspired me to look reread some unpublished opinions. Apparently prosecutors can't, in jury selection, reference "a complaining witness as a victim when the question before the jury is whether that person was the victim of a crime." Which is a stupid wishy washy standard. If I'm in trial, some dude got shot. He's a victim. We can’t even do that.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:Maybe I'm conflating two issues. Let me clarify: Prosecutors are scum and deserve only bad things
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Prosecutors are scum and deserve only bad things Edgy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
I’ve come to the conclusion that the naive insistence that there’s no such thing as police or prosecutorial misconduct and the edgelord sullen rant that all law enforcement should be abolished are different sides of the same privilege coin, the first being the view of one who need never fear being oppressed by police, the second being the view of one whose privilege leaves them unlikely to ever need the protection of law enforcement. Tough on crime campaigns play well in the burbs. But it’s the poor who are most likely to be victims.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:2. Lawyer represents a bad cause or bad entity, or makes a distasteful argument, they're a bad person. disagree. criminal defendants are one thing, but when it comes to civil matters nobody's required to take a certain type of case or represent a bad cause, and doing so is largely a matter of choice: you are no more entitled to not have your choices judged as a, say, tobacco lawyer than a tobacco executive. now, financial reasons might have made it so you had little choice, but that's more of an excuse than a principle that your choices have no moral significance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Maybe I'm conflating two issues. Let me clarify: In general, sure. But I think the line between bad faith and distasteful can be pretty fuzzy. Damaging reputation or credibility is always going to be fair game too. There are consequences either way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Maybe I'm conflating two issues. Let me clarify: 2. A Lawyer defends ICE agent accused of rape of immigrant child prisoner in concentration camp - Acceptable and necessary in a democratic society. 2. B. Lawyer defends the systemic abuses and concept of concentration camps as cool and good - Unacceptable and not worthy of the same protections. just like 2. C Lawyer defends Nazis at Nuremberg - Acceptable and necessary in a democratic society. 2. D Lawyer defends the systemic imprisonment and genocide of jewish peoples, gays, lesbians, cripples, Roma, etc. - Unacceptable and not worthy of the same protections. In a criminal trial, the nature of the lawyer's role is mostly involuntary and a function of criminal justice. In anything else, a lawyer must be aware that they risk identification with a client's views. The more onerous and disgusting the view, the more chance people in general (remember, we aren't discussing ethics issues yet) will perceive that lawyer to have the same views because how else could they claim such things. And why shouldn't they? I'm not convinced they aren't right, because what loving rear end in a top hat would argue for child concentration camps? Even lawyers have a bridge too far and even we have a responsibility to protect justice, protect the general perception of lawyers in solidarity with our collegues and our role in society, and to in general never further an unjust cause. If not then why do we even exist? Might as well just replace us with robots and be done with it. Yeah, it's a bit of a strawman but so loving what. The lawyers that will argue for child concentration camps will go to any lengths to not say the words, but we have brains and can read between the lines. It's a hosed up world out there though, and I'm sure those lawyers will do their job and won't get an ethics violation for it (in certain cases a bad enough argument ought to imo), but they get to live their life with a forever tarnished reputation and I think that's well earned and fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:disagree. criminal defendants are one thing, but when it comes to civil matters nobody's required to take a certain type of case or represent a bad cause, and doing so is largely a matter of choice: you are no more entitled to not have your choices judged as a, say, tobacco lawyer than a tobacco executive. Its easy to fire off arm-chair morality judgments, but there's a much smaller distance than you think between, "Well we all KNOW that these guys are bad" and "Whoops, turns out those guys weren't so bad." Didn't we just have this slap fight in DnD?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Its easy to fire off arm-chair morality judgments, but there's a much smaller distance than you think between, "Well we all KNOW that these guys are bad" and "Whoops, turns out those guys weren't so bad." Nah that slap fight was just about criminal justice, not voluntary representation of fucksticks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 19:35
|
|
|
There’s also “how” you defend. Point out issues in credibility of child sex assault victim. Fair. Tell mom of sex assault victim you’ll call CPS and get her kids taken away if she testifies, gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
I think hating the gears over hating the machine and what it produces is an emotional shortcut to vindication.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I think hating the gears over hating the machine and what it produces is an emotional shortcut to vindication. *puts hands to ears as crowd boos in classic heel gesture*
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Its easy to fire off arm-chair morality judgments, but there's a much smaller distance than you think between, "Well we all KNOW that these guys are bad" and "Whoops, turns out those guys weren't so bad." arguing that judgments might sometimes be wrong is not a credible argument that judgement is impossible. you're not disagreeing with a particular judgement that lawyer x did a bad thing through representation y. you're arguing that nobody can ever make a judgment that lawyer x did a bad thing through a representation no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
El_Elegante posted:*puts hands to ears as crowd boos in classic heel gesture* 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I’ve come to the conclusion that the naive insistence that there’s no such thing as police or prosecutorial misconduct and the edgelord sullen rant that all law enforcement should be abolished are different sides of the same privilege coin, the first being the view of one who need never fear being oppressed by police, the second being the view of one whose privilege leaves them unlikely to ever need the protection of law enforcement. Growing up in New Orleans there were plenty of times I would have called the police but for the fact that they were complete shitheads who only ever managed to make any given situation worse. I even tried on two occasions only to learn my lesson about calling the police for literally anything. blarzgh posted:Its easy to fire off arm-chair morality judgments, but there's a much smaller distance than you think between, "Well we all KNOW that these guys are bad" and "Whoops, turns out those guys weren't so bad." You started this by clarifying a position no one asked about! Kawasaki Nun fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
Ahem - Hulk Hogan NWO.gif
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Pretty sure AR was issued literal jackboots as part of her commission.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:you're arguing that nobody can ever make a judgment that lawyer x did a bad thing through a representation no matter what. Not "can't", just "shouldn't." Maybe I'm too naively married to the belief that the human capacity for logic and compassion can handle difficult and distasteful ideas. I think its a net loss if we're afraid of even hearing about things we don't like and/or are objectively bad, and we decide to start figuratively shooting the messengers. I mean we're even doing somersaults trying to differentiate between, "well its OK if its a PD but not Private Counsel for a Criminal Defendant, And only certain kinds of Civil Plaintiffs, but not others where..." My point is that its either OK for people to advocate on behalf of lovely things or its not. Either the post of the advocate is divorced from the stink of its client or its not. Playing loving hopscotch with which lovely things are OK to advocate on behalf of, and which lovely things are NOT OK is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
Big brain man only capable of binary logic
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
El_Elegante posted:Big brain man only capable of binary logic I'm 100% too dumb to both judge an argument on its merits, and also keep track of which advocates of the argument I'm supposed to hate and why.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
I get around this by being deeply stupid AND hating everyone
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:
It's okay to advocate on behalf of lovely things. Not all manners of advocating for lovely things are okay, legally, ethically, morally, etc. This all started with "judging" people. Nobody is going to jail or getting disbarred because their peers judge them. Thinking poorly of someone who says or does lovely things is unavoidable. There's always the potential cost to your reputation or credibility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:It's okay to advocate on behalf of lovely things. Not all manners of advocating for lovely things are okay, legally, ethically, morally, etc. This all started with "judging" people. Nobody is going to jail or getting disbarred because their peers judge them. Thinking poorly of someone who says or does lovely things is unavoidable. There's always the potential cost to your reputation or credibility. This is where I fall. My view is that "lovely" is entirely subjective and a lot of "lovely" plaintiff/defendants are responsible for incredibly important cases that shape our world for the better. Larry Flynt vs. Falwell is basically what I'm talking about. There aren't many people who "like" Larry Flynt (which isn't to say everyone liked Jerry Falwell). But that case is immensely important for our free speech rights. Nearly the entirety of 4th/5th/6th amendment case law protecting defendant rights exist because of Defendants who were "lovely" people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
El_Elegante posted:I get around this by being deeply stupid AND hating everyone This but unironically. Welcome to the wonderful wonderful world of being a litigator.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Maybe I'm conflating two issues. Let me clarify: The elected AG in California has the authority to decide not to pursue an appeal. Harris did this, generally when she found it politically popular, but not on cases of gross prosecutorial misconduct. That is on her. Her successor does not appear to have followed in her footsteps. Neither did Jerry Brown before her afaik. This makes her more likely the client asking for lovely things than the lawyer assisting the client imho. nm fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Not "can't", just "shouldn't." Maybe I'm too naively married to the belief that the human capacity for logic and compassion can handle difficult and distasteful ideas. I think its a net loss if we're afraid of even hearing about things we don't like and/or are objectively bad, and we decide to start figuratively shooting the messengers. none of the "somersaults" you're complaining about are remotely difficult to keep straight and this is basically an argument from "that sounds hard can i not do it". the choices you make, generally speaking, have moral consequences. sometimes, those moral consequences may be difficult to determine or people may disagree about what they are. this does not mean, as a hard and fast rule, if you advocate for a lovely client you are a lovely person. the world is complex, and sometimes the lovely people are right and its important to uphold that principle. or sometimes, they're only very minorly lovely and the financial situation you're in doesn't really give you the luxury of only taking the most noble clients. but like, deciding that you are going to be, say, michael cohen where your job is to be a legal thug, that has moral implications. if you chose to argue in favor of child concentration camps rather than submitting your resignation, that has moral implications. you can argue who else did morally wrong things in those situations but that doesn't change the fact that you made a choice and that choice had moral implications. sometimes you may not know if the client was a lovely person or not before you took on the gig: plenty of corporations were accused of doing bad things that they actually didn't do. i sure don't spend all my time doing pro bono work and do lots of work for hedge funds and the like, i'm not attacking people who do that. now, sometimes those moral implications may be shades of grey and complex - great, that's reality, and you don't get to decide you don't want a reality that is complex. most of the worst insufferable moralists are similarly blinkered in their utter inability to see anything besides pure white or horrid black and as a result tend to wind up with very stupid opinions and thoughts. but it's similarly lazy to just say that we should not make moral judgments at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:none of the "somersaults" you're complaining about are remotely difficult to keep straight and this is basically an argument from "that sounds hard can i not do it". the choices you make, generally speaking, have moral consequences. sometimes, those moral consequences may be difficult to determine or people may disagree about what they are. Nope, too complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
JK, you're saying its fine so long as you are 100% sure the cause you're advocating for is OK, or you are morally bereft if you and everyone else are 100% sure that the cause you are advocating for is definitely NOT OK. In the latter case, an attorney is a piece of poo poo for going to court on behalf of that client or case. You're right, there is an easy list of things where you can say, "yes, this is absolutely garbage and should never be advocated for." The deal is, its never the top of the list of abominable things that need debating, its always the line between what did make the list and what didn't. Its not the top of the list stuff whose advocates deserve the benefit of intellectual neutrality, its the stuff thats not quite on the list yet. The problem is if your rule of thumb is, "you're only a lovely person if you advocate for things on the list." then whose list are we talking about? Yours? Are you so sure your morality is clear and your knowledge is omnipotent enough to make that judgment? The original DnD thread was people making GBS threads on the lawyer/Law School Dean who was representing Harvey Weinstein; now YOU believe that your list wouldn't include criminal defendants in any circumstances, but I bet most people don't see it that way. The concept of a list of things you'll be morally judged for advocating on behalf of is flawed, because its inherently subjective. And you may be 100% confident that YOUR list is correct, but you're not in charge of the list.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:You're right, there is an easy list of things where you can say, "yes, this is absolutely garbage and should never be advocated for." blarzgh posted:My point is that its either OK for people to advocate on behalf of lovely things or its not. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
One of the lawyers around here where I practice, that I really really respect, is a dude who represented pedophiles against like 30 cities; some of whom I represented against him in those cases. He (or more accurately, the organization he represented) challenged the power of municipalities to employ larger residency restrictions than the state-proscribed ones for people already on the sex offender registry. In other words, he was going from courtroom to courtroom arguing that local communities should allow child rapists to live closer to parks and elementary schools. He is absolutely on your list. Even if you're enlightened enough to understand the interplay of federalism, and the interplay of criminal justice, social protections and reformation, then he's still on most people's list. He is going to have trouble finding work and supporting himself after becoming a public pariah for taking on a case like that. He makes the list you want for 9 out of 10 people. But, what he was really standing up to was the State's authority to use a certain provision of the Local Government Code as broadly as it was. He was, in the most diabolical of now-non-hypothetical cases, pushing back against the power of the State, in a manner is inherently good for its citizens. Taken to the logical extreme, the exercise of that power, under that clause, had no limits. And he lost, mostly because of me. And if you ask whether I agreed with the position I was advocating for, it doesn't matter. I was doing my job. But, he also won, because the Legislature added those residency restrictions to another section of the code, which signals a tighter limit to the first section of code than municipalities originally exercised. So, in advocating on behalf of child rapists for the chance to be closer to children to rape, he did something right and necessary in challenging the government's reach. But your List would have him as shamed, and reviled, and judged as a "bad person" because of the client he represented, and the cause they sought to push forward. You may say, "well he wouldn't be on MY list." Most other people, the ones not so Enlightened as you, will absolutely shame, revile, and judge him. But here is what I'm saying: there should be no list, because even though the things at the top of everyone's list are easy to agree on, the ones at the bottom are always at risk of being denied sufficient representation, solely by the fact that the list exists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
wow so edgy and smart. Gosh if only I'd written a sentence immediately after the one he quoted that showed the irony of the statement itself, I wouldn't have been so thoroughly owned!
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
Society shouldn’t have a list of crimes because we could never agree on all of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
who was the lawyer posting about the USMC and sentencing? The Gallagher guy got found not guilty on most charges but was convicted of "wrongfully posing for an unofficial picture with a human casualty." and I'm wondering what the sentence for that looks like appears to be about 4 months EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:who was the lawyer posting about the USMC and sentencing? The Gallagher guy got found not guilty on most charges but was convicted of "wrongfully posing for an unofficial picture with a human casualty." and I'm wondering what the sentence for that looks like A trip to the White House to receive his pardon and his medal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:who was the lawyer posting about the USMC and sentencing? The Gallagher guy got found not guilty on most charges but was convicted of "wrongfully posing for an unofficial picture with a human casualty." and I'm wondering what the sentence for that looks like The sentence is "posing for an official picture as a human casualty." It's a ln old law, very draconian. We mourn his loss. Edit CNN says max four months, and he's already got 201 days in. BigHead fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
man AR comes back for 2 days and the thread becomes D&D
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
Hey man. I had nothing to do with this. Been following the Gallagher case though. Lol, JAG Corps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
I really like sichuan noodles. Thai food is great too. I think when it comes to noodles, the thai have the best. Sure, pho is really good and so is bun. Ramen is delicious and I like yakisoba. Is dum sum "noodles?" Like should we consider dumplings noodles? I think these are important questions and I'm here to ask them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
Loving the part where they are now threatening their own witness with a perjury charge. You lost. Get over it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I really like sichuan noodles. Thai food is great too. I think when it comes to noodles, the thai have the best. Sure, pho is really good and so is bun. Ramen is delicious and I like yakisoba. Is dum sum "noodles?" Like should we consider dumplings noodles? I think these are important questions and I'm here to ask them. Some noodles are dim sum. Not all noodles are dim sum. Not all dim sum are noodles. Dumplings are not noodles. And it’s dim sum. Not dum sum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 23:08
|
|