Hillary on Sexual Assault

[DanG 1]

I agree 100% with your edits. Now see if you can get Anvil to agree.

- Dan G

[Anvilbrother 0]

kallend

***Yes I have been on the stand as an officer many times to answer questions about my reports, and hear the 100 ways their defendants did not comit the crime.

And did the defendants have lawyers? Or were lawyers only allowed for the not-guilty ones?

What is your point? Did I or ANYONE here say people should not have an attorney to defend them? The premise at hand was defense lawyers that KNEW their client was guilty by admission. But you already knew that and tried to twist it into me saying fuck the constitution and the systems in place we dont need scumbag defense lawyers when already I have stated not all lawyers are bad, and not all defense lawyers are bad.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Anvilbrother 0]

I have already said that TWICE now...See the above reply, and the one further up. You guys are good at trying to add words into others mouths.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[DanG 1]

You're said that lawyers shouldn't defend people they think are guilty. You think it is unethical.

What you don't understand is that lawyers should defend everybody. Even if they think a person is guilty. And they should defend them vigorously (within the law), regardless of whether they think they are guilty or not.

It is not up to the lawyer to decide if the accused is guilty. That's the job of the judge and jury.

- Dan G

[Anvilbrother 0]

Show me where I said that. And you used the word. "Think" I said "know"

What I said was lawyers who defend rapists and violent criminals who know by their clients own admission to them verbally or the totality of the evidence and continue to defend them in unethical ways have bad morals.

But somehow it has turned into.
-Anvil hates all lawyers and thinks they are all bad
-Anvil does not think people should have lawyers to defend themselves.
-Anvil doesn't like our way of governemnt
-Anvil is ignorant of the constitution

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[rehmwa 2]

Anvilbrother

What I said was lawyers who defend rapists and violent criminals who know by their clients own admission to them verbally or the totality of the evidence and continue to defend them in unethical ways have bad morals.

Now you've modified it to "unethical ways". I agree with that for guilty or innocent clients.

- an ethical lawyer will provide the best legal defense for his client. Guilty or innocent.


You were confusing bad lawyers that do unethical things for their guilty clients, with good lawyers that do the best legal job they can for their (probably guilty) clients. Glad you've modified (clarified) that.

HOWEVER - the 'scumbag' isn't guilty until the verdict is place - prior to that point, you, nor me, nor their lawyer, nor anyone else gets to determine guilt or innocence. so the lawyer shouldn't be biased by his 'opinion' (neither should cops frankly)

guilty/innocent/not guilty all happens AFTER the lawyer does his job

process is important - we can't let our 'feelings' be an excuse to bypass the process. no matter how horrible the crime

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Quote

Show me where I said that. And you used the word. "Think" I said "know"

And you keep ignoring the part of our system where a person is presumed innocent (by everybody) until they are proven guilty. If the lawyers could decide if a person is guilty, then we wouldn't need judges or juries, would we?

Quote

What I said was lawyers who defend rapists and violent criminals who know by their clients own admission to them verbally or the totality of the evidence and continue to defend them in unethical ways have bad morals.

Any lawyer who defends anyone in unethical ways has bad morals. Whether they think (see above) their client is guilty or not doesn't matter.

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

So.....now we are all down to the single point -

unethical lawyers suck



success - Speaker's Corner created agreement from confusion

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Anvilbrother 0]

DanG

Quote

Show me where I said that. And you used the word. "Think" I said "know"

And you keep ignoring the part of our system where a person is presumed innocent (by everybody) until they are proven guilty. If the lawyers could decide if a person is guilty, then we wouldn't need judges or juries, would we?

Quote

What I said was lawyers who defend rapists and violent criminals who know by their clients own admission to them verbally or the totality of the evidence and continue to defend them in unethical ways have bad morals.

Any lawyer who defends anyone in unethical ways has bad morals. Whether they think (see above) their client is guilty or not doesn't matter.

Lmao man Dan you are either reading too fast, or using some sort of bias filter to ignore what I type. I have stated like 4 times now that my argument of the lawyer knowing their client is guilty isn't just by a presumption, but the damn client telling them they did it, or the undeniable evidence against them.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[turtlespeed 226]

DanG

I agree 100% with your edits. Now see if you can get Anvil to agree.

Damn, two posts I a row with mutual agreement, did the saints go to the Super Bowl again?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rehmwa 2]

Anvilbrother

I have stated like 4 times now that my argument of the lawyer knowing their client is guilty isn't just by a presumption, but the damn client telling them they did it, or the undeniable evidence against them.

and the ETHICAL lawyer still does his job and defends him to his best ability under the law

a self righteous, UNETHICAL lawyer would ditch his responsibilities. or even worse, a weak moraled or lazy lawyer that can't handle discomfort would abandon his duties - it's not ethical, it's narcissistic and childish at best

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,058]

>Yes I have been on the stand as an officer many times to answer questions
>about my reports, and hear the 100 ways their defendants did not comit the
>crime.

Well, I hope some day you get to meet a public defender. You might learn something about them (and perhaps even something about yourself.)

[DanG 1]

Quote

Lmao man Dan you are either reading too fast, or using some sort of bias filter to ignore what I type. I have stated like 4 times now that my argument of the lawyer knowing their client is guilty isn't just by a presumption, but the damn client telling them they did it, or the undeniable evidence against them.

Jesus Christ, dude. I've tried about three times to explain to you that a lawyer's job is not to decide if his client is guilty or not. Even if the client confesses to the lawyer, the lawyer still has an ethical duty to represent the client as vigorously as he can. It would be unethical for the attorney to do othwerwise.

Why you can't understand that as a pivotal part of our adversarial system is beyond me.

I understand that emotionally you don't think guilty people should "get off". But the way to make sure that doesn't happen isn't to tell their attornies that they shouldn't try as hard if they think (know, whatever) guy did it. The way to make sure guilty people don't get away with it is to conduct proper investigations, proper prosecutions, and afford them proper defenses.

BTW, did you know that one of the reasons for a mistrial or retrial is poor representation by the defense attorney. Is that really what you want?

- Dan G

[Anvilbrother 0]

See you have tried to change the whole topic by addressing the qualifiers for the lawyer.

The point was not about the laws, the constitution or their role in the system. It was about the morals of a person whos job it is to day in and day out go in and defend rapists, and violent criminals WHILE knowing sometimes for a FACT that they are guilty.

Sure it may be your job in the system, but how well do you think some of them sleep knowing that the person they got off told them they were guilty of their crimes with credible details.

Quote

Seeking advice from fellow lawyers and the Florida Bar is something Hebert recommends. And he is someone who knows what it's like to wrestle with a vexing case.

In 1999 his client Lesley Stewart admitted to him that she helped bury the body of Belleair real estate agent Rosemary Christensen. Stewart said her boyfriend, Robert Glenn Temple, had murdered Christensen, who was his wife.

Although Hebert urged her to tell police, she declined. One of the foundations of the legal system is attorney-client privilege — information a client shares with an attorney is secret. So Hebert had to stay quiet.

For nine years.

He said it was incredibly stressful to have a case in which "you know who did it, you know where the body is buried and you can't say anything." He said the case never left him during those years.

Couldn't he find another way to get the information out, like anonymously calling police?

No, says Hebert. There were so few people who knew this information, that it would have been obvious. This could have tainted the case in a way that might have prevented the evidence from being used in court.

Stewart finally told police what she knew in 2008 and led investigators to Christensen's body, which had been buried in North Florida woods. Temple was charged with murder and is awaiting trial.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[DanG 1]

Quote

The point was not about the laws, the constitution or their role in the system. It was about the morals of a person whos job it is to day in and day out go in and defend rapists, and violent criminals WHILE knowing sometimes for a FACT that they are guilty.

Sure it may be your job in the system, but how well do you think some of them sleep knowing that the person they got off told them they were guilty of their crimes with credible details.

I hope you never get into legal trouble and find yourself with a lawyer who "knows" you are guilty.

- Dan G

[Anvilbrother 0]

So when you are guilty you are happy to have the lawyer that will do anything to get you off. I see where your morals are now also. What happened to responsibility for your actions, not $$$$$ will get me off this guilty charge I deserve.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[jakee 1,556]

Quote

The premise at hand was defense lawyers that KNEW their client was guilty by admission.

OK! Great!

Now the question is why you are arguing that point in this thread, because it does not apply to Hillary Clinton.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Wow, are you ever selectively deaf. If everybody else "gets it" except you, maybe the problem is with you.

Defense lawyers do their job by making sure the prosecution does theirs. The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. Further, the evidence presented has to be obtained in a manner consistent with constitutional protections; no conducting searches and getting warrants later (or never). No torturing "witnesses" to change their testimony. It does not matter if the accused is factually innocent or guilty, these rules must be respected. No-one except the defense is going to hold the prosecution's feet to the fire on these issues. None of our constitutional rights would be worth a nickel if the State had the power to imprison or even execute anyone it wished without having to prove guilt. If the police/prosecution was free to come into your house and search it without a warrant and use whatever they found in court, why would they ever bother to get a warrant? Would that make us more or less free, in your opinion?

Maybe you should compare a trial to a grand jury proceeding, where the prosecution presents their evidence without any input from the defense side. As you may have heard, any competent prosecutor could get a ham sandwich indited, because there are no rules and there is no defense allowed. Would we be better served if actual trials were run like grand juries?

The lawyer who defends a client who she knows or suspects is factually guilty is also defending your rights, and mine. I'm sorry that's too complicated for you to understand.

Quote

Although Hebert urged her to tell police, she declined. One of the foundations of the legal system is attorney-client privilege — information a client shares with an attorney is secret. So Hebert had to stay quiet.

Quote

Couldn't he find another way to get the information out, like anonymously calling police?

No, says Hebert. There were so few people who knew this information, that it would have been obvious. This could have tainted the case in a way that might have prevented the evidence from being used in court.

It's informative that your quoted example of "unethical behavior" is actually the opposite. Had the lawyer revealed the information to the police, that information could never be used against his client in court, as it would have been obtained as a result of an illegal action. The police could have gone and dug up the body, but the fact the the client knew where the body was, the body itself, and any evidence associated with the body would nor be usable in court. The murderer's wallet with name, address, and photo could have been buried with the body, but it could never be used. Indeed, a truly unethical lawyer could have "leaked" the info to the police, thereby ensuring it could never be used against his client. By respecting attorney-client privilege, Mr. Hebert ensured the evidence could be used when it was revealed by lawful means.

Quote

Stewart finally told police what she knew in 2008 and led investigators to Christensen's body, which had been buried in North Florida woods. Temple was charged with murder and is awaiting trial.

It sucks that it took 9 years, but Stewart did finally talk to the police, the evidence was recovered and its admissibility was preserved, and the accused murderer is facing trial. That's a better outcome than one where the police know who did it but can't prove it because the evidence is too tainted.

The legal system is not perfect by any means, but it is hard to see how it could be improved by removing constitutional rights or by demanding that lawyers report to the police any incriminating statements their clients might make.

This is one of those situations in which reason leads to a different conclusion than gut emotion. Sure everyone throws up in their mouth a little at the thought of a murderer or rapist getting away with it. However, when the remedy is stripping away constitutional protections, the remedy really is worse than the problem. The real remedy is better police work, and prosecutors who respect the law, so the jury is presented with solid admissible evidence.

Don

I wonder where Lawrocket and Andy908 have gone?

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rehmwa 2]

nicely put, GDon

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Quote

So when you are guilty you are happy to have the lawyer that will do anything to get you off.

Nice try, but you know that's not why I (or anyone else who's tried to explain how wrong you are) has said.

If I'm guilty, I will want my lawyer to do everything he can within the bounds of the law to get me a not guilty verdict.

And so would you.

- Dan G

[Driver1 0]

GeorgiaDon

Wow, are you ever selectively deaf. If everybody else "gets it" except you, maybe the problem is with you.

Defense lawyers do their job by making sure the prosecution does theirs. The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. Further, the evidence presented has to be obtained in a manner consistent with constitutional protections; no conducting searches and getting warrants later (or never). No torturing "witnesses" to change their testimony. It does not matter if the accused is factually innocent or guilty, these rules must be respected. No-one except the defense is going to hold the prosecution's feet to the fire on these issues. None of our constitutional rights would be worth a nickel if the State had the power to imprison or even execute anyone it wished without having to prove guilt. If the police/prosecution was free to come into your house and search it without a warrant and use whatever they found in court, why would they ever bother to get a warrant? Would that make us more or less free, in your opinion?

Maybe you should compare a trial to a grand jury proceeding, where the prosecution presents their evidence without any input from the defense side. As you may have heard, any competent prosecutor could get a ham sandwich indited, because there are no rules and there is no defense allowed. Would we be better served if actual trials were run like grand juries?

The lawyer who defends a client who she knows or suspects is factually guilty is also defending your rights, and mine. I'm sorry that's too complicated for you to understand.

Quote

Although Hebert urged her to tell police, she declined. One of the foundations of the legal system is attorney-client privilege — information a client shares with an attorney is secret. So Hebert had to stay quiet.

***Couldn't he find another way to get the information out, like anonymously calling police?

No, says Hebert. There were so few people who knew this information, that it would have been obvious. This could have tainted the case in a way that might have prevented the evidence from being used in court.

It's informative that your quoted example of "unethical behavior" is actually the opposite. Had the lawyer revealed the information to the police, that information could never be used against his client in court, as it would have been obtained as a result of an illegal action. The police could have gone and dug up the body, but the fact the the client knew where the body was, the body itself, and any evidence associated with the body would nor be usable in court. The murderer's wallet with name, address, and photo could have been buried with the body, but it could never be used. Indeed, a truly unethical lawyer could have "leaked" the info to the police, thereby ensuring it could never be used against his client. By respecting attorney-client privilege, Mr. Hebert ensured the evidence could be used when it was revealed by lawful means.

Quote

Stewart finally told police what she knew in 2008 and led investigators to Christensen's body, which had been buried in North Florida woods. Temple was charged with murder and is awaiting trial.

It sucks that it took 9 years, but Stewart did finally talk to the police, the evidence was recovered and its admissibility was preserved, and the accused murderer is facing trial. That's a better outcome than one where the police know who did it but can't prove it because the evidence is too tainted.

The legal system is not perfect by any means, but it is hard to see how it could be improved by removing constitutional rights or by demanding that lawyers report to the police any incriminating statements their clients might make.

This is one of those situations in which reason leads to a different conclusion than gut emotion. Sure everyone throws up in their mouth a little at the thought of a murderer or rapist getting away with it. However, when the remedy is stripping away constitutional protections, the remedy really is worse than the problem. The real remedy is better police work, and prosecutors who respect the law, so the jury is presented with solid admissible evidence.

Don

I wonder where Lawrocket and Andy908 have gone?

I have to agree with Don. Nicely put. A lawyer's job is to make sure his/her client gets a FAIR trial and that the prosecution does its job properly.

Now, there have been lawyers who dropped clients because they knew the client was guilty but wanted to plead innocent. It happens all the time. I don't know how public defenders deal with clients like these though.

All that said, all lawyers lie in court, its a given.

There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"!

[airdvr 210]

rehmwa

So.....now we are all down to the single point -

unethical lawyers suck

Including the former SoS who is now running for the Democrat nomination.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Amazon 7]

airdvr

***So.....now we are all down to the single point -

unethical lawyers suck

Including the former SoS who is now running for the Democrat nomination.


The CDS is strong in this one as evidenced by this entire thread.

[billvon 3,058]

>I don't know how public defenders deal with clients like these though.

They:

- counsel them to plead guilty and ask for leniency
- encourage them to take the plea bargain
- convince them that they're not going to win the eventual trial
- discourage appeals

And from my experience talking to them, manage to do the above 90+% of the time for their clearly guilty clients. I know one public defender who has done more to put guilty people behind bars than any prosecutor in her area has.

[kallend 2,098]

Anvilbrother

******Yes I have been on the stand as an officer many times to answer questions about my reports, and hear the 100 ways their defendants did not comit the crime.

And did the defendants have lawyers? Or were lawyers only allowed for the not-guilty ones?

What is your point? Did I or ANYONE here say people should not have an attorney to defend them? The premise at hand was defense lawyers that KNEW their client was guilty by admission.

Hmmm - so in your world there is never such a thing as a false (coerced) admission.

In the real world it seems to happen with some regularity. It's one of the reasons that quite a few innocent people have been released from death rows around the country.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.