Jump to content

Kyle Rittenhouse

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45546

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Might be a good idea to have all lawyers swear a similar oath. 

Actually, no.  The concept of "zealous defense" is well-established, and good.  There are legal bounds for a reason, but the accused deserves their day in court without over-arching layers of bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Satoshi
Satoshi

Horrible situation that night. He will be acquitted. The dumbest guy in all this was the one who brought a skateboard to a gun fight. The definition of FAFO

Satoshi
Satoshi

Shots had already been fired at the point of the skateboard guy getting involved. So yeah it reached the level of gun fight at the point he got involved. Not sure what you don’t understand about that.

Brian Fantana
Brian Fantana

I just want to add that I'm not here to pillory Kyle Rittenhouse. He is a fucking child. A child. I had an extensive conversation about this with a good friend of mine who is a juvenile defender by pr

Posted Images

wildcat09

wildcat09 29224

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Frank The Tank said:

Yes, having the government be bound by Justice and the defense being bound by zealously representing the accused has worked just fine for a couple hundred years. It might not be perfect, but it’s the best system that exists. 

I'm not sure it's the best system that exists. There are pros and cons of adversarial systems and there are pros and cons of inquisitorial systems. But the problems with our legal system aren't generally because a lawyer's interests are in conflict with his or her client's interests.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21761

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

why not?

Why would anybody have a problem advocating and modeling a basic ethical principle like Justice?

Not sure why I'm doing this, but here it goes. The aim of the adversarial system is, indeed, justice. It's set up to allow guilty people to sometimes go free to avoid innocent people from being convicted. Of course it doesn't work all the time, but it is set up that way for that reason. 

It also seems that you think zealous advocacy is somehow antithical to "justice." It really isn't for the millions of reasons already explained to you. For the record, zealous advocacy is still bound by lawyers ethics that they cannot lie to a court or jury and cannot knowingly promote lies towards a jury or court.

The latter part is where the distrust of lawyers come from, many do not abide by that ethic, and the system has become entirely too lax when it comes to perjury. If you want to have that discussion, I'm open to it, because it is an identifiably real problem. 

So it's not a problem with the system, but how it sometimes plays out in practice.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45546

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm not sure it's the best system that exists. There are pros and cons of adversarial systems and there are pros and cons of inquisitorial systems. But the problems with our legal system aren't generally because a lawyer's interests are in conflict with his or her client's interests.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29224

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

why not?

Why would anybody have a problem advocating and modeling a basic ethical principle like Justice?

Here's our oath:

"I, [wildcat09], do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitutions of the United States, and of this State; that I will honestly demean myself in the practice of law; that I will discharge my duties to my clients to the best of my ability; and, that I will conduct myself with integrity and civility in dealing and communicating with the court and all parties. So help me God."

I suppose we could add something about justice, though I think the oath to conduct ourselves with integrity is pretty close to that (and fits better with many lawyers' practices, since most of us never practice criminal law or anything that really has much to do with "justice" regardless of how you conceive of it).

Again, though, I find myself wondering what oath you swore. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21761

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Here's our oath:

"I, [wildcat09], do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitutions of the United States, and of this State; that I will honestly demean myself in the practice of law; that I will discharge my duties to my clients to the best of my ability; and, that I will conduct myself with integrity and civility in dealing and communicating with the court and all parties. So help me God."

I suppose we could add something about justice, though I think the oath to conduct ourselves with integrity is pretty close to that (and fits better with many lawyers' practices, since most of us never practice criminal law or anything that really has much to do with "justice" regardless of how you conceive of it).

Again, though, I find myself wondering what oath you swore. 

The night ops manager when you finish your department early but starts pulling out pallets the weekend team didn't finish on your day off. : r/HomeDepot

Happy reading. "Justice" appears quite often herein.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eastwood

Eastwood 4394

Posted
Posted
Might be a good idea to have all lawyers swear a similar oath. 
If you ever find yourself at 1L orientation, you'll get a couple of hours of law school faculty droning on about how you're about to change the world and fight for justice and equality, then they'll turn around and base your entire law school career ranking you against others based on a curve, which affects your class ranking, thereby affecting your access to scholarships, valuable extracurriculars, and job opportunities.

Justice is an ideal, not a reality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Spackler

Carl Spackler 3461

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Maybe I'm off base here (not a lawyer), but I find it telling that in both trials happening right now regarding right wing nutjobs shooting people, the defense has asked for a mistrial.  To me that means they know they are wrong and are trying to get out on a technicality because it is so obvious they are guilty.

It feels like the equivalent of yelling "IT'S NOT FAIR!" when they realize they are probably going down.

Part of it may simply be preservation of legal issues for any potential appeal.  Not sure how WI law works in that regard, but there may be a potential for waiver or forfeiture of a legal argument if it was not part of a mistrial motion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted
Just now, 'stache said:

So it's not a problem with the system, but how it plays out in practice.

I don't really have an issue with the adversarial system. I think that indeed a lot of good comes from having two parties square up their arguments. I think that it is even useful at times for a party to simply play an aggressive devil's advocate role, or even advocate a position that they don't necessarily hold themselves just to pressure test the system. Or just troll for the lulz of the resulting responses like "lawyers are just an extension of warfare."

The whole tangent spun up from an off hand comment about contingency based compensation creating conflicts of interest. I think that that is true. I think that every poster here recognizes it as true.  That's why we carve out certain legal proceedings explicitly from such arrangements, because they create obvious ethical conflicts where the ethical principle of Justice is paramount.  Now I guess that if you want to argue that there are a vast majority of legal proceedings where the principle of Justice is not really paramount, or that there are situations where other ethical principles (maybe Automony, Equal access, etc,) should be over weighted, those might be reasonable points to consider.  Seems like Justice should always get a strong shake though, given how closely our society depends on the legal system to effect it.      

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

The whole tangent spun up from an off hand comment about contingency based compensation creating conflicts of interest. I think that that is true. I think that every poster here recognizes it as true.  That's why we carve out certain legal proceedings explicitly from such arrangements, because they create obvious ethical conflicts where the ethical principle of Justice is paramount.  

 

You have yet to articulate a single argument that supports this position other than claiming it is obvious and everyone agrees with you when in fact everyone disagrees because everyone besides you seems to know what a conflict of interest is. At this point you are just talking because you like to hear yourself talk.

Your last sentence is just pure garbled nonsense. Word salad so to speak.
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29174

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

You have yet to articulate a single argument that supports this position other than claiming it is obvious and everyone agrees with you when in fact everyone disagrees because everyone besides you seems to know what a conflict of interest is.

i like baseball.  but i think it's incredibly unfair.  i know others may not agree with me.

but what if there were new rules, and only one team got to bat the entire game, wouldn't that be interesting?  i think a lot of people think that new version of baseball would be interesting.

well now that we're on the subject, i think the new version of baseball is incredibly unfair.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The whole tangent spun up from an off hand comment about contingency based compensation creating conflicts of interest. I think that that is true. I think that every poster here recognizes it as true.

The problem with your thought process is that in a conflict of interest, the two interests are incompatible.  There is no conflict if the interests are compatible, and that is the case in a contingent fee arrangement.  While you might have differences in approach to risk, which could lead an advocate wanting to settle a case above, at or below what the client wants to settle at, they have a difference in where they want to end up.  But their interests are not incompatible.  They both want to maximize the award they receive, each with a different tolerance for risk.

A client and an advocate may have different risk tolerances, but that's not a conflict of interest. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TDunk

TDunk 590

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

I don't really have an issue with the adversarial system. I think that indeed a lot of good comes from having two parties square up their arguments. I think that it is even useful at times for a party to simply play an aggressive devil's advocate role, or even advocate a position that they don't necessarily hold themselves just to pressure test the system. Or just troll for the lulz of the resulting responses like "lawyers are just an extension of warfare."

The whole tangent spun up from an off hand comment about contingency based compensation creating conflicts of interest. I think that that is true. I think that every poster here recognizes it as true.  That's why we carve out certain legal proceedings explicitly from such arrangements, because they create obvious ethical conflicts where the ethical principle of Justice is paramount.  Now I guess that if you want to argue that there are a vast majority of legal proceedings where the principle of Justice is not really paramount, or that there are situations where other ethical principles (maybe Automony, Equal access, etc,) should be over weighted, those might be reasonable points to consider.  Seems like Justice should always get a strong shake though, given how closely our society depends on the legal system to effect it.      

Explain this to me like I'm 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRvIDP5W3q7S0p8hs-Fv0

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, TDunk said:

Explain this to me like I'm 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRvIDP5W3q7S0p8hs-Fv0

 

The professionals that are the core of our legal system are not actually constrained by the ethical principal of Justice, except in very specific circumstances that they have crafted their own carve outs around. 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4599

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Carl Spackler said:

Unless I'm misreading the list, it's worse than that -- 3/5 of the respondents didn't rate the clergy as trustworthy.

It’s almost the same as the percentage of the population who attend church on a regular basis. I imagine it’s mostly split along those lines rather than 60% of churchgoers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Homercles

Homercles 10205

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Clearly any thread related to this particular case is the wrong place. 

Not for pages of general discussion on how useful and fair the adversarial justice system is. If there’s a key point relayed to the future senator, make it…but it’s gone way off course for the layman.  Feel like I’m reading The Rainmaker again and Grisham’s grim commentary on the legal profession. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Homercles said:

Not for pages of general discussion on how useful and fair the adversarial justice system is. If there’s a key point relayed to the future senator, make it…but it’s gone way off course for the layman.  Feel like I’m reading The Rainmaker again and Grisham’s grim commentary on the legal profession. 

Maybe more rain man than rainmaker. But we’re all just waiting for the jury to read out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104557

Posted
Posted
 
The professionals that are the core of our legal system are not actually constrained by the ethical principal of Justice, except in very specific circumstances that they have crafted their own carve outs around. 

You are so far over your skis on this it ain’t even funny.

Lawyers aren’t constrained by “the ethical principal of justice?” WTF?

Here are some rules we are obligated to follow:

Fiduciary duty to client (put the client’s interest ahead of our own).

Our oath.

The Texas lawyers creed: https://www.law.uh.edu/libraries/ethics/lcreed/index.html

The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct: https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=27271

And there’s more - join a federal bar, and there are more, for example.

Justice, and the multiple underpinnings thereof (eg, honesty, candor, etc) are woven throughout. For fuck’s sake, you’re just making a fucking ass of yourself, almost entirely because you can’t admit that your first dumbass statement that started all this was nonsensically wrong.

Back to Rittenhouse: beats the fuck outta me what’s going on back there in the jury room. I long ago quit trying to predict what a jury was thinking.
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Justice, and the multiple underpinnings thereof (eg, honesty, candor, etc) are woven throughout. For fuck’s sake, you’re just making a fucking ass of yourself, almost entirely because you can’t admit that your first dumbass statement that started all this was nonsensically wrong.

Woven throughout, but applied inconsistently. 

Everyone here seems to recognize the fundamental incompatibility between contingency based financial arrangements and the guiding ethical principle of Justice when applied to one legal setting. Some posters push back on extending that same ethical framework to other legal settings. I am not sure the solid footing of that.  Especially if you are trying to argue that there is a clear and consistent underpinning of focus on Justice as a principle. 

  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
conVINCEd

conVINCEd 21468

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


You are so far over your skis on this it ain’t even funny.

Lawyers aren’t constrained by “the ethical principal of justice?” WTF?

Here are some rules we are obligated to follow:

Fiduciary duty to client (put the client’s interest ahead of our own).

Our oath.

The Texas lawyers creed: https://www.law.uh.edu/libraries/ethics/lcreed/index.html

The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct: https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=27271

And there’s more - join a federal bar, and there are more, for example.

Justice, and the multiple underpinnings thereof (eg, honesty, candor, etc) are woven throughout. For fuck’s sake, you’re just making a fucking ass of yourself, almost entirely because you can’t admit that your first dumbass statement that started all this was nonsensically wrong.

Back to Rittenhouse: beats the fuck outta me what’s going on back there in the jury room. I long ago quit trying to predict what a jury was thinking.

It’s gonna be a hung jury, and that is a completely predictable result in a politically charged trial in America today.  Odds are you’re gonna get at least one person from Team R and one person from Team D.  Expecting those people to ever agree on anything is a fool’s errand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't know why y'all are responding to him. He is very clearly trolling. He really deserves a nice long timeout at this point. 

Yeah he’s making the trolling too obvious even by his standards. He’s clearly just fucking with the board at this point. Why? Who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...