Jump to content

Kyle Rittenhouse

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

CTC2

CTC2 2796

Posted
Posted
Just now, JimmyJames said:

It’s totally true. Never been more nervous and it happens every single  time no matter the stakes. I can’t even imagine what it’s like for my clients. And we’re just talking about money there. Think about criminal defendants facing jail time. 

Dude, they used to make you stand up with the Defendant for the reading of the verdict.   Was kind of intense.

  • Hook 'Em 1
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

JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

In my business we call that a conflict of interest. 

Maybe doesn't apply to lawyers. 

Well I’m not sure of your business, but in mine, the more money my client makes the more money I make. So that is pretty obviously not a conflict of interest. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You lawyers are a special fucking case, no doubt. 

Whoever has the gold makes the rules. Lawyers are just an extension of war by supposedly more civilized means. The lawyers don’t own the gold, but they do enforce the rules on behalf of those who do. And are paid very well to do it.

Or if the lawyers don’t work, the soldiers step in to take their place. They also get paid, just not as much.

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

washparkhorn 9939

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You lawyers are a special fucking case, no doubt. 

  • Litigating attorneys (barristers) are duty-bound Officers of the Court and subject to the court's jurisdiction in cases brought before the courts. The courts punch down hard on attorney fuckups. An attorney's ticket can be pulled for matters you might consider trivial. Some of those things - like segregation of client funds - is zero tolerance in most states. 
  • Contingency fee agreements expand access to the courts for those less fortunate. 
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:
  •  The courts punch down hard on attorney fuckups. An attorney's ticket can be pulled for matters you might consider trivial.

Funny in the context of this current display of the legal system. Not quite the right time to tell me how robust the self policing of the profession is. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

5ulkgh.jpg

 

You’re just showing your ignorance here. What he said was absolutely true. 

Contingency fee agreements are the poor mans ticket to the courthouse. 

I don’t expect you to understand that right away but you should try to educate yourself on that fact.

If you care to. 

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

washparkhorn 9939

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am coming to the realization that you lawyers don't understand how potential conflicts of interest work for the rest of the professional world. 

Tell me about conflicts of interest in your world. I have zero idea what your profession/occupation requires because I don't have a reference point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105095

Posted
Posted
I am coming to the realization that you lawyers don't understand how potential conflicts of interest work for the rest of the professional world. 

In the context of what Jimmy was talking about….what in the blue fuck are you prattling on about? You think that a lawyer who has an interest in his client prevailing, and a client who wants to prevail, presents….a CONFLICT of interest? It’s a fucking ALIGNMENT of interests.

Maybe you’re trying to be clever here…I have no idea. But you should stop.
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted (edited)

Y'all lawyers do apparently have a totally different understanding of conflict of interest than the rest of us normal brained individuals functioning in different professions.

For normal brained people, conflict of interest is described best by situations where the impartiality of the work conducted is potentially compromised because the individual conducting that work stands to profit based on the result of the outcome.

For some of y'all, that's the fundamental basis of your business model. 

 

 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gourmand

Gourmand 7774

Posted
Posted

I realize this is not the post for this page nor do any of you lawdogs give a shit about my opinion, but I will go on record as saying I think the prosecution scores an upset win  and Rittenhouse is convicted primarily on the basis of the drone video that illustrated KR's unreasonable self defense argument. I thought the prosecution's closing was strong and concise and made a compelling case for why the jury should return a guilty verdict, and if the narcissist Uncle Mike judge had allowed those previous Rittenhouse statements into evidence as he did the evidence about Rosenbaum's mental health history, it would have been a slam dunk "he's guilty-let's-eat-lunch" verdict.

I do not agree with the prevailing opinion in this thread that Rittenhouse will easily get off on the basis of self-defense because 1) he's running around with a goddamn AR 15 strapped to his body and 2) he held it in such a way that other witnesses felt he pointed his gun at them. The aggressor wasn't the guy with a plastic bag, the aggressor was the guy with the semi-automatic rifle playing rent-a-cop.

 

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

ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2663

Posted
Posted (edited)

Directed to Anastasis

Oh FFS. This is why so many of your takes are hot garbage -- so entrenched in your chosen position that you can't or won't recalibrate, or just flat out admit your take was wrong. A contingency fee means a lawyer may accept a client who otherwise might have no recourse....lawyer gets NO pay unless he gets something for the client. Lawyer works hard for no pay, bingo--wins, and both parties benefit. 

Edited by ChuckNorrisActionJeans
bc intervening motherfkker:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31451

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

Y'all lawyers do apparently have a totally different understanding of conflict of interest than the rest of us normal brained individuals functioning in different professions.

For normal brained people, conflict of interest is described best by situations where the impartiality of the work conducted is potentially compromised because the individual conducting that work stands to profit based on the result of the outcome.

For some of y'all, that's the fundamental basis of your business model. 

 

 

The fundamental misunderstanding here is that the legal profession requires zealous advocacy of a client's interests.  If the client's interest in financial recovery aligns with the lawyer's, so much the better.

Lawyers, representing clients, are not impartial.  They do not do impartial work.  Quite the opposite.  Lawyer are not generally engaged in serving the public interest.  However, by representing their clients in an adversarial system, it is believed that the public interest is served.

There are other circumstances where a lawyer is not permitted to acquire an interest in the subject matter of the representation.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

I realize this is not the post for this page nor do any of you lawdogs give a shit about my opinion, but I will go on record as saying I think the prosecution scores an upset win  and Rittenhouse is convicted primarily on the basis of the drone video that illustrated KR's unreasonable self defense argument. I thought the prosecution's closing was strong and concise and made a compelling case for why the jury should return a guilty verdict, and if the narcissist Uncle Mike judge had allowed those previous Rittenhouse statements into evidence as he did the evidence about Rosenbaum's mental health history, it would have been a slam dunk "he's guilty-let's-eat-lunch" verdict.

I do not agree with the prevailing opinion in this thread that Rittenhouse will easily get off on the basis of self-defense because 1) he's running around with a goddamn AR 15 strapped to his body and 2) he held it in such a way that other witnesses felt he pointed his gun at them. The aggressor wasn't the guy with a plastic bag, the aggressor was the guy with the semi-automatic rifle playing rent-a-cop.

 

While interesting this has nothing to do with the discussion of lawyer conflict of interstate. 
 

So I say good day to you sir. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The fundamental misunderstanding

 Is there really a fundamental misunderstanding though?

 

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

In my business we call that a conflict of interest. 

Maybe doesn't apply to lawyers. 

 

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

You lawyers are a special fucking case, no doubt. 

 

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

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

A contingency fee means a lawyer may accept a client who otherwise might have no recourse....lawyer gets NO pay unless he gets something for the client. Lawyer works hard for no pay, bingo--wins, and both parties benefit. 

I understand what a contingency fee is, but thanks for explaining it anyways.  It also represents a fundamental conflict of interest.  This is not a hard concept. 

Whether the COI is acceptable in the broader weighing of interests or not is another matter, but let's just try to agree that it is a COI. At least as long as finding truth is one of the primary interests involved. 

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

ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2663

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

I understand what a contingency fee is, but thanks for explaining it anyways.  It also represents a fundamental conflict of interest.  This is not a hard concept. 

No, it's not hard. Where's the conflict??

lawyer takes a loser client, and loses, both parties lose = lesson learned. Either side of the equation reflects a lawyer representing the client's interests and the interests align. You're being weird here.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

No, it's not hard. Where's the conflict??

lawyer takes a loser client, and loses, both parties lose = lesson learned. Either side of the equation reflects a lawyer representing the client's interests and the interests align. You're being weird here.

Again, it's clear to me that y'all lawyers have a totally different understanding of conflict of interest than the rest of us. 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45674

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

I realize this is not the post for this page nor do any of you lawdogs give a shit about my opinion, but I will go on record as saying I think the prosecution scores an upset win  and Rittenhouse is convicted primarily on the basis of the drone video that illustrated KR's unreasonable self defense argument. I thought the prosecution's closing was strong and concise and made a compelling case for why the jury should return a guilty verdict, and if the narcissist Uncle Mike judge had allowed those previous Rittenhouse statements into evidence as he did the evidence about Rosenbaum's mental health history, it would have been a slam dunk "he's guilty-let's-eat-lunch" verdict.

I do not agree with the prevailing opinion in this thread that Rittenhouse will easily get off on the basis of self-defense because 1) he's running around with a goddamn AR 15 strapped to his body and 2) he held it in such a way that other witnesses felt he pointed his gun at them. The aggressor wasn't the guy with a plastic bag, the aggressor was the guy with the semi-automatic rifle playing rent-a-cop.

 

Aw, you’re a cute kid.  I hope you’re right. Prepare for disappointment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9939

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

impartiality of the work conducted is potentially compromised

If you work for a for-profit corporation, the people who pay you have a paramount legal duty to maximize profits for shareholders. That's conflict with impartiality.

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I understand what a contingency fee is, but thanks for explaining it anyways.  It also represents a fundamental conflict of interest.  This is not a hard concept. 

 Australia, Brazil, Canada, the Dominican Republic, France, Greece, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States disagree with your epiphany. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bevo14

Bevo14 8304

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gourmand said:

I realize this is not the post for this page nor do any of you lawdogs give a shit about my opinion, but I will go on record as saying I think the prosecution scores an upset win  and Rittenhouse is convicted primarily on the basis of the drone video that illustrated KR's unreasonable self defense argument. I thought the prosecution's closing was strong and concise and made a compelling case for why the jury should return a guilty verdict, and if the narcissist Uncle Mike judge had allowed those previous Rittenhouse statements into evidence as he did the evidence about Rosenbaum's mental health history, it would have been a slam dunk "he's guilty-let's-eat-lunch" verdict.

I do not agree with the prevailing opinion in this thread that Rittenhouse will easily get off on the basis of self-defense because 1) he's running around with a goddamn AR 15 strapped to his body and 2) he held it in such a way that other witnesses felt he pointed his gun at them. The aggressor wasn't the guy with a plastic bag, the aggressor was the guy with the semi-automatic rifle playing rent-a-cop.

 

3) he shot the first guy 4 times,  twice when he was on the ground already with a fractured pelvis.

Why does Johnny Sack keep blathering about 3-0? He missed the 4th guy at close range. Top 1% indeed. 

This kid murdered 2 people and the self defense nonsense is another maga fairy tale, but it seems like proper justice is rarely rendered. Unarmed vs a rifle.  You don't need to know shit about fuck about the case to know it's bullshit.  

This shouldn't even be a story but maga always needs to deify a piece of shit. 

 

Edited by Bevo14
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted
Just now, washparkhorn said:

If you work for a for-profit corporation, the people who pay you have a paramount legal duty to maximize profits for shareholders. That's conflict with impartiality.

Yes, of course it is.  And why such employment would have to be disclosed as a conflict of interest.  

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

 Australia, Brazil, Canada, the Dominican Republic, France, Greece, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States disagree with your epiphany. 

LOL. 

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

washparkhorn 9939

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

And why such employment would have to be disclosed as a conflict of interest.  

If you were a lawyer with a genuine conflict of interest like yours, simple disclosure would not be enough. The attorney would be unable to represent the client (or would need to withdraw from representation). 

Edited by washparkhorn
I am bored with the derail. Good luck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
52-80

52-80 19150

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The fundamental misunderstanding here is that the legal profession requires zealous advocacy of a client's interests.  If the client's interest in financial recovery aligns with the lawyer's, so much the better.

Lawyers, representing clients, are not impartial.  They do not do impartial work.  Quite the opposite.  Lawyer are not generally engaged in serving the public interest.  However, by representing their clients in an adversarial system, it is believed that the public interest is served.

There are other circumstances where a lawyer is not permitted to acquire an interest in the subject matter of the representation.

uWjHanrNxwJEPM4II82nHpGKWzlo_PtMChiDJB00

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
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...