Jump to content

Kyle Rittenhouse

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 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

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I personally have a lot of issues with the morality of the American legal profession but I’ll be goddamned if I’m gonna take this kind of shit from a pharma bro.

True enough.

The thing that makes lawyering weird, from an ethical standpoint that people don't seem to get sometimes, is the paramount duty to the client.

Something that brings that into sharp focus is that in some countries accounting and legal services are combined in firms.  It doesn't work in Anglo-American system countries because a) lawyers first duty is to clients and attorney-client privilege and b) accountants' first duty is to the public and have a duty of candor.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
txhorns

txhorns 2407

Posted
Posted
9 hours 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. 

Many financial advisors only get paid based on the success of their client’s portfolio.  Agents for athletes/actors/entertainers get paid a percentage of the contracts they bring in for their clients.  This type of contract is common in almost every profession.  It’s not a conflict of interest if I only get paid based on being successful in your best interests.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

A Thomas J Henry commercial. 

 

 

Serious Accidents. 

Serious Results.

He could win us millions based on the derailment this train, I mean thread, took.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19074

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

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

Actually, you have a very interesting take on conflict of interest.  

Hell, even accountants and consultants can have contingency fees based on success in certain situations.  For instance, if you are a SALT consultant, your fee can increase with the amount that you save the client.  Same thing with tax advisors.  You still have to work within the constraints of the profession, acting in good faith, etc..., but you can absolutely have contingency fees.  

Investment Managers/Asset Managers are another one who absolutely have compensation commensurate with success.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Bevo14 said:

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. 

 

So you do not believe it is appropriate for someone to shoot another person who is unarmed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ojo Rojo

Ojo Rojo 1882

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

David Henderson is a frequent guest on Shep Smith's show and he was saying that these are some of the most confusing jury instructions he's ever seen.  (He's a UT grad and lives in Dallas and I've always wondered if he posts here.)

He speculated that if there were one or two jurors who flat out refused to convict, they'd already declare a hung jury at this point.  He thinks they're working through the jury instructions.

This.  You can't read anything into the length of deliberations here. They probably spent the whole first day just reading the fucking thing again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21743

Posted
Posted
10 hours 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. 

 

 

Lol, wut? Lawyers representing clients are not impartial. Being "impartial" towards your own client would in fact violate a lawyers ethics. It's not a different interpretation of conflicts, it's a difference in what a lawyers ethical obligations are to their client which is different than some other lines of work. The judge is the one who is impartial as between advocates. The biggest problem in the industry, in my opinion, is judges who are elected and raise money for their campaigns. It's an issue that drives me absolutely crazy in Oklahoma, especially when the judge lists their "supporters" meaning other lawyers who gave them money. I can't possibly see how that is not a conflict when one of those lawyers appears before that judge, especially if it's published that the opposing counsel maybe supported someone else.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted (edited)

He's still conflating criminal prosecution versus civil actions.  

Defense attorneys in criminal proceedings do not get hired on contingency fees.  Neither do the people prosecuting them.  

 

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Does the state ever hire prosecutors based on a contingency fee arrangement?

of course not.

i don't really understand what you are on about here. 

can you take just a moment to flesh out your thoughts rather than just throw bomb comments and questions out there?

i feel like there is something weird going on here, and i don't understand what you are doing, unless you just want to be a contrarian just for the sake of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23375

Posted
Posted
Just now, hayden_horn said:

i don't really understand what you are on about here. 

Just killing time.

 

Would it be ethical for the state to hire prosecutors using a contingency fee arrangement?  They could probably easily upgrade the current set in this case if so.   

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

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Just killing time.

 

Would it be ethical for the state to hire prosecutors using a contingency fee arrangement?  They could probably easily upgrade the current set in this case if so.   

it looks like you are trolling.

you are conflating civil contingency with criminal trials. 

i don't understand why you are doing this, because you are a smart person.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Don Johnson

Don Johnson 4744

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Just killing time.

 

Would it be ethical for the state to hire prosecutors using a contingency fee arrangement?  They could probably easily upgrade the current set in this case if so.   

Contingent upon what?  What percentage of what funds would they be paid from.  It's not like the state is awarded $1,000,000 if the defendant is found guilty.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45513

Posted
Posted (edited)

The only imaginable contingency arrangement for prosecutors would be "you get your salary if you win, and nothing if you lose", which is obviously a complete non-starter.  

Well, unless the prosecutor is Ricky Williams.

 

 

Edited by jimmyjazz
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17420

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The only imaginable contingency arrangement for prosecutors would be "you get your salary if you win, and nothing if you lose", which is obviously a complete non-starter.  

Well, unless the prosecutor is Ricky Williams.

 

 

Well, it isn't completely foreign to the UK system of justice. There, prosecutors are in fact hired by the family of the victim of a crime. And, I suppose those arrangements could be done on a contingent basis, but I don't know if other rules prevent that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17420

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

States don't "hire" prosecutors.  Ethics or not, hiring prosecutors isn't a thing.  States don't hire Governors, or AG's, or judges either.

Yes it is. I assume you're referring to situations where a DA is elected. But the many attorneys that work in the DA's office and do the actual work are in fact hired. You get interviewed and everything. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

 

Well, unless the prosecutor is Ricky Williams.

 

 

And that Attorney General's name?

You guessed it.

Mike Ditka.

"Who would win the case between Prosecutor Mini Ditka and Kyle Rittenhouse and 500 AR-15's?" 

-

(And Dahoobs---I realize ADA's and AUSA's are "hired" in for a job, I was referring to the fact a victim's family can't "hire" a prosecutor for a case like they could for a civil case.  "For Hire" having wildly disparate meanings in the two pillars of law)

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Lawyer jokes aside---it would compromise the ethical approach a prosecutor would take/not take to a particular case.  

You know how Best Buy guys cheat on sales contests?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23375

Posted
Posted
Just now, Lobo said:

Lawyer jokes aside---it would compromise the ethical approach a prosecutor would take/not take to a particular case.  

You know how Best Buy guys cheat on sales contests?  

 

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

god help us all if they were monetarily incentivized. 

 

Right, because the contingency arrangement creates a potential financial conflict of interest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

And the flipside is you'd have prosecutors taking a pass on a case they weren't 110% sure they could get paid on, even though society as a whole needs that case prosecuted to the best of the state's ability to get someone dangerous off the streets even if it's not a slam dunk case.

I'm sure there's a parallel example I could draw here for you like financial incentives or "contingency" payment to a drug researcher or clinical study manager.  They could rig results to make sure they get paid.  Or not bother with a drug test that could benefit society because it didn't look like a "for sure" payday.  But I'm not clever enough to hash one out, hopefully you get the idea though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45513

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Lobo said:

And the flipside is you'd have prosecutors taking a pass on a case they weren't 110% sure they could get paid on, even though society as a whole needs that case prosecuted to the best of the state's ability to get someone dangerous off the streets even if it's not a slam dunk case.

I'm not even sure how that would work given the structure of a DA's office.  "Hey newbie prosecutor, you're taking this case and there is no way you'll win it.  LOL.  No rent for you!"

I might be a little fuzzy on the process.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not even sure how that would work given the structure of a DA's office.  "Hey newbie prosecutor, you're taking this case and there is no way you'll win it.  LOL.  No rent for you!"

I might be a little fuzzy on the process.

 

Yeah, he's a smart guy but I have no fucking idea if this is how the thinks the criminal justice system works now...or if it's an idea for how he thinks it could work better in the future.  Or what the fuck?  A lot of  America doesn't really understand how it works, but they watch enough courtroom dramas and movies to know that it's some higher up that drops a case file on your desk and says something like, "You got the Rittenhouse case, now go out there and get us a win...it's election season!"  And they go about building their case.  There's never been one of those courtroom dramas where they drop off the case file and say, "There's a $50k bonus if you get us a win...it's election season."  I thought people at least knew that much about the system.  

I'm guessing if things break a certain way in 2024, this is how some people want our judicial system to work?  

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...