In this case more than half the defense attorney's job is just to make sure this dudes rights are upheld and to get as leanient a sentence as possible. It's not to say the guy wasn't there and didn't do it. Is the court of law and it's basic fundamentals that hard to grasp??
AZ. Representative shot among others
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by 10littlefigures,
- Start date
- 1,826
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
Originally Posted by moonmaster3
Guilt isn't determined until you have a trial...which includes due process...it's unnecessary to answer your questions because youre basically turning this thread into some unofficial trial which...ironically is something you don't think he should have the right to. Each question you asked contains multiple terms of art that don't have the same meaning that most people subscribe to them, so there isn't any point in debating those here. Murder? Cold blood? Intent? Do you actually think those questions you stated even come CLOSE to how an actual case is prosecuted or what the jury instruction would look like?Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze
Originally Posted by moonmaster3
Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze
Originally Posted by moonmaster3
how do you even know it's definite without a trial? It's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to law and the burden of production and persuasion.
By your estimation, what are the odds that this dude Jared turns out to be DEFINITELY GUILTY (collective charges), versus him being DEFINITIVELY INNOCENT (collective charges)?
Go ahead...tell me you know and believe that he is definitively innocent so that I can discontinue this exchange on the bases of you being completely unrealistic and warped.
Additionally, given these individuals "Timothy McVeigh, the Unibomber, Saddam, Hitler, Bin Laden, Pol Pot" etc ect (the type of criminals who can be viewed as monsters, so go on 'head and miss with that bullishhh...), which ones do you think are even remotely innocent of the crimes, versus largely and/or definitively to remotely guilty of their crimes?
Like I said earlier, you purposely choose to be obtuse on the matter, but I'm cool with that.
..
How do you know if someone is guilty or innocent without giving them a fair trial? Your logic doesn't even make sense. The prosecution has to prove the crime BARD, and that includes having an opposing counsel.
Keep completely side-stepping my questions--I see you...
And you're certainly one to talk about logic when you're being aggravatingly obtuse...
I'll restate some of those questions you've chosen to side-step in response to your new question:
Did he not attempt to murder a civil servant in cold blood? Yes/No
Did he not succeed in murdering another civil servant in cold blood? Yes/No
Did he not kill an innocent 9 year old child in cold blood? Yes/No
Did he not wound several other individuals with no remorse intent? Yes/No
The answer to these question will should give us a sense of his guilt...even before his trial...
As previously stated, in a situation like this, a trial is a mere constitutional formality. There is no question about his GUILT. That is a fact; you just choose to dance around it.
Edit:
Let's add one more question: Did he not send numerous death threats, with the intent to act on them, on them? Yes/NO
...
...
- 1,826
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
Originally Posted by moonmaster3
Guilt isn't determined until you have a trial...which includes due process...it's unnecessary to answer your questions because youre basically turning this thread into some unofficial trial which...ironically is something you don't think he should have the right to. Each question you asked contains multiple terms of art that don't have the same meaning that most people subscribe to them, so there isn't any point in debating those here. Murder? Cold blood? Intent? Do you actually think those questions you stated even come CLOSE to how an actual case is prosecuted or what the jury instruction would look like?Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze
Originally Posted by moonmaster3
Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze
Originally Posted by moonmaster3
how do you even know it's definite without a trial? It's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to law and the burden of production and persuasion.
By your estimation, what are the odds that this dude Jared turns out to be DEFINITELY GUILTY (collective charges), versus him being DEFINITIVELY INNOCENT (collective charges)?
Go ahead...tell me you know and believe that he is definitively innocent so that I can discontinue this exchange on the bases of you being completely unrealistic and warped.
Additionally, given these individuals "Timothy McVeigh, the Unibomber, Saddam, Hitler, Bin Laden, Pol Pot" etc ect (the type of criminals who can be viewed as monsters, so go on 'head and miss with that bullishhh...), which ones do you think are even remotely innocent of the crimes, versus largely and/or definitively to remotely guilty of their crimes?
Like I said earlier, you purposely choose to be obtuse on the matter, but I'm cool with that.
..
How do you know if someone is guilty or innocent without giving them a fair trial? Your logic doesn't even make sense. The prosecution has to prove the crime BARD, and that includes having an opposing counsel.
Keep completely side-stepping my questions--I see you...
And you're certainly one to talk about logic when you're being aggravatingly obtuse...
I'll restate some of those questions you've chosen to side-step in response to your new question:
Did he not attempt to murder a civil servant in cold blood? Yes/No
Did he not succeed in murdering another civil servant in cold blood? Yes/No
Did he not kill an innocent 9 year old child in cold blood? Yes/No
Did he not wound several other individuals with no remorse intent? Yes/No
The answer to these question will should give us a sense of his guilt...even before his trial...
As previously stated, in a situation like this, a trial is a mere constitutional formality. There is no question about his GUILT. That is a fact; you just choose to dance around it.
Edit:
Let's add one more question: Did he not send numerous death threats, with the intent to act on them, on them? Yes/NO
...
...
- 1,826
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
Dude, nothing is "hard to grasp". I understand what their jobs, as defense attorneys, are.
My point is, he isn't even deserving of one/multiple.
Why must we consider his rights when he vehemently and callously disregarded those of multiple people, his victims. Did he consider the 9 year old girl's right to live when he put a fatal bullet in her? WHat about that of the judge? Did he muse over Gifford's rights when he attempted to put a bullet in her brain?
It's that simple. He has obviously proven shown himself to be an individual who cares little to nothing about rights. So why then must we consider his? Furthermore we know his guilt. Why waste tax payer money having a trial/upholding the rights of an individual who gives two squirts of piss about those of his fellow citizens.
It's that SIMPLE.
...
- 1,826
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
Dude, nothing is "hard to grasp". I understand what their jobs, as defense attorneys, are.
My point is, he isn't even deserving of one/multiple.
Why must we consider his rights when he vehemently and callously disregarded those of multiple people, his victims. Did he consider the 9 year old girl's right to live when he put a fatal bullet in her? WHat about that of the judge? Did he muse over Gifford's rights when he attempted to put a bullet in her brain?
It's that simple. He has obviously proven shown himself to be an individual who cares little to nothing about rights. So why then must we consider his? Furthermore we know his guilt. Why waste tax payer money having a trial/upholding the rights of an individual who gives two squirts of piss about those of his fellow citizens.
It's that SIMPLE.
...
- 826
- 10
- Joined
- May 29, 2008
What you're proposing is a system of laws whereby the laws aren't constant... laws can be changed and applied differently to crimes at the whim of..(who exactly? you?). Some people get trials, some don't.. based on what exactly? The subjective guiltiness of the suspect based on news reports? Your personal opinion? A better way to judge them would surely be based on evidence, witnesses, lawyers.. you know.. kind of like a trial.
No one here is doubting the guilt of the guy obviously.. and no matter how dramatically you describe the scene we know it was a terrible thing to do, but the guy will be found guilty as he should, and at the end of the day justice will be served.
As somebody mentioned, the right for everybody to a fair trail is such a fundamental component a just legal system that it's kind of hard to believe that you can't recognize its importance.
No one here is doubting the guilt of the guy obviously.. and no matter how dramatically you describe the scene we know it was a terrible thing to do, but the guy will be found guilty as he should, and at the end of the day justice will be served.
As somebody mentioned, the right for everybody to a fair trail is such a fundamental component a just legal system that it's kind of hard to believe that you can't recognize its importance.
- 826
- 10
- Joined
- May 29, 2008
What you're proposing is a system of laws whereby the laws aren't constant... laws can be changed and applied differently to crimes at the whim of..(who exactly? you?). Some people get trials, some don't.. based on what exactly? The subjective guiltiness of the suspect based on news reports? Your personal opinion? A better way to judge them would surely be based on evidence, witnesses, lawyers.. you know.. kind of like a trial.
No one here is doubting the guilt of the guy obviously.. and no matter how dramatically you describe the scene we know it was a terrible thing to do, but the guy will be found guilty as he should, and at the end of the day justice will be served.
As somebody mentioned, the right for everybody to a fair trail is such a fundamental component a just legal system that it's kind of hard to believe that you can't recognize its importance.
No one here is doubting the guilt of the guy obviously.. and no matter how dramatically you describe the scene we know it was a terrible thing to do, but the guy will be found guilty as he should, and at the end of the day justice will be served.
As somebody mentioned, the right for everybody to a fair trail is such a fundamental component a just legal system that it's kind of hard to believe that you can't recognize its importance.