Test results: Johnson's blood alcohol level was .072
- Thread starter 03EBZ06
- Start date
Twyst
Member
- Messages
- 280
- Reaction score
- 0
a .72 would be like 2 beers for the average person, this was blown way out of proportion IMO. Driving while drunk is bad, driving after a drink or 2 while under the legal limit is not bad IMO, Tank in his interviews seems to me to be a nice guy who has made some dumb decisions more than a guy who is a troublemaker
Hostile
The Duke
- Messages
- 119,565
- Reaction score
- 4,544
Psst.Twyst;1544563 said:
.072.
.72 is embalmed. Very little blood in the alcohol stream.
Oh, and in regards to the nice guy perception. I know a real nice guy. Used to call him Uncle Jimmy, even though he wasn't my uncle. Went to jail for hiring the execution of a Federal Judge.
arglebargle
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,373
- Reaction score
- 409
Hostile;1544564 said:
Maximum John??
arglebargle
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,373
- Reaction score
- 409
Hostile;1544591 said:
Well, only federal judge in the last half century to be shot down. But I was in Texas then as well and remember the furor. Extremism has it dangers.
Of course, I knew folks who ran Operation Phoenix in Vietnam, and were tied tightly to Iran/Contra, guns to Libya, etc....but they weren't Uncle Jimmys....
And yes, the 'nice guy' perception only goes so far. Civility and politeness are social skills, but they can mask most anything. Tank can be saying all the right things, but it appears the doing of them is still not quite there.
Bob Sacamano
Benched
- Messages
- 57,084
- Reaction score
- 3
03EBZ06;1544557 said:
doesn't matter, the lawyer always has to provide his client w/ the best defense possible, even if he knows of his client's guilt
peplaw06
That Guy
- Messages
- 13,699
- Reaction score
- 413
I don't think it's a violation to ask them if they did it. It's just something most don't do. It's definitely a violation not to be a "zealous advocate" and give them the best defense possible. if you can't do that, you withdraw. So they kind of go hand in hand. If you know the guy (or girl) is guilty, it's hard to be the best advocate you can be.Hostile;1544552 said:
If I was worried about the guy telling me whether he did it, I would tell him before hand NOT to tell me under any circumstances. If he just blurts it out, and you can't control him, you have a couple of options. You could still plea the guy out, or if you don't think you could defend him as well as is required, you could withdraw.03EBZ06;1544557 said:
peplaw06
That Guy
- Messages
- 13,699
- Reaction score
- 413
burmafrd;1544288 said:
Good catch vintage...
So burm are you saying it's going to be illegal to buy and/or drink alcohol someday? I think they tried that one time... can't quite remember mmmmm.... Prohibition anyone? We saw how well that worked out.
burmafrd
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 43,820
- Reaction score
- 3,379
Whats LEGAL and whats NOT.
It does seem to move from period to period- DOESN"T IT?
Like with SMOKING. Look where that has gone in the last 20 years.
30 years ago Drunk Driving was ignored. Now its pounced on.
So your LEGAL excuses are just that- EXCUSES.
As usual with those - they refuse to answer the hard questions.
Shakespear had it right "FIRST, Kill ALL the LAWYERS"
Best line he ever wrote.
It does seem to move from period to period- DOESN"T IT?
Like with SMOKING. Look where that has gone in the last 20 years.
30 years ago Drunk Driving was ignored. Now its pounced on.
So your LEGAL excuses are just that- EXCUSES.
As usual with those - they refuse to answer the hard questions.
Shakespear had it right "FIRST, Kill ALL the LAWYERS"
Best line he ever wrote.
burmafrd
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 43,820
- Reaction score
- 3,379
Most lawyers do not seem to care if they get a guilty man off so that he can victimize other innocent people. I always hope that someday those lawyers are VICTIMIZED themselves by someone another one got off. Now THAT would be JUSTICE.
peplaw06
That Guy
- Messages
- 13,699
- Reaction score
- 413
burmafrd;1544785 said:
burmafrd;1544786 said:
First off... I really hope you've never done anything morally objectionable. Because that would be wildly hypocritical. It may have been "legal" but all that is an "excuse" for you to do it. "He who is without sin shall cast the first stone."
Secondly... I really hope you are never wrongly accused of doing anything that may cause you to face criminal charges. Your hatred and vitriole you spew towards lawyers would also bring up a bout of hypocrisy in your mind, when they're the ones getting your sorry (though innocent) butt off of whatever charges you face.
That's what you don't realize. You focus on the guilty who go innocent, while refusing to acknowledge the innocent who have gone free, or the innocent who are imprisoned. You spew the same crap every time one of these threads pops up, maybe because you felt wronged some time by an attorney, but probably moreso because someone YOU thought was guilty went free. All those wrongly accused who went free because of a lawyer be damned.
So what would be justice for you? Judging from your comments, justice would be for you to have to be rescued by a lawyer.
Here, you like quotes, how about this one. Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.
peplaw06
That Guy
- Messages
- 13,699
- Reaction score
- 413
That's a pretty big misconception from what I've found also. Sure there are some horror stories about court appointed attorneys, but for the most part, they're very good attorneys. And there are probably the same kinds of horror stories for some of the ones who are paid. The two counties I've worked in, the requirements for being on the list for court-appointed attorneys are pretty stringent, at least moreso than you would think. And many of those attorneys have a lot of experience, a lot of them were prosecutors at one time.stealth;1544809 said: