Test results: Johnson's blood alcohol level was .072

[stealth]

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.

first hand experience(not me but family and very close friends) I am gonna disagree with you, they have a TON of clients and tend to want them to settle for a lot worse of consequences than a decent non tv commercial attorney. I will say though it is very very hard to find a good lawyer. Its all a crap shoot really unless you have the big buck and the recommendations of people you trust.

 

[cowboyed]

Once adamjt13 delivered the fatal point about being "convictable" with less than a .08 BAC in Arizona - verdict, the self-appointed legal brain trust and ridiculer, left the building.

Verdict, the dark side of confidence is arrogance and your lack of response to the aforemenationed point smacks of intellectual cowardice. Hopefully you have faltered only in this forum and not in a legal theater of consequence.

There are other attorneys on this and other Dallas Cowboys forum boards and thank goodness they don't bask in the afterglow of their graduation from law school.

 

[ndanger]

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's actually,"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyer's". It's from Henry the vi . I used to have a t-shirt with that quote on it.It was wildly popular among the masses.In fact my boss,who was William B. Ruger's Grandson, had me to have one made for him..William B Ruger is the owner and founder of Sturm,Ruger,the maker of fire arms.

 

[Vintage]

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.

They are not excuses.

They are called laws.

 

[Vintage]

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.

Do our founding fathers deserve to be victimized? After all, they put into the constitution that everyone deserved the right to a trial, defense, and a lawyer.

You are a joke.

Lawyers are just doing their jobs. Someone has to defend the guilty. They dont deserve to be 'victimized'.

 

[ndanger]

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.

Scooter Libby anyone ? Ya' my good friend burmafrd would have had his sentence commuted if the shoe was on his foot. Ah what a wonderful justice system. Bob Barker had it right all along ...The price is right.

 

[burmafrd]

Notice how the lawyers and their wannabe friends KEEP DODGING the question: How do they feel about letting the guilty go free to VICTIMIZE INNOCENTS? They will not answer. Pontius Pilate and the washing of the hands.

Or to be more to the point: the innocents victimized by the guilty let free by mistakes and tricks- that is what the military call COLLATERAL DAMAGE.

 

[ndanger]

Do our founding fathers deserve to be victimized? After all, they put into the constitution that everyone deserved the right to a trial, defense, and a lawyer.

You are a joke.

Lawyers are just doing their jobs. Someone has to defend the guilty. They dont deserve to be 'victimized'.

Ask Nichole Brown Simpson's parents if she gives a crap about what a lawyer deserves.

 

[Vintage]

Notice how the lawyers and their wannabe friends KEEP DODGING the question: How do they feel about letting the guilty go free to VICTIMIZE INNOCENTS? They will not answer. Pontius Pilate and the washing of the hands.

Or to be more to the point: the innocents victimized by the guilty let free by mistakes and tricks- that is what the military call COLLATERAL DAMAGE.

What's that old quote...

Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

 

[Jarv]

I dimly recall a statement once that kinda went like this....

I would gladly let 20 guilty people go free vs. have one innocent person incarcinated.

I am by no means a legal expert, except I did beat a lot of speeding tickets in my youth.

Our laws seem to be based upon the fear (and protection) of jailing the innocent more than prosecuting the guilty. People beat raps all of the time because of loopholes and mistakes made during an investigation (and/or) lack of evidence when some investigators know someone is guilty. This is a shame, unless it is me being investigated ...

There lies the hypcrosity and I'm a part of it.

Edit, funny that Vintage made that quote above while I was writing my post...Sorry Vintage, I wasn't copying your statement...

 

[burmafrd]

Sure, let all those guilty go free to rape, murder, rob, molest. Thats fine with Verdict Peplaw and company.

 

[Vintage]

I dimly recall a statement once that kinda went like this....

I would gladly let 20 guilty people go free vs. have one innocent person incarcinated.

I am by no means a legal expert, except I did beat a lot of speeding tickets in my youth.

Our laws seem to be based upon the fear (and protection) of jailing the innocent more than prosecuting the guilty. People beat raps all of the time because of loopholes and mistakes made during an investigation (and/or) lack of evidence when some investigators know someone is guilty. This is a shame, unless it is me being investigated ...

There lies the hypcrosity and I'm a part of it.

Edit, funny that Vintage made that quote above while I was writing my post...Sorry Vintage, I wasn't copying your statement...

Its all good.

The legal system is indeed concerned with protecting the innocent. Hence the "beyond a reasonable doubt" type of burden placed on proving one's guilt. And it should be.

 

[Vintage]

Sure, let all those guilty go free to rape, murder, rob, molest. Thats fine with Verdict Peplaw and company.

And once again, you fail at basic reading comprehension.

No one said that. Nor is anyone implying that.

Everyone would love to see a perfect justice system in which the guilty are always punished; and the innocent always free. But when you base your justice system off the human element, neither is possible nor plausible.

So you have to set up a system that places a high degree of burden on the prosecution to prove a man's guilt.

Its of no coincidence that many democracies in the 'westernized' world run similar sets of justice systems in that regard.

Its of no coincidence countries that are often ruled by dictators have far less requirements to "prove" one's guilt. In some cases, a simple accusation by a respected male against anyone will suffice as 'proof.'

 

[burmafrd]

And once again you dodge the moral question: what about all the innocents victimized by the guilty being set free. Just will not answer it- will you?

I have always believed that the current set up is fatally flawed. All it is is a stage for performances by the lawyers. Who really do not care if a innocent or guilty one is freed. Just wash your hands and walk away.

 

[Jarv]

And once again you dodge the moral question: what about all the innocents victimized by the guilty being set free. Just will not answer it- will you?

I have always believed that the current set up is fatally flawed. All it is is a stage for performances by the lawyers. Who really do not care if a innocent or guilty one is freed. Just wash your hands and walk away.

Burm, I agree there are some flaws. But as an old boss told me, never come to me with a problem unless you have 2 solutions already lined up.

I also hate to see guilty people go free and I'm sure the victims do also. The flip side is how do you protect the innocent from bum raps or setups ?

There is not an easy solution to this issue, but what might you proppose ?

 

[Vintage]

Burm, I agree there are some flaws. But as an old boss told me, never come to me with a problem unless you have 2 solutions already lined up.

I also hate to see guilty people go free and I'm sure the victims do also. The flip side is how do you protect the innocent from bum raps or setups ?

There is not an easy solution to this issue, but what might you proppose ?

In a perfect world, there would be no such thing as letting any guilty walk or condeming any innocent.

But as stated before, when your legal system is based off of the human element, neither is possible nor plausible.

As such, the degree level of proof is intentionally placed high to combat the human element.

 

[burmafrd]

First off the system needs to be changed so that ALL of the evidence is presented. Now a lawyer can craft a question so that only PART of it is used.
Also- this BS about all evidence being thrown out because of a partially misspelled word on the search warrant is OBSCENE. There needs to be procedures to make sure that the correct address was what was intended, but now all a DA has to do is show that one word is misspelled in the warrant and all that evidence is tossed- and rapists, murderers and molesters go free.
That is the BIGGEST problem: all the courts care about is technicalities- not the bigger TRUTH: guilt or innocence. THAT part is now IGNORED.

 

[theogt]

First off the system needs to be changed so that ALL of the evidence is presented. Now a lawyer can craft a question so that only PART of it is used.

Leading constitutional law scholar, burm a. frd, ladies and gentleman. Give him a round of applause.

Also- this BS about all evidence being thrown out because of a partially misspelled word on the search warrant is OBSCENE. There needs to be procedures to make sure that the correct address was what was intended, but now all a DA has to do is show that one word is misspelled in the warrant and all that evidence is tossed- and rapists, murderers and molesters go free.
That is the BIGGEST problem: all the courts care about is technicalities- not the bigger TRUTH: guilt or innocence. THAT part is now IGNORED.

Welcome to the land of urban legends.

 

[peplaw06]

Notice how the lawyers and their wannabe friends KEEP DODGING the question: How do they feel about letting the guilty go free to VICTIMIZE INNOCENTS? They will not answer. Pontius Pilate and the washing of the hands.

Or to be more to the point: the innocents victimized by the guilty let free by mistakes and tricks- that is what the military call COLLATERAL DAMAGE.

How do I feel?? A better question would be how the prosecution feels? They're the ones who have the burden of proof. If they can't prove their case, that is a failing on their part. But to answer your question, I don't know. I've never helped a guilty man go free to "victimize innocents." And I've certainly never used the term "collateral damage." Sounds like you're being a drama queen.

But you would have to ask someone who has actually done it. All I can do is speculate, and speculation isn't credible testimony.

Now... are you going to answer my questions to you?

 

[peplaw06]

First off the system needs to be changed so that ALL of the evidence is presented. Now a lawyer can craft a question so that only PART of it is used.
Also- this BS about all evidence being thrown out because of a partially misspelled word on the search warrant is OBSCENE. There needs to be procedures to make sure that the correct address was what was intended, but now all a DA has to do is show that one word is misspelled in the warrant and all that evidence is tossed- and rapists, murderers and molesters go free.
That is the BIGGEST problem: all the courts care about is technicalities- not the bigger TRUTH: guilt or innocence. THAT part is now IGNORED.

You clearly have zero clue.