Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 31
view profile
History
The Bible and the courtroomPage 3 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
Something being missed in the above confrontation:

Providing a charged person with a competent defense is NOT identical to having the lawyer work to "get them off scott free even knowing that they are guilty."

This is a part of the fundamentally, and all too commonly misunderstood nature of "Due Process."

The trial, and having competent prosecution and defense is NOT designed to be a game of who can fake out who, no matter what Hollywood, and a lot of right and left wing nut jobs want you to believe. It is instead, about trying very hard to see to it that real justice is rendered, that laws are mindfully enforced, and that the optimum and most correct actions are taken as a result of the trial.

Yes, some lawyers refuse to serve as counsel to some miscreants. But in the sense of seeing that real justice is served, this is NOT an act of heroism on those lawyers parts at all. It is more commonly an act of self-serving grand-standing or political maneuvering for the ones who talk about it.

What a good defense attorney is supposed to do, even for the real horrible people of the world, is to see to it that what justice is administered to them, is the right justice. Thus, a defense attorney will not be trying to see to it that his client escapes all responsibility for his acts, but the attorney WILL work to make sure that... a murderer is not falsely incarcerated as a child-molester; that an insane client is not treated as a sane one; that a bad driver isn't jailed for attempted murder, and so forth.

By the way, the movie being misconstrued, is not even being accurately described. Devils Advocate did NOT have as a plot element, that the child molester goes free and kills a kid. That was ANOTHER Al Pacino movie, called And Justice For All.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 33
view profile
History
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/20/2013 5:42:39 AM
[sigh] No, go watch it yourself. Yes, there is a child molester in both movies. Yes, in the end of the second one, Reeves' character refuses to defend the child molester. The molester does NOT kill a child in Advocate, what happens with him in that movie isn't pertinent to the story, and isn't mentioned. In And Justice For All, it is a fellow lawyer who knowingly gets the child molester off, and who suffers a mental breakdown at the end, when the molester kills someone. It's not important anyway, I'm just a movie freak, and like accuracy in my idiocy. Of course, now that I've said this, I'm sure that next time I see Devil's, that there will turn out to be some tiny mention about the child molester committing more crimes too.
 TheCoolGreenMoss
Joined: 9/13/2010
Msg: 35
view profile
History
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/20/2013 6:12:59 AM
^^^^^^
The entire plot synopsis would paint a more detailed picture...

http://imdb.to/12uW6kn
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 37
view profile
History
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/20/2013 7:12:52 AM

he stops when Weaver tells him that Gettys was found with a dead girl in his car trunk.


Yeah, that's what I was afraid of. You were a little more right than I was, not that it matters to this thread. I think the reason I didn't note that in Devil's, is because it really isn't crucial to the plotline, while the in the older movie, the fact that the molester kills is essential. In Devil's, it's just another of many things that pile up on Reeve's list of problems, all due to his original egotistical problem that causes him to play courtroom tricks at the beginning.

Again, side issue. Not pertinent to REAL courtrooms. But I give you back your gold sticker star, and rescind my [sigh].
 timeforall
Joined: 8/26/2012
Msg: 39
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/20/2013 7:51:12 AM


What a good defense attorney is supposed to do, even for the real horrible people of the world, is to see to it that what justice is administered to them, is the right justice.


A defense lawyer's role is to zealously represent his client and to force the government to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Technically by the way, if the defendant tells the defense lawyer he is guilty, it would be unethical for the defense lawyer to place the defendant on the stand denying his guilt. In other words no lawyer can knowingly suborn perjury. But a defense lawyer must still, by all ethical standards, give his client the best defense by challenging the evidence against his client to the best of his ability, which of course does not include suborning perjury.

This stuff does happen in real life by the way. I remember years ago watching Larry King live interview a defense lawyer who had previously gotten a child molester acquitted of raping a young child. Later, that defendant was arrested for killing a very young child. It was national news. That lawyer had gone all out in the first case to get the molester acquitted, attacking the credibility of witnesses, etc. I'm sure most people saw this lawyer as the devil, but he was doing what he was charged to do by the ethical standards of his profession.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 41
view profile
History
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/20/2013 12:06:06 PM
Oh yeah, it sure does happen a ton. There are entire law offices who make their very high income, entirely by trying to keep one very very rich client from being successfully sued, no matter what that client does.

What I was talking about wasn't so much what can and does happen, as much as it was about the intent of the process, and the specific situation where someone who everyone knows is a criminal, must be a party in a trial. Even the worst scum of the earth should have counsel, so that he justice WE mete out, has the best chance of being on target.

Another minor note on the Devil's Advocate movie, as relates to things said in this thread... I didn't realize until just recently, but at the end of it, the point is made that Reeve's character actually DOESN'T learn his lesson all that well. Yeah, he dumps his molester client, and gets into legal trouble for doing it as sloppily as he does, but then he caves in to his own ego moments later, and agrees to the Devil's plan to promote him publicly, because he "showed character" by refusing to serve as any kind of counsel, ruthless, or merely Just, for his client. The movie ends with the Devil saying again "Vanity. Definitely my favorite sin," because it is that vanity that will likely lead Reeves right back onto the Devil's track. All he did was trade vanity about always winning, for vanity about being self-righteous.

Again, it wont show either certain good qualities for lawyers to refuse to defend a reprehensible client, or bad qualities for those who do. This also connects this whole thread rather well, to the thread about the REASON people do things, being as important as WHAT things they do.
 timeforall
Joined: 8/26/2012
Msg: 42
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/20/2013 12:39:19 PM
^^^^^^ The only way you can assist somebody from not being sued is by ensuring they do not do things that can get them sued., which means avoiding things that are subject to lawful causes of action. You can also set up layers of insulation, like corporations, to try to shield an an individual from being sued for their actions, but ultimately anybody can be sued for their personal wrongful actions.

A lawyer has no obligation to represent a party they don’t want to represent (absent a court order of course), but if he does represent a client, he owes that client his best
 timeforall
Joined: 8/26/2012
Msg: 43
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/20/2013 5:15:21 PM
^^^^^ i realize there are uneducated, stupid people in our country who don't know any better to think something like this, but when I have the unfortunate experience of meeting these people (I normally don't because I don't travel in their circles), I ask them if they were charged with a crime they did not commit, would they want the best defense possible?
 csamcsog
Joined: 4/8/2013
Msg: 44
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/21/2013 3:41:57 AM
"but let's say for the sake of argument the story is complete non-fiction. it doesn't change the basic premise... that ALL people who are being accused of a crime deserve a competent and engaged defense attorney. if you don't understand WHY that is or how important it actually is, then you obviously haven't thought it through."

If you don't understand WHY that is important, you haven't thought it through, or you have not been given a proper explanation.

First of all, nobody deserves, in moral rights, a defence attorney. This is not something anyone deserves, even the deserving. It is a thing that is required by law to be given or to be offered to an accused to have. He has the right to one, in a legal sense, he has no moral right to have one.

Secondly, why is it important to have the right to legal representation.

It is not purely for the reason to give a defence to the accused. Yes, it is that, but more. Other things included are: a lawyer is very familiar with the process of a trial. He knows the rules of conduct, both logical and behavioural, in a courtroom and can keep to it, without any special instruction. This is a big thing, as most accused are not very bright people, and can't be taught how to wait to give or to ask for evidence, instead of interrupting someone giving evidence, by saying "this is not true", "she is lying", etc. The attorney will know how to behave, and that is crucial knowledge for the smooth running of the legal machinery in court.

The reason which is purely a reason to give a defence to the accused is that he is not guilty in the beginning of the trial. He is asked, in the beginning, which he has to answer: Are you guilty or not guilty? If he says he is guilty, there is no trial, he is given a sentence. If he says he is not guilty, nobody has the RIGHT with enough convincing power to say to the judge, "yes, don't believe him, he is guilty all right." This can only be done if one shows evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is indeed guilty.

Let's take away the stipulation that the guilt of an accused has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt to effect a guilty verdict despite the prostestation of the accused. If we take that stipulation away, then anyone can be called guilty, and given a sentence. This we want to avoid, sheerly for the reason of allowing society to run smoothly.

I met one a boy fresh out of Saudi Arabia, and he told me that any, absolutely any accusation, will land anyone in jail until trial. Of course if the accuser is found to be spreading a lie, then he is executed or something.

I laughed, I said that no military is needed to invade such a country by force. You need a few persons to roam the public streets, and to go to police, and report everyone, one by one, naming them, to have committed a crime.

The law requires that those reported be put in jail immediately without questioning. The entire population thus put in jail, leaves the invading army with no military opposition.

This is why we have the rule here in law, that we can't just keep anyone in custody. Yes, we can keep some, but not anyone. There are criteria on who it is that must be kept incarcerated, despite assuming they are innocent. We don't want to be invaded by some force, that's why, like SA can be.

------------------

So we have these people who claim they are not guilty, and nobody knows, except they and possibly their attorneys. Why do the attorneys still want to defend them?

Well, it's a bit more complicated.

If you are assumed not guilty, you have to keep others from proving beyond reasonable doubt that you are.

To do this, you are better if you hire legal representation, or use one for free, provided to you by the gov.

The lawyer has to do a good jub; doing a good jub helps his career to get more pay. Our social values in America are measured and our social awards are given in terms of cash. Other societies have other values, but in America this is by-and-large the social norm. Award is best when cash. Recognizance of greatness can be done automatically by seeing how much cash the bloke has.

The lawyer is good if he gets people off. This is really the crux. There is no morality involved, because the lawyer does not testify, he is not asked to lie. He is never asked in court, "do you have knowledge if your client is guilty of the crime he is accused of, and if yes, then state your knowledge.". The lawyer therefore can act immorally to increase hi s own reputation as a good man.

This is strange. But it's enforced by the system, in order to allow people, those who are innocent, also to get proper defence. You see, sometimes people will give a true non-guilty verdict, and a false "guilty" admission to their own lawyer. To protect someone, like a child or a wife or a husband. If they get proven guilty in court, then the wife or child don't have to go to prison. If they get off free, then that's even better. So instead of pleading guilty, they will giv ea non-guilty plea and hope for the best. The law has to protect these people too, and maybe charge them with a different crime, like obstructing the course of justice.

The point is that the right to a lawyer is given to have a clean, happy running of events in court, and to ensure to the best of abilities of society, to get innocent people to run scot free.

Yes, this means that sometimes the guilty runs free. Not many do; the system will protect more innocent than then number of guilty they let go.

You can say, "how can you say they protect the innocent? How many innocent people do you know who are put to trial for murder? They have to be pretty sure that by the time a person gets to trial for murder, that he is guilty. You can't possibly say with a straight face that they courts and the defense attorneys protect the innocent in LARGER NUMBERS than they protect the guilty."

Well, that's just it. It is true that there are not too many innocent people put to trial for murder. But this is so BECASUE we have the right to a defense attorney. People are not accused left-right-and-centre with the crime of murder, because the accusers know that truth will out, and if there is a lawyer protecting the accused they originally reported, then mostly the accused will get off, since innocence of the innocent is easier to prove, than the guilt of the guilty.

THIS is why everyone has the right to legal representation. To protect the innocent.

This has been in effect for so long, that people forget the causative process in reality.

---------------

Back to the original question: Why do lawyers protect those who are guilty, IF and WHEN the lawyer knows he is guilty?

Well, because the lawyer wants to get paid, because he is required by law not to back out (he can refuse a case, but once he accepted one, he can't back out), and if he backs out he is severely punished, because in effect the lawyer himself can't be easily convinced by the accused guilt by simple hearsay by the accused himself.

In the case when he is told by the accused that the accused is guilty, and it is more-or-less proven to him, the defense of the accused, in believability beyond reasonable doubt, in these rare instances he does have to act agaisnt his scruples to keep defending his client.

Will he?

If he is more moral than money hungry, he will relax his skills, and give the DA or the Crown in Canada and UK, an easier job to get him found guilty by the court.

If he is more greedy than moral, he will keep defending his client.

He is helped in one huge way to keep defending the guilty and not give up his entire morality: he is not required by law, to lie in court. This was established earlier on in this thread how this is possible.

On the other hand: even if the defense lawyer knows for sure, in legal sense, that his client is guilty, the lawyer does not have to act against morality.

If his client killed a police officer or a single mother and her child by raping her, yes, this is not good morality to defend him.

But most murders are not random acts of violence for no or for insane reasons. Yes, we see it on the news, but only because those make it to TV. Most murders and other crimes are done out of desparation, out of forces of circumstance. A woman keeps nagging her husband. He murders her. Plain and simple, no?

Well, what if the nagging involves berating his ego, berating his blood line, his mother, his ability and worth as a man, what if the nagging wife penetrates somehow and goes around to get behind the man's ego shield? And then that is the point he murders her.

This has been up to trial, a case like this, and the man was given a non-guilty verdict by a twelve-person jury. Obviously he strangled her to death; but he was not found guilty. I can't cite the jurisdiction or the year or case number, sorry. Google will help you find this.

So there are more cases where proving that a guilty person is not really morally guilty in committing a legal crime, than cases where legally and morally both the accused is guilty.

Thus, there are very, very few instances where a lawyer has to sacrifice his own morality.

------------------------

There are a few who would do this, and yet they get the public's admiration, and though their inner self is sold out, maybe it gets repaired by the adoration given to them by the public.

Case in point, the most prominent lawyer in Toronto defended several people accused of murder, in obviously open and shut tight cases. He charged his clients a deposit of one million dollars, back twenty-thrity years ago when these happened, which counts in today's money something like ten to twenty million dollars. These accused paid this money to him to defend them, and at the time of payment a non-guilty verdict was not guaranteed, but only a diligent and hard and excellent work for their case was promised by the lawyer.

He got two people off who were clearly guilty, one of whom had literally dozens of eye witnesses. I don't now how he did it, I only saw him on a tv interview. The tv interviewer was extremely cautious and overly complimentary in dealing with and addressing the famous lawyer. For fear? or for respect? By him, or by the owner of the studio?
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 45
view profile
History
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/21/2013 4:27:54 AM
You are still mixing things up in a fundamental way.

Perhaps you are confused by the terminology. The use of the word "defend" in the phrase "the lawyer will defend his obviously guilty client," does NOT mean that the lawyer will take his client's personal point of view, support his client's actions, and work to make everyone else believe that his client is not guilty after all, and should be freed and allowed to repeat their actions.
 csamcsog
Joined: 4/8/2013
Msg: 46
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/21/2013 5:04:14 AM
Igor, is your message 50 a reply to my message 49? I don't see how you could say in message 50 if it is indeed referencing the one previous to it, and seeing you give no other reference to what you are replying I must assume you reply to the one immediately appearing before your msg 50, but before I blast you, I want to make sure.

I have been trying to get people to please reference the goddamned fing post they reply to if it's a goddamned fing specific reply.

I hate my life. People are so stupid it makes me wanna scream.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 47
view profile
History
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/21/2013 5:53:46 AM
I don't know what you would have to blast. I simply pointed out that in your very long post, that you confused the concept of a legal defense during a trial, with a moral defense of the criminals' acts. They are not the same thing by definition.

It is true that some individuals have done exactly that, including some lawyers. I certainly support the criticisms that many people make, including here, of the reprehensible people who put personal profit and promotion above all else. What is important to me, when we try to solve any problem, is that we apply the correct and accurate solution to it. Using the correct definition of terms, is critical to doing so.

We should not eliminate our principles of justice for all of ourselves, simply because a few people have misused them, and or because they will, by the nature of principles in general, occasionally result in us behaving in a much more civil manner to despicable people, than we would like to.
 motown_cowgirl
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 48
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/21/2013 7:09:07 AM
I hate my life.

good luck with that, buttercup!


People are so stupid it makes me wanna scream.

stupid or just ignorant??? maybe you should learn the difference between the legal meaning of words like "defend" and "appear" and "guilty", and the normal english (or biblical) meaning of words.


"I will prove to the court that my client is not guilty,"

your misunderstanding of criminal defense, and/or just a bit of rhetoric. no lawyer ever has to prove that a client who has been accused of a crime is "not guilty". "not guilty" is, in most cases, a presumption that the law demands. the burden of proof always rests on the prosecution, not on the defense. this is a very important principle, and if you can't understand why, then you are lost.

in the end, "not guilty" or "guilty" is the judgment that happens at the very end of the process. the process is based on a bunch of evidentiary rules, rules for how and what questions can be asked, and a very rigid standard of scrutiny called "beyond a reasonable doubt". the law is extremely precise in its application of language and certain rules, but that doesn't mean the outcome of a trial will always seem that way.

if you want to be pissed, that's your perogative. lots of people out there reflexively hatin' on lawyers but a lot of it is pure ignorance (not saying there aren't any lawyers out there who shouldn't be hated on), and a lot of ignorant lawyer-haters who think they're actually informed like to go around parroting shakespeare because they think a bit of theatrical bloviating is the same as a moral imperative..... saves them the trouble of having to think things through more intelligently. which is not surprising really, since it's a lot like confusing the legal definition of words with common meaning or assuming all defense attorneys are reprobate by association.

"not guilty" is a legal decision, not a moral one, and nobody is going to reinvent the entire system of western jurisprudence on your behalf because you couldn't figure it out and were all bent out of shape about someone getting off on a technicality. perhaps some day if you or someone you care about has to hire a defense attorney, you'll change your mind about their willingness to represent their client with all the aggressiveness of your average hammerhead shark.
 csamcsog
Joined: 4/8/2013
Msg: 49
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/21/2013 10:37:27 AM
I have no clue where I wrote and what that gave you guys the impression that I mixed up 'guilt' in the legal sense with 'guilt' in the moral sense.

In my script which has been criticised "guilt" was always used in the legal sense. "not guilty" and "guilty" are used as pleas and verdicts, nothing else. If you saw that I used those words in their moral sense, then either I gave the wrong impression or you did not read carefully. I am not saying which.

I brought in the moral part only because some critics of the process has brought that in in a sense like "lawyers help criminals get off scott free." I had to explain, to the person who has written this, how this is something that does happen, and I had to explain why it happens, what the lawyer's motivation is to make it happen, and how it affects the lawyer who has a murderer or a rapist get out of getting justice served.

This was started with the discussion of two movies, and people were saying to one of the debaters here, "you don't understand, and therefore you should not partcipate." I took it a step futher, and wanted to explain so that the person would understand, or else that the reasons would be shown to him.

I thought I was explaining why it is important for society to have each person accused with wrongdoing have a right to legal representation. I hoped to have explained how this legal representation prevents mayhem in the courtroom, thus getting the porcess done smoothly. I hope to have explained that the right to legal representation makes it hard for unscruplous people to get their innocent social enemies into the courthouse having to defend their innocence. Defend their innocence IN A LEGAL SENSE, not in a moral sense. I hoped to have shown that this is good for the smooth running of society. I hope to have explained that lawyers don't always find themselves "getting murderers off scott free" in a legal sense, and be immoral about it, because mostly murders and almost all crimes that make us cringe as immoral, actually, arise from need that is morally justifiable. We don't find moral guilt in jaywalking, but in child molestation, yes; yet most child molesters have a deep pscyhological inner need, which sometimes is coupled or is triggered with a traumatic and deeply affecing childhood, with lots of horrible things having happened to the child molesters themselves. Defending them by a lawyer is 1. legally necessary for the larger good of society and individuals, and then I referred to the sentiments created by the movie, and said, morally it's not necessarily a process of automatic condemnation, once someone gets to know the criminal's story in a more intimate way.

Then I had to couple this up with the fact that lawyers can still have the moral sensation of not doing a condemanble job when they get a child molester get off scott free.

It was a hard job and not an easy one. I stand here accused of mixing up morality with legality. I reject the charge.

I uphold the OPINION, though, that those who did not see properly that the above was the thing I had tried to do, and who did not see how carefully written my addition to this topic was, and who rather accept the consensus and opine that I have displayed a confusion about moral guilt with legal guilt, and those who accused me of not knowing whether it's ignorance or stupidity that made people accuse me of this mistake, I say:

In my opinion I wrote my point down in a clear and totally understandable fashion. If you did not understand it, it's because the topic is extremely sensitive in the sense, that the reader also has to work hard mentally when he reads the script, in order to keep track of when I speak of guilt in moral and in legal sense. This was not an easy read, but nevertheless an exacting and precise writing. I therefore state my opinion again, that those who found me to have made the mistake of confusing legal guilt with moral guilt, are not observant enough, or else not careful enough in their reading habits, or else made the mistake of thinking I had made a mistake, and therefore their reading and critical thinking had been biassed by their already having made a judgment which judgment said, I had made a mistake, and therefore their critical following along the writing was waned, and they made the mistake of misunderstanding me.

Either that, or I was not clear in my expression.

So... if you say something that is correct, and your statement uses something that is not often in the forefront of people's minds; and they have to exercise proper logic to understand the person; and you say it in a correct manner, then obviously your readers are stupid, or else their attention is not applied. If they were ignorant but smart, they could still understand the explanation.

If you say that my writing has been complete jibberish, it does not make sense, then I say that it does, but those who can't see sense in it, have not good enough minds in the IQ sense to see the sense in it.

If you say I confuse ignorance with stupidity, then you are making another mistake, inasmuch as it is a mistake of the stupid, not the ignorant; the ignorant woudl only make this statement, but not the smart one.

Anyway, Igor F Frankenstein, I suspect you will deal with me the precise same way as you always do: you will kick me off the site. Because you will say I called others stupid.

Yes, but it was not out of anger or due to defaming character. Stupid is a relative term, as is smart. If I say you are stupid, I can only say that by relating your IQ to someone else's. You guys are stupid compared to the mind of a person who would have understood my writing here on first reading. But you are smart compared to many others.

I see you will still kick me off, and so be it, you... You sucker-up to authority who can only get his dignity back into place by punishing the innocent with powers that you have, but your opponent does not. You have the power to kick me off and out of this place, but I don't have the same power. You can call me stupid (as you did in so many words, saying I was confused about "guilt" and "guilt", in a moral and in legal sense), but this leads to your hypocricy, because in order to show I was not mistaking the two, I had to show you that in fact you were being stupid, by not understanding my meaning.

The hypocricy of yours comes up when you freely can call me stupid, without punishment, and I have no way of defending my right and the sense of my peace, unless I prove in the process that you are the stupider of the two of us. Doing so, however, I excite your anger, and that makes you kick me off the site.

This hypocratic behavour of yours, coupled with your power that had been bestowed upon you, makes me hate you, hate you, hate you, hate you. You never falter from this process, and each time you and I disagree on an issue, you kick me off the site.

Grow up man, grow some chest hair, and stand alone in your fights, as if you were a man, and stop running behind mummy's skirt, running in your capacity as a mod, to behind the skirt of your Mummy, the owner of the sight, crying and sucking your thumb, saying to the owner, "he hurt me again, mummy, kick him off the sight, please". This is what toddlers, who are infantile both morally and IQ-wise, do. Real men don't, never reach for a defence of higher authorities in defeat, in every defeat; either they suck it up, or they retreat, or they admit to it, or they fight it like a man.

Your only and final defence is ALWAYS to kick me off the site. I am getting really tired of that man, to have to suffer such moral indignity, that a man who can't defend against me in logical arguments will always get me kicked off like a baby.

I detest you morally, I hate you emotionally, and I have no respect for you that I have for grown up men.

Do the right thing, kick me off.

It's finished.
 csamcsog
Joined: 4/8/2013
Msg: 51
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/21/2013 10:49:03 AM
a small point, there are tons of lawyers (the majority, I believe) who are not 'criminal defense attorneys'

there are divorce lawyers, child custody lawyers, tax lawyers, corporate lawyers, civil lawyers, tort lawyers, accident & injury lawyers, estate lawyers, etc.

many of these are more to milk more money from the other side that to defend an accused

--------------------

obviously we are not talking about those kinds of lawyers. Use your discernment. We are talking about the "bible and the courtroom", and the bible seldom comes up in tax issues.

Tons of civil law court cases use defense atterneys, or can, in cases where there is a complainant and the complainant tries to get indemnity from the defendant. So yes, in civil courts a lawyer can be used.

True, in civil cases, I guess, there is no right to have a lawyer in all cases by the defendant, only a right by his or her choice.
 csamcsog
Joined: 4/8/2013
Msg: 52
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/21/2013 10:56:50 AM
"Do the right thing, kick me off.

It's finished."

No one here wants to kick you off I promise.
--------------------

Please don't speak for others. You don't know what others want or don't want. You just made a promise, based on the impossible. It is a false promise, and you want me to believe that it is not a false promise. This is insulting to my intelligence, and I am not allowed to call you stupid for your saying and believing or your saying and making me to want to beleive something impossible.


Igor has kicked me off this site about four times already. What I wrote in the post is not at all fantasy or imagination or delusion. It is true. Don't doubt my words if you can help it, please.

Igor did do what I said he had done. There is a historical precedence to it, four times. I suspect this will be the fifth time, and there will be more and more times after that.

He, in my opinion, is a moral zero. He has two roles, that of a policeman, and that of an ordinary citizien in this community. He enjoys being a citizen, but he uses too much force in his persona as a citizen, with his rights as a policeman. he should be either one or the other, but not both, because he mixes up his own identity and uses them interchangeably, with disregard to what would be right.

I lose an argument -- I retreat or I admit to a defeat. No other possibility for me.

Igor loses and argument -- he does not retreat or admit to a defeat. he kicks his opponent off.

This is crazy. It's like you sit down to play cards with a bunch of people. Everyone plays fair, nobody cheats. Except when the only guy with the guy does not win, he takes in the wagers anyways, and nobody can say anything, because he silences them, the guy with the gun.

I have already gone through this four times. I had enough of this moral little nothing called Igor. He is Frankenstein indeed, in his sense of morality and his own mental placement of his role in this community.

If he wants to discipline, fine, but he disciplines not those (or not only those) who go against the site rules, he disciplines those whom he does not like for personal reasons.

You can get behind his support, nice-and-dim, all you want, but that won't make a dent on the reality of the situation.
 csamcsog
Joined: 4/8/2013
Msg: 54
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/21/2013 11:02:55 AM
Okay, @whippedboi, then sue me.

you are obviously way out on left field conceptually what the topic has become.

Yes, you are right. There are things in life that don't concern this discussion at all. First, right there, there is the apple tree. Then there is mother's apple pie. What else... oh, yes, tables. Chandeliers. And wall-to-wall inability think in conceptual terms.
 csamcsog
Joined: 4/8/2013
Msg: 55
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/21/2013 11:08:50 AM
This is crazy. It's like you sit down to play cards with a bunch of people. Everyone plays fair, nobody cheats. Except when the only guy with the guy does not win, he takes in the wagers anyways, and nobody can say anything, because he silences them, the guy with the gun.

Kenny Rogers - The Gambler

On a warm summer's evenin' on a train bound for nowhere,
I met up with the gambler; we were both too tired to sleep.
So we took turns a starin' out the window at the darkness
'Til boredom overtook us, and he began to speak.

He said, "Son, I've made my life out of readin' people's faces,
And knowin' what their cards were by the way they held their eyes.
So if you don't mind my sayin', I can see you're out of aces.
For a taste of your whiskey I'll give you some advice."

So I handed him my bottle and he drank down my last swallow.
Then he bummed a cigarette and asked me for a light.
And the night got deathly quiet, and his face lost all expression.
Said, "If you're gonna play the game, boy, ya gotta learn to play it right.

You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table.
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done.

Now Ev'ry gambler knows that the secret to survivin'
Is knowin' what to throw away and knowing what to keep.
'Cause ev'ry hand's a winner and ev'ry hand's a loser,
And the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep."

So when he'd finished speakin', he turned back towards the window,
Crushed out his cigarette and faded off to sleep.
And somewhere in the darkness the gambler, he broke even.
But in his final words I found an ace that I could keep.

You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table.
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done.

Some good advice in that song.

---------------------

I have a parable for you too.

It's an old joke.

Two guys, who have been old friends for ages, are walking down the street. One stutters, the other, limps. The sturrer says to the limper:

"I h-h-have an id-d-d-ea how you c-c-can stop l-l-limping."

"Oy, how?" asks the limper.

(In a stutter voice and speak like above, the stutterer says): "well, you step with your longer leg on the pavement, on the road, and with your shorter leg, on the sidewalk. You'll stop limping."

(The limper thinks about this for a second, and then says:)
"And I have a way to help you stop stuttering."

"Yeah? How?"

"Shut your f ing mouth".
-----------------------

Some good advice in this joke.
 csamcsog
Joined: 4/8/2013
Msg: 57
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/21/2013 11:16:26 AM
The limper thinks about this for a second, and then says:)
"And I have a way to help you stop stuttering."

"Yeah? How?"

"Shut your f ing mouth".

I agree, it's a cracking joke, and I will come from the angle that I am the limper trying to help the stutterer, if only he could see that but I would come in at a nicer approach and say don't speak instead of swearing.

--------------

Congratulations, dimmie, you broke the bank. Now go home with your spoils and party till the cows come home.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 58
view profile
History
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/21/2013 11:23:50 AM

Igor has kicked me off this site about four times already.


I have no such power. I am not a moderator. If you have been kicked off, it was because you posted things against the rules, and were caught doing so.

Lots of us have become overly wrought up in these little debates on occasion, and had to have a moderator step in and put us in what is usually called "banned camp" for a while, to cool down, and HOPEFULLY figure out how to interact here within the rules, and with reasonable decorum and respect for others. I have as well.

Reread what one of my new favorite posters said at entry 56. He is exactly right. And I didn't attack you as a person, I disagreed with what I could understand of what you posted. I have seen lots of others say similar things to what you did, and I wanted to put forth another viewpoint, which I think is more likely to have a positive and accurate result. That's all.
 billingsmason
Joined: 2/3/2012
Msg: 59
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/21/2013 2:10:36 PM
I'm going to use the stuttering joke one the job.... hilarious.

side note* anyone else ggget a 3 ppage rrramble in ttttheir inbbbbbbox?
 motown_cowgirl
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 60
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/21/2013 7:23:21 PM
^^^ yes, heh heh. it was quite the form letter. what a turgid rant. my eyes glazed over in the 1st paragraph.
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 62
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/26/2013 10:26:42 PM
This is a position I didn’t think I would be in...


----------------------------------------------------------
csamcsog



Igor loses and argument -- he does not retreat or admit to a defeat. he kicks his opponent off.


What you describe only fits the experience I’ve had with Igor till your mention of “he kicks his opponents off”. As someone who has had some rather heated arguments with Igor, that has not been my experience. I will agree that he does not admit defeat easily or, even admit it at all sometimes but, I’ve given him hell in various debates and I’ve never been kicked off for it.



If he wants to discipline, fine, but he disciplines not those (or not only those) who go against the site rules, he disciplines those whom he does not like for personal reasons.


Those words remind me of a forum participant who used to be a moderator until a few months ago. That person is now gone (finally!!) and, personally I’ve never seen that kind of behavior from Igor.



----------------------------------------------------------
brickhousecement

After this:



So, Igor, you just proved two more ways why you are detestable: In any argument, you will choose an illgoically thinking and speaking person who is on your side, and you applaud his control hunger and the nonsensical things he says and hold them as examples that others should follow.


you say this...



Sorry. I don't do illogical.
...
This makes you even more detestable to me.


Your argument is entirely emotional. There isn’t a shred of logic in it.

It’s one thing to dislike someone’s opinion and even identify certain personal dislikable traits built into those opinions, it’s quite another to let yourself get carried away with emotions such as “detest”. It is not possible to tilt the argument in your favor that way.



So I still maintain my original opinion:

1. I detest you because you have a weak ego;
2. and your weak ego makes defeat unbearable to you
3. therefore you will use all available means to you to silence those who defeat you in logical arguments;
4. who defeat you by either refuting your logic, or else by making their opinions which are not shared by you irrefutable
5. and therefore you will silence them (like you have done to me, now five times in total) by sometimes kicking me off the site, some other times to get the forum moderator to kick me off the site.


Fine. What does that get you ?... nothing... and where does it get you ?.. nowhere.

Actually, you have laid a red carpet for yourself to be penalized. This “technique” isn’t going to give value to your point of view.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 67
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/27/2013 11:11:44 AM

"dim" wrote:
Are you Csamcsok under a different username or something?. You both write and debate in the exact same manner,
----------------


My response:
i am not Csamcsok and I am not Csamcsog under a different user name. Csamcsog is not a user. You have to have two current user ids to satisfy the demand of the definition of "multiple user ids". I only have one user Id, this one, called brickhousecement. There is no Csamcsog any more. Nobody on the site currently is called Csamcsog. That ID was stricken as a user.

So are you saying that you at no point had anything to do with the user account know as Csamcsok and that at no point was the account Csamcsok under your control?

Or are you trying to make it seem that way?
 timeforall
Joined: 8/26/2012
Msg: 68
The Bible and the courtroom
Posted: 4/27/2013 12:06:27 PM
Hey Brick, this is nothing but a f*****g message board. Who really gives a rat's rear end who is who, who does what or who says what? Why am I receiving email under your former ID? I don't know you and don't really care what your issues are with Igor or anybody else. The only people I care to hear from are pretty women. This place is for debate only. To give opinions. For example, I believe the precision in the Universe proves a greater power. JL things I am loony tunes. Hey that's the way it goes. That's what makes the world go round. You need to chill out or get on Prozac or something.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >