VABills Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5050201452.html Okay in DC area we have a gang related killing trial going on. Seems a 17 year old girl was killed by the MS-13 gang. The defense lawyers logic was that it okay to kill her because the government did not protect her well enough, therefore the government wanted her dead and their clients should be set free. Do lawyers really believe that a jury will find these scum innocent based on this defense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5050201452.html Okay in DC area we have a gang related killing trial going on. Seems a 17 year old girl was killed by the MS-13 gang. The defense lawyers logic was that it okay to kill her because the government did not protect her well enough, therefore the government wanted her dead and their clients should be set free. Do lawyers really believe that a jury will find these scum innocent based on this defense? 326868[/snapback] As a defense for the murdering gang members, it's complete bull sh--. As grounds for a potential lawsuit from her family, I would say it definitely qualifies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted May 3, 2005 Author Share Posted May 3, 2005 As a defense for the murdering gang members, it's complete bull sh--. As grounds for a potential lawsuit from her family, I would say it definitely qualifies. 326885[/snapback] Of course you should read the story. They had her in a safe house for several months, then witness protection, but she missed home, the gang and went back. Yet that is the governments fault, and is the only one responsible for her death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 Of course you should read the story. They had her in a safe house for several months, then witness protection, but she missed home, the gang and went back. Yet that is the governments fault, and is the only one responsible for her death. 326910[/snapback] I missed that in reading it over briefly. I think the murder is the gang's fault, no doubt. And I think that the government agency members will have to live with the degree to which they acted to protect this girl's life. If they did everything in their power, they are not at fault. But what a sad situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 MS-13 are some bad dudes. They're everywhere and its just now we're hearing about them? Glad to see our media hath foresaken us for American Idol updates, Runaway brides, Bennifer, Terri Schiavo and Wacko Jacko. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted May 3, 2005 Author Share Posted May 3, 2005 MS-13 are some bad dudes. They're everywhere and its just now we're hearing about them? Glad to see our media hath foresaken us for American Idol updates, Runaway brides, Bennifer, Terri Schiavo and Wacko Jacko. 327304[/snapback] Don't worry this story was buried in the metro section. Wouldn't want something like a murder to actually be on the front page of a local paper, unless of course Condit. etc.. is the one doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 MS-13 are some bad dudes. They're everywhere and its just now we're hearing about them? Glad to see our media hath foresaken us for American Idol updates, Runaway brides, Bennifer, Terri Schiavo and Wacko Jacko. 327304[/snapback] Dont forget gay marriages and smoking in bars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about that; that does not make sense. Why would a wookie, an 8 foot tall wookie, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall ewoks? That does not make sense! But more importantly, you have to ask yourself, ‘what does that have to do with this case?' Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense! lawyers = RJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about that; that does not make sense. Why would a wookie, an 8 foot tall wookie, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall ewoks? That does not make sense! But more importantly, you have to ask yourself, ‘what does that have to do with this case?' Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense! lawyers = RJ 327329[/snapback] Who doesn't love the South Park version of Johnnie Cochran? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5050201452.html Okay in DC area we have a gang related killing trial going on. Seems a 17 year old girl was killed by the MS-13 gang. The defense lawyers logic was that it okay to kill her because the government did not protect her well enough, therefore the government wanted her dead and their clients should be set free. Do lawyers really believe that a jury will find these scum innocent based on this defense? 326868[/snapback] There's really a simple reason for it: the defense's job is to defend as best they see possible. Clearly, their clot-head clients killed this girl and can't be defended on any merit they might have (which is likely none), and more likely than not they'll get a jury that overall is sympathetic to an anti-government argument, so the obvious best defense is to impeach the government. Their job isn't justice. Their job is sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 Who doesn't love the South Park version of Johnnie Cochran? 327341[/snapback] Look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Who doesn't love the South Park version of Johnnie Cochran? 327341[/snapback] I sure hope he's not in the same section of heaven as my baby. True POS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 I sure hope he's not in the same section of heaven as my baby. True POS. 328723[/snapback] He's nowhere near her. He's hangin with Arafat right now talking about gloves. Toasty gloves, waiting for the Juice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 He's nowhere near her. He's hangin with Arafat right now talking about gloves. Toasty gloves, waiting for the Juice. 328724[/snapback] With a pineapple in his intestinal cavity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 "Lawyers and screwed up logic" Isn't that redundant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Look at the Lynndie England thing - her lawyer has her enter a guilty plea and allocute that she knew what she did was wrong when she did it...then puts someone on the stand who testifies that she thought she was doing right because she was ordered by superiors. Of course given the resultant mistrial perhaps this was a brilliant move...but it seems like a fairly big gamble if that's the case. The defense first wanted the judge to recuse himself and now this...perhaps it's their version of the nukeyoular option. Or maybe it's just an attorney outsmarting him/herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Look at the Lynndie England thing - her lawyer has her enter a guilty plea and allocute that she knew what she did was wrong when she did it...then puts someone on the stand who testifies that she thought she was doing right because she was ordered by superiors. Of course given the resultant mistrial perhaps this was a brilliant move...but it seems like a fairly big gamble if that's the case. The defense first wanted the judge to recuse himself and now this...perhaps it's their version of the nukeyoular option. Or maybe it's just an attorney outsmarting him/herself. 328759[/snapback] Someone could use your expertise on the Jacko trial, pick a side. You're good at that, Black and white???????????......... sounds like a song.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Someone could use your expertise on the Jacko trial, pick a side. You're good at that, Black and white???????????.........sounds like a song.. 328768[/snapback] There are always two sides, it's a chess match and very interesting to me. I am not in the least bit interested in Michael Jackson. I personally think he's a harmless weirdo, but one never knows. I sure don't. But then again I don't care either. But I do enjoy legal maneuverings - not grandstanding though. Perhaps I didn't mention that I worked in the legal field for several years...fascinating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 There are always two sides, it's a chess match and very interesting to me. I am not in the least bit interested in Michael Jackson. I personally think he's a harmless weirdo, but one never knows. I sure don't. But then again I don't care either. But I do enjoy legal maneuverings - not grandstanding though. Perhaps I didn't mention that I worked in the legal field for several years...fascinating. 328775[/snapback] Pleasant discourse between erynthered and blzrul? Unthinkable. Ok, I think he’s toast. A 46 year old man sleeping with children is something I really don’t think is normal, plus I’d like to beat his ape face into oblivion. Damn, couldn’t hold back, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Pleasant discourse between erynthered and blzrul? Unthinkable. Ok, I think he’s toast. A 46 year old man sleeping with children is something I really don’t think is normal, plus I’d like to beat his ape face into oblivion. Damn, couldn’t hold back, sorry. 328783[/snapback] He is sort of a freak isn't he? Again - I was never a fan and have watched him morph over the years on the rare occasions he intruded upon my thoughts with some really horrid fascination...or disbelief. As an aside: I am capable of having pleasant conversation with most people. One of my best friends makes VAB and AD look like tree-huggers. But when people are too small-minded to realize that a disagreement is not a personal attack or that a poking fun at "the other side" is not meant to impugn one's manhood or anything else....I can dish it right back. And sometimes, I admit, it's fun to fan the flames, it's sooooo easy sometimes. All I need to do is post and there are some folks who would disagree with me no matter what. How sillly. On this board it's cons v libs, on others it's Bills fans v. Fishstix lovers...whatever. (The difference is if you insult my team, chances are I'll agree with you but point out that your teams stinks as bad, or worse. And with Fishstix, it's the truth too.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts