T1B

What about your culpability potato peeler?

Moving Sale wrote:

Left Seater wrote: No doubt there is a special place in hell for those who defend DWI cases.

How about the judges that let them free? How about the DAs who plead them down? How about the juries who let them go?

We can add to the list all we want. Might as well add politicians who fight strengthening DWI laws.


But all that said the DWI defense attorneys still lead the list.

Strangely enough the guy that defended the murderer who killed my dad was a half way decent dude. He actually quit the DWI defense factory where he worked after his client was given jail time. Dude spoke to my mom and I at the parole hearing and told us how he couldn't sleep at night and the horrible things this prior firm would do to "help" their clients. The third time he had to defend someone who killed others was the last straw and he is now running his own firm.

And what about your capability?
As for my role, why are you all pissed at me when I have no power to make any decisions. All I can do is file motions and make arguments.

Moving Sale wrote: As for my role, why are you all pissed at me when I have no power to make any decisions.

Look at you trying to take the innocent poor me role. You have the power to make the most important decision of all, to defend or not a drunk driver. Especially those that failed a breath or blood test.

Papa Willie wrote:On another board, somebody was was referring to why they're going to make trans-fats illegal, yet they still allow drinking alcohol.

Simple. As of 2000, DUI's were a $7,000,000,000 per year industry. You think those fuckers would let that go?

add in the failed War on Drugs & all that goes with it and you've got Police State Heaven: Money, Power, and Impunity

Moving Sale wrote:What about your culpability potato peeler?

Which would be? I'm not a lawyer or judge and I have never served on a jury before.

Left Seater wrote: You have the power to make the most important decision of all, to defend or not a drunk driver.

The Constitution sucks butt huh?
:doh:

Especially those that failed a breath or blood test.

How do we know they failed it? Are we just supposed to take the cops word for it?

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:What about your culpability potato peeler?

Which would be? I'm not a lawyer or judge and I have never served on a jury before.

Learn how to read in between taking black cock in your ass you racist fuck.

Moving Sale wrote:How about the voters that let them keep their 6th Am rights? How about you for not shooting them all in the head without a trial first?

Moving Sale wrote:

Left Seater wrote: You have the power to make the most important decision of all, to defend or not a drunk driver.

The Constitution sucks butt huh?

No the Constitution is fine. It is the money grabbers that choose to defend the guilty that I have an issue with.

Moving Sale wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Especially those that failed a breath or blood test.

How do we know they failed it? Are we just supposed to take the cops word for it?

Cops usually video tape such events. Further, when blood tests are involved at the hospital, the Drs word is pretty solid.

You have to remember who and what you're talking to LS. The dwarf faux lawyer only hears what he wants to hear. Tiny Elvis is only in it for the money, not Constitutional rights or what is morally or ethically right. He's going to continue to defend the guilty, as long as he can stuff his wallet likes he stuffs his mouth. And ass.

Left Seater wrote:It is the money grabbers that choose to defend the guilty that I have an issue with.

Defendants are presumed innocent until a judge or jury deems otherwise, and they're entitled to a vigorous defense by an attorney. Won't argue that many or most defense lawyers are money grabbers, but they're not defending the guilty, at least as far as guilt is defined by our judicial system.

While you are correct on the Techincal definition, I think we all knew what I meant.

Defense attorneys have access to the dash cams, breath or blood results, etc. They know their client is in the wrong and has broken laws, but they try to prevent a guilty verdict. Some of the steps they take are quickly thrown out but they hope the jury doesn't forget what they heard.

I also am not making a distinction between criminal and civil cases.

On a sidenote -- while I know you suffered a loss to a drunk driver, LS, and for that have my condolences...

In the Big Picture, DWI deaths are a tiny, tiny blip on the radar, and it's become nothing more than a business/revenue stream for governments.

While driving under the influence is a truly horrible idea, look at the numbers.

How many people drove over the legal limit over the last week in the US? 10 million? I doubt that... probably closer to 30 million (or more).

How many people died in drunk driving crashes (even throwing out that about 1/3rd of the DWI drivers are not at fault in accidents, butare still thrown into the skewed statisics, which ridiculously assume that 100% of those accidents were preventable, and the imparement was 100% responsible). Of those accidents, how many were at the lower end of the over-legal range?

So while the odds of a drunk driver killing someone are better tha his chances of winning Powerball, they're still astronomical.


Again - is driving under the influence a bad idea? Without question.

Is it worthy of the furor and the expenditure of resources that special interest grifters garner for it? Puh-leez. Your adds of dying from the flu are higher.

Dinsdale wrote:On a sidenote -- while I know you suffered a loss to a drunk driver, LS, and for that have my condolences...

In the Big Picture, DWI deaths are a tiny, tiny blip on the radar, and it's become nothing more than a business/revenue stream for governments.

While driving under the influence is a truly horrible idea, look at the numbers.

How many people drove over the legal limit over the last week in the US? 10 million? I doubt that... probably closer to 30 million (or more).

How many people died in drunk driving crashes (even throwing out that about 1/3rd of the DWI drivers are not at fault in accidents, butare still thrown into the skewed statisics, which ridiculously assume that 100% of those accidents were preventable, and the imparement was 100% responsible). Of those accidents, how many were at the lower end of the over-legal range?

So while the odds of a drunk driver killing someone are better tha his chances of winning Powerball, they're still astronomical.


Again - is driving under the influence a bad idea? Without question.

Is it worthy of the furor and the expenditure of resources that special interest grifters garner for it? Puh-leez. Your adds of dying from the flu are higher.

Why focus only on deaths? How many accidents without death could be prevented? There is a huge cost to insurance companies and therefore you and I for these accidents. And while you are correct that not all DWI drivers are at fault in their accidents, how many would be avoided completely if the DWI driver had their normal abilities and would have avoided the collision completely?

All that said though, DWI is completely 100% preventable. You don't even have to drink any less, you just have to use your phone. Maybe you don't fall into this group, I hope you don't, but it has been my experience that those who complain about DWI or the expenditures or all the noise around it are the same ones who repeatedly drive drunk or have been arrested for it.

Left Seater wrote:And while you are correct that not all DWI drivers are at fault in their accidents, how many would be avoided completely if the DWI driver had their normal abilities and would have avoided the collision completely?

I don't know. Neither does anyone else. How much should public policy be based upon wild speculation?

Again -- look at statistical probablility. A drop of piss in the ocean, yet you'd think it was the most pressing issue in the history of mankind... because A LOT of people make A LOT of money off it (including the midget).

Yet still 100% preventable.

If you don't like what MADD is doing, then by all means don't support them.

Left Seater wrote: If you don't like what MADD is doing, then by all means don't support them.

Like their founder?

Left Seater wrote: No the Constitution is fine. It is the money grabbers that choose to defend the guilty that I have an issue with.

Just like when Jay did it earlier, this is a fallacy known as the 'if-by-whiskey' fallacy. Look it up.

Cops usually video tape such events.

Cops usually position the FTSs just out of camera range. Sometimes they can't and I get to see them but not usually.

Further, when blood tests are involved at the hospital, the Drs word is pretty solid.

A) Drs are no where to be found in this process, at least not in any central Ca county.
B) How do we even get to actual testimony about what happened if there is no defense attorney in the courtroom?

Dinsdale wrote: How many people died in drunk driving crashes (even throwing out that about 1/3rd of the DWI drivers are not at fault in accidents, butare still thrown into the skewed statisics, which ridiculously assume that 100% of those accidents were preventable, and the imparement was 100% responsible). Of those accidents, how many were at the lower end of the over-legal range?

It's even worse than that. Until recently the definition for a DWI deaths given by the NHTSA included drunk pedestrians killed by sober drivers. And even today it includes the cases you are talking about as well as solo DWI deaths. In addition, the necessary use of partition ratio in breath test machines means they give different readings for the same breath sample depending on the value put in the computer code, which I don't get to see. even if I file a discovery request for it. I could go on and on.

Again - is driving under the influence a bad idea? Without question.

Most of the "bad" comes from the consequences of it being illegal, not to the same degree as pot, but same concept.

Left Seater wrote: And while you are correct that not all DWI drivers are at fault in their accidents, how many would be avoided completely if the DWI driver had their normal abilities and would have avoided the collision completely?

How many things can that be said about which are either legal or not treated nearly as harshly?

Dinsdale wrote: because A LOT of people make A LOT of money off it (including the midget).

After reading my quoted words...

"imparement"?

Where did that come from? Sorry.

But LS -- anytime you make TVO right, you're probably taking up a dumb fight.

He mentions partition ratio, which I'm shocked to hear isn't discoverable. This essentially means breath tests are completely random, which is a legal abomination. A person's freedom hinges on a random number generator.

And you'd deny these people a legal defense?

Most US machines use 2400:1 while in Europe they use 2100:1 while the bible of DUI BAC "Intoxication Test Evidence 2d" shows us that it can vary from 1100:1 to 3000:1. And I don't even get to bring in an expert to get this info in front of a jury.*

*There are some, limited exceptions.

Dinsdale wrote: He mentions partition ratio, which I'm shocked to hear isn't discoverable. This essentially means breath tests are completely random, which is a legal abomination. A person's freedom hinges on a random number generator.

And you'd deny these people a legal defense?

All the more reason to use blood tests, not breath tests.

You don't even want them to have a defense attorney so why the fuck do you care?

Left Seater wrote:

Dinsdale wrote: He mentions partition ratio, which I'm shocked to hear isn't discoverable. This essentially means breath tests are completely random, which is a legal abomination. A person's freedom hinges on a random number generator.

And you'd deny these people a legal defense?

All the more reason to use blood tests, not breath tests.

And it's part of the reason why many agencies are getting their officers certed as plebotomists. Removes a lot of the bullshit games attorneys play in court.

Moving Sale wrote:You don't even want them to have a defense attorney so why the fuck do you care?

Wrong. Are you and LTS sharing the same brain? I never said I have a problem with them having an attorney. I have a problem with the attorneys who take these cases knowing the evidence and wrong doing by their client.

So lawyers are OK, unless you think they are super duper guilty?

Not too familiar with the legal process there, are ya?

Moving Sale wrote:You don't even want them to have a defense attorney so why the fuck do you care?

If you are the example of the "attorney" they get to defend themselves, then they are pretty much fucked anyway you look at it. Just better not to give some sawed off maggot attorney a huge fee, and just throw yourself on the court. Result is going to be all the same, you just save yourself about 10K.

I know...." Go suck a black cock Derron". Saved you the trouble of mashing that out.

and of course we know the cops are all angels and would never alter a blood test- or allow a drunken colleague to steal one

Colorado Springs cop investigated after allegedly stealing his own blood sample

A 24-year veteran of the Colorado Springs police is being investigated for felony tampering after he allegedly stole a blood sample taken from him after a suspected DUI.

Officer David Rosenoff was involved in a car accident in his personal vehicle Sunday about 1 p.m. at Interstate 25 and Woodmen Road, according to a news release from Colorado Springs police.

Investigators suspected Rosenoff was driving while intoxicated, so he was taken to the hospital for a blood draw to determine his blood-alcohol content.

Rosenoff was taken home, after which the arresting officer noticed Rosenoff's blood sample was missing from his car, according to the release.

After a subsequent investigation, Rosenoff was arrested Monday on charges of tampering with evidence, a felony.

Rosenoff was booked into the El Paso County jail and placed on administrative leave by the department, according to police.

too bad Luther is playing dead. The stories he could tell...

Cuda wrote:
too bad Luther is playing dead.

I miss that guy.
:(

Left Seater wrote:I never said I have a problem with them having an attorney. I have a problem with the attorneys who take these cases knowing the evidence and wrong doing by their client.

Can you fucking read? This is an ifbywhiskey fallacy. It is not logically sound. Do you fucking understand this simple concept?

Moving Sale wrote:

Left Seater wrote:I never said I have a problem with them having an attorney. I have a problem with the attorneys who take these cases knowing the evidence and wrong doing by their client.

Can you fucking read? This is an ifbywhiskey fallacy. It is not logically sound. Do you fucking understand this simple concept?

I clearly understand it, you on the other hand don't.

Let's say that Beavis walks in the the local quickie mart to buy a pack of cancer sticks. Samir doesn't like the way Beavis looks and calls him a name and tells Beavis to leave his store. Beavis tells Samir to fuck off and pulls out a gun and shoots Samir dead. The store's video system records the whole exchange and we see the shots and see Beavis running away. Beavis is arrested a few blocks away with the gun.

Beavis still is entitled to a defense, but anyone outside of a public defender has no standard of ethics, morals, hearth, etc. In that case it is nothing but a cash grab by the defender who will then attempt to smear the dead victim.

You can have whatever opinion you would like but you can't have the opinion you have and still say you believe in the 6th Am. If you try that it is know as the ifbywhiskey fallacy. We are clear on that right?

Left Seater wrote: Beavis still is entitled to a defense, but anyone outside of a public defender has no standard of ethics, morals, hearth, etc. In that case it is nothing but a cash grab by the defender who will then attempt to smear the dead victim.

Depends if Beavis has any cash to grab. If he is knocking over Samirs store, he likely is going to need a public defender because he is not good at working or robbing stores.

Public defenders and their Moving Bowel like standards are the reason our prisons are so crowded. They could not get a a client off if they had to. Never mind the preponderance of evidence against his guilty clients. Public defender gets his 40K a year to work 60 hours a week. They pretty much say fuck it at some point.

Never mind the preponderance of evidence against his guilty clients.

You are so fucking dumb. Oregon is okay with you voting? You are like sarah palin just spouting right wing platitudes with no thought to what they mean.

Moving Sale wrote:You are so fucking dumb. Oregon is okay with you voting?

So you're on record then as being in favor of denying idiots the privilege of voting? We can quote you on that?

Moving Sale wrote:If you try that it is know as the ifbywhiskey fallacy.

English please. I guess public defenders aren't required to understand basic language skills.

LS, you realize that if an attorney knows his client is lying under oath, he must recuse himself, right?

Good rule to follow -- never make MS right.

Ok LS one more time.
The 6th amendment to the Constitution reads:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. [wiki]

You think that only certain people should have the right to enjoy Assistance of Counsel, but you also claim to support the Constitution and by extension the 6th amendment.
These two opposing stances are what's know as the "if by whiskey" fallacy.

This is what you sound like:
If by 6th amendment you mean protecting people that may or may not be guilty then I am all for it.
If by 6th Amendment you mean protecting obviously guilty people then I am against it.

Like Dims said, if he and I agree on something you might want to rethink your stance.

Again, there is a special place in hell for those that abuse kids, elderly, dogs and those that defend people they know are wrong just to make a buck.