Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Lawyer question - Why???

Good for you.

In my experience with DWI/DUI's, which is not vast, the only one's that didn't plea were those who felt their chances with a jury were better than the deal offered. A few just couldn't do probation or accept a conviction, but most had lots of priors and were looking at LOTs of time if convicted.

Did I miss something fellas?

Just saw this little jewel .For some reason it conjures up an image of someone who once was "someone " and had some measure of authority over some folks and is now forced to confront his impotence every time he turns around .

Anybody with half a brain would know I don't give a damn who reads anything I post on here or I wouldn't post it so this "posterity sake" comment makes no sense at all .

Here are a few more facts for all you stalwart defenders of truth and justice :

In 1985 - which happens to be the year I had my last drink of alcohol - Ed Shields was starting his second term as Young County Sheriff and the newspaper ran a story that revealed that Young County had three times the DWI conviction total of Wichita County which had ten times the population .That is newsworthy .

All his deputies , the Hiway Patrolmen , County Atty ,County Judge - ALL the courthouse crowd knew Ed was a drunk .Then Ed left a private club in a neighboring town at 2 am one weeknight , crossed over the center line and hit another car head on .Killed Ed , Left one in the other car paralyzed for life and the other occupant was seriously injured .

I've wondered at times if any of that bunch ever felt the slightest twinge of guilt for looking the other way where Ed was concerned . I doubt they ever did .

Anyhow LOUDMOUTH , my post paints a pretty un-flattering picture of who I was 25 years ago ; Yours reveals what you are like today .

You really ought to calm down .

Curdog not that my opinion matters much but I think it takes a back bone to post that in a public forum.

Good for you kicking the habit.

Dink

Agree, Dink and well done and well said, curdog.

But that's what being honest gets you sometimes and certain folks don't seem to handle honesty too well at all. VAnimrod, you can copy this one for posterity, too.

Not taking away from Curdog's spectacular accomplishment but he shouldn't post the facts later and then use it to attack a reply to a post of his which, initially, on it's face, was rather remarkable. The line of replies leading up to it were rather remarkable, as well, and it's easy to grasp the reasons premising the consternation.

If he had posted his replies in reverse order, this issue wouldn't have caused any edgy uneasiness. The miscommunications and misunderstandings weren't unreasonable,considering.

Bob,

Somewhere in this thread (too lazy to reference it) someone asked if defense attorneys could in "good conscience" get their client off on a tecnicality knowing full well that he was guilty.

I know this issue has been beat to death here many times before and I am certainly not an attorney, but I believe that regardless of their client's guilt or innocence, lawyers should do everything they can to ensure that their Constitutionally guaranteed rights are protected and that he/she recieves a fair trial and NOTHING MORE THAN THAT!

The exception of course would be in cases where the charges were either frivolous to begin with or the law was simply an unjust one.

In other words, I don't believe that when a defense attorney knows his client is guilty, he should resort to using technicalities, gimmicks or other types of subterfuge in an effort to gain aquittal.

I use the OJ Simpson case as an example.

Am I missing something here??

Wrong, and your reading comprehension is pathetic.

I've been schit faced, many times over. Driven when I shouldn't have, and lived to tell about it. Thank God so did everyone else out there.

And, yeah, given the chance, I'd say exactly the same thing to your face. If you've been sober for 25 years, then congratulations and thank you. Taking on that demon, and winning, ain't easy. I'll say that your face as well.

That said, if you can't look back on who/what you were then, and find dishonor in that as well as seeing clearly how dangerous those like you were then are to others out there, then you obviously are lacking in many rather significant areas.

Facts, are facts.

A "technicality" is a procedural screw-up by the prosecution. They screw up, and the defendant walks. Pure and simple.

A defense attorney's job, or one of them, is to make sure the prosecution does their job well and properly.

Exactly.

No, your posts in order reveal what you wanted to instigate, and as posted elsewhere, if you'd said you WERE what you started off by painting yourself AS, and that you've moved on, you'd likely have gotten a far different response.

As stated, I'll stand by that.

If you were what you were, and have seen what it can/will do, you know where the reaction to drunk drivers comes from and why getting them the hell off the roads is a task that needs doing; daily.

If you are what you are now, then congratulations and thank you. As stated, that demon is not an easy one to beat; many never do.

So, figure me "loudmouth", or whatever, but perhaps you got exactly what you were looking for, and the reasons behind that are more clear than you think.

A lawyer only "knows" what his client tells him, and what the police say. He isn't a witness to anything, and really doesn't KNOW anything. What you're suggesting is that the lawyer should decide, based on what he sees in the evidence to determine guilt or innocence, then decide whether to represent his client zealously, or merely babysit him while the goverment does what it's going to do. You're saying that as long as the lawyer deems his client guilty, that however the evidence was obtained shouldn't be called in to question even if it's illegal, because the ultimate question has been answered, albeit through illegal means by the government. Surely you can see how a system like that would lead to police doing any and everything to get the "evidence of guilt" because as long as they have the evidence that proves the defendant guilty (and who makes this decision of guilt before all the evidence is heard), then what methods they used couldn't be questioned. Surely you see the potential end result of folks rights being completely trampled. Finally, what constitutes "absolute guilt" to the point that the lawyer would only babysit their client rather than represent them, who would make that decision, and at what point in the process?

Nemi...a criminal defense lawyer's client is guilty when a consent plea, jury,judge or appellate court indicate he is guilty,not before. In the meanwhile, the defendant need not prove a damn thing, the government has that burden. My job is to vigorously compel them to meet that burden and if they can not, he walks!

Exactly. It's the fair trial part that harbors the technicalities.

Procedural safeguards and requirements are there to do as much as possible to insure a fair trial, and if one or more of those is not satisfied, thus the technicality, then the defendant walks.

Those that want a "fair trial" for "the guilty" really mean a mock trial followed by immediate execution. If they'd look up the word "trial", they'd see that even the non-legal definitions mean "to test or evaluate".

Look , I ain't interested in prolonging this little "drama" .

Now you are suggesting that I MAY HAVE - underscore "may" - Have manipulated everybody on this thread into posting their replies and then pulled out a kicker to make some look foolish or to score some sort of " points " or some such .

I think if an appelate court had this thread as a "trial transcript" , THey would find that your conclusion is not supported by the facts .

When I made my original post on this thread I styled myself as knowing something about this DWI/Legal deal .Dink more or less called my hand on that by asking how many etc,etc.

You- being a lawyer - know that the "truth" sorta has a ring to it and Dink's question struck me as being honest and I gave him an honest answer .I had no way of knowing you were gonna jump into the discussion .

You have to admit that you COULD have posted something like this : " You still drinking ?"

Once I posted my answer you would still have the option of calling me names and such if you were so inclined .

In the interest of getting the thread back on track ,I'm willing for this to be my last post on it .I do want to thank those who have made some nice comments to me but I want to make it clear that :

1 . By gettin' sober I didn't accomplish anything a drowning man wouldn't accomplish by grabbing a rope thrown to him . He wouldn't be a "hero" and I ain't either .

2.In my particular case , it was no big deal to post my arrest record [ actually there were six more jailings that I didn't post 'cause Dink only asked about DWI ].For one of you , it would be a big deal and - like a lot of "big deals" would serve no useful purpose .

See ,the first time somebody raised hell with me on this forum years ago , I did a little experiment : I lifted up the moniter and put the bathroom scales under it .

I wrote down the weight of it with his words on the screen and then without his words on the screen and discovered the weight didn't change .

I ain't been very concerned about anything posted by me or anyone else since then .

Fair enough.

Gave you credit, where credit was due.

And, called spades as seen.

Take it, leave, or just don't give a [bleep]. Your call, and I'll live with the ones I made and make.

See ,the first time somebody raised hell with me on this forum years ago , I did a little experiment : I lifted up the moniter and put the bathroom scales under it .
===========

You did that sober?? grin