Farewell Pawn Stars

#42
GregC said:
I'm OK with a war on meth, especially if the person has guns at the same time.
Click to expand...
Reducing demand is a more economically efficient approach than our current supply-side focus, which tends to raise prices while doing nothing to lessen demand. One dollar of treatment for cocaine addicts is equal to ten dollars of expeditions against South American sources for instance, while one dollar of education in schools is equal to two dollars headed south.

The War on Drugs has been a complete failure, and you can still get drugs easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DiabolusInMusic, Immigrant and ShredderMaximus
#44
Interesting.

Innocent until proven guilty.

What are these "registered" guns people are referring to?

I have many firearms, not of them "registered" with any government agency. Then again, maybe Nevada or Las Vegas have laws I am unfamiliar with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Will_White
#45
Bail.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: LiquidMidnight, devo_stevo, DiabolusInMusic and 13 others
#47
buldog5151bass said:
As opposed to a defense attorney?????????
Click to expand...

Well yeah. Consider:
- prove that someone is innocent by showing evidence of innocence or lack of proof
- prove that a guilty person was unfairly or inadequately prosecuted

So a defense attorney is the only one providing service to 'innocent until proven guilty '.

Contrast the prosecuter who will throw every tool and charge available in hopes of getting a conviction.

The goal in most cases civil and criminal is to put enough pressure - charges, potential for sentencing, doing interviews where the party assumes they are not being investigated but later face purgery, not knowing they should have council, seriousness of a jury trial etc. to make a deal be more desirable.

Even in well known cases like OJ where presumably innocent people go free, it is always on the investigation or prosecution being bungled. In those cases, the party could afford to prove the botched investigation. In most cases the accused cannot afford this kind of defense. So generally there are far more people over prosecuted vs guilty going free.

I'm firmly on the innocent until proven guilty side. I do also believe that guilty deserved to be punished. But clearly there is abuse by prosecutors that is not meant to be fair. Multiple charges in drug busts is one of them. It's one of the ways the war on drugs is a failure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jah Wobble Fan
#48
catcauphonic said:
If Viceland is from the creators of Vice magazine, then I wish I still had cable! Their documentaries of dark subject matter are informative and done really well. There's a bunch of them on YouTube already.
Click to expand...
Vice is was great, I loved all the documentaries they used to post on YouTube. From the guy who visited N. Korea to the other dude who went to the Westminster dog show high on acid, there was plenty of interesting things to watch. But ever since they were bought out by Rupert Murdoch and 21st Century Fox I feel like the quality has been steadily declining, and I don't remember the last time I watched a Vice doc. Hopefully they can come back strong with their own channel.

/derail

Edit:
Here's the dog show bid for anyone interested, it's great.
 
Last edited:
#49
Scatabrain said:
Well yeah. Consider:
- prove that someone is innocent by showing evidence of innocence or lack of proof
- prove that a guilty person was unfairly or inadequately prosecuted

So a defense attorney is the only one providing service to 'innocent until proven guilty '.

Contrast the prosecuter who will throw every tool and charge available in hopes of getting a conviction.

The goal in most cases civil and criminal is to put enough pressure - charges, potential for sentencing, doing interviews where the party assumes they are not being investigated but later face purgery, not knowing they should have council, seriousness of a jury trial etc. to make a deal be more desirable.

Even in well known cases like OJ where presumably innocent people go free, it is always on the investigation or prosecution being bungled. In those cases, the party could afford to prove the botched investigation. In most cases the accused cannot afford this kind of defense. So generally there are far more people over prosecuted vs guilty going free.

I'm firmly on the innocent until proven guilty side. I do also believe that guilty deserved to be punished. But clearly there is abuse by prosecutors that is not meant to be fair. Multiple charges in drug busts is one of them. It's one of the ways the war on drugs is a failure.
Click to expand...

Spoken as someone who actually did it (criminal defense) for over a decade, a prosecutor is charged with finding the truth, and a person is convicted only if found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A defense attorney is not bound by that - their job is to prevent this (guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) if possible, even if the client is in fact guilty.

Every person who is arrested is advised of his right to counsel, and if he/she cannot afford one, one is provided free. And many public defenders are just as good, if not better and more experienced, than the average defense attorney.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tbone76 and DiabolusInMusic
#50
buldog5151bass said:
Spoken as someone who actually did it (criminal defense) for over a decade, a prosecutor is charged with finding the truth, and a person is convicted only if found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A defense attorney is not bound by that - their job is to prevent this (guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) if possible, even if the client is in fact guilty.

Every person who is arrested is advised of his right to counsel, and if he/she cannot afford one, one is provided free. And many public defenders are just as good, if not better and more experienced, than the average defense attorney.
Click to expand...
Ostensibly, of course.
 
#51
buldog5151bass said:
Spoken as someone who actually did it (criminal defense) for over a decade, a prosecutor is charged with finding the truth, and a person is convicted only if found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A defense attorney is not bound by that - their job is to prevent this (guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) if possible, even if the client is in fact guilty.

Every person who is arrested is advised of his right to counsel, and if he/she cannot afford one, one is provided free. And many public defenders are just as good, if not better and more experienced, than the average defense attorney.
Click to expand...

You didn't contradict much of what I said at all.

Clearly people are questioned in the guise of helping. Then only later finding out that they are under investigation. This is not a TV plot, ask Martha.

As far as a prosecutor being charged to find the truth, if that's how it was done then we wouldn't need Brady.

This is one tragic example of over zealous prosecutors.

Aaron Swartz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hopefully the person with the assault complaint sees justice if it is warranted.

I'm just not ready to believe Chumly is a dealer. There is something just not quite right in this story.
 
#53
You are right - your viewing of the reality TV shows trumps my two decades plus in the practice of law. Quoting the OJ case, where he he spent an estimated $5,000,000 on attorneys, is hardly your best way to go.

No one is saying the process is perfect, but a LOT more guilty people go free (or convicted of a lesser crime). And frankly, that is how the system is designed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tbone76, elgecko, DiabolusInMusic and 1 other person
#54
buldog5151bass said:
You are right - your viewing of the reality TV shows trumps my two decades plus in the practice of law. Quoting the OJ case, where he he spent an estimated $5,000,000 on attorneys, is hardly your best way to go.

No one is saying the process is perfect, but a LOT more guilty people go free (or convicted of a lesser crime). And frankly, that is how the system is designed.
Click to expand...

Ok.
 
#55
buldog5151bass said:
You are right - your viewing of the reality TV shows trumps my two decades plus in the practice of law. Quoting the OJ case, where he he spent an estimated $5,000,000 on attorneys, is hardly your best way to go.

No one is saying the process is perfect, but a LOT more guilty people go free (or convicted of a lesser crime). And frankly, that is how the system is designed.
Click to expand...
Everything is just fine and alright in the legal process.
Lawyer and D.A. investigator have bloody brawl in Orange County courthouse
 
#56
Scatabrain said:
Ok.
Click to expand...
buldog5151bass said:
You are right - your viewing of the reality TV shows trumps my two decades plus in the practice of law. Quoting the OJ case, where he he spent an estimated $5,000,000 on attorneys, is hardly your best way to go.

No one is saying the process is perfect, but a LOT more guilty people go free (or convicted of a lesser crime). And frankly, that is how the system is designed.
Click to expand...

BTW: I avoid reality shows. The pawn shop type show I don't mind. It's not watching people being lousy to one another. It's kind of like antiques road show modernized.

Public defenders are saints. I would say most people get into law enforcement for admirable and altruistic reasons. But our jails are filled with people sentenced way beyond what they should be. It's not even a controversial view to recognize that there is an economic disparity leaning against the poor filling prisons. That's not a slight on public defenders. It's part war on drugs and part reality that you get the defense you can afford.

Prosecutors are more career oriented than most in law enforcement. I think that's part of the issue. They aren't rewarded for finding the truth. They are rewarded for closing cases and locking up the bad guys. Not at all the same thing.

Saying 'it's not perfect' isnt nearly enough IMO. Our system needs work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tbone76 and Hoff Kinkmeister
#58
Scatabrain said:
BTW: I avoid reality shows. The pawn shop type show I don't mind. It's not watching people being lousy to one another. It's kind of like antiques road show modernized.

Public defenders are saints. I would say most people get into law enforcement for admirable and altruistic reasons. But our jails are filled with people sentenced way beyond what they should be. It's not even a controversial view to recognize that there is an economic disparity leaning against the poor filling prisons. That's not a slight on public defenders. It's part war on drugs and part reality that you get the defense you can afford.

Prosecutors are more career oriented than most in law enforcement. I think that's part of the issue. They aren't rewarded for finding the truth. They are rewarded for closing cases and locking up the bad guys. Not at all the same thing.

Saying 'it's not perfect' isnt nearly enough IMO. Our system needs work.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the palpable hesitance to even indict police officers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Immigrant
#59
buldog5151bass said:
You are right - your viewing of the reality TV shows trumps my two decades plus in the practice of law. Quoting the OJ case, where he he spent an estimated $5,000,000 on attorneys, is hardly your best way to go.

No one is saying the process is perfect, but a LOT more guilty people go free (or convicted of a lesser crime). And frankly, that is how the system is designed.
Click to expand...

Sorry to drag you into the fray, buldog. But rest assured I am gonna pay you back with your own spinoff show.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Immigrant and S-Bigbottom
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back