Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
It's OK when it's someone else's daughter
feministing.com — Allan Stokke defended a cop who jerked off on a stripper during a routine traffic stop. He also defended a sheriff's son who was convicted of participating in a videotaped gang-rape. But he was offended when his daughter Allison Stokke was turned into internet sex icon.
utcursch- 4454 diggs
- digg it
- Pestilence, on 11/13/2007, -141/+493Digg this. Lawyers are the scum of the earth second only to insurance companies.
- soratobou, on 10/11/2007, -46/+105One of his victims is probably trying to get back at him. She doesn't deserve it, but he sure as hell does. I'm pretty convinced that most lawyers who repeatedly represent despicable criminals are involved in criminal activity themselves.
- Pissoff, on 11/13/2007, -33/+514Here's hoping you're never wrongfully accused of anything you would need a lawyer for.
- Pestilence, on 10/11/2007, -64/+17What, like making his coffee too hot, misplacing his pants, or publishing a video game?
- mikefitz2, on 11/13/2007, -46/+381Sure it's fun to say lawyers are scum, till you need one to represent yourself.
- kaelyiesta, on 11/13/2007, -22/+139It goes without saying that any legal system where the amount of money you throw at it determines the outcome is complete *****.
- gcnaddict, on 10/11/2007, -40/+66"Sure it's fun to say lawyers are scum, till you need one to represent yourself."
Jack Thompson won't be representing anyone on here, and since all stereotyping rules apply on digg, the following is a logic chain for you:
| | Jack Thompson is a jackass ***** douchebag. Jack Thompson is a Lawyer. Thus, all lawyers are jackass ***** douchebags.
See? It all works out. - RossTizma, on 10/11/2007, -35/+11I think he is misunderstanding the situation, he seems to think that women can amount to something that doesn't involve sex... quite misguided of him.
- mike17032, on 11/13/2007, -41/+217He was doing his god damn JOB. If he did any less, he would be doing a disservice to everyone, because the legal system needs to have both sides do everything they can to win the case.
- DiggzDE, on 10/11/2007, -88/+36I am in school to become a lawyer. And I look down on all you people who say lawyers are scum as being idiots because you can't represent yourself if you ever run into trouble. So when or if it ever comes a day where you need legal representation or assistance (and there most likely will be at some point) you will be stuck crawling your hypocritical asses back to us. Also, you sure as hell won't know what all your rights are as a citizen, especially someday when that dick police you always hated is trying to get your ass in trouble for something as simple as speeding ticket. It happens. I simply am refusing to be a statistic. One that gets their ass handed to them by the Legal System simply because they were to ignorant to take time to learn and know their rights.
- Pestilence, on 10/11/2007, -28/+50Some day you'll be a jaded pig scumbag lawyer. Mark my words.
- jimbo421, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14Mirror:
http://mirrorizer.googlepages.com/itsokwhenitssomeoneelsesdaughter - sgglynn, on 10/11/2007, -17/+40@DiggzDE
"you will be stuck crawling your hypocritical asses back to us"
Not really, you wouldnt know that it was us saying things about you... Just because we might someday need you doesn't mean we can't criticize you as much as we want... Like the government, practically useless, but sometimes, we need it to get something we want, like you - hootpie, on 10/11/2007, -17/+31It's called hypocrisy folks and the world is filled with it.
- Pissoff, on 10/11/2007, -15/+6@pestilence - Hello Kettle
- sabach, on 10/11/2007, -19/+2@mikefitz2 Where did you get your law degree from?
- capiCrimm, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2@gcnaddict
As long as logic works on dig that's a fallacy of composition - bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -10/+16Diggzde the last time i needed a lawyer, he ended up adopting my argument for defense, as my defense. I should have billed him. And btw, I won.
- Elranzer, on 11/13/2007, -43/+284It's always ok when it's someone else's daughter. And it works in all situations...
You're all for banning Super Sizes for the good of America, but you order two medium fries yourself when you go to McDonalds.
You're all for banning gay marriage, except for your gay son's case.
You're all for keeping marijuana illegal, even though you smoked pot like a chimney in college.
You're all for more censorship in the case of Janet Jackson's tit, yet you looked for a better image of it online after the Superbowl.
You're all for the loss of some personal freedoms in the case of security, until your hippie daughter gets arrested for peaceful protest.
You're all for atheists, Muslims and Jews having less representation in government, yet get offended when Christianity doesn't get special treatment.
You're all for "saving the children" from sex and violence on TV yet as a kid you remember horror movies and nudie flicks best.
You're all for the bashing of gays because of your religious beliefs, yet you go to gay bath houses every weekend yourself. - xero9, on 10/11/2007, -11/+38@DiggzDE
Couple of things I don't agree with..
First of all, lets get something straight. By saying people are stuck crawling their hypocritical asses back to "us" you mean lawyers, right? Cause um, hate to tell you this, but you aren't ***** right now, okay?
And just because someone doesn't know the law inside and out, doesn't mean their ignorant. Are you ignorant cause you don't take the time to learn how to put up that new addition to your home? Or because you didn't take the time to learn how to change the ball joints on your car?
Oh and by the way, if everyone took the time to learn their rights, you'd be unemployed. You stupid *****.
That said, I have no problems with lawyers - V3n0M, on 10/11/2007, -16/+26"Digg this. Lawyers are the scum of the earth second only to insurance companies."
Don't forget Telemarketers!! - feelinhipp, on 10/11/2007, -17/+2@gcnaddict
"Sure it's fun to say lawyers are scum, till you need one to represent yourself."
Jack Thompson won't be representing anyone on here, and since all stereotyping rules apply on digg, the following is a logic chain for you:
| | Jack Thompson is a jackass ***** douchebag. Jack Thompson is a Lawyer. Thus, all lawyers are jackass ***** douchebags.
See? It all works out.
I normally wouldn't post, but someone has to show you your logic is all screwed up. If A ---> B, then B--->A is logically not true. I'm glad you're not the one representing me! - sabach, on 10/11/2007, -16/+5And DiggzDE LEECH. Anyone who bases their career on the misfortunes of others is a pitiful excuse for a member of the human race.
- joebaloney, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10@diggzde
If it weren't for people like you, we wouldn't be nearly as likely to have to defend ourselves someday or get our ass handed to us by the legal system. - sabach, on 10/11/2007, -25/+0I'm convinced someone is stalking my posts and burying them, what a paltry, no account bitch.
- davewalden, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2I have "0" faith in the judicial system, much less lawyers
- bmxboy661, on 10/11/2007, -5/+57his daughter is FIT though.
- lostboy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20Funnily enough some of the people I have the biggest respect for are human rights lawyers. They count as lawyers too right?
- ayeroxor, on 10/11/2007, -37/+60This is absurd - exactly the kind of garbage I expect to come from modern pseudo-feminists who think they have it so rough.
This lawyer never said it was okay the other times. He never said he was not offended by the accusations. He was providing defendants their constitutionally promised right to competent defense.
Clearly, these "feminists" would prefer no trial. Where I come from, that's considered un-American. Defense is promised to everyone, even if you don't like them.
As for those of you who "hate" attorneys, police, whomever: be sure not to call them if/when you are ever wronged or charged with a crime, okay?
Like it or not, our system isn't perfect, but police and attorneys are all unnecessary components. If you don't understand that, you never passed 5th-grade civics courses.
Character attacks on attorneys who have done nothing but fulfill their constitutional role are really character attacks on the constitution. To say they cannot seek justice for their children or families because they have defended others is mob mentality.
Those of you who believe this are of the same ilk as those that once burned witches. You seek no justice, only "righteous" retribution, and if his daughter suffers for what you perceive to be his wrongs, that's fine with you? Disgusting. - labmouse42, on 10/11/2007, -18/+7@Pissoff
Ive had to hire a few lawyers in my time.
And they are still the scum of our society. - informality, on 10/11/2007, -15/+20Of course, the article doesn't tell, or even quote, the whole story.
"'She got what she wanted,' said Stokke. 'She’s an overtly sexual person.'
A jury of one woman and 11 men—many white and in their 50s or 60s—agreed with Stokke."
Think about this. A jury of citizens, like you, or me, but who actually heard the case, agreed with that comment. Obviously you're getting a skewed and incomplete version of the facts, and you're swallowing it right up. - rekrapt, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18There are plenty of ambulance chasing lawyers to be sure... but, they are not all like that. There must be someone to do the dirty job in court. Our system requires a vigorous defense by the accused. Even criminals must get a fair trial. Many lawyers take cases they may not be all that hot to take because someone has to do it.
IANAL... but, I work in a large law firm. - sabach, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0Oddly enough I know a Dave Waldron who's mother is a lawyer (one of the few I respect). Hmmmm?
- nottidredd, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11pics or it didn't happen
- mikefitz2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13@sabach, I do not have a law degree, nor do I plan on ever going after one. I have had the displeasure of being arrested by a squad of corrupt police officers for drinking at a ***** college football game whilst sitting in a lawn chair at a tailgate, and the only reason I was relieved of ALL charges was because I had a lawyer that understood my situation.
- OwdenBowden, on 10/11/2007, -13/+4Actually - Lawyers are like Assholes - even though they smell like and are full of ***** we all have them and we all need them!
- MissinSoCal, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4Digg this next time your in trouble call a comedian. Lawyers are not the scum of the earth, they defend them. I see no link to show what the people Mr. Strokke defended actually received as punishment for there actions. The sentencing of these men would more reflect how we the people feel about there vile actions. Everyone deserves a defense in a court of law. If you don't like that imagine a place where you couldn't try to prove your innocence.
- rosefu, on 10/11/2007, -12/+32"Clearly, these 'feminists' would prefer no trial. Where I come from, that's considered un-American. Defense is promised to everyone, even if you don't like them."
It's not about feminism. It's about having a basic sense of decency and humanity. There comes a point when the lawyers are ridiculous and just plain inhumane toward the victims of a crime that has been committed. Defense is also not equal in this country, due to disparities in income. Public attorneys have far more cases to handle than these private attorneys with high-paying clients.
From http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/bad-dads/24696/?page=2 -- Stokke said, "There's [no pain] that is felt because she was unconscious," referring to the woman who has been gang-raped with Snapple bottles and pool sticks. Don Haidl, father of one of the rapists, "lives in a $5 million guarded estate in Newport Coast." The sentence for these 3 gang rapists is 6 years in prison, less than half of what they could have received.
The justice system does not serve justice in this country, just ice. - Popsgg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+117Here is the pic that made her famous.
http://www.dyestat.com/3us/6out/NikeOutdoorNats/album-vic-jumps-g/images/154GM8W1004.jpg - nottidredd, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2@popsgg
I don't care about the pic that made her famous. I want to see the one that made her infamous! - telair, on 10/11/2007, -4/+53For anyone who doesn't know why Allison is famous
http://www.imagespar.com/view.php?img=b93d0e3a1451e04ae0a281791fb2b5bb
http://www.imagespar.com/view.php?img=c6c96299df39a9861f7a1b01deb3921a
http://www.imagespar.com/view.php?img=64015da36d81ceed5255f7e40bd954bc
http://www.imagespar.com/view.php?img=5733d4e2d3f17a97d04c6620016e24a1
http://www.imagespar.com/view.php?img=bbf4625cf0cec335e85bb08fa33c0996
http://www.imagespar.com/view.php?img=8aec249c2d7142f68ad381605b92af54
http://www.imagespar.com/view.php?img=24f466e3b462a45c4bd23c0a0c1d4e43 - mikefitz2, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewPicture&friendID=184340207&albumId=0
her myspace with a TON of HOT pics! - pseudojd, on 10/11/2007, -6/+32Wow, her dad ( who will prolly read this ) is a TOTAL douche. oh and hey, your daughter is hot.
- bastardoperator, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6@DiggzDE
You won't make it as a lawyer or get accepted to a respected law school... you can barely write a coherent sentence. You surely weren't able to compel this jury(digg). - MusicalGenius, on 10/11/2007, -22/+8@ elranzer You are wrong, and I shall prove it.
Yes, I am Christian. If I had a son who was gay, I would still love him, but that doesn't mean I support his cause.
I'm against Marijuana, and no, I've never touched an illegal drug in my life. I am for more censorship, but within reason and I take time to think of compromises which would please those who are against censorship. Sorry, I also didn't look for a better picture of Janet. I do not believe in giving freedoms for security. I believe that Muslims and Jews should have the representation they work for. No more, no less. I hate horror movies and believe they are a disgrace to humanity along with "nudie" flicks.
Now for the proof.
You are generalizing with utter bias. When you think that "you're all" (meaning that everyone in a social group or religion, I assume Christianity.) means that everyone in that group thinks the same way then you are so wrong.
If someone who is Muslim was elected president would I be angry? Not in the slightest. Would I have voted for them? If I thought they were superior to their competition. I have friends of many religions including Muslim. I have a friend who uses Marijuana frequently. He has never said it flat out, but will imply it heavily as he wants to protect himself. Now does he think it should be legal? Yes he does. Does it mean that people who do it now are right? No.
If you break a law, just because you do not agree with it, then you do not deserve law or the protections of this country. I don't agree with it but I will obey the law because I choose to accept that not everything will go my way and that another person has to accept that also. This way we all sacrifice a little to make a great country. If you don't want to sacrifice any of your own desires...then leave. This is what governments, primarily a Democracy is supposed to be all about. If we agree to vote on laws or law makers and break the ones we don't like....why did we vote? If you think you should be able to break whatever laws you want without penalty. Find a place where laws do not exist. Otherwise if you were a good citizen and had moral responsibility you would obey the law and labor to get it changed if you so pleased. You still would obey it until then.
So when you refer to so many with such contempt and tell yourself that because all the Christians you see or group that you imply act as if they have no variation from one another. Why don't you take a step back and realize that I am a Christian and I am saying that I do not behave this way. There is at least one.
Now why would I take the time to type to someone who I am so unsure whether would take the time to read this or believe a thing I suggest? Because I have hope. I have hope that finally someone on this potentially great site will realize one thing. The second you generalize Christians. Then you are JUST as ignorant as the Christians who generalize Muslims, or Jews, or people such as yourself.
You have no philosophy or education in your thoughts. There are other people in this world besides you. All you have is your judging others before taking the patient step towards making a friend with someone you disagree with. - Coded1, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8@pissoff
What makes you think that a making fun of, or bashing a lawyer will keep them for representing you for money? - logicnazi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Uhh, no they have a moral responsibility to defend their clients. The whole idea of our system is that the government should have to prove it's case and if no one will defend unpopular clients or ones everyone 'knows' are guilty then the whole system stops working.
- jamessavik, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Yeah Mr. Lawyer- it's a little different when it's your sweet little girl who getting a facial on the internut.
- rosefu, on 10/11/2007, -10/+11"they have a moral responsibility to defend their clients."
Lawyers do not have a moral responsibility to defend their clients any more than a pizza delivery man has a moral responsibility to get your pizza to your front door. Despite the guarantees written into the constitutional amendments for a right to prove your innocence, the morality is still at its base driven by monetary exchange. We can all get a public defender, in any case.
The irony in this story is that a person who has made past statements that the unwanted sexual advancements (including sexual violence) these women received were no big deals... finds a similar thing happening to his own daughter.
Maybe now Allan Stokke knows a little bit about how Jane Doe's father and family felt when the 16-year-old girl was raped 4 years ago. Even if it pales in comparison, it's a start. - logicnazi, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Of course my remark was about lawyers generally. I don't know enough about this particular situation to comment. The blog post about the situation is totally useless. It doesn't present enough context to know if someone merely interpreted the attorney's appropriate attempt to cast doubt on the victims injuries as 'mocking' nor whether the supposed quote about the girl getting what she wanted and being an overtly sexual person was supposed to be two thoughts or one. Besides, it all depends on the context. Like it or not if you are going to send someone to prison for a sex crime the victims likelihood to consensually engage in the act is relevant. Obviously if there is good reason to believe the victim would never engage in a certain sort of sexual act of her own will that is evidence that should be allowed in to show the act was coerced but the converse of this is that the defendant must be able to present evidence that shows the supposed victim was likely to consensually agree/suggest the event.
None of this changes the fact that it is unacceptable for lawyers to merely slander the victim or attempt to win by making the trial too painful for the victim to testify at. Unfortunately this sort of ignorant bashing of lawyers for merely defending their clients or attempting to impeach the testimony of likable witnesses actually removes the incentive for lawyers to be ethical. If you are going to be lambasted for defending the brutal rapist no matter what you do there is a lot less of a disincentive to do so by personal attacks on the victim than there would be if we understood that a professional defense of even the worst of society is actually quite moral. - VinceNoir, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3@MusicalGenius
Nice try at muddying the waters. But it doesn't work. Here's why:
Yes, there are a lot of people in the United States (and the world) and we all have differing sets of values and beliefs. But, given that the United States does not permit individuals to have any strong influence over anyone else and we all wind up being lumped into generalized groups (like political parties, religious affiliations, or social/class groups) the end result has nothing to do with your own personal beliefs. I'll give you two examples. One based on you, one based on me:
You:
You say you're a Christian who wouldn't support gay marriage. Just for the sake of argument, let's say you are and always have been opposed to the war in Iraq. The 2008 elections come up and each candidate's positions on these two particular issues are split in such a way that you are torn. If you vote for one candidate, to bring an end to the war in Iraq, you will also be voting to support gay rights. If you vote for the candidate who is opposed to gay rights, but also supports the war in Iraq, you will be going against your other wishes. In all likelihood, you will wind up voting for the candidate that takes a stance on something you feel is very important to you. If you are truly opposed to gay rights, you would then accept the fact that you are also voting for the war in Iraq. If opposing gay rights is that serious to you, you will likely see the other issue as relatively less important. In the end, regardless of how you claim you're different from the others, you still fall in line when put in such a position.
Me:
It's no different on the left side. For the record I don't like Republicans or Democrats. I think Republicans tend to be greedy hypocrites who support big business and walk all over the average person. I think Democrats can also be hypocritical, but tend to be more wimpy in their approach to governance and only pay lip service to reaching out to help the little guy (read the person who makes less than $30,000 a year and has no savings). So I'll take the issue of welfare vs. the war in Iraq since I side with the little guy and do not support the war in Iraq. I do believe that we all have a responsibility to each other and we must help those who have less than we do. However, I also think that we should all work as hard as possible to make sure that we aren't a burden either. So, I don't think that people should be allowed to game the welfare system to their own advantage. At the same time, I don't think the system should be ripped away outright either because I don't believe it will motivate people. If someone is lazy they will always try to find the easy way out. So, if a candidate said they supported expanding welfare programs but didn't have any plans to place any checks and balances on the system, and also opposed the war in Iraq, and the opposing candidate said that he opposed any expansion of welfare and supported the war in Iraq, I'd still have to support the candidate that opposes the war in Iraq. Regardless of how I felt about uncontrolled expansion of welfare, I'd have to pick the issue that is more important to me. This is why elections are such drudgery for most people; Because you are given sets of choices that aren't really optimal in any way and do not properly represent or match your own values.
It's not possible to really make that difference of opinion count from a personal and individual level. I just get branded a "dirty liberal" regardless of how much I may oppose many things the Democrats are doing. Just as you get branded a "rotten bigot" regardless of how open you may be to people who belong to other religions or nationalities. That's the problem. There's no hope of solving it either since the nation is too big to be able to make any of this work properly. - slezzzter, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6I took a course on the History of Enterprise and the Legal System. It was taught by a lawyer. He liked the idea of government regulation of businesses where the need was common (i.e. transportation, energy, water, and even health care) so that everyone could afford good quality services. But when I suggested that sound legal counsel was also a public need and that lawyers should be government regulated (not allowed to charge $500+/hr as some do), he became predictably defensive. Sadly, he never gave a reconciliation of his regulatory contradictions.
Any lawyers or libertarians care to take a crack at that one?
And lawyers aren't scum. If we didn't have the bass-ackwards, confusing, convoluted, inconsistent, and biased laws we have, lawyers could stick to the Perry Mason/Matlock-style "find the facts and tell the judge/jury." Everyone deserves a defense, however clear offenses should be indefensible. Loopholes in the law make lawyers look like scum, but it's the law that's to blame. - rbanffy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9A lawyer cannot judge his clients. This is for the court to do. A lawyer has the obligation to defend his client to the best of his knowledge. He has an obligation to try to twist the facts, to discredit witnesses and victims, to pull every trick he knows off and even conceal the knowledge he may have that his client is guilty if this may result in a favorable veredict. He does so because it's the prosecution's job to as far as possible (read "as far as not to commit itself a crime") to get a conviction.
This forms the basis of the relation between client and attorney. As mikefitz2 said, it may be fun to make lawyer jokes and to call them the scum of Earth. But it ceases to be fun if you need one to defend yourself.
What happens if you are accused of a crime you did not commit and no lawyer agrees to defend you because you look guilty? - jumptoitnow, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Here's where I objectify women (NSFW language).
- rosefu, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7@logicnazi,
No one is arguing against the right to fair trial and a competent defense for even murderers. However, making the prosecution prove that the defendant actually committed a crime is vastly different than using misogynist rhetoric that have nothing to do with the facts of the case (unless he is psychic and clairvoyant) to convince a jury that the victim wanted to be victimized or was not truly a victim.
If you read up on the case, you'd see that at first Stokke claimed the girl was pretending to be unconscious. When it was proven beyond a doubt that she was unconscious during the act, he then said it's not a big deal because it caused her no pain.
There is a line of, again, basic human decency, that should not be crossed verbally, and defense lawyers staying clear of it does not mean that they cannot get their defendants a fair trial. - CthulhuDawn, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2This guy sounds like a scumbag, but make no mistake, the situation would be the same even if Stokke had not used the language that he used. Everyone deserves a fair trial, and a lawyer is there to provide that even if the defendant is guilty as sin.
Lawyers aren't scum. What he felt personally about his cases is irrelevant to what he feels about his own family. - nigh7dagger, on 10/11/2007, -10/+9Original story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801370.html
None of that feminist ***** polluting the article. - Samus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5it made me LOL to see who the subject of this digg was, who would have guessed, the same hotness we were fapping over a few days ago. anyway, you guys talk about politics, i'll continue to check out this guy's hot daughter as it obviously pisses him off greatly.
- tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@slezzz
As a strong libertarian position, I'd say the government should not be interfering or subsidizing business at all. It should just be a legislature and a common defense from other countries. As a more moderate libertarian position, I'd say that legal defense should not be subsidized by the government, but that I can accept why energy (for example) might be in case of a national emergency. - chinaman1472, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0You guys realize for elranzer's point to actually be valid or invalid, it has to APPLY TO YOU. In a sense, you can't say ***** about it unless you've smoked marijuana or you actually have a son that's gay. If you don't, then it hasn't applied to you and whether you say it's true or not true isn't worth a damn.
It'd be like some news reporter in New York saying he knows what's going on with the war in Iraq. I know soldiers who have been over there and they can't even begin to describe it, much less some shmuck who thinks he does. - jumptoitnow, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2"Here's where I objectify women."
This discussion needs more examples of objectification of women: http://www.voteboob.com (nsfw language) - MusicalGenius, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5@ VinceNoir
I think you misunderstood me. I understand exactly what you mean and I agree with you to a point.
There is something you should realize. I tend to vote more Democrat nationally and more Republican in my local elections. I've yet to find a candidate that matches up to my beliefs even up to 20% if that makes sense. I am L.D.S., in Utah(republican paradise) and I consider myself more of a Democrat. I'm used to the "give up a few things to get this out of it" mind frame. What I was approaching is the fact that he was generalizing that Christians(though he didn't directly mention them, it is very obvious...we are on Digg for that matter) all look at those subjects the same way when it isn't true. I have L.D.S. friends who hate all Liberals, Democrats, Mexicans, Blacks, Asians, etc... Not one hates all, but I have encountered now and then someone who does. They really aren't friends to me because of this I guess... But most of the people who are either L.D.S. or Christian whom I associate myself with do not get involved in these biases. I know there are a lot of horrible things and people out there but I hate seeing people think that my beliefs mean I am biased because of some other Christian or L.D.S. guy who is ignorant. I used to argue things every which way possible but now more than ever I am looking at this in one light and one only...
Those who generalize no matter what group they are from and no matter what group they are generalizing against are just as wrong as those who they are criticizing if not more wrong in some cases. This was the point I was after.
To approach your comments...
If you vote for someone who doesn't represent everything you believe, this is fine...as long as you were careful in considering you vote for. But it still doesn't excuse someone from a law just because they disagree. I would vote for Mitt Romney if he made the final cute why? because I think as a business man he has been successful and has helped Massachusetts financially sustain itself and has done some bad but many great things there. But I would still be right for following my opinion on the vote why....cause though I disagree with him about Iraq I like him and I will still labor against this stupid war as long as I breathe.
Why? Because though I think Bush stole his presidency and wonder whether a vote even counts anymore I will still vote with hope, I will still fight for a cause and I will still question things and try to help them. If I do not, then I have failed. America is lazy, it doesn't mean I have to follow that trend. We are nothing but the new Rome which will one day fall or come very near it's death. If I do not care to try to convince others into what I think is right...then who will? Without those that do try no matter how bad it gets....the whole world would be in a MUCH graver situation than it's present condition.
So yes, I believe it is worth trying to make a difference. I promised myself I would never give up on voting no matter how much I questioned it's legitimacy. If everyone in America Cared enough to do something. NO ONE could stop it. There is a power there that is immovable. If everyone tried just a little then this whole Earth would be so better for it. I know there are others who try. but 10 people who try in a billion still get millions of things done in enough time....so why not make it 11....eventually it will be 100.
It doesn't matter how much we may disagree on a political or moral subject or policy because if everyone cared enough to make it work. We would all get a long so well that we would work a way out of the mess we are in.
If no one ever tried. America wouldn't have been born. - ChildeRoland420, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7@MusicalGenius,
"I'm against Marijuana ... I do not believe in giving freedoms for security."
How do you reconcile these obviously contradictory statements? - metaldwarf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4EH!, i work in the insurance industry we aint all scum.... just most of us.
- schuder, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1So people don't deserve a defense anymore? It is a defense lawyers job to be a schmuck everyone hates, but for all the people wrongly accused, they sometimes do a great service. Better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man rot behind bars.
- Thirityfive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1you for got cops.
- humanseemer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2wtf is a gay bathhouse? is that like, a den of sodomites or something?
- nigh7dagger, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0@cGt2099 (#7036796)
Spandex - dlowx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Am I the only one here that cares about the true story: His daughter is FU@KING HOT!
I hate lawyers too, but they marry hot women and make beautiful babies. Story over. - cbuddha42, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1He did his job. It doesn't make him the scum of the earth. The legal system works of both sides having zealous representation. If he provided anything less he would be in jail.
- Gohan5052, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1i know its not how it works but if youre innocent you shouldnt need a lawyer
- brainboy77, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2the second one is totally cheney
- crashingechelon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I'm really surprised at the photos that everyone said made her famous. When the article said that she was an internet sex icon I was really expecting some revealing hardcore/softcore images, but they were just simple images of her performing as an athlete.
She's really hot though, but come on give me a break, her dad is ridiculous. - gmavz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0okay there hater.. where's your doctorate?
- insomniacal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Let this be a lesson to all of us -- to regard others with the same sense of protectiveness we would feel toward our own family members. It's all fun and games until it strikes too close to home.
- MusicalGenius, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3@ChildeRoland420 You do not understand what I meant at all.
I never said the reason why I'm against Marijuana did I? Let me explain. By you using Marijuana I believe I am less secure. I wouldn't give up my own liberties and freedoms such as privacy to stay secure. I don't believe in this. But Marijuana effects other people. As long as you aren't taking another persons freedom to live their life unhindered than what problem is there?
The only problem is people who think they should get to do whatever they want believe that smoking or drug use only effects them self. This is a perversion of the facts. You are so quick to judge and look for something wrong with me that you didn't even think enough about why I typed to understand what I was implying.
Should I be aloud to kill someone...cause if I'm not that would mean I'm not free to do what I want right?
Giving up freedoms like smoking to keep a healthy society is VERY different from giving up my freedom to speak or freedom to worship to have a little sense of security. You obviously didn't understand something that you should have taken into consideration if you were going to debate something.
Can you catch someone in there words? Yes, you can. You did. I didn't explain enough. But use some common sense, this would have been pretty easy for you but you only attack me to try to win rather than to try and give reason. You know it. You have to know it, because it would be too stupid for someone not to get this. - Monstradamus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I don't get why she is so famous. I mean, yeah she's hot, but... there is plenty of hot girls out there. Why is /she/ the one who is so famous?
- Dominatus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6". But Marijuana effects other people."
Dumbest statement ever.
First of all, tell me exactly how some guy smoking pot in his own house, where he never leaves the house when he's high affects other people?
Of course he could leave the house and drive a car, he could do the same thing with alcohol. Should we illegalize that? He could do the same thing with sleeping pills too, how about those?
Cheating on your boyfriend/girlfriend affects other people too, should that be illegal? Sorry buddy, even if marijuana affected other people other than the user (which in its default, i.e. what-should-be-legal state it doesn't) that's still not the qualifier for what should and should not be legal. - KireGoTI, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1To everyone saying that it's easy to call lawyers scum until you need them:
Having needed a good lawyer, and used one, lawyers are still scum. I have a friend who was a lawyer, but switched to debt collection because it cleared his conscience. That's pretty remarkable. - outofstep, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2ya know, there are lawyers on both sides. Obviously not all are scum, since there have been several who have worked days and nights to defeat this creep.
- gerald13, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I represent all attorneys when I say I hope DiggzDE never passes the Bar.
A lot of attorney-hating here. As a pot smoking, Mac using atheist, I usually feel so much more welcomed by the Digg community. - nigh7dagger, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0@Dominatus (#7039109)
But instead of sitting on your couch smoking pot, you could be doing something proactive like inventing a cure for cancer or going to this chick's track meet to take some pics. - nigh7dagger, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0@gohan5052 (#7037649)
Okay, so if I framed you for murder and it looked foolproof to the DA, you wouldn't need a lawyer? Don't be naive. - crazybugger, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1you are dugg too!
- scispaz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1A public defender has a moral imperative to defend a client. Usually that involves pleabargining down a sentance.
This guy is not a public defender. He and his *team* are paid very handsomely to defend this sort of scum. He may not be the lead on defending these worthless attorneys, but he is still not what I'd consider a "good" person. From http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/bad-dads/24696/?page=2
"The outcome of the case was an appropriate rebuke to the Haidl defense team’s preposterous attempt to rewrite California’s rape laws. If their arguments had prevailed, it would no longer be necessary for a woman to give, say, oral consent before sex. Defense lawyer John Barnett, legendary in Southern California for representing cops accused of excessive force, argued that consent is implied if a man who penetrates a woman’s rectum with a foreign object can do so without causing massive injuries. *Only a willing sex partner could relax her sphincter muscle, claimed Barnett.*"
What is wrong with these people? - bruenig, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You anti-lawyer people aren't seeing the whole picture. Let's not even consider the innocent and jump right into those who are guilty since that seems to be your focus. You recognize that competent council is a requirement by law. If all lawyers refuse to represent a person, he cannot be convicted, he would constitutionally have to be released. If they represent their client poorly, the ruling will be overthrown. Without defense lawyers, any convictions would be impossible, unless of course you wish to ignore the 6th amendment. I know it is fun to be generic and go "lawyers suck yeah" but come on, I expect more of diggers.
- bluesdealer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Our legal system is ***** up. However, this is mostly because most juries are composed of morons, but our system happens to be better than anything else out there and lawyers are a vital part of this. It's absurd to claim that this man doesn't respect women because of statements he made while defending a client. That's his JOB and is an honorable thing to do. It would be dishonest and unethical to slack off from defending your client because of personal hangups.
- bluesdealer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@nigh7dagger
"Original story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801370.html"
Don't dig nigh7dagger down... that's the real story here. Not some feminist website's misconception of a lawyer's duty. By the way... she is pretty hot.
" http://www.dyestat.com/3us/6out/NikeOutdoorNats/album-vic-jumps-g/images/154GM8W1004.jpg "
Wowie wow wow. - ChildeRoland420, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@ MusicalGenius,
"... By you using Marijuana I believe I am less secure. I wouldn't give up my own liberties and freedoms such as privacy to stay secure..."
So, you wouldn't give up your liberties to stay secure, but you'll give mine up for a FEELING of security?
"The only problem is people who think they should get to do whatever they want believe that smoking or drug use only effects them self."
How does me sitting around on my porch munching Doritos while discussing religion, politics, and philosophy with my stoned friends affect you or your security? I didn't say I should be able to do whatever I want, I said, I should be able to do whatever I want IF it doesn't infringe on another's rights. Please give me an example of how marijuana deprives you of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, if you can.
"Should I be aloud to kill someone...cause if I'm not that would mean I'm not free to do what I want right?"
So, me getting high is equivalent to me killing you? Murder infringes on someone's right to live, how does smoking infringe on anyone's rights?
"Giving up freedoms like smoking to keep a healthy society is VERY different from giving up my freedom to speak or freedom to worship to have a little sense of security."
No, it's not. Murder is different from smoking, but FREEDOM is FREEDOM. as long as I'm not infringing on yours, no one should infringe on mine. Once you take one freedom away, it just puts the government one step closer to removing the rest of them. What if worshiping involves getting high (in some religions it does)? Are you afraid that by smoking I may achieve higher levels of consciousness than you are capable of, and therefore pose a threat to your completely oblivious view of the world?
- victrola, on 10/11/2007, -63/+5I'd agree with you about the lawyers, soratobou, why would anybody want to help out criminals unless they sympathized?
- faithhealer, on 10/11/2007, -12/+78@victrola, lawyers defend criminals because they believe in the same system of justice that our founding fathers believed in and put into the U.S. Constitution. I guess no one cares about that old thing anymore.
- Azimuth1, on 10/11/2007, -6/+53Because it's their job?
- jimsterbell, on 10/11/2007, -6/+109if no-one represents the defendant, its not much of a court case is it?
- chris9902, on 10/11/2007, -5/+84apparently "innocent until proven guilty" is lost of some people.
- mrc22091, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Everyone gets someone to defend them. It'd be a terribly unfair case otherwise, and the lawyers get paid.
- bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -13/+5"apparently "innocent until proven guilty" is lost of some people."
You mean like George Bush, and Dick Cheney?
The real job of a defense attorney is to make sure the police and DA are abiding by the law in seeking your punishment. - rosefu, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5@bemenaker,
No no, you misunderstand! It's innocent until proven guilty by torture.
[/sarcasm] - underrun, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4The point is not that these defense lawyers are bad people (and good attorneys ), it's that the system in which they work is flawed and allows them to win even though it is "wrong" in the eyes of most.
- victrola, on 10/11/2007, -15/+74And yes, she doesn't deserve it, but she'll be okay. At the end of the day, she'll go to college and have a big, protective boyfriend who keeps her safe and considers himself the luckiest man alive. worse things have happened to women.
- jackhole, on 10/11/2007, -59/+19Well that was pretty sexist. I think someone who can throw themselves ten feet in the air with a pole probably has the strength of will and character to manage this on their own.
- driftin079, on 10/11/2007, -4/+54@jackhole
You can judge somebody's character based on their athletic prowess? You must not catch many NBA games... - licoricewhip, on 10/11/2007, -22/+3Victrola, if I might ask, where did your name come from? It is used quite often in the Thief game series of which I am a big fan. If it came from Thief, I appreciate the reference.
- rivalius13, on 10/11/2007, -19/+1Oh and he WILL be the luckiest man alive.
- br0ck, on 10/11/2007, -7/+28"and have a big, protective boyfriend who keeps her safe"
I guess she'll have to upgrade because her current boyfriend looks like a little twerp that even your average agoraphobic basement dweller could take out in a fair fight: http://celebrityhubris.com/images/photo/520740457/Allison-Stokke-Pole-Vaulter-63.html - VSLOATHE, on 10/11/2007, -0/+21Kids these days...
A Victrola was a record player. Named for its inventor. - aMiTnaRain, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5shes just trying to break new state records with 9 inch poles
- williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3With any luck she'll marry a cop who jerks off on strippers because he can get away with it, beats her, then shoots her dad.
- eatbeefjerky, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8I don't see what the problem on her end is... her picture has been distributed all over the Internet and many of the male demographic think she is attractive. It was just a picture of her fixing her hair, for Christ's sake. Sure, it's a little weird, but worse things have happened.
As far as her dad goes... someone has to defend the accused. Not everyone who goes to trial is guilty. - jackhole, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1@driftin079
Athletics is about confidence, as is self-esteem. I don't think NBA players would need the support of a protective woman just because other women ogle over sexy pictures of them. - MattZed, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@br0ck
Her boyfriend looks like that aicha kid from a while back.
Edit: ahh here it is, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODmQSPGW6-k - nigh7dagger, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2@br0ck (#7032603) said: ""and have a big, protective boyfriend who keeps her safe"
I guess she'll have to upgrade because her current boyfriend looks like a little twerp that even your average agoraphobic basement dweller could take out in a fair fight: http://celebrityhubris.com/images/photo/520740457/Allison-Stokke-Pole-Vaulter-63.html"
You mean I have a chance?!? Thanks br0ck! - rosefu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I couldn't help but choke when I read this. His daughter. A pole jumper. The mind boggles.
Reposted:
His crude badgering of the victim in the case:
“You dance around a pole, don’t you?” Stokke asked.
Superior Court Judge William Evans ruled the question irrelevant. Stokke saw he was scoring points with the jury.
“Do you place a pole between your legs and go up and down?” he asked.
“No,” said Lucy before the judge interrupted.
“You do the dancing to get men to do what you what them to do,” said Stokke. “And the same thing happened out there on that highway [in Laguna Beach]. You wanted [Park] to take some sex!”
Lucy said, “No sir,” the sex wasn’t consensual. Stokke—usually a mellow fellow with a nasally, monotone voice—gripped his fists, stood upright, clenched his jaws and then thundered, “You had a buzz on [that night], didn’t you?”
As if watching a volley in tennis, the heads of the male-dominated jury spun from Stokke back to Lucy, who sat in the witness box. She said no, but it was hopeless. Jurors stared at her without a hint of sympathy.
http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/illegally-park-ed/26661/?page=2
- sidekickeli, on 10/11/2007, -18/+76He's a lawyer. It's his job to defend these people. You can't condemn people without giving them a fair trial.
- Pestilence, on 10/11/2007, -19/+50Mounting a defense on behalf of a client is one thing. Repeatedly 'defending' by attempting to defame sexual assault victims is entirely different. It's despicable.
- faithhealer, on 10/11/2007, -7/+61When a defense lawyer defends an accused criminal, it does not mean they think what they are accused of doing is "ok." They are upholding the Constitution and the value of our judicial system so that when a jury finds a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it actually means something and justice is served. Or sometimes the accused person actually is innocent and gets a chance to prove it.
- irvman21, on 10/11/2007, -9/+41Clearly you have never been falsely accused of rape. You would have a different opinion if you had been.
- mike17032, on 10/11/2007, -11/+18"Mounting a defense on behalf of a client is one thing. Repeatedly 'defending' by attempting to defame sexual assault victims is entirely different. It's despicable."
No, its his job. If you arnt doing everything within the law to win your case, then thats unethical. - Pestilence, on 10/11/2007, -24/+3What was Hitler's job?
- griz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7You can't? Tell that to the people in Gitmo.
- Sambone67, on 10/11/2007, -7/+15"No, its his job. If you arnt doing everything within the law to win your case, then thats unethical."
That nails it right there. "Win your case". It seems the justice system in this country is more concerned with WINNING than actually discovering the TRUTH of a situation. If a defense attorney knows someone is guilty and still gets them off is that justice? - RockinRoel, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2@pestilence:
Did you really have to apply Godwin's Law?
Oh, and trying to win is a way of trying to find the truth.
If two camps are trying to win, they might get to the truth. - geekee, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3"Mounting a defense on behalf of a client is one thing. Repeatedly 'defending' by attempting to defame sexual assault victims is entirely different. It's despicable."
Have you learned nothing from the Duke Lacrosse team case? - finsbury, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3He's right. It's not lawyers, but the law itself that's the ass. If procedure allows for these kinds of things to happen, then we need to examine how perceived miscarriages of justice can occur and change the law accordingly. Lawyers acting like this just highlight the fact that the system needs to change. And, luckily, there's a whole load of people with the power to do this. Lawyers are opportunists, not haters. They only operate by navigating through a system of opportunity..
- JayyMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I blame the jury, ***** loonies
- mille716, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1A defense lawyers job is not to let the guilty get off from crimes or win by anyway they can. If they are defending someone they know to be guilty they're supposed to advise them to plead guilty and work to ensure the punishment is acceptable and not overly cruel. I'm saying this not on the merits of the stripper case but in response to everyone who is saying "its their job to get their clients free".
- mille716, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Also, in California you can be disbarred for making statements you know are untrue in a courtroom.
4.1:101 Model Rule Comparison
MR 4.1 provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person... B&PC ¤ 6068(d) prohibits California lawyers from making false statements of fact or law to any judge or judicial officer. In addition, B&PC ¤ 6106 provides that the commission of any act of moral turpitude or dishonesty constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension. By prohibiting dishonesty by lawyers, B&PC ¤ 6106 is sufficiently broad to prohibit false statements by lawyers to third parties.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/ca/narr/CA_NARR_4.HTM
- Pissoff, on 10/11/2007, -24/+5I tried to read it but there's too many pictures of fat chicks near the article, I had to page away before I got sick.
- skatastrophy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Here's a forum post with about 30 pics of her instead of fat chicks. Be happy :)
http://forums.superiorpics.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1265490/page/0/fpart/3/vc/1
- skatastrophy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Here's a forum post with about 30 pics of her instead of fat chicks. Be happy :)
- TedwardRoberts, on 10/11/2007, -8/+30FTA: “She got what she wanted,” Al Stokke said, of the stripper. “She’s an overtly sexual person.”
I enjoyed that line- AnteChronos, on 10/11/2007, -15/+2Edit: Ack! Replied in the wrong place. Please bury.
- jessdub99, on 10/11/2007, -20/+6What a toolbox. If what I'm reading is true, It'd be nice to see this guy out. I'd buy him a beer and tell him thanks for producing such a lovely daughter who has given me so many orgasms. Then I'd ask if he's ever seen American Pie as he sips his beer. Jackass.
- AnteChronos, on 10/11/2007, -7/+30"What a toolbox."
It's his JOB to defend these people. Note that "defend" in this case is used in the legal sense, not in the sense of "thinking what they were accused of doing was okay". - jessdub99, on 10/11/2007, -16/+11So regardless of a persons actions as long as it's considered their "job" they're never wrong? That's ridiculous.
- Enfenestrate, on 10/11/2007, -10/+11@AnteChronos:
But those comments of his are exactly why there's so much hate for lawyers. We all understand that criminals need to be defended in court, but that doesn't mean that we have to approve of the methods of guys like this. I don't care for people, in court of not, who pretty much justify a rape because the girl had on revealing clothes. - Pissoff, on 10/11/2007, -6/+18I think the cop got off (cough) too easy (cough), but that doesn't mean you should freak out about the lawyer who defended him.
Maybe someday you will get wrongfully accused of something horrible, then are unable to get a good defense because all the lawyers you talk to believe "what you did" was wrong. Then you can go to jail and rot, while thinking about the need for equal and fair representation in our justice system. The lawyer got the man a not guilty plea, the jury was dumb enough to go along with his comments.
Also it's noteworthy that the quotes mentioned in the "article" are just the blogger's words, I don't see any links to the source.
Last thought, why did this woman sit there the whole time he was working up to that? Couldn't she driven away before her sweater got a protein boost? I mean gross and its wrong, but wtf? - AnteChronos, on 10/11/2007, -9/+9@jessdub99
"So regardless of a persons actions as long as it's considered their "job" they're never wrong?"
What actions? The man pleaded the defendants' cases to the best of his ability. That's what lawyers do. The defending lawyer's job is to do his/her best to make the defendant look innocent (or to make the crime appear as minimal as possible). The prosecuting lawyer's job is to make the defendant appear as guilty as possible. From those extremes, the judge or jury can then make a decision. If lawyers didn't argue the case before them to the limits of their abilities, then it would be possible for a lawyer's own prejudices to interfere with the justice process.
@Enfenestrate
"I don't care for people, in court of not, who pretty much justify a rape because the girl had on revealing clothes."
You seem not to understand that the lawyer wasn't justifying rape. He was defending a client. There is a huge difference. As I mentioned in my response to jessdub99, a lawyer has to do his/her best to defend his/her client, doing everything possible to minimize the crime (or the defendant's involvement therein). The prosecutor probably did his best to make the cop sound like he killed kittens and ate babies. That's how the justice system works. Remember that it's not up to the lawyers to actually convict anyone, and if the defending lawyer didn't attempt to minimize the crime if at all possible, then the jury might be swayed too far toward guilt by an overzealous prosecutor.
- AnteChronos, on 10/11/2007, -7/+30"What a toolbox."
- kenvsryu, on 10/11/2007, -13/+1Uphold the Constitution by defending the scum of the earth. A real American hero.
/Bud - FriendsOfWario, on 10/11/2007, -22/+6his daughter loves teh *****
- Sucat, on 10/11/2007, -15/+40Dugg down simple because of the source. I hate biased dugg material. It just encourages irrational mob behavior.
- boyasunder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15I'll give you annoyance at bias in news reports, but there's nothing wrong with digging a story on a site that is clear and upfront in its worldview. We digg conservative and liberal sites all the time. As long as you can tell from what perspective the author is coming from (and it's pretty clear when it's something called "Feministing") I don't see a thing wrong with putting it up for people to check out.
- TheNameless88, on 10/11/2007, -12/+1Owned. Dugg.
- diggabrown, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I uh, didn't know it was illegal to do that. Guess I better be more careful and point it in a different direction in the future.
- thewebguy, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9I'm going to have to go both ways on this. I will chuckle at the irony, but at the same time, I don't resent a lawyer who defends people who have committed heinous crimes.
I believe strongly in the constitution, even when parts of it seem unfair.
Also, feministing.com? Please..- RockinRoel, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5@socraticchrist:
There are 2 kinds of feminists:
True feminists and 'feminists'. This is the second kind of feminists, those who go too far and see themselves offended in every single way you can imagine. Real feminists want equal rights and possibilities, they don't bitch about stupid things.
You can compare it with gay people. There are the serious ones and those who go on parades.
- RockinRoel, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5@socraticchrist:
- bmwboy2844, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Pics or it didn't happen...
- aMiTnaRain, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5VNSFW
www.sleazydream.com
2nd row, third one from the left.
feministing.com > for a second i read fetishfisting.com...anyways...
- aMiTnaRain, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5VNSFW
- OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 11/13/2007, -6/+104Dear Mr. Stokke,
I'd hit it (repeatedly).
Sincerely,
the internet(s) - dheaddy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Ohhhh so THAT'S who Alison Stokke is!
- Cozmcphish, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Google Cache grabbed it: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:mnJXUNUrJO4J:feministing.com/archives/007124.html+http://feministing.com/archives/007124.html&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
- killiansman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+27haha, how many of you googled her after reading this?
- SwellGuy007, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13My bad
It almost sounds dirty when you ask like that .... I threw her on the couch and googled her a good one :p - HenryFatass, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I, for one, did not google her after reading the article. I just came back here knowing that some faithful digger would have already done the googling and posted the results.
Thanks skatastrophy
- SwellGuy007, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13My bad
- Sidzilla, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17I think we all agree that the lawyer's daughter didn't have it coming to her despite her father's transgressions. The point of the story is the father's reaction to it happening being so ***** hypocritical. Yes, we need an adversarial system where the defendant is given the most vigorous defense possible. Where it went wrong was when we started accepting perjury by defense attorneys and defamation of the victim as a defense. While I feel pity for the daughter, I feel contempt for the father.
- Pissoff, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9The entire situation is bad, the judge that allowed such comments, the jury that took approved of them, the victims ( including his daughter ).
- Gottschalk, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5The guy is not a hypocrite. Defending someone in court versus approving of their conduct are different things.
- matsiescruff, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17I completely agree with you. The daughter in no way "deserves" the unwanted attention she has received, but the father's actions in prior (and arguably more serious) incidents that involved the degradation of women show a horrible hypocrisy.
Some girl got gang-raped with Snapple bottles and pool sticks and he says that because the girl was unconscious when this happened there was no pain as a result? That's not defending your client, that's degrading the victim and acting as if a gang-rape is somehow okay if the victim is unconscious. Wtf? There's a difference between a good defense tactic and a misogynist appealing to other misogynists.
- johnnick, on 10/11/2007, -2/+25To paraphrase a frequent internet disclaimed, IAAL, and the problem with lawyers is the 95% of them who make the rest of us look bad. ;-)
As many people have noted, the right to an attorney to defend yourself is enshrined in our law. The Founding Fathers had seen what unchecked governmental power could do, and placed a number of restrictions in the Constitution to protect the individual from the State. Criminal defense lawyers play an important part in our justice system, and are frequently maligned for doing so. The point of a defense lawyer is to force the State to prove its case. To zealously advocate for the rights of the lawyer's client to make sure that the government is not abusing its power and/or convicting an innocent person.
The government has tremendous interest in appearing tough on crime, and that has led to a number of ridiculous prosecutions. There is no milage for any government official in appearing "soft on crime." The government has virtually unlimited resources when it comes to investigating and prosecuting a crime, and has police forces and cadres of state and federal prosecutors to do so. Those people have an interest in arresting and convicting as many people as possible. Police and prosecutors do great, essential, dangerous and frequently thankless work. Although the government has significant resources when compared to an individual, police forces and prosecutors are all overworked and underfunded, too. The way they advocate for more funding and more resources is by showing success at arresting and prosecuting alleged criminals. Then there are the bad apples who either through ignorance, prejudice, laziness or corruption are attempting to subvert the law. The only defense against over-zealous or improper prosecution is those people who are willing to defend all those who are charged with crimes, to force the State to prove its case, or in circumstances where someone may be guilty, to explain their actions so that the penalty assessed is appropriate.
Some defense attorneys take it too far. Some believe that every person they get off is "one for their side" against what they believe are unjust prosecutions. Similarly, some police officers and prosecutors go too far and figure that even if they arrest the wrong person, that person was probably guilty of something.
But to say that all criminal defense attorneys are scum because of what they do is beyond unfair, it is actually a slap at the foundations of our system. And to say that all lawyers are scum because you don't like what happens in a few highly publicized cases demonstrates a level of ignorance and prejudice that I hope you aren't actually capable of.
So, do I agree with everything defense attorneys do and say? No. Do I think some of them deserve being called scum-sucking bottom feeders? Yes. But that's on a case-by-case basis, and my list of people in that category includes far more non-lawyers than it does lawyers.- Kingster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Bravo, johnnick... That was very possibly one of the best comments I've read on Digg lately, and I agree completely. Nicely done.
- HornyFox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I'm sure you can do your lawyer job and "adjust the balance of justice" without being an ***** and make victims look like bitches.
- johnnick, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@Hornyfox -
Yes, you can. In the same way that it's possible to be a politician or a car salesman or an insurance salesman and be honest and well meaning. There are bad people who are lawyers, just like there are bad people in every industry. Hear a few bad things about Catholic priests recently? There are also people with obnoxious personalities who are lawyers, and they may be very good lawyers, just suffering from a cranial-rectal inversion.
The most frequently annoying thing about life is that it involves dealing with other people - regardless of their profession. Some of them are assholes. Some of them are sociopaths. And some of them mean well and come off badly, anyway.
While we have our share of undesirable personalities, the legal profession is one of the only ones that actually has an expectation that every lawyer will either take on cases for free or will financially support Legal Aid at a level appropriate to the amount of time that the lawyer is expected to provide pro bono work. How often does your job expect you to go do whatever it is you do for someone else who needs your services but can't pay for it? Law firms compete with each other as a matter of pride for who can do the most pro bono work. Does your company compete with others in your city for who can do the most charity work?
Tell ya what, you get everyone on digg to be tolerant and reasonably polite, and I'll get all the lawyers to stop acting like jerks. You go first. :-)
- melllvar37, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2dugg for the header and the url
- motabus, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3id slap my salami all over her (hope her dad sees this hehehe)
- hollowex, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5There's a reason defense lawyers do not ask their clients if they "did it". Lawyers are to seek the truth on both sides, prosecution and defense. For him to say these things as a defense requires him to believe them. Stop clothing this as upholding the Constitution. It's intellectually dishonest...
- AnteChronos, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4"For him to say these things as a defense requires him to believe them."
No, actually it doesn't. It just means he wants the judge or jury to consider them, and demands that the prosecutor prove him wrong.
- AnteChronos, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4"For him to say these things as a defense requires him to believe them."
- SwellGuy007, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6I got a few lines into the story then side tracked to look for pictures of Allison to see what the hub-bub was about.
Uh, what were we talking about? - halavais, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8The argument on Feministing seems to be that Stokke "crossed the line" in his defense. The line he didn't cross was a legal one. It is his job to zealously defend his client. If he can make statements that apply outside of the courtroom, great. But if he did anything less that what he could legally do to keep his client out of jail, he would have failed to have lived up to the ethical standards of his profession.
People don't like attorneys because attorneys have to face ethical quandaries every day, and make sense of them. They live in an ethical gray zone, and are comfortable with that, while most of us are under the illusion that ethics never come into conflict with one another.- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8Thats fine. But if his daughter ever gets Gang Rapped and it happens that the kids are even richer than he is and they get off. I think he will change is mind about the whole ethical treatment of women.
- Pestilence, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1gang rapped, eh... interesting
- stevenhatfield, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1All this defense atty has to do is switch sides, and get about 1000 times better at his job, and then he'll be Sebastian "Shark" Stark... he's already got the hot daughter :-)
- Gottschalk, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9You know there was this one lawyer who was a real scumbag. He defended a bunch of rich, white guys that raped a poor, black stripper girl. They were a bunch of spoiled jocks at a major university. What an *****.
Oh wait.- zoweee, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14You know, all this "he's just zealously defending his clients, you hate the Constitution OMGBBQ" crap is incredibly ridiculous. There is a moral line regarding zealous defence, and I am sorry but smearing a rape victim to defend a client, even if that client is innocent, crosses the line. Is it legal? Sure. Do idiots defend that course of action by pointing at the Constitution and calling such actions patriotic? Double sure.
Additionally, are there occasions where one HAS to resort to defaming the prosecution? Yes, of course there are. But "she got what she wanted, she's an overtly sexual person" is ***** disgusting. It humiliates the victim (and the statement itself proves she was victimized) in order to play to the base stereotypes of the jury. - tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1@Gotts
Dugg. Definitely. - Pestilence, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Being falsely accused of rape can be easily avoided by not hanging around in the presence of jacked up psycho stripper slut crazy bitches and other similar situations.
If, somehow you still manage to fall into that trap, you can be sure that it will be a scumbag sociopath freakazoid PROSECUTING ATTORNEY that will be trying to keep you there.
- zoweee, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14You know, all this "he's just zealously defending his clients, you hate the Constitution OMGBBQ" crap is incredibly ridiculous. There is a moral line regarding zealous defence, and I am sorry but smearing a rape victim to defend a client, even if that client is innocent, crosses the line. Is it legal? Sure. Do idiots defend that course of action by pointing at the Constitution and calling such actions patriotic? Double sure.
- Van3ck, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13This website doesn't seem to be biased at all... nope, not at all.
I trust it 100%- RockinRoel, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4For the blond girls: that's meant sarcastically.
Oh God, Feministing would hate me for that quote!
Really, no offense to blond girls, I know some really smart ones, I know some really dumb ones. They're like regular people. I'm mocking those who mock blond girls, just like my English teacher does. - GeneralGore, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Next we will see a website called "The Male Chauvinist" about how he was just doing his job.
- RockinRoel, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4For the blond girls: that's meant sarcastically.
- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3LOL Im sorry the bastard got what he deserves. I do feel sorry for his daughter. But im sure there are lots of benefits that you get when your dads a lawyer. This is no different than when a Homophobe has a Gay son or when Fundies have atheists kids. That is just a for the world to show you how ignorant you are.
- Gottschalk, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6How dare Atticus Finch defend that black dude!
- declanthedork, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5This guy is a Crooked Lawyer, as they call it in the business. This guy knows what he's doing is wrong and that he's just doing it for a ***** of money.
- Shaman760, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19Karma's a bitch.
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Just like how one of OJ's lawyer's daughters has a sex tape floating around now too. Too bad he died before he could see it and see how rotten of a person and a father he was.
Porn Industry Motto: "Thank God for Bad Dads" - MarkOfTheDead, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1haha my first thought when reading this. logged in just to digg you up.
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Just like how one of OJ's lawyer's daughters has a sex tape floating around now too. Too bad he died before he could see it and see how rotten of a person and a father he was.
- deathweaver108, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I have no problem with lawyers. I'm just sad that we need SO many laws that to adequately defend someone you have to spend a life time studies the law.
- ThatGeek, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12not all lawyers are dicks (atticus finch FTW). But this guy truly is. "she was an overtly sexual person, she got what she wanted." I mean wtf? who says that.
- kjizzle, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Buried for linking to a site containing the word feminist in the url.
Also..did anyone do a double take at first? I thought the address was femininfisting.com hahaha - lechatron, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11"Allan Stokke defended a cop who jerked off on a stripper during a routine traffic stop."
That doesn't sound "routine" to me.- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I guess you have never been a cop that pulled over a stripper then.
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12... and the Blonde says "Not another breathalyzer test!"
- fatkiduluv, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2Bigger issues, dug down.
- feebie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I don't know anything about this, but if you were a lawyer representing a criminal, and you feel that your client SHOULD be going to jail...
(because I just can't fathom anyone defending someone who had been for instance, caught red-handed murdering or raping someone) do you have the ability to go against defending said criminal after you had agreed to defend?
Or say you were defending someone you felt at first wasn't as guilty as charged, but through constant interviews and being with this person, you realize they are actually quite deserving of their charge. Would you be able to testify against them? Would you be able to provide something like a confession by the criminal if they gave it to you? Or are you forced to just back out of the case? Could you offer yourself up as a spy, someone this criminal may trust and divulge all their dark secrets to, and turn around and use it as evidence against them?
I know if I was supposed to be defending someone who I thought was guilty, it would be very against the fibre of my being to continue defending them, and I would very much want to see them be punished for their crimes.
I'm just curious.- Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4"Would you be able to provide something like a confession by the criminal if they gave it to you?"
No.
Client Attourney Privelage.
You cannot reveal criminal confessions by your client without their permission.
You cannot be subpoena'd to do so.
Why? Simple...most civilians don't KNOW the laws well enough.
You need to be able to give a lawyer the full story to know the full extent of legal implications. With that full story known, you may lose the right to plea bargain... or you may be completely not guilty of the given crime and guilty of another (5th amendment)....................
or you might be not guilty at all, but the facts might allow the prosecution to make you LOOK that way. It's the same reason you should never speak to a police officer without a lawyer present. Their job is to arrest people they think might be guilty and then prove anyone arrested IS guilty... the genuine innocence or guilt may enter their MIND or MORALS but not their JOB - feebie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@novagenesis
Thanks for answering my questions! I guess I can see a completely different side of the story I never would've thought of.
It seems somewhat convoluted to me though. If you, and you only, had a significant piece to the puzzle, but it was against the law for you to provide that...
man..it just doesn't seem like real justice to me.
Some lawyers might be assholes...but I feel bad for any lawyer that might be put in the predicament I explained above. - Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4@feebie
Happens more than you think...but at the same time, it's important, like a priest having protection...
Nobody in the justice system has the job of the abstract concept of right and justice...
The Police Officer arrests someone from a warrant (or, often, on probable cause...he thinks he smells a drug, etc)
That's not about right or wrong, just the concept of a law potentially broken.
The DA has one job. Obtaining convictions. He has a quota like a salesman does. It's the only way to make sure he's doing the job, and well. In a world where nobody -knows- right from wrong, you can't reward a prosecutor if he lets someone off for being innocent.
The judge has one job, seeing that all the rules of the court are followed. It's not his job to decide right from wrong, only legal from illegal.
That leaves the jury to judge right and wrong. Firstly, they're NEVER told they have the right of jury nullification. They are -rarely- experts in any field involved in the case. Often, they have key points of the case hidden for legal reasons (did you know if a police officer pulls you over and beats the crap out of you for personal reasons, a tape YOU might have is not admissible as evidence in a criminal case due to the police expectation of privacy?). In the end, they see a tiny subset of what the lawyers on both sides see as the most important. That's it.
I'd love to hear a true story of a prosecutor dropping a case after finding out about an obscure alibi the defendant has that can be made inadmissible for some reason or another... But I -have- heard stories the other way around. The defendant needs a LAWYER he can safely tell the full story to, at the very least to form a mitigating defense against a pure onslaught prosecution. - tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3People don't seem to understand that this is the reality. I wish they did. And mor epeople should know about jury nullification.
- feebie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I think this topic would make for an excellent idea for a novel, or a movie.
Its a pretty interesting topic to me. That our society is so intricately constructed on what we strive for in fairness and equality, that the laws we see as logical and fair can completely hinder our abilities to even get there in the first place.
I think what is the most interesting though, is that here we are right now, discussing the difference between right/wrong and the law.
The whole reason our societies have made certain things illegal, is because we feel they are wrong.
Murdering someone is illegal because it is a popular opinion that it's wrong. But since right and wrong are too linked to emotion, and too abstract to be used fairly in a lawful courtroom, we have to sever the ideas of right and wrong and look to an emotionally detached set of rules that govern us into strange ridiculous corners.
- Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4"Would you be able to provide something like a confession by the criminal if they gave it to you?"
- foss3, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4To the father: HA-*****-HA bitch. You ***** deserve it.
I don't believe in karma, but this is ***** brilliant.
Honestly I don't sympathize with the daughter that much in this situation. I'm sure besides this incident, her life was completely pampered compared with 99% of the world's population. People go through worse ***** every day. (Especially some of the victims of the people her father defended). Now I'm not saying that all those people were guilty, but I seriously believe many of them were and he knew it in his mind. Yeah ok it's his job to defend his clients to his fullest ability, but EVERYONE here who has half a brain knows that his motivation is NEVER what is right or wrong, but winning the case, making a better reputation for himself as a lawyer, and ultimately making an assload more money.
Additionally, at the end of the day, she will end up with an easy life full of privilege and comfort better than most of the people in this country, much less the world.
So to the father, I say to you, HA-*****-HA bitch. You ***** deserve it and the whole internet is laughing at this fabulous turn of karmic beauty.
Sometimes life is great. - foss3, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1double-post
- Johnagain, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10There is a difference between defending a client against charges, and trying to "get a client off". Most lawers today try to get thier client off, and consider it a victory. Is it really a victory if a guilty client walks? Is it really justice? Did the client really get a fair trial?
Dear Stokke:
1) “She got what she wanted,” Al Stokke said, of the stripper. “She’s an overtly sexual person.” If she wanted it, she would have asked for it, not complained when it happened.
2) "There's [no pain] that is felt, because she was unconscious." So if someone rapes your daughter while she is sleeping, or passed out from drinking a bit too much while in college, no harm, no foul? Think about that for a while. Think.
Stop trying to get the guilty off, and start seeing that they get a fair trial and a reasonable sentance.- Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3The prosecuting lawyer isn't trying to convict you of crimes you committed to the punishment you've earned..they're looking to get convictions as numbers. I know people who have been found guilty in court who had alibis that could be kept out of court.
The defense lawyers have the same rights. Take the innocence project. For its sampling on capital rape-murder, there was a wrongful conviction rate floor of 3.3%. That's 330 people per 10,000. A lot more than 10,000 people are convicted of crimes each year. One would assume capital punishment would be the MOST forgiving, with the SMALLEST reasonable doubt letting a prisoner free... those figures are ugly whether that assumption is true OR false. - williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Do you think anyone working on The Innocence Project ever said "She got what she wanted?" about an accuser?
- Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2"Do you think anyone working on The Innocence Project ever said "She got what she wanted?" about an accuser?"
Nope, they had the luxury of DNA.
Especially with rape, there's a HUGE problem that the WORD of the accuser is often taken as solid evidence.
Problem is, if she led him on, that's a mitigating circumstance and needs to be taken into account. Making it look more extreme may be necessary because the prosecutor will make it look like you're a horrible rapist who lives for the joy of making innocent women suffer.
If she DIDN'T let her will known during the event, it's NOT RAPE. Sometimes people will get convicted after the "victim" admits this, and some courts will take "i felt too intimidated to say no or resist, so I said yes", which means ANY woman for ANY reason could get a sexual partner put in prison if he doesn't have a good lawyer.
I'm not saying this is common, and I'm not saying that in THESE cases the defendants were innocent, but I can see the importance of that line of questioning in a court of law. A male rape defendant already has odds stacked heavily against him, innocent or not. - nigh7dagger, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0@johnagain (#7033184)
If I'm not mistaken, if a client admits they're guilty, the lawyer can't not represent him on those grounds.
- Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3The prosecuting lawyer isn't trying to convict you of crimes you committed to the punishment you've earned..they're looking to get convictions as numbers. I know people who have been found guilty in court who had alibis that could be kept out of court.
- sbgskl, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7I don't see the problem. A lawyer's duty is to represent his client, not his own personal views. In any court of law, BOTH sides require it, regardless of how despicable one may seem to you.
- sisko, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3digg really shows its collective stupidity when a majority of posters can't seem to separate a job and one's personal belief. Just because you can't bifurcate duty and opinion doesn't mean there aren't occupations where they coexist. Or do you also assume every military person likes to kill other people?
It's a different issue altogether if the lawyer in question was doing a ***** job in a legal standpoint.- feebie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2If I were a lawyer, I wouldn't be able to defend people who I truly felt were guilty. It's a thing of morals, of my own personal belief. It's probably also why I am not a lawyer, but that is beside the point. I commend any lawyer who can stand up for what they feel is true justice. Because most lawyers don't, because it's their job to defend or prosecute, real "justice" is almost thrown out the window. That is why people dislike lawyers. They might be doing a great job at defending a criminal, but meanwhile the victim is seeing their rapist being let off without sentence. Is that really fair?
Any "military person" can choose not to kill. If they feel it is immoral to do so, they have every right not to point and shoot a gun. If that results in their own death due to enemy fire, so be it. Just because it is their job, doesn't mean they have to do it if they think it's immoral. They chose to be in the military, so they're going to have to face the hard facts. But they do not HAVE to kill.
So, if someone is charged with rape or murder or what have you, and if there is significant evidence that proves that this person is guilty as charged, I feel it is a duty to everyone involved in the case to see this person punished. This is where I feel it is appropriate for beliefs to step in.
Does that really make me stupid? - poornbroken, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@sisko
"If I were a lawyer, I wouldn't be able to defend people who I truly felt were guilty" yes. that is true for ANY lawyer. that is why there is a trial. innocent until proven guilty, remember? lawyers have it tough because, they are duty bound to that mantra. even though it may seem that their client is guilty as sin... can you ever be 100% sure that that person did it? - Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@poornbroken
Just to add weight to your statement...the Innocence Project found 25% of DNA-overturned convictions included false confessions. The confession is perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in a courtroom. "I murdered him" or "I raped her" is more shocking to a jury than a murder weapon and some fingerprints. - tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Actually, have you seen all the people who hate the troops because they think they're killers. Granted, it's not most people, but some people actually think that, especially if you go back to Vietnam.
- feebie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2If I were a lawyer, I wouldn't be able to defend people who I truly felt were guilty. It's a thing of morals, of my own personal belief. It's probably also why I am not a lawyer, but that is beside the point. I commend any lawyer who can stand up for what they feel is true justice. Because most lawyers don't, because it's their job to defend or prosecute, real "justice" is almost thrown out the window. That is why people dislike lawyers. They might be doing a great job at defending a criminal, but meanwhile the victim is seeing their rapist being let off without sentence. Is that really fair?
- atari42, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I see this thread has basically divided into two separate sides.
Those who see lawyers as a constitutional necessity and those who think they are scum.
Just like this thread perhaps its the legal system is to blame....two opposing sides....both sides only interested in the win....if justice is not done...what does it matter?.....just so long as one side has outflanked or out-lied or out-loopholed the other.
What if a trial was based on discovering the truth? not just highly paid lawyers being cleverer than the opponent?- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2That would be unfair to rich people and I bielieve it is them who are making the laws.
- poornbroken, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1the problem with that statement is that, rich people tend to be smarter, and more educated. they'll find a way.
- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Im not going to say they tend to be smarter. They tend to be more educated and more connected however.
- poornbroken, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1still doesn't change the fact that the rich people have more at stake in society than your average bum. throw a bum in jail, and you have little impact on society. now throw a rich guy in jail... thing of the ripple effect in society.
- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I agree. Unfortunatly
- Johnagain, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7PS - your daughter is HOT
- merdiesel, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Some one needs shop up some fakes of his daughter getting jizzed on by a cop.
- WinnerS, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4http://stokkeriddet.com/allan-stokke.html
- Pissoff, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Sounds like a good guy.
- williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Pity he represents douchebag cops and makes douchebag comments about their accusers.
- Toloran, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@sambone67
What is truth though? And how do you know when you've found it?
In many legal proceedings from the mundane (theft) to the extraordinary (Serial Killers), the Truth is never actually known. Sure, you can find evidence that leads to what was probably what happened but you can never be 100% sure that is what happened. Example: Take all the falsely convicted rapists in jail who were released after DNA evidence proved them innocent. When they were convicted, it was "the truth." However now we know it to be otherwise.
The legal system is (somewhat) designed with this concept in mind. The accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, there is an appeals process, and Lawyers are required to do everything within their legal power to prove their client guilty or (in the case of prosecutors) the defendant guilty.
EDIT: And I thought I responded instead of making a new comment. oops. - wonko33, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4We do need lawyers and all that I guess. And the fact that criminals need to be defended to the extent of the law does not justify badgering victims on the stand.
These types of lawyers are not trying to get to the truth because their clients are wrongly accused, they are just trying to make the victims crack under pressure to let criminals off the hook. Isn't there a way to defend people without being an *****?- Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3And if there's an mitigating circumstance kept out of court for legal red-tape reasons?
If your client committed a minor crime with a mitigating circumstance, but the situation makes you defend them from a horrible crime with unreasonable sentence, or finding them innocent with a -legal- but arguably unethical direction..then what?
Howabout if you TRULY believe the client innocent but can't prove it without damaging the reputation of the accuser?
I personally used to know a girl whose biggest life mistake was getting so scared she cried rape on her boyfriend _AFTER_ the fact because the whole situation scared her. She eventually shamed herself into revealing the innocence of the guy...but then, at that point, the prosecution could have had enough evidence from her testimony! (luckily the charges -were- dropped)
- Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3And if there's an mitigating circumstance kept out of court for legal red-tape reasons?
- lkmbrd, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Pole.. heh.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
