[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51254243] We cant have criminal lawyers as presidents now?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51254387]Today I learned confidentiality doesnt exist in Sweden.
What a shitty legal system. Also I do not believe you. No way this can work. Lawyer can at any time say "I did not know that" and walk, and you say he should *morally* refuse clients? Money? If to them morality was an issue they wouldnt be defense attorneys.
"he was coerced/under pressure/blind with fury etc" these are used when everybody knows the client did it, not when the lawyer knows. What lawyer knows is irrelevant.
[editline]24th October 2016[/editline]
You cannot lie in a court in USA either but have you really put in thought into how perjury is proven? Are you gonna bug law offices?[/QUOTE]
So his point is that Hillary lied in court, and laughed about that to why she is a bad president candidate. But you think there's nothing wrong in her doing that even though you say yourself you cannot lie in a court in USA either. It all seems a bit contradictory to me. Like her knowing he was guilty but acting like she didn't sit well with you?
I'm not here to debate the Swedish law system, however you are pretty much saying what I am when you say they cannot lie in court. Of course there would be issues with proving a lawyer knowing that his client did something, because the client is the only one who know that the lawyer knows and why would he tell on the lawyer? If it however is discovered that you've lied you will be excluded from the bar association and cannot work as a lawyer anymore. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't risk letting that happen and would not lie in court.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51254428]I just get tired reexplaining my views because I know no matter what I say that isn't, "Well geez I'm for Clinton now" it will be never-ending. [/QUOTE]
The majority of posts regarding candidates support neither. You don't catch shit for not supporting Clinton.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51254428]Just to restate here in generalization, I don't think Trump is at all a great candidate, but I don't think he is effectively capable of doing any of the nightmare scenarios with how our government works in checks and balances, unlike Clinton who I feel can maneuver with all her corruption with ease and really has shown to only be mediocre in political offices and downright inept in others.
So my vote is for Donald Trump at worse getting gridlocked in congress and hoping in the next 4 years the political process is disrupted enough for real changes to occur. It's a gamble, but sorry Clinton has always proven to me she is not as "safe" of a bet as people believe.[/QUOTE]
It's a generalization but not even a vaguely correct one. A Republican congress would have no real incentive not to support the things they have in common with Trump, which is like 90% of Trumps platform. They even put key parts of Trump's campaign promises in the party platform before the RNC. The inverse is true as well; if Republicans maintain control of Congress or win it later on in Clinton's presidency, they would just obstruct her like they did Obama. You already have McCain saying he would put off confirming a supreme court justice nomination indefinitely, what makes you think they will vote for laws restricting guns, or increasing benefits, or expanding Obamacare, or subsidizing green energy, or the myriad of things that Republicans and Clinton/Democrats completely disagree on. I can't possibly imagine you are so naive to genuinely believe this. What do you evne mean by "the political process" becoming disrupted enough for "real changes" to occur. What changes? Like you can't even tell us what you want out of a Trump presidency. You're just mad as hell and not going to take it anymore and any criticism against Trump can be met with "Well he isn't going to really do that" or "everything is rigged".
[QUOTE=Tudd;51254428]Also how some of you guys interact with people with even a slightly different opinion has probably helped people become more pro-Trump even though they were voting Clinton.
[/QUOTE]
Likewise, but at least my pointless assertion is backed up by correlating statistics in the form of poll numbers. Why are Trump supporters so thin skinned? Is it because you attempt to emulate your idol?
[QUOTE=Oizen;51253737]Facepunch's severe immaturity whenever a video is posted from a youtuber they don't like will never cease to surprise me.[/QUOTE]
They're no different than Neogaf if you ask me.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51254514]She laughed about it. Stop the presses, humor is a crime. How many times did we laugh about holocaust again? Does anybody keep track[/QUOTE]None of us were ever personally responsible for the holocaust.
[editline]1:09[/editline]
Like, I haven't even kept track of this particular controversy and whether or not the accusation actually holds water, but are you [i]seriously[/i] going to try to downplay something like [i]this[/i] in [i]this way?[/i] Wouldn't actually proving the claim false or overblown be a better way to go than "She had a laugh about getting a child rapist off the hook, so what?"
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51254498]The majority of posts regarding candidates support neither. You don't catch shit for not supporting Clinton.
It's a generalization but not even a vaguely correct one. A Republican congress would have no real incentive not to support the things they have in common with Trump, which is like 90% of Trumps platform. They even put key parts of Trump's campaign promises in the party platform before the RNC. The inverse is true as well; if Republicans maintain control of Congress or win it later on in Clinton's presidency, they would just obstruct her like they did Obama. You already have McCain saying he would put off confirming a supreme court justice nomination indefinitely, what makes you think they will vote for laws restricting guns, or increasing benefits, or expanding Obamacare, or subsidizing green energy, or the myriad of things that Republicans and Clinton/Democrats completely disagree on. I can't possibly imagine you are so naive to genuinely believe this. What do you evne mean by "the political process" becoming disrupted enough for "real changes" to occur. What changes? Like you can't even tell us what you want out of a Trump presidency. You're just mad as hell and not going to take it anymore and any criticism against Trump can be met with "Well he isn't going to really do that" or "everything is rigged".
Likewise, but at least my pointless assertion is backed up by correlating statistics in the form of poll numbers. Why are Trump supporters so thin skinned? Is it because you attempt to emulate your idol?[/QUOTE]
I like how you are trying to make me look like a raving thin-skinned idolizing lunatic in this post.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51254194]I hate GradeAunderA alot, but even I can see this is actually one of his better put together videos.
But I am a Trump Supporter, so people will tell ya my opinion is poo poo.
Although I actually kind of want to watch what he does for Trump now for juxtaposing.[/QUOTE]
are you sure this video isnt just better than the others to you because it agrees with what you think
[QUOTE=KillRay;51254560]are you sure this video isnt just better than the others to you because it agrees with what you think[/QUOTE]
Gee willikers, maybe.
Positive reinforcement is the best kind.
But seriously, it didn't have him trying to sell a shirt/lootcrate, drone on too long, or focus on youtube drama, I think that is worthy of, "probably better than usual." unless politics is not your thing.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51254550]I like how you are trying to make me look like a raving thin-skinned idolizing lunatic in this post.[/QUOTE]
I like how completely ignored the meat of my post to pick over the carrots. I called you thin skinned because of the way you and others on this board act; whenever someone posts criticisms of your ideas you instantly take it personally and become indignant, like FP should be some sort of hugbox where we can have seventeen threads criticizing Clinton but god forbid someone's factually incorrect analysis of Trump or his campaign gets criticized.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51254574]I like how completely ignored the meat of my post to pick over the carrots. I called you thin skinned because of the way you and others on this board act; whenever someone posts criticisms of your ideas you instantly take it personally and become indignant, like FP should be some sort of hugbox where we can have seventeen threads criticizing Clinton but god forbid someone's factually incorrect analysis of Trump or his campaign gets criticized.[/QUOTE]
I just don't want to go against my own argument saying how never-ending it is. I just gave my generalization for my reasons in probably the nicest manner I could muster. Surely after several months you get even tired of debating this crap with me? :v:
[QUOTE=Tudd;51254568]
But seriously, it didn't have him trying to sell a shirt/lootcrate, drone on too long, or focus on youtube drama, I think that is worthy of "probably better than usual."[/QUOTE]
those are some pretty thin metrics if you want to go by why you dislike some of his content
here's a pretty short video (compared to his others), does not involve sponsors or youtube drama so maybe you think this is good content too
[video=youtube;YgYqg7KkO_M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgYqg7KkO_M[/video]
or
[video=youtube;NiYT9I88efI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiYT9I88efI[/video]
in case you dont get it these are both recent content that fall under your guidelines
maybe you actually just wanted to post an anti clinton video no matter who made it
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51254552]She made him rape?[/QUOTE]
If the claim is true (which you are worryingly silent about contesting), then she made light about helping someone get off the hook from committing rape. Which yes, she is apparently the direct cause of if not the rape itself.
Just, like, provide proof that something was taken out of context wildly. Or that the claim is false. Or that it isn't nearly as bad as it sounds. Basically [i]anything[/i] other than this skeevy as fuck "Well laughing about knowingly helping rapists isn't actually all that bad" route you're going here.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51254586]I just don't want to go against my own argument saying how never-ending it is. Surely after several months you get even tired of debating this crap with me? :v:[/QUOTE]
I can't fucking wait for this election to be over. Going up to bat for a politician I don't particularly believe in but is best suited to the office of the presidency when compared to the malice-filled fool that is Donald Trump, shit grows tiring, but so does people lying to my face and generating absurd conspiracy theories as to why their shit candidate is losing the popular vote.
When did GAUA go from talking about types of alcohol to trying to talk politics
[QUOTE=KillRay;51254591]those are some pretty thin metrics if you want to go by why you dislike some of his content
here's a pretty short video (compared to his others), does not involve sponsors or youtube drama so maybe you think this is good content too
[video=youtube;YgYqg7KkO_M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgYqg7KkO_M[/video]
or
[video=youtube;NiYT9I88efI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiYT9I88efI[/video]
in case you dont get it these are both recent content that fall under your guidelines
maybe you actually just wanted to post an anti clinton video no matter who made it[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I kind of stopped watching the videos so I hadn't even seen those admittedly.
I pretty much stopped watching after the Keemstar debacle, but I use those as metrics because it is pretty easy things to use... well as metrics for why his content is generally shittier. He is still a guy that turned out to be a cunt.
But yah, I haven't really hid it that the anti-clinton probably got me posting more than his other videos.
I promise to get that Trump one posted first, unless someone ninjas me.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51254586]I just don't want to go against my own argument saying how never-ending it is. I just gave my generalization for my reasons in probably the nicest manner I could muster. Surely after several months you get even tired of debating this crap with me? :v:[/QUOTE]
the only thing that puts you in the red like everyone else with your mindset is the lack of evidence or strong arguments as to why you vote for your candidate, regardless if its trumpet or clinton. to be fair, it's easier to vote for clinton and defend your view especially with an opposition like trump.
if you're going to make vague generalizations, theories and predictions with no real evidence to support your claims other than youtube videos and some opinions you've heard or read, and throw it around like it has any weight to defend your stance on something while subsequently trying to elude yourself from arguing with someone because it "never ends", then maybe you should give yourself a second thought before making threads like this or going into discussion with someone about something as political as this.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51254514]Lawyers lie all the time in court. A "Lie" isnt always black and white, often unprovable because of semantics, not just facts. Good lawyers represent their client at all costs. If a guilty person walks away that is prosecutor's problem.
She laughed about it. Stop the presses, humor is a crime. How many times did we laugh about holocaust again? Does anybody keep track?
This whole debacle is utterly irrelevant to presidentiality, not to mention that it is 40 years old.[/QUOTE]
Clearly we have differing opinions about how lawyers should behave in regards to the truth. And a guilty person walking away is actually the societies problem since they were the ones who indirectly enacted that action to be a crime. But I get your point, the defenders job is not the same of the prosecutor. What I would argue however, at least in crime cases, are that it's both parties job to find out the truth. We obviously don't live in a perfect world so that is not always the case, but it is the ultimate goal, at least in my eyes.
That is why I would not say that it is not a lawyers job to defend his client at all costs, but to listen to him, what he is admitting and not admitting and put that forward for the judge so that they may choose what is a fair consequence for the actions committed. Of course, if there are not evidence enough to support a conviction then there should be no conviction, even if the suspect is guilty, no matter if he admits or not.
Every legal system have enough issues as there is, lying lawyers should not be a part of those problems.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51254550]I like how you are trying to make me look like a raving thin-skinned idolizing lunatic in this post.[/QUOTE]
Well your views of what will happen under a Trump presidency seem a little naive to be frank.
Most of what Trump wants, especially his devastating tax plan, is RNC backed. He'll get a lot more through than you think and his policies are bad but still have support with his base and the RNC.
It doesn't seem like much more than a desire to see the system burn down
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51254650]Read something better about it then. Here:
[url]http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/[/url][/quote]
Jesus Christ, [i]thank you[/i]. Next time someone brings this up, just plop that down instead of trying to downplay something you really, [i]really[/i] shouldn't be. It not actually being a thing she really did just being [I]one[/I] of the reasons why.
[quote]Also that girl fantasy thing? Defense strategy. How come nobody know anything about what defense lawyers do? Character assassination of the accuser is a valid way to win a case, whether that makes you sick or not, but saying she is responsible for the rape is beyond absurdity, borderline retarded.[/quote]Never said she was responsible for the rape itself. That's something you've tried to push onto me, because that is indeed dumb reasoning and would be easier to refute.
Just... don't do that shit again. Stick to "She wasn't laughing about getting him off", without anything tacked on like "And even if she did..."
[QUOTE=IQ-Guldfisk;51254720]Clearly we have differing opinions about how lawyers should behave in regards to the truth. And a guilty person walking away is actually the societies problem since they were the ones who indirectly enacted that action to be a crime. But I get your point, the defenders job is not the same of the prosecutor. What I would argue however, at least in crime cases, are that it's both parties job to find out the truth. We obviously don't live in a perfect world so that is not always the case, but it is the ultimate goal, at least in my eyes.
That is why I would not say that it is not a lawyers job to defend his client at all costs, but to listen to him, what he is admitting and not admitting and put that forward for the judge so that they may choose what is a fair consequence for the actions committed. Of course, if there are not evidence enough to support a conviction then there should be no conviction, even if the suspect is guilty, no matter if he admits or not.
Every legal system have enough issues as there is, lying lawyers should not be a part of those problems.[/QUOTE]
Yeah you frankly have a view I find disturbing
Lawyers represent their clients to the law. A trial determines guilt, lawyers are bound by confidentiality to their clients under all but the strictest of cases. This provides security for those who the law investigates in a fair way.
Lawyers exist to prevent the legal system from being a one way system. They provide the knowledge to work with the courts and they provide the counsel as to how to act. There are issues in the legal systems here. It is not that lawyers will fight for their clients.
My father was a lawyer who practiced criminal law for some years and it took a serious toll on him, but everyone deserves a fair defence in the eyes of the law as he put it. He represented bad people and didn't enjoy it but did it because the legal system can act with prejudice as well. The legal system is also made up of people making decisions. Everyone is fallible. Without lawyers to defend people there would be the capability for rampant abuse.
[media] [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vxp_Lj2b-E[/url] [/media]
This video compared to the one in the OP is so many leagues above in quality it's quite remarkable.
Fuck, why did did he have to go so toxic and shit at content making? I miss these old videos so much.
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;51254886]I honestly just come into these threads to see people bitching about coming into these threads.[/QUOTE]
I'm not too surprised by how this turned out myself.
Though I do think there has been more discussion on the content than usual for these threads.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51254275]Clinton is bad.
Trump is worse.
We want Clinton to face the music for her actions. But that means, we face the music of electing Trump leader of the free world.
No fucking thank you.
People think your opinion on Trump is "Poo Poo" because like most Trump voters I've talked to, you're utterly unconcerned with the things he'll negatively effect, with many Trump posters even refusing to see any downsides to a Trump Presidency it gets pretty hard to have an honest conversation with people who genuinely don't believe there's any down side to some pretty fucking horrendous policies.
But we can't talk about how your views of Trump don't line up with reality, because in any thread, it always has to be about how Clinton is evil incarnate. I don't even like Clinton but I can't in good conscience just say they're equivalent because they're clearly not.[/QUOTE]
I don't get it. Clinton supporters are literally doing the same thing.
Clinton is a snake, and she is the worst thing a politician can be. Now I can hear you furiously typing "BUT TRUMP IS WORSE"
but then I didn't say anything about trump. For some reason on facepunch we're allowed to have 10-15 threads about how Trump is the absolute worst and should never be considered.
But a single thread thats anti hillary gets people flooding in here to scream about trump.
The icing on the cake is, if you actually watch Grade's video he states he's not even Pro Trump. So many people are confusing Anti-Hillary for Pro Trump, we should be able to have threads about why Hillary is just as shitty of a choice.
But apparently not. We should just close off any sort of analysis of one candidate because people scream Trump is worse.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51254740]We dont have differing opinions. There is one job of the lawyer in the modern legal system regardless of the country. There arent many ways to implement it, and you are wrong.
"put that forward for the judge" the lawyer is employed by the client. That is the prosecutor's job. Lawyer telling anything about his client is a violation of his client'S rights. Almost universal, not American, rights. The roles of the lawyer, the prosecutor/accuser and the judge are pretty well defined, and subversions from these boundaries often result in one party or the other getting royally fucked. You are fucking the client.
Lawyers who dont do their jobs is an issue. Lying lawyers isnt.[/QUOTE]
Please explain further how you believe I'm wrong, I'd like to know, because in the sense that prosecutor put forward evidence, so does the lawyer. I'll demonstrate this with an easy example:
Prosecutor: We found the murder weapon in the suspects car.
Lawyer: My client was actually in another town while the murder took place, the proof is a picture of him there, his credit card records and the witness of his brother.
I withhold my opinion that if a suspect admits to something major, the lawyer will have to say this in the court.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51254748]Yeah you frankly have a view I find disturbing
Lawyers represent their clients to the law. A trial determines guilt, lawyers are bound by confidentiality to their clients under all but the strictest of cases. This provides security for those who the law investigates in a fair way.
Lawyers exist to prevent the legal system from being a one way system. They provide the knowledge to work with the courts and they provide the counsel as to how to act. There are issues in the legal systems here. It is not that lawyers will fight for their clients.
My father was a lawyer who practiced criminal law for some years and it took a serious toll on him, but everyone deserves a fair defence in the eyes of the law as he put it. He represented bad people and didn't enjoy it but did it because the legal system can act with prejudice as well. The legal system is also made up of people making decisions. Everyone is fallible. Without lawyers to defend people there would be the capability for rampant abuse.[/QUOTE]
You know, if the suspect is guilty, and he admits it, why would it be good in any way for the lawyer to lie about it? Because it is certainly not good for anyone else but the suspect. It doesn't make the system not one sided, the suspect has admitted to doing something, it's literally not one sided if he admits to doing something and then get convicted for it. I agree with confidentiality, and I could myself say to a suspect whom which I am to defend "I will ask you questions and you answer them the way you would answer them if a prosecutor asked them, because if you admit to the murder, I will be obligated to reveal that". That way, the only one who could be lying is the client. I agree with confidentiality as well, it is very important. However just like a doctor would have to break confidentiality if a patient comes in with a wound that a man who is wanted is described to have, a lawyer cannot lie to a court.
Like I really don't understand your main point however, if the suspect is innocent, he will of course not admit to anything that he hasn't done. And if he is guilty and admits it, why is there a problem if the lawyer reveals it? He just did it himself.
Take for example if you were Breiviks lawyer, and he tells you "I know I did it, but you have to tell me that I didn't do it", would you say that he didn't do it? The only thing that separate this to defending someone else is the amount of evidence. Proving that he did it was a walk in the park, but if he still insisted that you should claim that he didn't do it would you? I fail to see how that is any different at all from a case where evidence isn't as clear cut.
As a side note I would like to know why you find my view on this disturbing. It's a very bold thing to say.
Both of you may argue that the role of the lawyer is the same everywhere in the world, and it is. But I believe that the philosophy of law differs vastly depending on where you are, and this is the way it is in Sweden and I agree with it, because it makes sense. Compared to lying in court.
[QUOTE=IQ-Guldfisk;51254943]Please explain further how you believe I'm wrong, I'd like to know, because in the sense that prosecutor put forward evidence, so does the lawyer. I'll demonstrate this with an easy example:
Prosecutor: We found the murder weapon in the suspects car.
Lawyer: My client was actually in another town while the murder took place, the proof is a picture of him there, his credit card records and the witness of his brother.
I withhold my opinion that if a suspect admits to something major, the lawyer will have to say this in the court.
You know, if the suspect is guilty, and he admits it, why would it be good in any way for the lawyer to lie about it? Because it is certainly not good for anyone else but the suspect. It doesn't make the system not one sided, the suspect has admitted to doing something, it's literally not one sided if he admits to doing something and then get convicted for it. I agree with confidentiality, and I could myself say to a suspect whom which I am to defend "I will ask you questions and you answer them the way you would answer them if a prosecutor asked them, because if you admit to the murder, I will be obligated to reveal that". That way, the only one who could be lying is the client. I agree with confidentiality as well, it is very important. However just like a doctor would have to break confidentiality if a patient comes in with a wound that a man who is wanted is described to have, a lawyer cannot lie to a court.
Like I really don't understand your main point however, if the suspect is innocent, he will of course not admit to anything that he hasn't done. And if he is guilty and admits it, why is there a problem if the lawyer reveals it? He just did it himself.
Take for example if you were Breiviks lawyer, and he tells you "I know I did it, but you have to tell me that I didn't do it", would you say that he didn't do it? The only thing that separate this to defending someone else is the amount of evidence. Proving that he did it was a walk in the park, but if he still insisted that you should claim that he didn't do it would you? I fail to see how that is any different at all from a case where evidence isn't as clear cut.
As a side note I would like to know why you find my view on this disturbing. It's a very bold thing to say.
Both of you may argue that the role of the lawyer is the same everywhere in the world, and it is. But I believe that the philosophy of law differs vastly depending on where you are, and this is the way it is in Sweden and I agree with it, because it makes sense. Compared to lying in court.[/QUOTE]
Those hypothetical situations couldn't even happen.
A lawyer will advise you, if there is evidence of your guilt, to plead guilty, because the courts will look upon that the best. They will not advise you to lie. If you decide to lie, they'll carry out your will, because the job of a lawyer is to represent their client.
What you're saying is that a lawyer cannot do that. They should not do that.
Breviks case is a stupid one to bring up. Brevik had clear evidence of guilt, and no chance of pleading not guilty without looking like an outright liar, or using an insanity plea to show he wasn't guilty via non culpability to his actions.
If the client is innocent, you say there's no chance of them ever admitting to a crime they didn't commit? [B]really?[/B] Naivaity.
Look at the case of Brendan Dassey, for starters, among hundreds of others. A young, dumb kid, was manipulated by police officers into admitting guilt for a crime because they were lazy, and self assured. Being a dumb kid, not allowed to have a lawyer, or his mother present due to the manipulation of the law by police officers led to this kid living 10 years of his life behind bars without any evidence of guilt besides a manipulated confession that should have been unadmissable in court. He was appointed a public defender, who did not represent him properly and faced consequences for that down the road himself.
That is a case of the court, the police, the law itself conspiring against a young boy due to popular opinion that he was guilty, due to a manipulated confession. There are hundreds of cases like this, and you flat out say it can't happen.
That's why I find it disturbing dude. You're just naive and you're making huge claims that I feel you don't have the experience to make. I lived with a lawyer for my whole life until last year, and I never wanted to practice law but I learned a fair bit about it, and a fair bit about the role of the lawyer in relation to his or her client. I learned a lot about the times the law failed to be fair, failed to be correct, and was manipulated against people.
If a client outright admits guilt, a lawyer cannot confide that. They will likely try and plead with their client to act in their best interests, admit guilt, and be done with it. But they do not have the power to rat out their clients as you suggest they should. I don't feel that would solve the legal issues in the legal system.
[QUOTE=Oizen;51254916]I don't get it. Clinton supporters are literally doing the same thing.
Clinton is a snake, and she is the worst thing a politician can be. Now I can hear you furiously typing "BUT TRUMP IS WORSE"
but then I didn't say anything about trump. For some reason on facepunch we're allowed to have 10-15 threads about how Trump is the absolute worst and should never be considered.
But a single thread thats anti hillary gets people flooding in here to scream about trump.
The icing on the cake is, if you actually watch Grade's video he states he's not even Pro Trump. So many people are confusing Anti-Hillary for Pro Trump, we should be able to have threads about why Hillary is just as shitty of a choice.
But apparently not. We should just close off any sort of analysis of one candidate because people scream Trump is worse.[/QUOTE]
k so I looked at the entire thread because I'm the type of guy who complains on r/enoughtrumpspam that people who post on r/enoughtrumpspam use the same strawman tactics people on r/the_donald do and they should stop
no one is screaming about trump (at least here). the closest thing to screaming about trump is
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51254275]Clinton is bad.
Trump is worse.[/QUOTE]
which isn't even screaming, it's using a year 4 inside voice which to be honest was the strictest fucking thing in school.
if someone gives criticism about trump out of the context of being an elected official "Clinton is a terrible human being" and someones says "but Trump is worse" then you have all rights to complain about trump because that's actually a fallacy if they don't even acknowledge your point
[QUOTE]But we can't talk about how your views of Trump don't line up with reality, because in any thread, it always has to be about how Clinton is evil incarnate. [B]I don't even like Clinton but I can't in good conscience just say they're equivalent because they're clearly not.[/B][/QUOTE]
in this case it isn't because HumanAbyss actually addressed (although very poorly) about how clinton is terrible ^
tbh if anyone is "screaming" (I'm assuming that now means "terrible at arguing") it's you because you are literally doing the thing you're complaining about
[QUOTE=Oizen;51254916][B]I don't get it. Clinton supporters are literally doing the same thing.[/B]
Clinton is a snake, and she is the worst thing a politician can be. Now I can hear you furiously typing "BUT TRUMP IS WORSE"
but then I didn't say anything about trump. For some reason on facepunch we're allowed to have 10-15 threads about how Trump is the absolute worst and should never be considered.
But a single thread thats anti hillary gets people flooding in here to scream about trump.
The icing on the cake is, if you actually watch Grade's video he states he's not even Pro Trump. So many people are confusing Anti-Hillary for Pro Trump, we should be able to have threads about why Hillary is just as shitty of a choice.
But apparently not. We should just close off any sort of analysis of one candidate because people scream Trump is worse.[/QUOTE]
instead of addressing HumanAbyss' actual claims you shifted the conversation to "but clinton supporters!", the very same tactic you seem to be fighting against
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51255005]Those hypothetical situations couldn't even happen.
A lawyer will advise you, if there is evidence of your guilt, to plead guilty, because the courts will look upon that the best. They will not advise you to lie. If you decide to lie, they'll carry out your will, because the job of a lawyer is to represent their client.
What you're saying is that a lawyer cannot do that. They should not do that.
Breviks case is a stupid one to bring up. Brevik had clear evidence of guilt, and no chance of pleading not guilty without looking like an outright liar, or using an insanity plea to show he wasn't guilty via non culpability to his actions.
If the client is innocent, you say there's no chance of them ever admitting to a crime they didn't commit? [B]really?[/B] Naivaity.
Look at the case of Brendan Dassey, for starters, among hundreds of others. A young, dumb kid, was manipulated by police officers into admitting guilt for a crime because they were lazy, and self assured. Being a dumb kid, not allowed to have a lawyer, or his mother present due to the manipulation of the law by police officers led to this kid living 10 years of his life behind bars without any evidence of guilt besides a manipulated confession that should have been unadmissable in court. He was appointed a public defender, who did not represent him properly and faced consequences for that down the road himself.
That is a case of the court, the police, the law itself conspiring against a young boy due to popular opinion that he was guilty, due to a manipulated confession. There are hundreds of cases like this, and you flat out say it can't happen.
That's why I find it disturbing dude. You're just naive and you're making huge claims that I feel you don't have the experience to make. I lived with a lawyer for my whole life until last year, and I never wanted to practice law but I learned a fair bit about it, and a fair bit about the role of the lawyer in relation to his or her client. I learned a lot about the times the law failed to be fair, failed to be correct, and was manipulated against people.
If a client outright admits guilt, a lawyer cannot confide that. They will likely try and plead with their client to act in their best interests, admit guilt, and be done with it. But they do not have the power to rat out their clients as you suggest they should. I don't feel that would solve the legal issues in the legal system.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying they should only do it to an extent, and so are you, as you agree with me that the Breivik example is stupid. It sure as shit is. It's an example to show that lawyers cannot represent their client to 100%. We just disagree to what big an extent a lawyer should or could represent you.
So let's go back to the Breivik example again, because the evidence was very strong towards him. What if he wants his lawyer to lie, and would accept no lawyer unless the lawyer lied and said he didn't do it. Do you think he should just do it and lie? Please answer me this, I want to know. In Sweden you cannot do this. You would be excluded from the bar association if you knew Breivik was guilty (and how could you not?) and still claimed he was innocent. That is how it works here.
I've not looked into the case with that boy, but there you have examples of shit going wrong on multiple levels it seems to be cherry picking. Both the police and the courts fucked up as well so I would not really say this is how things usually go down. Sure it shows that lawyers are important, but I've never disputed that. You say there are hundreds of cases like this, but I've never heard of any other, outside of the civilized west, so please do provide some more information on this. Either way, if the child actually had a lawyer, the lawyer should have told the court that the confession was a result by from provoked by the police.
You know, it might just be a thing in Sweden. But if this sort of stuff happens a lot over there you obviously have other issues than we have. And how can I know all the issues in a country where I have never lived and barely keep up with the news? This stuff never happens here, so I would really have no insight.
But you really just turned your entire reason around on why you find my opinion disturbing. In the post you quoted me and told me this I said nothing about admitting to a crime you haven't committed. You really picked this out now. What I said in that post is that a lawyer cannot defend his client at all costs, as in, you can't say to the court Breivik is innocent if you know he is, because it will cost you your job.
[editline]25th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51255022]Lawyer doesnt tell the judge that his client is guilty. This is what you said, and it is utterly stupid. Now you talk about evidence. Based on innocent until guilty, the only evidence a lawyer provides is to undermine the prosecutions case. If the lawyer finds out about evidence of his clients guilt, he doesnt supply it to the job, that is the prosecutors job. He cant HIDE it, that is obstructing, but he definitely, certainly doesnt have to provide it himself.
Swedish law culture is stupid then. I dont want my lawyer to declare my guilt to the judge behind my back. His only obligation is to me and the law, and the only law about this is that the lawyer must tell if his client plans to commit future crimes. Nothing else.[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to lie, I don't know exactly how a situation like that would pan out. I have a vague feeling that you're correct that the defence wouldn't have to show that to the court. But it's probably an incredibly rare occurrence and not really anchored in reality but more of a theoretical concept since the prosecutors usually do a good job finding evidence.
[QUOTE=Oizen;51254916]I don't get it. Clinton supporters are literally doing the same thing.
Clinton is a snake, and she is the worst thing a politician can be. Now I can hear you furiously typing "BUT TRUMP IS WORSE"
but then I didn't say anything about trump. For some reason on facepunch we're allowed to have 10-15 threads about how Trump is the absolute worst and should never be considered.
But a single thread thats anti hillary gets people flooding in here to scream about trump.
The icing on the cake is, if you actually watch Grade's video he states he's not even Pro Trump. So many people are confusing Anti-Hillary for Pro Trump, we should be able to have threads about why Hillary is just as shitty of a choice.
But apparently not. We should just close off any sort of analysis of one candidate because people scream Trump is worse.[/QUOTE]
I used to always tell those conspiracy theorists that claim Thrump is secretly a double-agent for Clinton/Democrats that they are crazy and stuff like that.
Now see how people just shove out not only Clinton's misdeeds but the facts and uncoverings of our pay-to-play office selling(even obama is guilty of this, no matter how much of a "cool guy" he seems) just because Trump said something stupid. Which he does all the time. Almost every 5 fucking minutes he says something that you would find in a /b/ post and its all over the news. You might as well tell me the sky is fucking blue whenever somebody tells me that trump said some dumb shit.
If that theory is true then god damn it worked amazingly, if it isn't true then I'm sad people still fall into it anyways.
Those emails tell me enough about Clinton to make me not want her to become president. I'm not voting for Trump either nor would I want him to be elected.
[QUOTE=IQ-Guldfisk;51254943]
Like I really don't understand your main point however, if the suspect is innocent, he will of course not admit to anything that he hasn't done.
[/QUOTE]
False confessions exist, ask any psychologist. My mother's job is teaching police detectives how to interrogate vulnerable people without making them put words in their mouth i.e. making them falsely confess to something they didn't do. Even people who aren't necessarily vulnerable can falsely confess due to pressure, for example.
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;51260689]False confessions exist, ask any psychologist. My mother's job is teaching police detectives how to interrogate vulnerable people without making them put words in their mouth i.e. making them falsely confess to something they didn't do. Even people who aren't necessarily vulnerable can falsely confess due to pressure, for example.[/QUOTE]
This is actually one of the biggest problem with our judical system. This whole practice is disgusting and have put many many innocent kids in prision. There are people who spent 20+ years that are JUST getting released due to new evidence because cops scare these kids in tears and convince them to sign an confession and the cop would manipulate the kid telling them this is the right thing to do to avoid jailtime. Look it up there are hundreds of stories and thousands of inmates that are still suffering the same faith.
Tell your mom to get a new job and stop contributing to the mass imprisionment of innocents.
[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;51254788][media] [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vxp_Lj2b-E[/url] [/media]
This video compared to the one in the OP is so many leagues above in quality it's quite remarkable.
Fuck, why did did he have to go so toxic and shit at content making? I miss these old videos so much.[/QUOTE]
This is why I wish Grade would back to the quality of the older videos like his interviews one and the one about VeganGains
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
