SC man gets 10 years in prison for trying to hire the KKK to kill black neighbor
31 replies, posted
A white man who tried to hire a hit man from a South Carolina branch of the Ku Klux Klan to kill a black neighbor was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison on Thursday.
Lecroy’s arrest last year by an undercover FBI agent who posed as a KKK hit man named “Mark” made headlines far beyond South Carolina, coming as it did amid reports of
rising incidents of racially-inspired crimes against minorities around the country. The agent, from Lexington County, was working with a domestic terrorism task force made up
of FBI, state and local law enforcement officers.
Hendricks made her hate-crime ruling after hearing a spirited argument by Lecroy’s attorney Erica Soderdahl, who said race didn’t play a role in the crime. Lecroy was only trying
to get rid of an extremely troublesome neighbor who happened to be African American, she said.
The neighbor, identified only by the initials “FJ,” kept coming onto Lecroy’s property, trying to start fights, and asking for food and to use the phone. Lecroy had repeatedly tried to
get local police to keep the neighbor from trespassing, to no avail, Soderdahl said.
That man's head is very asymmetrical, he is the example to use for asymmetry.
this is why people hate on lawyers
I hope he learns his lesson, because an elephant never forgets.
[quote]“Brandon called the KKK because who else was he going to call?” Soderdahl said. “It had nothing to do with the color of his skin.”[/quote]
Oh yea, totally makes sense, I mean if you have ghost problems you call ghost busters. You got black people, you call the KKK.
It's their job to defend clients to the best of their ability. What other possible argument could have been made to attempt to minimize punishment given how cut and dry this is?
I get that they've got bills to pay but ethical standards should still apply. Being so blatantly dishonest about a hate crime should be unconscionable, even as an attorney.
I can't believe Dumbo would do this
I think it's good that they always try their best to prove them innocent. Imagine if all lawyers just let hate crimes get prosecuted because it's "unconscionable", and what if one of those cases wasn't really a hate crime?
Though yeah this guy's fucked regardless and I'm glad for it.
His head is slightly askew, but his ears are oriented as if it's level.
Ethical standards do apply, and trying your absolute hardest as a defense attorney is the ethical standard.
If defense attorneys could go "nah lmao he's guilty fam" then the government would be able to imprison people without having to actually have done their jobs well or followed the law.
The job of the defense attorney is to force the government to do everything properly and force it to have an extremely strong case, no matter how """"""obvious"""""" the case may be.
look at me, my bold letters mean I must be right and I covered every base
the defense lawyer should at least themselves believe in the chance that their proposed truth is plausible
this can be argued such that a lawyer who believes in what they say will better serve the client, implying that others should refuse the case
if a lawyer is personally convinced that their defense is a fabrication, they disservice society by trying to (in their own eyes) exonerate someone guilty of a crime
They do have ethical standards, and the court and law have determined those standards to be "Defend your client within the legal limits of the law"
These posts are completely asinine and happen every time a thread like this pops up.
Your opinions of the matter are wholly irrelevant and would be considered a gross miscarriage of justice. Defense attorneys are bound to zealously defend their clients, whether or not they believe them to be guilty. The law is designed to function this way. Do you think this man is going to get off because of this defense? He's not.
You really think he shouldn't get a proper defense on the principle of it? Why?
how about making an ethical argument of your own to counter mine, instead of treating the status quo as sacred?
or also reading my post again to better understand my actual argument, as was plainly stated
It's actually just to provide emphasis
Rich of you to bitch about strawmen after this terrible post
fascinating how both of you rejected responding to my argument
People aren't obligated to discuss exactly what you want to discuss especially when you're being intentionally obtuse
"why won't you guys engage me on substance when I open with garbage-tier shitposting "
There are many things less than perfect about our justice system but the requirement of defense getting adequate representation is not something that needs to be defended.
I understand your argument and I think it's awful. It compromises the right to an attorney and interjects decision into a space that should be unquestionable. A defense without an attorney is dead in the water, and if you open the gates to defensible personal bias in the relationship between a client and a lawyer you'd be codifying racism, among other things.
It's not a moral question for the defense whether or not to defend their client, because that's how the system works. Defense attorneys understand this, as well as the entire court. Anytuihing else would be permitting a sense of personal justice into the courtroom, which is designed to craft judgement based on facts, and punish only given a reasonable doubt. Would you see this man unrepresented? If the defense were morally judged based on who they chose to represent, that would set a legitimately horrible standard.
PS- where's the strawman?
No, everyone has a right to representation in court in their best interest.
It's not blatantly dishonest unless the dude went "I wanted to kill that guy for being black" to the lawyer and then in turn the lawyer came up with this.
It's super not your attorney's job to determine your guilt
I sure as fuck wouldn't say that.
You've lost the argument and everyone else thinks so. Give up.
Besides, a lawyer's job isn't just to have a client be proven innocent, it's also to lessen any possible sentences they might get and make sure the client is proven guilty of just the crimes he actually committed.
Lawyers defending their clients no matter what also ensures that the justice system does it's job the best it can in proving that someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise prosecutors could just make up bullshit as long as it would convince the court.
I don't understand being so fired up about the defence used when it's clear that justice still did it's job and that that defence didn't work, if that defence had actually worked then either there was enough evidence to strongly support it or the investigators massively fucked up, none of this would be a fault of the defence lawyer or a "disservice to society", if anything it would expose flaws in the justice system that would then be able to be fixed.
There's nothing wrong with our system of having lawyers represent clients to the best of their ability; I wasn't saying that the legal system had no woes overall
His ears look like they are part of the radiotelescope array that imaged that black hole.
Fairly sure it's a system that favors the rich, as you'll be able to afford better lawyers. I have no suggestions for improving it though.
yes, the time honored tradition of "winning" an argument by loud-mouthed appealing to crowd opinion instead of trying to argue a point on its own merits
gosh they sure taught me a lesson
really opened my eyes on the issue at hand
What an inbred
Take everything I say with a pinch of salt cos I'm talking about England & Wales, not the US (Our systems are pretty close anyway, but still):
There are ethical standards. You're not allowed to lie to the court (but 'lie' is a vague term, hence why you can stretch it to a dishonest belief - that's how you get construed and convoluted defences like the one in question). A barrister cannot argue a defence they do not believe in; if I murder someone, and tell my lawyer "Yeah, I murdered them", they aren't allowed to then argue "It was manslaughter", or, hell, they can't straight up deny it. If a barrister in fact still goes ahead and breaks the code of conduct, that is on the individual barrister. It has nothing to do with the rest of the legal system, nor its participants.
If your argument is "oh my god, lawyers shouldn't present a false defence!!", that isn't ground-breaking. It's a reality. That's how the system works. Your post is like if you tried to present this wacky idea of "guys, we should have a thing called democracy". Wonderful idea; so wonderful, in fact, we did it years ago. You're arguing about nothing. You are free to argue that you don't think this lawyer believes their defence, but that's subjective; for all we know, they might actually believe their paper-thin defence. It'd be ridiculous if they did, but there's a chance that they do, which is what allows them to present it.
I have no idea what this thread is trying to argue. You can't lie to the court, so I don't know why people are saying "It's a lawyer's job to get the lowest sentence". Yes, that's correct, but (most) lawyers would never lie to the court in order to achieve this. They'd never have a client again if they did, at the very least.
Again: I have no idea how the US' legal system works. Maybe they don't have the same code of conduct, idk?
Yeah, why not just throw out the legal system because "innocent before proven guilty" is too high of a bar to pass
You dismissing a reality of the legal system because Geel used "bold letters" is the most childish take you've done in a while.
There are still people who don't know that the Klan is basically a honeypot? What a mess, had it coming
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.