Crime, Verdict & Sentence (1 Viewer)

[The_Doc_Man]

You wouldn't have many clients.

I agree, and that is why I said I would not be a good lawyer. No argument at all.

 

[ColinEssex]

Colin thinks we all walk around with guns on our hips.

That's silly, I don't think that at all. You carry guns in a shoulder holster or handbag.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

That's silly, I don't think that at all. You carry guns in a shoulder holster or handbag.
Col

Except at the nudist's convention. (If you have to ask, you don't want to know.)

 

[Isaac]

You wouldn't have many clients. It's really not about guilt or innocence. You have a job to do and you do it the best you can. It's not always about getting your client a NG, but ensuring the process is fair and the law is followed by both sides. It's somewhat rare that you get a client who's story pans out and convinces you of his innocence. Wish I could tell some stories.

It's about enthusiastically playing your role in the adversarial system

 

[Isaac]

That's silly, I don't think that at all. You carry guns in a shoulder holster or handbag.
Col

all i carry when i walk around the neighbood is a small pepper spray, in case i run into a hostile stray dog

 

[ColinEssex]

all i carry when i walk around the neighbood is a small pepper spray, in case i run into a hostile stray dog

You could carry salt as well in case you run into burger and fries, maybe some ketchup sachets too.
Col

 

[Isaac]

You could carry salt as well in case you run into burger and fries, maybe some ketchup sachets too.
Col

That's very funny, col. And don't forget if i see a cowboy hat I'd immediately put it on, etc. etc.

We've had some very not-funny experiences with wild dogs (not really wild, just a stupid owner refused to leash their vicious dog pets) that taught me my lesson about taking walks with no protection - never again. One of my worst memories as a parent is a time when a large dog chased around my young son as he was terrified. the owner, who was in violation of the law requiring leashing pets, was laughing instead of calling his dog in. Never came so close to following someone home and bashing their skull in. (Yes, turn the other cheek, but sometimes we feel quite the opposite don't we!)

 

[Isaac]

When it becomes personal, we think about things like this differently. Hamas crossed a line on Oct 7th. Obviously far worse than what happened to your son but the terrorists brought the terror into the homes of each and every Jew in Israel. THAT is personal and THAT is why Israel is not backing down on its plan to erase Hamas. If they can't, no Jew in the world will ever sleep well again.

Totally agree.

I'm going even further though, and saying what frankly I think none dare say right now. Yes there are innocents on the Gaza side, let me say that right up front lest anyone think I am saying there are none.

But I think it's a very fair question to ask exactly how innocent are exactly how many people, when in 2006 they tacitly "wished" these ills perpetrated on Israel by knowingly electing a Hamas government - knowing Hamas is a terrorist organization who wishes death to Jews.

Is that really being 'innocent' ?

 

[Steve R.]

'm going even further though, and saying what frankly I think none dare say right now. Yes there are innocents on the Gaza side, let me say that right up front lest anyone think I am saying there are none.

You are correct, but war is a dirty business. Innocent people do pay. Nevertheless, based on voluminous anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian hyperbolic tirades by the media/UN/NGOs, faux crying for dead Palestinian children purposely ignores the deaths of innocent Israelis. Their lives matter too. Consequently, the finger of blame for all these tragic deaths needs to be pointed at Hamas, not Israel.

 

[Isaac]

You are correct, but war is a dirty business. Innocent people do pay. Nevertheless, based on voluminous anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian hyperbolic tirades by the media/UN/NGOs, faux crying for dead Palestinian children purposely ignores the deaths of innocent Israelis. Their lives matter too. Consequently, the finger of blame for all these tragic deaths needs to be pointed at Hamas, not Israel.

But why, exactly, can't we partially blame those "innocent Palestinians" ?
If people in America voted for an ISIS-affiliated government, and then there was an ISIS terror attack, aren't the people who knowingly voted for a terrorist, knowing they would kill people, - aren't those people culpable too?

Aside from hamas, what about the many Gazans who voted FOR HAMAS ?

 

[Steve R.]

But why, exactly, can't we partially blame those "innocent Palestinians" ?

They are complicit.

PS: In my prior post, I forgot to mention one of my "pet" points which I keep repeating. Those who are concerned about the innocent deaths should be demanding that Hamas turn-in their weapons and that the Palestinians surrender. That will end the conflict. Yet, those who seem to cry the most for the Palestinians children never mention that.

 

[Isaac]

They are complicit.

PS: In my prior post, I forgot to mention one of my "pet" points which I keep repeating. Those who are concerned about the innocent deaths should be demanding that Hamas turn-in their weapons and that the Palestinians surrender. That will end the conflict. Yet, those who seem to cry the most for the Palestinians children never mention that.

And BTW in case someone accuse me of being naiive, I do realize that Palestinians (the 51% that voted for Hamas), may claim they were coerced or didn't feel safe voting against them. that may be true.

The safe conclusion is that Israel must completely control Gaza from now on, period. Left to their own devices they'll put their shovel down just long enough to say they were coerced, and we'll never know. Must control Gaza. In a beneficient way, of course

 

[The_Doc_Man]

While I totally agree with the points made, I must - as a moderator - try ever so gently to remind our esteemed and highly respected members that another currently active thread exists for the direction to which this thread has been diverted.

 

[jpl458]

I’m obsessed with crime documentaries. And America as a country with one of the highest rate of crimes, has always been a good seed for these documentaries.
More than %99 percent of what you find in Netflix, Amazon, YouTube ,… is about some crime in US.

I’ve always had a question but never had a chance to ask. Today, I have a little time on my hand and thought someone may have the answer.

Where I live (or I think any other country) there’s a specific sentence for any crime.
The jury gives a guilty/not guilty verdict and the judge passes the sentence.
”12 Angry man” movie is a good example. Before the jury leave the court, they’re told it’s a capital crime and if they find the accused guilty, it’s death penalty.
I mean the jury decide guilty or not, but the sentence is decided. It’s written in the law book.

In most documentaries I watch, it’s true. The moment the jury says guilty, the judge has a short speech and then gives the sentence.
In some cases it’s not the same. The most recent one I watched in Law & Crime, was FSU Law Professor murder. He was murdered in 2014, both perpetrators were arrested in 2016 and were sentenced to 19 years and life, 2017 someone who asked them to murder the victim was found and sentenced to life. In 2023, another one who has planned the whole thing was arrested and the jury came out with a guilty sentence.
To my surprise, the judge didn’t gave the sentence. He postpone it to a month later, (2023/12/12 2:00 PM)

Now my question:
Why in some rare cases the judge doesn’t give the sentence immediately? It’s obvious the sentence is Life, but why postponing it to a month later? The judge knows the crime, (it’s a 10 years old crime), and for sure knows the law. He had time to search the law book during the whole 7 days of trial, check if there are any point to cut the sentence to several years or give the maximum. I believe even before the trial starts, the judge reads the file, researches that specific crime and the accused. He’s not only sitting there to keep the trial in order.
What’s he waiting for? Why he needs a month for giving the sentence?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Got to agree with you, Pat. Galaxy Quest was a great spoof and jab at Trekkers and a little bit of a dig against egotistical actors who were really one-trick ponies. So many cliches, so little time.