Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"...But she was appointed by the court, took the case as a favor and then went all-out for her 41-year-old client ..."
Second paragraph of the story. She had the right to turn it down.
Next.
If she was appointed by the court then she was appointed... I understand that many people don't like the US or our legal system, and yes it is frustrating that people accused of crimes have rights. Heck, it's probably even more frustrating to some that lawyers can't drop clients after they find out they are guilty, but that is how the legal system is setup.
I have no great love for the Clintons. Can't stand them, in fact, and I actually find the possibility of President Hillary somewhat frightening. However, this one is a bit complicated. Lawyers do have the obligation to advocate zealously for their clients . . .
Incorrect. She was not a public defender. She did not have to take the case.
Just for the sake of accuracy, I didn't say she had to take the case, only that once she had done so she had the obligation to zealously advocate for the client.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre
I personally would have trouble being a criminal defense lawyer and putting any kind of effort into defending someone I knew was guilty, but for the soundness of the legal system and its basis in due process, I'm glad there are people who do this.
. . . private attorney is under no obligation to take a case from a person they believe is guilty.
My thought originally was that there could be some serious questions about the character of someone who would choose to take this case, although, again, this gets complicated since the reality is that the legal system needs to have lawyers who are willing to defend even the lowest scum, though then there is the question of what kind of people those lawyers are. It gets still more complicated, though, if the info in Lycos679's post here is correct:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
H. Clinton was running or working at a non profit law firm at the time and was in fact a court appointed attorney. Further, the client requested a female attorney and the prosecution did not object.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
But then, there's this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre
She's power-crazy. Whatever it takes for Hillary to get ahead, she'll do. If she's the Dem. nominee in '16, though, I'll be very surprised if the Republican candidate doesn't really play this up when the Dems start with the War on Women talk.
Although if Lycos679's info is correct, the GOP candidate would have less to work with than if H.C. had taken the case of her own volition. Still might get some mileage out of the seeming callousness with which she discussed the case later, but less mileage than would have been possible if she had taken the case voluntarily.
As for the question of whether H.C. could be faulted for taking the case, the problem with the article linked in the opening post is this:
"But she was appointed by the court, took the case as a favor and then went all-out for her 41-year-old client — just as you’d hope any lawyer representing someone you loved would do."
Not the best writing there. The article needs to be more precise about just how she came to take the case. The phrase "appointed by the court" makes it seem that she had little choice, while "took the case as a favor" gives the opposite impression. That needs to be cleared up before there can be any meaningful discussion about what her taking the case shows of her character.
Just for the sake of accuracy, I didn't say she had to take the case, only that once she had done so she had the obligation to zealously advocate for the client.
Understood. You seem like a reasonable person and if you notice, I am not trying to show any outrage to you. You are clearly not a true believer/useful idiot/sock puppet.
All of that being said, the bottom lines are that
A) She did not have to defend this child rapist
B) She knew he was guilty
C) She had a good laugh over it
D) Anyone who is defending her should be ashamed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre
My thought originally was that there could be some serious questions about the character of someone who would choose to take this case, although, again, this gets complicated since the reality is that the legal system needs to have lawyers who are willing to defend even the lowest scum, though then there is the question of what kind of people those lawyers are. It gets still more complicated, though, if the info in Lycos679's post here is correct:
We have public defenders. Anyone who choses to defend someone that they know is guilty does not have my respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre
Although if Lycos679's info is correct, the GOP candidate would have less to work with than if H.C. had taken the case of her own volition. Still might get some mileage out of the seeming callousness with which she discussed the case later, but less mileage than would have been possible if she had taken the case voluntarily.
Paragraph 2 of the story makes it clear that she had a right to turn it down. She "took the case as a favor." She was not a public defender and could not literally be "appointed" to the case.
Here is the part some of you are having a problem with, the difference between PUBLIC DEFENDERS which have a duty to represent the client, and not-for-profit agencies which do not. This is from Wiki and thus should nto be a copyright violation:
Different jurisdictions use different approaches in providing legal counsel for criminal defendants who can't afford private attorneys. Under the federal system and most common among the states is through a publicly funded public defender office. Typically, these offices function as an agency of the federal, state or local government and as such, these attorneys are compensated as salaried government employees. This approach provides a substantial majority of the indigent criminal defense representation in the United States.[SIZE=2][[/SIZE][SIZE=2]11[/SIZE][SIZE=2]][/SIZE]
In addition to government-based offices, there are also a smaller but significant number of not-for-profit agencies, often referred to as a "Defender Service", or Legal Aid Societies that provide indigent criminal defense services. These entities tend to rely heavily on indirect sources, public funding, and charitable contributions to meet their operating costs.[SIZE=2][[/SIZE][SIZE=2]citation needed[/SIZE][SIZE=2]][/SIZE] Notable not-for-profit public defense agencies in the U.S. include the Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem and The Bronx Defenders.[SIZE=2][[/SIZE][SIZE=2]12[/SIZE][SIZE=2]][/SIZE][SIZE=2][[/SIZE][SIZE=2]13[/SIZE][SIZE=2]][/SIZE]
Last edited by cachibatches; 06-20-2014 at 11:05 PM..
Understood. You seem like a reasonable person and if you notice, I am not trying to show any outrage to you. You are clearly not a true believer/useful idiot/sock puppet.
LOLOL. I think you're saying that I'm not a true believer in H.C., as in one of her supporters. If in fact that is what you're saying, well, you're lucky that understatement isn't a crime, because if it were, by describing me as "not a true believer" you'd be risking a life sentence for the crime of understatement. I absolutely cannot stand either Clinton, and in fact find the idea of President Hillary to be rather scary. I'd be very relieved if something happened to assure us that such an event would never occur. That being the case, I'd love to see H.C.'s potential opposition have the ammunition that could bring her down once and for all. I'm just not sure that this is it. Not sure that it's not, either, but not sure that it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
All of that being said, the bottom lines are that
A) She did not have to defend this child rapist . . .
. . . have public defenders. Anyone who choses to defend someone that they know is guilty does not have my respect.
Not all counties, nor even all states, use public defenders. Here are a couple of links to sources that cover some of the basics on that:
Where public defenders are not used, courts appoint local lawyers to take their turns representing indigent defendants. I just skimmed the article the opening post links to, but I don't think the piece included information even on which state this occurred in, much less what the local system was in whatever county it was where this all happened. That's why I said in a post above that the article needed to elaborate on that point. As it is, since the article says both that H.C. "was appointed by the court" (which generally would mean that the lawyer would be required to take the case) and that she "took the case as a favor," it's unclear whether she had any choice about taking the case.
Even if she did have to take the case, it's this part here . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
B) She knew he was guilty C) She had a good laugh over it
. . . that could still harm her. This along with the article's description of her gloating about winning the case. Bit by bit, H.C. has started to let slip with some things that appear to reveal what I very much suspect is the truth about her: that she is a very cold, uncaring person. If the attitude she shows in recalling the story is as callous as the story describes, this could be a big leap toward revealing her as totally self-centered, and ice cold.
LOLOL. I think you're saying that I'm not a true believer in H.C., as in one of her supporters. If in fact that is what you're saying, well, you're lucky that understatement isn't a crime, because if it were, by describing me as "not a true believer" you'd be risking a life sentence for the crime of understatement. I absolutely cannot stand either Clinton, and in fact find the idea of President Hillary to be rather scary. I'd be very relieved if something happened to assure us that such an event would never occur. That being the case, I'd love to see H.C.'s potential opposition have the ammunition that could bring her down once and for all. I'm just not sure that this is it. Not sure that it's not, either, but not sure that it is.
Not all counties, nor even all states, use public defenders. Here are a couple of links to sources that cover some of the basics on that:
Where public defenders are not used, courts appoint local lawyers to take their turns representing indigent defendants. I just skimmed the article the opening post links to, but I don't think the piece included information even on which state this occurred in, much less what the local system was in whatever county it was where this all happened. That's why I said in a post above that the article needed to elaborate on that point. As it is, since the article says both that H.C. "was appointed by the court" (which generally would mean that the lawyer would be required to take the case) and that she "took the case as a favor," it's unclear whether she had any choice about taking the case.
Even if she did have to take the case, it's this part here . . .
. . . that could still harm her. This along with the article's description of her gloating about winning the case. Bit by bit, H.C. has started to let slip with some things that appear to reveal what I very much suspect is the truth about her: that she is a very cold, uncaring person. If the attitude she shows in recalling the story is as callous as the story describes, this could be a big leap toward revealing her as totally self-centered, and ice cold.
From my understanding if she worked as a public defender (which she did not) then she had an obligation to take the case. If she worked from a third party agency (which she did) then she had every right to turn it down.
This is reflected in the comments "took the case as a favor."
Of course the liberal media rank-and-file sock puppet who wrote this article is trying to obscure this fact (she only wrote it as and apology of sorts) and made this obscure and hard to understand so that the other sock puppets/low information voters/useful idiots/true believers would not fully understand, and would take their limited/misunderstood knowledge out into the world and defend her. But the fact is that she had a choice to defend this man, period, and anyone who knew that he was guilty (she admitted that she did) and had a choice in the matter should not have done so on moral grounds.
By the by, I did not understand the specifics of this when I posted it, as I am not a lawyer and have never needed one being a law abiding citizen. So I do not fault you at all for not getting the subtleties here. But I have the ability to research and make sure that my ducks are in a row, I quickly realized that this is much worse that anyone in the mainstream media is letting on The bottom line is as stated:
A) She did not have to defend this child rapist
B) She knew he was guilty
C) She had a good laugh over it
D) Anyone who is defending her should be ashamed.
Last edited by cachibatches; 06-21-2014 at 02:10 AM..
A guy who states he never liked Hillary is a sock puppet in your world?
This thread is officially not worth commenting on, if you're that unreasonable. You're on the wrong website, or at least the wrong forum of this website if you think any of these three you've so quickly dismissed as sock puppets are at all deserving of the moniker
From my understanding if she worked as a public defender (which she did not) then she had an obligation to take the case. If she worked from a third party agency (which she did) then she had every right to turn it down.
This is reflected in the comments "took the case as a favor."
Of course the liberal media rank-and-file sock puppet who wrote this article is trying to obscure this fact (she only wrote it as and apology of sorts) and made this obscure and hard to understand so that the other sock puppets/low information voters/useful idiots/true believers would not fully understand, and would take their limited/misunderstood knowledge out into the world and defend her. But the fact is that she had a choice to defend this man, period, and anyone who knew that he was guilty (she admitted that she did) and had a choice in the matter should not have done so on moral grounds.
By the by, I did not understand the specifics of this when I posted it, as I am not a lawyer and have never needed one being a law abiding citizen. So I do not fault you at all for not getting the subtleties here. But I have the ability to research and make sure that my ducks are in a row, I quickly realized that this is much worse that anyone in the mainstream media is letting on The bottom line is as stated:
A) She did not have to defend this child rapist
B) She knew he was guilty
C) She had a good laugh over it
D) Anyone who is defending her should be ashamed.
At the risk of being labeled sock puppet 4, I will point out that you still don't know the circumstances surrounding your conclusion A above. You're a medium-information commenter at the moment.
I am not a Hillary fan, if this needs to be stated outright in order for my comment to be taken seriously by the OP (why I care enough to make the effort at adding an unnecessary disclaimer, I'm not sure).
Its attitudes like this that go far in explaining to me why the GOP can't win the presidency in 2016.
People who are this bitter and stuck in the past have nothing to offer this country.
Sorry if I'm unable to look past being an accomplice to murder (I guess multiple times if you count Benghazi). How ANYONE (I don't give a care about parties) can support a person with so much garbage in their past. Are you crazy? You're probably a Jane Fonda fan, too. If you think she's good for this country.... pfft.
I offer this country my loyalty and it gladly accepted from me 29 years of military service.
Sorry if I'm unable to look past being an accomplice to murder (I guess multiple times if you count Benghazi). How ANYONE (I don't give a care about parties) can support a person with so much garbage in their past. Are you crazy? You're probably a Jane Fonda fan, too. If you think she's good for this country.... pfft.
I offer this country my loyalty and it gladly accepted from me 29 years of military service.
Murder is a pretty strong word. It suggests a killing is intentional. So, you must think HC planned for Chris Stevens and the embassy staff to be murdered at Benghazi? Its possible some negligence was involved on the part of the State Department, even though Stevens made his own decision to go to Benghazi. However, to suggest that Hillary intended or wanted Chris Stevens to be killed is outrageous.
Honestly, the hyperbole employed these days to try to make Hillary look bad is primarily showing me how desperate some right wing groups in this country are. The latest public opinion polls show Hillary with a 10-15 point lead over any opponent that she is compared with. That's quite a mountain to overcome. I suppose stranger things have happened, but I'd suggest that there are going to be some awfully unhappy conservative people the day after the 2016 election.
This story, the OP has dredged up here is just the latest bit of nonsense. A person is innocent until proven guilty. Even if a lawyer knows a client is guilty in our country, the state still has the obligation to prove that guilt in court and beyond a reasonable doubt. The role of an attorney defending such a man is well understood by anyone who has taken a Civics class in high school.
Honestly, what I'm hoping for is all the Hillary haters get so worked up they spend all their money trying to defeat her. Than, when she takes office, they won't have any money left to support tea bagger candidates for Congress.
Hillary I like
Rapists I don't
The founding fathers I like
Unfortunately in an attempt to get away from the cruel Brit justice system they set
Up a new system that let criminals off by being legally innocent of crimes they clearly committed
As a former juror I have been forced to unleash many vicious criminals loose on my community bek they were not legally guilty but clearly had committed the crime
The sky is crying
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I absolutely cannot stand either Clinton, and in fact find the idea of President Hillary to be rather scary. I'd be very relieved if something happened to assure us that such an event would never occur. That being the case, I'd love to see H.C.'s potential opposition have the ammunition that could bring her down once and for all. I'm just not sure that this is it. Not sure that it's not, either, but not sure that it is.
