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.
Was that a dodge? You never answered the question.
I've worked with attorneys on cases where they have done all the things you listed. You may find that I will be more interested in answering questions when you do NOT call me names.
I've worked with attorneys on cases where they have done all the things you listed. You may find that I will be more interested in answering questions when you do NOT call me names.
Don't you just hate it when they want to talk but can not control their emotions? If they insulted you once they are not worth the chat. I have a question for you and it is not in regards to law but police policy and skill of pursuit. How did they manage to lose sight of the younger brother? How could this have happened that he hoped in a car and got away? I don't get it.
Don't you just hate it when they want to talk but can not control their emotions? If they insulted you once they are not worth the chat. I have a question for you and it is not in regards to law but police policy and skill of pursuit. How did they manage to lose sight of the younger brother? How could this have happened that he hoped in a car and got away? I don't get it.
I have no experience in pursuit of criminals. I have no idea.
Don't you just hate it when they want to talk but can not control their emotions? If they insulted you once they are not worth the chat. I have a question for you and it is not in regards to law but police policy and skill of pursuit. How did they manage to lose sight of the younger brother? How could this have happened that he hoped in a car and got away? I don't get it.
"After several minutes, the elder brother, Tamerlan, walked toward the officers, firing his gun until he appeared to run out of bullets, Deveau said. Officers tackled him and were trying to get handcuffs on him, when the stolen SUV came roaring at them, the younger brother at the wheel. The officers scattered and the SUV plowed over Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was dragged briefly under the car, he said.
Dzhokar Tsarnaev abandoned the SUV almost immediately on a nearby street and fled on foot, triggering an all-day manhunt."
So, POS #1 used himself as a shield to let POS #2 get away.
The only problem with the story above, is another story about the autopsy shows multiple gun shots to POS #1, so the part about him being tackled to the ground to
handcuff, seems kind of strange.
Last edited by pollyrobin; 04-25-2013 at 08:27 PM..
There is so much wrong in this post it's actually amusing.
I think you may be someone with a "very little bit" of knowledge about a lot of things, and a very vivid imagination, but in this case your knowledge about courts, attorneys and how they work is so infinitesimal it doesn't deserve serious consideration.
You seem to think that Judges are ALL-POWERFUL people/positions who tell attorneys how to run their cases and make all the decisions, and that those Judges are told what to do by whom, a mysterious "government" official?
And I think you'd be wise to debate someone else, because in our history of debate, I find you to be one of the more easily defeated though no less dangerous types .... the type who truly believes they know a hell of a lot more about a whole bunch of things than they really do. This would be just another example.
First of all, where in my comments did I infer such things as shadowy figures telling judges what to do? Nowhere. These are your mental gyrations which have nothing to do with any point of my comments. While the term Judge is being used generically, in the case of Federal Judges, they are appointed, not elected, so there isn't so much a situation of Judges being told what to do, but more about judges being selected for appointment based on the history of what they have done, and the ideological principles for which they have proven loyalty to. That is an even better situation than having to tell them what to do.
Though you are wrong ... dead wrong, if you are attempting to marginalize the power judges hold from the bench in their courtrooms. Everyday in this country, judges violate the law with impunity, and are not accountable to anyone for their legal misconduct. The ONLY general risks and repercussions of judicial misconduct come in the risk that decisions can be overturned on appeal when judicial error is found, but there is no real avenue for the censure of judges, except in the most extreme cases of criminal misconduct which has a burdensome level of required evidence to gain any traction, and examples of this occurring are extremely rare compared to the routine conduct that should have many judges removed from the bench, but never are.
We have had federal judges literally say in open session, "I will not entertain constitutional issues in this courtroom", and other such examples of misconduct like telling juries how they must decide the cases before them based on narrow criteria defined by that judge, when the reality is, juries can decide guilty or innocent at their sole discretion, and for any reason they care to. Juries are under no obligation to follow such decrees that they are so often fraudulently instructed by these demigods in black robes. The right of Jury Nullification is the last line of defense against legal tyranny under the guise of justice. If a jury decides that the law itself is unfair, they have the right to find the defendant not guilty, effectively nullifying that law in that case. But you'll never hear a judge agree with the premise, even though it is a well established and prudent power held by the juror.
Sadly ... these are the MINOR abuses for which judicial officials do not even bother to conceal, because the real abuse of powers that also occur behind the curtain would lead to a revolution if it were fully exposed to the public. Such gross violations such as bribery, jury rigging, and other outrageous behaviors also occur routinely in the federal courts, because, when you are at the top of the food chain, you have no predator threat. This is only common sense, and a demonstration of the complete absence of it, to argue against.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
Lots of people who work in the courtroom are called "officers of the court" other than attorneys. It's just a title. The fact that you don't know these things demonstrates your enormous lack of knowledge about .this subject. Attorneys have NO PERSONAL OBLIGATIONS to Judges over their cases.
That's just total tripe, and I have to wonder where you've developed this naiveté .... Law & Order ? Perry Mason, if you're old, like me? Judges and Lawyers are first, the same thing, and secondly, members of a unique fraternity. You'd have to be a complete idiot to not be aware of the more obvious power judges hold over attorneys, such as the power they wield regarding the cases they hear for which the attorneys livelihoods and reputations rely on. Judges can destroy attorneys careers, which is why you'll never find a lawyer who would dare challenge a judge.
This is part of what they call "the game" ... and there are many unwritten and unspoken of rules for which those participants in "the game" must understand if they want to continue participating. One of the most important rules is, don't "fuss" with the judges, even if he's a blatant crackpot criminal felon, of which there are many in the system. Who are you going to take your case against a federal judge to? A federal prosecutor? Ha! Fat lot of good that will do. I don't think you really need to be overly bright to realize that a federal judge has a bit more leverage than a prosecutor .... just keep in mind that when dreaming up these wild ideas of yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
You know, you'd be a bit more convincing if you realized that when you're talking about an attorney, the spelling is COUNSEL, not COUNCIL. That's just soooooo basic.
You do realize that it's a clear sign of weakness to cite a grammatical-spelling-typo error as a point of debate? For your information, I'm just as familiar with the differences between counsel and council, as I am with their and there ... then and than ... to and too, but often make those errors as I get caught up in the more important details of points of content. I must also plead guilty to becoming lax in proof reading, with spell-check being my only excuse, but I would have probably missed it anyway, even if I had. On the other hand, had I used the term "counselor", I would not have made the same error, as "counsilor" would immediately alert me as I typed, even though my spelling, I must confess, will win no awards.
I would suggest that you proof every word you write from here on out ... but I'm really not inclined or so petty to cite such common mistakes. You'll never see me stoop to that level. It's weak, and I just don't engage in debating topics that I have such limited knowledge in, so I don't need to employ such tactics.
And I think you'd be wise to debate someone else, because in our history of debate, I find you to be one of the more easily defeated though no less dangerous types .... the type who truly believes they know a hell of a lot more about a whole bunch of things than they really do. This would be just another example.
First of all, where in my comments did I infer such things as shadowy figures telling judges what to do? Nowhere. These are your mental gyrations which have nothing to do with any point of my comments. While the term Judge is being used generically, in the case of Federal Judges, they are appointed, not elected, so there isn't so much a situation of Judges being told what to do, but more about judges being selected for appointment based on the history of what they have done, and the ideological principles for which they have proven loyalty to. That is an even better situation than having to tell them what to do.
Though you are wrong ... dead wrong, if you are attempting to marginalize the power judges hold from the bench in their courtrooms. Everyday in this country, judges violate the law with impunity, and are not accountable to anyone for their legal misconduct. The ONLY general risks and repercussions of judicial misconduct come in the risk that decisions can be overturned on appeal when judicial error is found, but there is no real avenue for the censure of judges, except in the most extreme cases of criminal misconduct which has a burdensome level of required evidence to gain any traction, and examples of this occurring are extremely rare compared to the routine conduct that should have many judges removed from the bench, but never are.
We have had federal judges literally say in open session, "I will not entertain constitutional issues in this courtroom", and other such examples of misconduct like telling juries how they must decide the cases before them based on narrow criteria defined by that judge, when the reality is, juries can decide guilty or innocent at their sole discretion, and for any reason they care to. Juries are under no obligation to follow such decrees that they are so often fraudulently instructed by these demigods in black robes. The right of Jury Nullification is the last line of defense against legal tyranny under the guise of justice. If a jury decides that the law itself is unfair, they have the right to find the defendant not guilty, effectively nullifying that law in that case. But you'll never hear a judge agree with the premise, even though it is a well established and prudent power held by the juror.
Sadly ... these are the MINOR abuses for which judicial officials do not even bother to conceal, because the real abuse of powers that also occur behind the curtain would lead to a revolution if it were fully exposed to the public. Such gross violations such as bribery, jury rigging, and other outrageous behaviors also occur routinely in the federal courts, because, when you are at the top of the food chain, you have no predator threat. This is only common sense, and a demonstration of the complete absence of it, to argue against.
That's just total tripe, and I have to wonder where you've developed this naiveté .... Law & Order ? Perry Mason, if you're old, like me? Judges and Lawyers are first, the same thing, and secondly, members of a unique fraternity. You'd have to be a complete idiot to not be aware of the more obvious power judges hold over attorneys, such as the power they wield regarding the cases they hear for which the attorneys livelihoods and reputations rely on. Judges can destroy attorneys careers, which is why you'll never find a lawyer who would dare challenge a judge.
This is part of what they call "the game" ... and there are many unwritten and unspoken of rules for which those participants in "the game" must understand if they want to continue participating. One of the most important rules is, don't "fuss" with the judges, even if he's a blatant crackpot criminal felon, of which there are many in the system. Who are you going to take your case against a federal judge to? A federal prosecutor? Ha! Fat lot of good that will do. I don't think you really need to be overly bright to realize that a federal judge has a bit more leverage than a prosecutor .... just keep in mind that when dreaming up these wild ideas of yours.
You do realize that it's a clear sign of weakness to cite a grammatical-spelling-typo error as a point of debate? For your information, I'm just as familiar with the differences between counsel and council, as I am with their and there ... then and than ... to and too, but often make those errors as I get caught up in the more important details of points of content. I must also plead guilty to becoming lax in proof reading, with spell-check being my only excuse, but I would have probably missed it anyway, even if I had. On the other hand, had I used the term "counselor", I would not have made the same error, as "counsilor" would immediately alert me as I typed, even though my spelling, I must confess, will win no awards.
I would suggest that you proof every word you write from here on out ... but I'm really not inclined or so petty to cite such common mistakes. You'll never see me stoop to that level. It's weak, and I just don't engage in debating topics that I have such limited knowledge in, so I don't need to employ such tactics.
You clearly have no experience working in courtrooms with judges and attorneys on a regular basis, and anyone who does have that experience knows from reading your posts about that subject that you have no first-hand experience, especially working with federal court judges. You also seem to be clueless about appeals in cases. Federal Court Judges, just as State Court Judges, have courtrooms full of attorneys keeping an "eye" on their rulings.......btw, WHY do you think there is an appellate court system?
I have personally seen attorneys "fuss" with judges. You're making such broad generalizations about these things!
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 04-25-2013 at 08:44 PM..
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.
That's just soooooo basic.
