Idiots and their stupid lawyers

[gabosaurus]

The Los Angeles area is soon going to be a more dangerous place to live because of stupid idiots and their money grubbing lawyers.
A while back, a two-bit hood was caught robbing a business and ran from police. He brought something out of his pocket (at night) and was shot and killed. His family sued, stating that police should have used "less lethal" methods to subdue.
LAPD adopted new legislation on when officers should use tasers or deadly force.
Last week, an officer was threatened again by a hood and tasered. The perp had a bad reaction to the taser and died. Now his family are suing, claiming "unnecessary force."
Another incident -- police arrested two known gang members found loitering near a business. One got an attorney, who managed to get him released. On the streets again, the gang guy ended up killing someone. Whose relatives are now suing LAPD for releasing the gang guy in the first place.

I don't know what is more disgusting -- the relatives attempting to profit off a death, or the attorneys for taking the cases to make money for themselves.

[Yurt]

hate to burst your bubble....but lawyers don't make those decisions....judges and juries do :poke:

[hjmick]

Are you, Gabo, advocating for denying the accused their right to be represented in a court of law?

[Abbey Marie]

The courts are chock-full of unaccountable, activist liberals called Judges. There's the real problem. Lawyers are just advocating.

This is just Gitmo, urban style.

[DannyR]

Lawyers are just advocating. You guys give the lawyers too much of a break.

Selling your services to do something wrong is still a form of prostitution.

Not giving the judges a break, but hey, they can only rule on what is presented before them. A lawyer advocating for something immoral is just as wrong as a judge agreeing with him. Probably more so, as the lawyer had the option to decline the case.

[Nukeman]

The courts are chock-full of unaccountable, activist liberals called Judges. There's the real problem. Lawyers are just advocating.

This is just Gitmo, urban style.

:lol::lol::clap::clap:

so true, so true!!!!!!!!

[Abbey Marie]

You guys give the lawyers too much of a break.

Selling your services to do something wrong is still a form of prostitution.

Not giving the judges a break, but hey, they can only rule on what is presented before them. A lawyer advocating for something immoral is just as wrong as a judge agreeing with him. Probably more so, as the lawyer had the option to decline the case.

This is the backbone of our legal system. Are you suggesting that lawyers should only represent the innocent?

Regardless of what tripe is brough before them, the judges have the power to make the ruling. The worst that can happen to them is the ruling is overturned. Not so horrible, is it?

[crin63]

The courts are chock-full of unaccountable, activist liberals called Judges. There's the real problem. Lawyers are just advocating.

This is just Gitmo, urban style.

What she said!

These are your people gabs, the ones you support, the ones you fight so hard to get and keep in power. Its your own Liberal Leftist judges, city councilmen and state legislators creating the laws where the judges and juries are handing down these type of rulings.

[DannyR]

This is the backbone of our legal system. Are you suggesting that lawyers should only represent the innocent?What are you talking about? The examples above aren't examples of lawyers representing the guilty. They are examples of lawyers preying on the pain of a bereaved family member hoping to get paid.

[Abbey Marie]

What are you talking about? The examples above aren't examples of lawyers representing the guilty. They are examples of lawyers preying on the pain of a bereaved family member hoping to get paid.

Really?

Another incident -- police arrested two known gang members found loitering near a business. One got an attorney, who managed to get him released. On the streets again, the gang guy ended up killing someone.

[DannyR]

Really?Yes really. The point of that story (and gabosaurus's comment about lawyers) was that the FAMILY of the person he killed then sued the police. Different lawyer, and a case that any well respecting lawyer should not have taken.

[Yurt]

You guys give the lawyers too much of a break.

Selling your services to do something wrong is still a form of prostitution.

Not giving the judges a break, but hey, they can only rule on what is presented before them. A lawyer advocating for something immoral is just as wrong as a judge agreeing with him. Probably more so, as the lawyer had the option to decline the case.

wtf? what is immoral in the OP? and as for criminals...you are stomping on the constitution...and to compare it with prostitution, your ignorance is appalling.

go read up on the sixth amendment :poke:

[Yurt]

gabs, do you have links to these purported stories? i would like to see more facts behind them before i jump to conclusions.

and again folks, lawyers don't make the decisions, they are advocates, they are giving people their day in court. you don't like the outcome, you can't blame the lawyers, blame the decision makers and the laws that support the lawyers arguments.

[Abbey Marie]

gabs, do you have links to these purported stories? i would like to see more facts behind them before i jump to conclusions.

and again folks, lawyers don't make the decisions, they are advocates, they are giving people their day in court. you don't like the outcome, you can't blame the lawyers, blame the decision makers and the laws that support the lawyers arguments.

Indeed. This isn't rocket science. Who decided to let the gang member back on the street? Who awarded these greedy people any money they may have gotten?

Hint: Not the lawyers.

[Yurt]

Indeed. This isn't rocket science. Who decided to let the gang member back on the street? Who awarded these greedy people any money they may have gotten?

Hint: Not the lawyers.

yes. unfortunately we are the face, if you will, of the legal system. they throw eggs at the system and aim for us, not the real problem. i've seen people get upset that a lawyer made a certain argument in a case...well how could do that, it hurts that poor persons (other party) case. well, there was some law that supported the lawyers argument and guess what, if that lawyer did not make that argument the lawyer could get disciplined by the state bar for incompetency.

its not like we all think our cases our winners, but if you have the case you have to be a zealous advocate or the law is going to get you in trouble.

[gabosaurus]

Good to see so many of your support "drive by lawyers" and their frivolous lawsuits.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't support it. I just know the reality of it. You would need major tort reform to change the system. With a lawyer-dominated Dem congress, that isn't very likely to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, if judges and juries would be more conservative, things would improve.

Anyway, I think judges letting dangerous people back on the streets is a much more serious problem.

[Yurt]

Good to see so many of your support "drive by lawyers" and their frivolous lawsuits.

nobody said that, nice try....

and once again gabs lawyers do NOT make that decision. a lawyer can and/or will be punished for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. sanctions, attorney fees etc...and again, neither you nor the lawyer makes the decision about what is frivolous, the trier of fact does.

perhaps you support anyone on this board finding your guilty of murder, slander, perjury, without ever having had your case tried in front of our legal system's trier of fact (judge or jury).

[manu1959]

Good to see so many of your support "drive by lawyers" and their frivolous lawsuits.

which lawsuit in your op do you consider frivolous.....

[hjmick]

Good to see so many of your support "drive by lawyers" and their frivolous lawsuits.

Good to see that you believe in denying people their right to legal representation.

Once again for those who are slow in comprehending:

I-T

I-S

T-H-E

L-A-W-Y-E-R-S

J-O-B

T-O

P-R-E-S-E-N-T

T-H-E

B-E-S-T

D-E-F-E-N-S-E

P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E

O-T-H-E-R-W-I-S-E

T-H-E-Y

F-A-C-E

S-A-N-C-T-I-O-N-S.

I-T

I-S

T-H-E

R-I-G-H-T

O-F

A-C-C-U-S-E-D

T-O

R-E-C-E-I-V-E

T-H-E

B-E-S-T

D-E-F-E-N-S-E

P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E.

I-T

I-S

T-H-E

J-U-D-G-E-S

A-N-D

J-U-R-I-E-S

W-H-O

M-A-K-E

T-H-E

R-U-L-I-N-G-S

A-N-D

R-E-A-C-H

T-H-E

V-E-R-D-I-C-T-S.

T-H-E

S-A-M-E

C-A-N

B-E

S-A-I-D

F-O-R

T-H-E

S-O

C-A-L-L-E-D

F-R-I-V-O-L-O-U-S

L-A-W-S-U-I-T-S.

A

J-U-D-G-E

D-E-T-E-R-M-I-N-E-S

T-H-E

M-E-R-I-T-S

O-F

A

C-A-S-E

A-N-D

D-E-C-I-D-E-S

W-H-E-T-H-E-R

O-R

N-O-T

T-H-E

C-A-S-E

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-S,

T-H-E

J-U-R-Y

D-E-C-I-D-E-S

T-H-E

A-W-A-R-D.


If you want to be pissed at someone, start with the judges and juries, not to mention the legislators who pass the laws that allow for "frivolous" lawsuits and loopholes and rules that allow criminal suspects to be released prior to trial.

[johnney]

i wish i could say i was suprised but...

[DannyR]

go read up on the sixth amendment Um, if you think the 6th amendment has anything to do with my argument, you totally missed the point. :laugh2:

[DannyR]

Good to see that you believe in denying people their right to legal representation.

Yet another person who totally missed the point.

Denying the ACCUSED legal representaiton is NOT the frivolous lawyering he's talking about!

Geez, read the actual story people. He's not complaining about the gang member who got out of jail. He's complaining about the family who sued the police department for releasing him and the lawyer who represented THEM. Are they the accused? I think not! They just want a paycheck.

[Yurt]

Yet another person who totally missed the point.

Denying the ACCUSED legal representaiton is NOT the frivolous lawyering he's talking about!

Geez, read the actual story people. He's not complaining about the gang member who got out of jail. He's complaining about the family who sued the police department for releasing him and the lawyer who represented THEM. Are they the accused? I think not! They just want a paycheck.

and they have a right to hire counsel to advocate for them....YOU keep missing the key issue:

lawyers aren't the decision makers, why don't read the rest of the thread and get back to me.

[DannyR]

and they have a right to hire counsel to advocate for them

Nobody said they don't have the "right" to hire counsel. :poke:

What's he's claiming is that they shouldn't because many such cases are frivolous. I generally agree. These are ambulance chasing lawyers wanting a paycheck.


YOU keep missing the key issue: lawyers aren't the decision makers

Wrong! They choose if they should take the case or not! And to be perfectly clear for those of you who keep missing this point, we're not talking about the gang member who is guaranteed representation, but those filing frivolous lawsuits in the pursuit of a big paycheck)

You keep blaming ONLY the judge. Judges courtrooms are SWAMPED because of the amount of such cases coming before them. And because they don't have the time to examine each case carefully, the occasional wrong decision gets trumped up by the media. Yet you don't believe lawyers have any culpability in this problem, pushing the cases in the first place? They could have told their clients to suck it up and stop wasting their time!

[hjmick]

Yet another person who can't seem to follow the thread.


Yet another person who totally missed the point.

Denying the ACCUSED legal representaiton is NOT the frivolous lawyering he's talking about!

Geez, read the actual story people. He's not complaining about the gang member who got out of jail. He's complaining about the family who sued the police department for releasing him and the lawyer who represented THEM. Are they the accused? I think not! They just want a paycheck.

Here, let me help you Junior...

Gabo posted this:


The Los Angeles area is soon going to be a more dangerous place to live because of stupid idiots and their money grubbing lawyers.
A while back, a two-bit hood was caught robbing a business and ran from police. He brought something out of his pocket (at night) and was shot and killed. His family sued, stating that police should have used "less lethal" methods to subdue.
LAPD adopted new legislation on when officers should use tasers or deadly force.
Last week, an officer was threatened again by a hood and tasered. The perp had a bad reaction to the taser and died. Now his family are suing, claiming "unnecessary force."
Another incident -- police arrested two known gang members found loitering near a business. One got an attorney, who managed to get him released. On the streets again, the gang guy ended up killing someone. Whose relatives are now suing LAPD for releasing the gang guy in the first place.

I don't know what is more disgusting -- the relatives attempting to profit off a death, or the attorneys for taking the cases to make money for themselves.

To which I replied:


Are you, Gabo, advocating for denying the accused their right to be represented in a court of law?

Then, at post #16, Gabo posted this:


[/b]Good to see so many of your support "drive by lawyers" and their frivolous lawsuits.[/b]

To which I replied:


Good to see that you believe in denying people their right to legal representation.

Once again for those who are slow in comprehending:

I-T

I-S

T-H-E

L-A-W-Y-E-R-S

J-O-B

T-O

P-R-E-S-E-N-T

T-H-E

B-E-S-T

D-E-F-E-N-S-E

P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E

O-T-H-E-R-W-I-S-E

T-H-E-Y

F-A-C-E

S-A-N-C-T-I-O-N-S.

I-T

I-S

T-H-E

R-I-G-H-T

O-F

A-C-C-U-S-E-D

T-O

R-E-C-E-I-V-E

T-H-E

B-E-S-T

D-E-F-E-N-S-E

P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E.

I-T

I-S

T-H-E

J-U-D-G-E-S

A-N-D

J-U-R-I-E-S

W-H-O

M-A-K-E

T-H-E

R-U-L-I-N-G-S

A-N-D

R-E-A-C-H

T-H-E

V-E-R-D-I-C-T-S.

T-H-E

S-A-M-E

C-A-N

B-E

S-A-I-D

F-O-R

T-H-E

S-O

C-A-L-L-E-D

F-R-I-V-O-L-O-U-S

L-A-W-S-U-I-T-S.

A

J-U-D-G-E

D-E-T-E-R-M-I-N-E-S

T-H-E

M-E-R-I-T-S

O-F

A

C-A-S-E

A-N-D

D-E-C-I-D-E-S

W-H-E-T-H-E-R

O-R

N-O-T

T-H-E

C-A-S-E

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-S,

T-H-E

J-U-R-Y

D-E-C-I-D-E-S

T-H-E

A-W-A-R-D.


If you want to be pissed at someone, start with the judges and juries, not to mention the legislators who pass the laws that allow for "frivolous" lawsuits and loopholes and rules that allow criminal suspects to be released prior to trial.

So, as you can see, the topic has covered two different legal areas, thus there have been various replies concerning both topics mentioned by the thread author.

Do try to keep up.

[DannyR]

Yet another person who can't seem to follow the thread.

Don't see a single instance of Gabo saying the gang member should be denied representation as you keep claiming. He was clearly talking about the frivolous lawsuits that was the articles main point. Your repeating your argument just amounts to shouting btw. I can repost my own words too if it makes them any clearer to you. Keep up yourself please.

You were reading what you wanted to in his posts, ignoring his real point.


the topic has covered two different legal areas

Yeah, one of them a strawman argument about denying representation to the accused, which was never suggested by anyone but yourselves. How about answering his questions about frivolous lawsuits rather than trying to avoid the question by claiming he's denying the accused something. Putting it all on the judge and jury ignores the fact that lawyers have a duty not to abuse the letter of the law.

Frivolous lawsuits are time wasters, even if a judge always rules against a case, it costs the defendant time and possibly money. Lawyers have a duty not to abuse the law, even if abiding by the letter of it. Proof #1 can be seen in the dry cleaning lawyer who sued for millions for a lost pair of pants. Funny, if I recall correctly (which I do), the judge punished the LAWYER there. Wow. Guess I'm right.

And if I'm being snarky in my response, its because you've yet to show me where Gabo (or anyone!) ever said the accused should be denied representation but then accuse me of not reading the thread!