2009-01-07, 02:54 PM
Quantact... You called the copypasta "BS written by her lawyers" when it makes her look like a complete idiot. It also corrects several claims you made in the thread, which is why I posted it (ie. she made 3mil, she was driving, she was holding it at the crotch instead of at the knees, etc.) I don't see why you're trying to turn this into an argument.
Here's a comical and dumbed-down paraphrasing of our interaction in this thread, from my perspective:
- (all the previous posts before my first one)
- Me: yeah, it's ridiculous... although here's the correct facts, in copypasta form.
- You: no, pat, she's stupid and doesn't deserve anything.
- Me: Did you read it at all? It shows she was an idiot... and I was just giving out the correct facts. I wasn't defending her (because I agree, it is all her fault)
- You: I reread and you haven't refuted anything I said!
I apologize for the slight mockery there, but of course I haven't refuted anything you said; I'm not trying to. We agree with each other. The only part I disagree with is how you presented the following:
The lawyer is only there to supply the information (with obvious bias) to the jury and destroy the validity/credibility of the evidence presented by the opposing lawyer. They're more there because they know the many loopholes, precedents, obscure exceptions in the law and so forth, which can benefit their client. They're generally also good speakers, which works wonders when trying to convince jury members to take your client's side.
...unless I completely misunderstood you and you meant the judge instead of the lawyer, since the former evaluates the merit of the case based on how much evidence there is, in order to see whether it has enough to even go to trial. If that's what you meant, then you can just ignore most of what I wrote
Also, around here, the vast majority of lawyers are paid admittedly way too much by the hour, not by % of settlement or whatever else (or at least my mom was, as were all her coworkers and law students. Same goes for the lawyers I supported when I was in tech support at a one of the most prestigious law firms in the country...) They're not twisting the facts to make money; they're twisting them because it's in their client's best interest. They've already made most of the money they're going to get, whether they win or lose the case. (of course, some of the 2-bit traffic violation lawyers have promotions like "You don't pay unless we win!", but that's a different story...)
Here's a comical and dumbed-down paraphrasing of our interaction in this thread, from my perspective:
- (all the previous posts before my first one)
- Me: yeah, it's ridiculous... although here's the correct facts, in copypasta form.
- You: no, pat, she's stupid and doesn't deserve anything.
- Me: Did you read it at all? It shows she was an idiot... and I was just giving out the correct facts. I wasn't defending her (because I agree, it is all her fault)
- You: I reread and you haven't refuted anything I said!
I apologize for the slight mockery there, but of course I haven't refuted anything you said; I'm not trying to. We agree with each other. The only part I disagree with is how you presented the following:
Quote:The jury of peers is who should be deciding the merits of the case, not a bullpomegranate artist who stands to gain $$$ and is therefore completely biased.While I agree with the sentence, that's already how it is. The lawyer selectively presents all the evidence that makes his side look good, just as the opposite side's lawyer does. Their job is to act in the best interest of their client, so they obviously don't want to present what makes their client look bad. The jury then has to put the 2 pictures together in order to decide what actually happened and then decide the appropriate way to go forward with regards to the accused. The jury of peers makes the decisions, not the lawyer...
The lawyer is only there to supply the information (with obvious bias) to the jury and destroy the validity/credibility of the evidence presented by the opposing lawyer. They're more there because they know the many loopholes, precedents, obscure exceptions in the law and so forth, which can benefit their client. They're generally also good speakers, which works wonders when trying to convince jury members to take your client's side.
...unless I completely misunderstood you and you meant the judge instead of the lawyer, since the former evaluates the merit of the case based on how much evidence there is, in order to see whether it has enough to even go to trial. If that's what you meant, then you can just ignore most of what I wrote
Also, around here, the vast majority of lawyers are paid admittedly way too much by the hour, not by % of settlement or whatever else (or at least my mom was, as were all her coworkers and law students. Same goes for the lawyers I supported when I was in tech support at a one of the most prestigious law firms in the country...) They're not twisting the facts to make money; they're twisting them because it's in their client's best interest. They've already made most of the money they're going to get, whether they win or lose the case. (of course, some of the 2-bit traffic violation lawyers have promotions like "You don't pay unless we win!", but that's a different story...)