[ARCHIVED THREAD] - DUI Laws (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/30/2007 6:18:21 AM EDT
|
I wrote this up for another area but though I'd share it here. Not calling you guys drunks or anything, It's just good to know. Here in Georgia, We have two alcohol DUI laws. First is DUI per se (OCGA 40-6-391(a)(5)) the second is DUI less safe (OCGA 40-6-391(a)(1)) . Here's the idea, the legislature has provided that .08 as a limit, but any voluntary consumption which causes a driver to be less safe is sufficient to uphold a conviction. There are no presumptions about the .08 limit if you are over it, it does not mean that the prosecution has an edge legally, only in the minds of the jury. The prosecution must prove that the defendant was "driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle" and that the defendant was "under the influence of alcohol" Blood tests are not dispositive of whether a person is "under the influence", and breath tests are merely circumstantial evidence. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver was "less safe" because of the alcohol. The most common question the prosecution will ask is "does alcohol affect you." If you say no the jury thinks you’re a liar, if you say yes they have on the record sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. Less safe is used on its own when the driver refuses alcohol tests under Georgia's implied consent laws. Without a definite reading the state must rely on a combination of driving conduct, field tests, and physical observations. The arresting officer will generally testify that in his opinion this combination of factors shows the defendant was less safe. (I have a trick on this point but it costs $3,000.00 for me to tell it to you  ) A refusal to take a breath test does not create an inference that the driver is impaired to the point of driving less safe, and if the state says so it is reversible error. To proceed with a per se charge the state must have a BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) test in the record, but the lesser included offense of "less safe" is usually coupled with the per se charge so that a fatal flaw in the indictment does not appear if the test is thrown out. You can be tested for the BAC within three hours of driving. Expert testimony can be used if the test is more then three hours old and the expert can testify that the rate would indicate a higher level at the time of arrest or driving. The State must prove the alcohol was consumed prior to or during the driving, not after. In Georgia you have a right to refuse to submit to any BAC testing. If you are smart you will not give them evidence which will be used against you. Here even if you are under the limit you're still at risk. Your driver’s license may be administratively suspended for one year if you refuse the tests. Just get a good lawyer within five days of the arrest and we can generally prevent that. No promises, but more often than not. There are good cops; they usually have had their education given to them by good defense attorneys. Hope this helps. -DK |
DUI is an absolute scam as is all legal defense work. If you'd just invest seven years of school and three or four years practicing, building relationships with the prosecutors and developing a reputation to take things to trial and win, you'd never need a lawyer!  (That's completely tongue in cheek)  Truth is it really makes a difference. Lawman734's advice about the Admin hearing is absolutely right. The catch is you have to file for it in 10 days. I personally am too busy to get a filling made in 48 hours so I say “Get it to me in 5 days of arrest or do it yourself”. I'm not getting a bar complaint on that tight of a time line. I've handled dozens of DUI's. Most never go to trial. Of those that did I've only lost one so far. The differences in pleas are whether or not you have a good caring prosecutor. 99% of prosecutors don't care or they wouldn't be prosecutors. You have to know enough to spot problems with the indictment problems with the witnesses and problems with the officer's report. (Also knowing which officers have quit or been disciplined is a REAL bonus). 90% of the people out there can't do that. It takes 30 hours of work to put that all together and then have the stage presence to tell it to the Solicitor. Most of the time, when confronted, the Sol's decide it’s not worth it and reduce. Floyd County won't. I charge more there because all cases must be tried. All that being said the most important thing will always be testimony. The sooner you get statements on record the better off you are. I always try to get a prelim on every case. I've gotten more felonies dismissed by testimony on a prelim then for any other reason. Knowing how to shake an eyewitness is imperative too. People believe they saw things far better then they really did. Does everyone need a lawyer for every case? No. The question is do you want me to get your money or the government? The first lifetime DUI is no big deal. But trust me you’d rather have it reduced to reckless driving then have it on your record. This is a lot like CCW law. The first violation is a misdemeanor and not a big deal, the second is a Felony. For that reason you have to fight the first like your life depended on it. Next time it will. I’ll give everyone hear one piece of free advise. If any of you get a speeding ticket in Cobb County I’ll tell you the five steps to getting no points and a $75.00 fine, just IM me. |
|
First off I'll start out telling you guys i do NOT drink.... DUI laws are nothing more than good way for the govt. to take money from your pocket and put it in their pocket. If they only pursued burglars, rapists with the same vigor we would live in a much safer society. They will NEVER make those type criminals a priority because they do not generate revenue. they do just the opposite. I just love it when you pass the police station in Lawrenceville. They have a big sign where they proudly display the number of DUI tickets they've written year to date. Who gives a shit about the number of drug dealers, murderers ETC they got off the street YTD. Now that I think about it they probably pursue drug dealers with a little more vigor than I give them credit for only because they stand to generate revenue through seizure of property. TD |
|
I cant believe that you say DUI laws are only to generate revenue? I bet if your daughter son or wife were killed by a drunk driver you would have a different viewpoint. I also think drunk driving should carry a higher penalty, and if involved in an accident it should be an aggravated assault charge. Bottom line, is EVERYBODY knows thats its VERY illegal to drive after drinking and that you are taking a huge risk of killing someone, thier child and hopefully yourself. If someone is drunkand drives and a lawyer uses loopholes and bullshit like that to get them off, the next time when that person kills someone while drinking and driving, thats on your conscience. I hate DUI lawyers and shiesters who defend drug dealers and killers, rapists and peiople of that nature, These people are scum of the universe and should be dealt with accordingly, not exploited for money and defended to infect society anymore. |
|
7.62, If you've been the victim of violent crime or a drunk driver I feel for you. But I can't respect your opinion. Prosecutors seek justice, Defense attorneys keep us free. When the Murders, rapists child molesters and drunk drivers (and I have defended each) don't get a fair trial, next it will be the evil gun owners who don't deserve due process, and then the Jews, finally it will be any person who doesn't tow the government line. History has taught us this. A “Legal loophole” is a term of art to cover government abuses of power. If we don't throw out a prosecution for a murder because the police coerced a confession, how can we trust that anyone in prison is actually guilty? If we don't dismiss cases where a guilty child molester's accuser refuses to take the stand, will we accept a police officers affidavit that every arrestee is guilty? These are typical legal loopholes also known as constitutional rights. The guilty are punished. I however will never allow a person to be punished in spite of government misconduct. The sad fact is I use these precedents to defend my CCW cases as well. In the laws eyes once you defend yourself you are just another defendant no different from the rest. Every abuse of power hurts us all. |
Unfortunately for many things in life there is always a bigger and broader picture. As much as some of us hate it.....it is a necessary evil. What you despise now could help you later. The ying yang. |
Yet you still defend people who you know have done wrong. How can you defend a child molester? Or a murdered? Or drug dealer, Your legal mind tricks dont work on my, If someone gets caught with an ounce of meth in thier pocket they are in possesion of drugs, no matter how the police fill out the paperwork. If someone shoot someone in cold blood and kills them they are still a killer no matter how you slice it. if someone gets caught with thier dick in a 4 year old they are a child molester. No matter what thier mental condition is, yet you defend them just to make a buck. Then you hold your head up high saying you help people out, yeah you help people out of trouble to rape another 4 year old, or put a bullett in another innocent victim. Heres one for you, My Brother in law, was a bouncer at a club in atlanta, A guy was selling drugs in the club, instead of calling the cops and having him arrested, they kicked him out, he says "I am gonna go get my guns and come back and kill you MOTHER F*&KERS" and leaves, an hour later a car flies into the parking lot almost hits a bouncer, The same guy jumps out with a gun, one bouncer grabs him as they are fighting over the gun my brother in law jumps in to help only to be shot and return fire he hti the guy 2 times in the chest and the guy got him 2 times above his vest in the armpit killing him within seconds, The guy runs, gets picked up and taken to the hospital where he is arrested and charged with murder 1 or whatever. The police screwed up on some of the paperwork and now the guys is walking the street, My sister is left alone with 4 kids to take care of....Now thats justice for ya I guess..... |
|
762........its unfortunate what happened to your brother in law. You have my sympathy. Keep this in mind while bashing DKing or like attorneys. You carry CCW. There is an attorney attached to every bullet and ultimately you are responsible if you have to use your weapon in self defense. God forbid that you ever had to use it.......who would you get to represent you in a court of law for your actions. Your livelyhood and family are on the line and at stake for it. Whether or not DKing has represented some of the worst scum on this earth or not,he has our best interests in mind. He is the one we would turn to if the need arises to defend our civil liberties and see that we can spend the next day with our families and carry on our normal lives rather than from a prison cell. He defends just as many innocent folks as he does guilty folk. I do not agree with the whole legal system neither but those are the cards we are dealt in this lifetime. Plenty of criminals deserve a dirt knap and I would like to see them put to it as much as you. Please don't think I am trying to debate with you as I'm not........just trying to shead a different light. Will Smith said it well......."Don't hate the player,hate the game" |
|
Bullitt, I understand your point and Its something I do understand, and always have, But there is a huge difference in defending someone who has killed in self defense and someone who pulled the trigger in cold blood out of greed or just hate. I have very much respect for lawyers who defend the rights of innocent people who have been wrongly accused, or acted an a way that they were forced to act, Such as self defense and the defense of others. But for any lawyer that defends someone who willingly and knowingly broke the law such as robbery, murder, breaking and entering, drugs, dui, whatever...Remember this you reap what you sow. And when you or a loved one are violated by someone you have defended and are the reason they are walking the streets, theres your justice served. DKing, How do you know that you never defended the person that shot and killed my brother in law? Would you be sorry then? Seeing as how you would probably be the reason that he was walking the street in the first place. OR would you be so mournful if you defended him for the killing of my brother in law? Isnt it some form of prugery if you as a lawyer lie to get your client off? |
|
Obviously your angry and blame lawyers for what happened. The cops who made the arrest and created the incident which allowed your brother in laws murderer to walk are just as much at fault here. Cops make mistakes and defense attorneys exploit them for the benefit of their client. The cops are just as much at fault here. I'm going to stop right there as I believe your mind is made up. Once again dude........I'm sorry that your brother in law is longer with us. His murderer will get what he deserves. He will reap what he sowed soon enough. I truly believe that. |
| No I dont blame the lawyers all together, I blame the system for making to to where if the cops mess up on any part of the paperwork, the person can walk free, and this arguement is not about my brother in law, its about lawyers getting people off who they know are guilty of some sort of crime. This is the kind of stuff that makes us feel the need to carry guns, and they are enabling these people. Just to turn a quick buck. I mean at some point it would seem that common sense would overcome greed and a lack of morals and these "people" would think to themsleves "Hey, if I get this guy off, it could be my wife that he rapes next" But nope they are driven only by the almighty dollar. To me, the safety of my family and the rest of the people in the country would be more important than turning some greenbacks. It just seems that, especially a member of the gun community, with the amount of power you have, you would be more concerned with creating a safer future for everybody by putting these people in jail, not getting them off. As I believe I have stated here before, if a lawyer gets off a criminal, they are in the same class in the criminal for helping them get away with it. |
|
The DUI lobby "MADD" reminds me of another well lobby most lovers of the Second despise. MADD and the Brady clowns play on the sheeples fears to further their agenda. Local LEO is on 100% board where DUI's are concerned if for nothing more than revenue generation. TD |
[/flame suit]|
Let's see two years ago I was a public defender in Floyd County. Heaven help you if you get a ticket in Fulton though. I've stood in line for 3 hours just to get a police report there. Word to the wise. If you guys drive to Florida on I-75, just south of Atlanta there is Henry County. The traffic court is run by a cranky old man who will not reduce a ticket. The Solicitors say the judge will not allow (accept) any reductions in fines. He gives jail time for trials and they have a very sweet little speed trap. There's a place where I-75 is under "road construction" has been for two years. The road construction with no barrels drops the speed limit to 55mph, so If you are going 75 your 30mph over and Henry county can and WILL fine you the maximum for 30 over, one thousand dollars. (That's $1,000.00). No way to win. |
No dude, I am there with you, I work 5 days a week to put robbers and doppers in jail, and I get job satisfaction from it. Its not about money, its about right and wrong |
many people would disagrre with you about this fact, For some its obviously about how much money they can make, keeping you in a job and making the state/country a more unsafe place for us and our children to live. Then justify it by saying the law should be more clear. or they should hire better officers. Edited for clarity |
No, I assure you that there are a lot of folks with both brains and morals. Some of the posts in this thread seem to have been written by either drunks or teenagers or just plain dumbasses. I'm all for every accused person's having a good attorney. However, making a career out of defending d.u.i. perps is pretty sickening to me. |
|
|
|
I feel the need to defend myself and my post. My original post was just some free legal advice. It was simple and to the point. In another discussion the question was brought up that “as long as I’m under the limit I’m O.K.” I knew that was wrong and instead of letting the discussion continue with the back and forth, “No you aren’t” “Yes I am” I typed up my post. Since this is the GA hometown, and it applies to us more than any one I shared. This is my job, and my passion. I do it for fee, and free through the appointed panel. My original post only had one value judgment, the last sentence, and one boast in parenthesis. Other than those good natured jibes, it was simply what Georgia law is. Nowhere have I called for the repeal of any law. Nor have I said that the guilty should go free when their guilt is proven by our government. I’ve tried to argue the most pro government message I can think of; none is above the law. When we change the rules to ensure convictions at the expense of individual rights, we will have no law at all. I know that Tamron was not referring to me in his statement that some posts were made by “drunks, or teenagers, or dumbasses”. But I think every post before this has been made by people of conscience. However we can disagree. I don’t believe people who break laws are immoral. More precisely, I believe we are all immoral imperfect sinners who exist because of grace and mercy. All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Much of the discussion seems to be about how to deal with the criminally accused. For this, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self. Love worth no ill to his neighbor: there for love is the fulfillment of the law. Morally, I believe that we must love each person. Not hate the convicted, mush less the accused. I believe strongly that we have a duty to defend others, which is where my passion for my work comes. Defense work isn’t about “getting people off”, it’s about warning them about the future consequences and pleading their case. When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way to save his life; the same wicked shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned: also thou hast delivered thy soul. Speaking of hate towards the accused or the defense attorney if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. He that hateth his brother is in darkness. We have a good legal system. We have checks and balances to provide good representation to the accused and to provide for mercy to the convicted. It seems like many people in America today wish the system was streamlined to eliminate some or all of these protections to punish the guilty. Woe unto them who decree righteous decrees, and that write grievances they have proscribed to turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the rights from the poor of my people that widows may be their prey and that they may rob the fatherless. If anyone thinks that our system is too forgiving, remember that every soul is subject to higher powers. For there is no power but that of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive unto themselves damnation. The Laws of our land, the highest law, calls for rights for the accused. Defending those rights upholds the law in a way that no conviction ever will, for the Constitution is the highest power there is. Many of us are afraid of criminals. We are often accused of carrying our guns out of fear. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. We want to be the judge, jury, and executioner. I’ve even been told that I should only represent people I know to be innocent. Who art thou to judge another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. God does make people, evil worthless sinners like each of us, to stand and become respectable citizens. I don’t even want to guess how many of the respected elders of this website were given a choice in their youth to take a felony conviction or immediately join the military. It’s not an uncommon practice even now. But for that mercy they would be convicted felons and not gun experts now. Judge not lest ye be judged. We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. It’s too easy to blame lawyers for the evil in society. I’ve tried to bear up the weak and give them the help they are entitled to by our government. It’s an uphill battle for anyone convicted of anything to improve themselves. With attitudes like some others have expressed, I understand why. Too many people today call out for blood, and make light statements about increasing the penalty for crimes to death. If you believe anything like I believe (and you don’t have to) you will see the death penalty is society’s condemnation that this individual no longer deserves a chance to repent. Society has determined that no more time will be given to allow them to make things right with God. This is the most serious penalty that we can deal out, eternal separation from God. Do not be so quick to deal in death and judgment; even the very wise cannot see all ends. I’m truly sorry that my comments have unleashed such vitriolic hate. I will refrain from commenting on such topics in the future. |
|
As much as everybody wants to slam Defense Attorneys, remember one thing-they are all that stands between you and the government who wants to put you away. As someone else pointed out, it's mistakes or errors made on the part of the Prosecutors (DA or Solictor) and Officers that give the Defense Attorneys something to exploit. The Prosecutors and Officers know this just as much as the Defense Attorney so I do everything I can to make sure that there is nothing there for them to exploit. Personally I feel that DUI lawyers sold there souls to the devil but you can bet your ass I'll be calling one if I were to have that severe lack of judgement and drive under the influence of alcohol, or anything else for that matter. |
|
Anyone remember this little ditty, four down from the Second Amendment? "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." |
|
DKing, Quoting the bible doesnt impress me, or throw me, As I said before you legal mumbo jumbo doesnt work here. I think alot of you are getting off my original point, it wasnt about my Bro in law, or the guy that got off for killing him. It was about the moral corruptness of people who defend blatant wrong doers, and exploit legal systems loopholes and erors to get them off all in the persuit of money while releasing these people back onto the streets to commit the same crimes. I am not talking about simple crimes, like someone carrying thier pistol outside of the areas perscribed by law, when they are legally allowed to carry said firearm. I am talking about people who arent allowed to carry a gun, in possesion of known stolen weapon. Theres a huge difference between the two. One an accidental stepping ove rthe line, the other a blatant breaking of the law. To defend one is not the same as defending the other. Heres a little story for you, When I was about to get out of the Marines, I was "Ratted out" for some things that I had done over a year prior, None of them affected anyone else, and nobody would have known if I had not trusted the wrong person. But he got busted and turned on me. What did I do, I manned up and told them what I did, I then went to a lawyer and he said, "Well we can work on getting all this dropped, But you will have to work on a good story as to how it all happened" And wanted to charge me 2 grand, To me it was more important to stand up and face the music for what I did. SO I went in with the appointed military jag officer, plead guilty, told then what and why I did it, Got 75 days in the brig, and walked out maintaining my honorable discharge, the only thing I asked them not to take from me. My point in this was to let everybody know that I practice what I preach, When you screw up you need to man the f*&k up and face the consequences, not try to find a way out by hiring some sleezebag to defend you. Defending people who are innocent or accidentally broke the law is one thing, defending people you know are not innocent and shouldnt be let off witha slap on the wrist, in my opinion shows a lack of morals and ethics. |
|
Don't forget that many of Americans believe that gun owners are worse than drunk drivers. When they come for our guns with false papers and lies, what then? The rules are known to everyone. When cops are careless with the paperwork, how do we know they weren't loose with other aspects of the investigation? If we allow the cops to punish people outside the rules/law, then the law will also be ignored by others in government. Perhaps, the government will decide to take your property, but only get 2 appraisals for the valuation or even worse, they change the documents to show a lower number. That is just a paperwork error, right? We have alot of problems with Government not following the law. I'm presently suing the Probate Judge in Cobb County for not following the Firearms Licensing law. He has stated that he doesn't have to follow the law. His fellow judges are protecting him. I for one am grateful that Defense Attorneys exist and prosper. They keep us and our liberty safe. If they make lots of money, excellent. That will attract better attorneys to the field and they will make sure government and its agents follow the law. |
I think defending the guilty shows high morals and ethics. Our system is based on a jury making the determination of guilt, not cops, not judges, not the press, not the government, not you or I. 12 citizens make the call. WE THE PEOPLE make the call. The jury deserves to hear both sides. Fighting like heck for the defendent, honors our system of justice. To do otherwise would be to cheat the system our forefathers fought for and to cheat the Jury. |
If you accidently broke the law, you still broke it. So by your twisted logic, you shouldn't get a lawyer to defend you. After all, you are guilty. Everyone deserves representation. There are usually three side to every story and most of the time lawyers are the ones who can get all three sides heard. A judge, just like any other human, can have a bad day. You may suffer the consequences and end up with a very harsh sentence if you do not have representation. |
|
I never said accidentally breaking the law wasnt breaking the law, I did say that there is a difference in accidentally breaking the law and purposely breaking the law. Its not twisted law, Its someone making a mistake, And While I dont think that they should necassarily be set free, depending on the crime, they may not deserve the full maximum sentence, as someone who repeatedly and purposely breaks the law. To say that defending murderers, rapists and child molesters shows high morals? WTF are you thinking. These are one of the reasons that we have gins to protect ourselves, yet you come in here and say that they should be free? Yoyu need to rethink your situation. As I stated before what if he gets someone off for a crime that they knowingly and willingly comitted on more that one occasion, say child molestation, and next thing you know hes diddling your son? I do believe they have a right to defense, mostly to make sure they they get a fair trial and that they are treated right, and not just slammed for thier crime with no idea of whats going on. My issue it with the fact that actual criminals are walking the street, because sleazebag lawyers are getting them off. I do no understand how anyone can go int to a courtroom, wiht videotape of say someone raping a woman, and watch it and try to get them out of a jail sentence. But then again, I dont understand why someone would rape a woman, and if they did why they would try to deny it and actlike they did nothing wrong. |
|
Almost everyone is gonna have at least one time in their life when they need to " lawyer up ". Seeking legal counsel is one of the smartest things you can every do. Life is about making decisions. If you make a bad decision and have 2-3 beers with dinner and then get stopped at a road block (this can happen to anyone that drinks) make sure you are calling the best attorney you can afford after they slap cuffs on you. I am constantly surprised how many people have DUIs. |
|
Look, drinking one beer and driving is not against the law, DUI means driving under the influence. If you are a lightweight and get drunk off one beer, then you should not drive after one. Ask anyone I go to dinner with and they will tell you that usually I don't drink any alcohol with dinner if I am driving. But I have driven after a couple beers but I was not under the influence. Hell, driving sleepy is as bad or worse in my opinion. I have pushed myself before and fell asleep at the wheel to wake up at the VERY last second before introducing my car to the off ramp's guard rail. I do not do that anymore. I learned my lesson. Anyway, each of us must decide the risks we are willing to take and rules we are willing to break knowing the consequences. Should habitual drunk drivers be allowed to drive, hell no. Is it heinous that drunk drivers kill innocent people, hell yes. Could we all get along in a utopia society, fuck no, who would want to. If you have a problem with a thread, state your case, everyone will know where you stand, and shut up so others can add to the discussion. As I said earlier, this is a very informative thread. Public Service Announcement over. Enjoy the rest of the thread. ByteTheBullet (-: |
|
Reminds me of when I was stopped in Columbia County, I had just purchased car so I didnt have a tag, got stopped for 20mph (45 zone) over, was going with flow of traffic between 45 and 50. Officer wanted to ticket me for no tag since I didnt have one, shown him on title paperwork where it said I had a time period to get a tag which I was in, 30 mins to have them not cite me for that. Next Im charged for no Insurance, I had insurance it had been added that day, vehicle wasnt on the card since I had to get a new one, my other car was, so I got tickted for that. Go to court with letter showing I had insurance that day at that time, its not what they want, they wanted one from local agent not national office. I get that, its not good enough either they want it handwritten not printed. I get that letter one from local and national office, they still wont accept it. Both letter said car was on my policy at that date and time, and I would still be under a grace period coverage if it had not been on policy. Get them everything they wont and they still wont accept it, didnt have a problem taking my money though. |
|
Everyone seems to get their feathers ruffled so easily now adays. At first blush, I didn't think that quoting bible verses had very much to do with firearms. However upon reflection, I do remember the sniper in Saving Private Ryan with the Springfield 03A4. I sure did like that guy! Anyways, back to quotations: Luke 11:46: "And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers." h.gif |
No, you're not the only one. One of my good friends from high school lost his stepfather to a drunk driver a few years ago. |
|
Cell phone use while driving is more dangerous than driving drunk. When is the MAC drivers organization going to start? Why doesn't anyone give a shat about people injured or killed from cell phone drivers  Mothers against cell phone drivers coming soon to a law firm near you 
|
I deleted my orig post above but i'll wade in agn... We live under the rule of law, so we need LE and the legal system's players. ...without them we get barbarism. Defense attorneys SHOULD only care about winning. Prosecutors same same. That is why it is called an ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM. The fight should allow us to arrive as close to the truth/justice that is warranted. That is how the system is set up. The players are fallible humans, so mistakes happen. If you think that _some_ of the accused do not deserve 100% full-tilt representation, then you are an enemy of the Constitution. I apologize if that hurts anyone's feelings. saj195 J.D. & P.O.S.T. cert. P.S. DKing, thx for the primer in the OP.
|
Not even close. My Father is a retired LEO. While growing up there were many LEO's in and out of the house. They were old school as opposed to today's gun-ho/save the world LEO's. I know not all of today's LEO's can be included in that category but it seems as if many fit in nicely. I can remember riding with him in his patrol car back when he was on the road. A driver obviously ran a stop sign and I excitedly said let's get him. He responded " Take it easy. This is a job, nothing more nothing less. I can't save/protect the world and I'm not going to drive myself crazy trying. Let's go get something to eat" TD |
Where did you get that I don't believe the accused deserve full representation? My point is that sometimes lawyers (both prosecutors and defense attorneys) either lie or withhold evidence from a trial in order to win. That is wrong, period. And that is not how we defend our Constitution. |
I am responding to the thread as a whole, not your posting in particular. Suppressing evidence, focusing on certain evidence only, et cetera are within the "zealous representation" of the client that is required. The opposing counsels are responsible for uncovering evidence in the discovery phase, and making sure it gets into the trial phase if it is needed. (see Adversarial System). The defense of the Constitution here is from those that would curtail the rights of those that should have full representation. Those that impugn attorneys who defend "the guilty" as if those attys are just as "guilty" need to re-examine their understanding of the Constitution. I'll wade on out of this discussion since it has gotten way off topic. |
You see that is EXACTLY what's wrong with this country. Justice should not come down to who has the better lawyer. It is NOT ok to supress evidence, or lie to cover up a crime, regardless of whether you're a defense attorney or not. We have been tought by lawyers and politicians that it is ok to cheat the system, as long as we use a loop hole. Disgusting, plain and simple. 
|
 ARH |
Evidence is suppressed based on Constitutional grounds. There is much more to the system than you think. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_evidence I'll not discuss "what's wrong with this country." |