Posted on 01/09/2010 9:04:49 AM PST by Dubya
They look like the persons one would expect.
DEANNA BOYD wrote this article about Judge Boyd??????????????
See my post #46.
I have stated my opinion of the kind of scum that feed off a system that permits them to do it legally; I consider these two low life lawyer/bstrds to be on a par with late term abortionists and liberals; taking part in something that may or may not be legal or “part of the system” does nothing to validate your morality. A whore in NV is still a whore even if she moves to CA.
This old fart (67) goes armed all the time, legally of course. Anyone trying to take a pizza from me(not that I would ever take a job delivering pizza due to the danger involved)would be ventilated quite liberally before they could ever hit me with a pipe.
Were all our political participants, including the judiciary, moral and honest you would still have the problem presented by our judicial system.
Would you not allow a defense for this scum? (Personally, in a case like this I would not! I don’t see that it is necessary or has any chance of success.) If not, who would determine the punishment and what would it be? That is where age and mental capacity enter the picture. This requires a value judgement by someone. Whom?
If we had our way and no defense was required where would the line be drawn on other cases? How vicious would the crime have to be? Would a confession be required and if so how could it be obtained? It becomes a slippery slope filled with subjective judgments.
Either way the Constitution would have to be changed. Could it be?
I understand your chagrin with some peoples seeming lack of morality but that is part of living in a free society. As you say a whore is a whore no matter where she resides but whose morals is she violating and who is harmed as a result? What should be her punishment?
My opinion of that is probably not as you think but I have gone too long on this already.
“Would you not allow a defense for this scum?”
I never raised this issue...I simply made the observation that there are ways to game the system by dedicated scumbags who do it without conscience and seem to feel good about it...the way a late term abortionist feels when he’s killed another inconvenient baby, I suppose...job well done!...why are arguing a point I could care less about? As far as I am concerned, what people do in their employment is up to them...but, to answer your question again...if no one was willing to free a killer on a technicality, or by tugging at heart strings, would they go free?
If juries stopped getting John Edwards in front of them “channeling” dead children, would they become insensitive? Probably not, but they might stop bankrupting people, or entire towns with insane rewards while the scumbag attorneys walk away with MILLIONS of dollars.
I think only the law (and what is left of my poor America) would benefit if lawyers said “no, this I will not do. My morals do not allow it”
The judge is more concerned about the teen’s “maturity and sophistication” than about whether the teen is a threat to society.
Some do but obviously many don't.
I agree with you. We have about exhausted this discussion.
:-)
Around here, we call it evolution of the species, i.e. natural selection ;o)
“Avoid the BOYD!” She is SUBHUMAN. This guy should have been carrying a gun, though. What a tragedy! The kid should be put to sleep.
OF COURSE there is a racial component! That is why the lying liberal Ft Worth paper did NOT mention the race of the criminals.
Comparing the role of defense lawyers to Barney Frank and abortionists just furthers my belief that understanding the importance, the necessity to our system of lawyers willing to aggressively defend the worst among us is above your pay grade.
“Comparing the role of defense lawyers to Barney Frank and abortionists just furthers my belief that understanding the importance, the necessity to our system of lawyers willing to aggressively defend the worst among us is above your pay grade.”
Your inability to understand that I was NOT comparing them to each other, but that I was comparing my low respect for them...are you really this challenged in understanding thoughts? It is my belief system, not my “understanding” that I find practitioners of particular professions to be repugnant. I am sorry that you are challenged in your comprehension of the fact that people can differ with you in what they believe vs. what they know.
What I do or do not understand about the system you prattle on about has nothing to do with my feelings towards the legal varmints in question. I think aluminum siding salesmen are repugnant too...does that mean I don’t understand the importance of keeping the sides of buildings safe from the elements in aluminum sheaths?
Give it up, will you pal? I don’t know what makes you this defensive, but if you insist on making an argument about SOMETHING, go ahead...but you are making a case for my ignorance about something with which I take no issue.
And you, sir, have no idea what my pay grade is. Or your own, it seems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.