Lots of Lawyers Mad at [Bill] O'Reilly

FoxNews ^ | Thursday, July 25, 2002 | Bill O'Reilly

[FatherTorque]

The head ditto likes it when you liberals get hysterical in the middle of a discussion and start with the personal attacks.

I contend that if anybody is acting like a liberal, it is you and your ilk. What you are doing is no different than what the left does when there is a school shooting. They wail and gnash their teeth and scream about how terrible it is and how we need more gun control laws. Is the death of this little girl a tragedy? Of course, but this is not a perfect world and bad things are going to happen no matter what. Trying to subvert the justice system to appease your sense of revenge is Liberalism 101.

[RWG]

Can't stand the smell in the kitchen go to a drive thru.

[RWG]

I have put my fortune and myself on the line for free expression and free enterprise, that is my ilk.

[Michael2001]

So the lawyer should step away if the client wants him to take action that the lawyer considers repugnant? Who will be the repugnancy police? Will this be like a local definition of pornography?

Well I think in the case discussed in the article, where his client molested two nine year old girls, we would hope that the lawyer would find that repugnant. And I happen to think he's the scum of the earth for helping this guy walk, almost as bad as his client.

[OPS4]

Change the laws and then you have the door closed to such antics, lawyers can only work within the given laws, and by the way, that is their duty, wether its for you or anyone else.
Ops4 God Bless America

[L.N. Smithee]

blah, blah, blah

Touche...NOT!

As they said on Family Feud whenever someone came up with a lame answer, "Good answer! Good answer!"

[supercat]

Any lawyer who gets a client off that is demonstrably (during the trial) guilty of a crime on a trivial technicality, is scum as far as I am concerned.

If a cop illegally searches someone's home, finds evidence of a crime, arrests that person, and nets a conviction, the cop is apt to be told "Don't do that again, wink wink." If, however, the case gets thrown out because of the cop's malfeasance the message will instead be either "Don't do that again or you're fired," or simply "You blew it--you're fired."

Ideally, there would be some outside means of punishing cops who break the law without inflicting criminals back onto society, but history has shown time and time again that the only effective way to punish bad cops is to ensure that they don't get convictions. While it's unfortunate that the rest of society must suffer for bad cops' misdeeds, that's better than the alternative of letting bad cops go unpunished.

[SpinyNorman]

Okay, I can see that, even if we have strayed from the malfeasance of lawyers to that of police. Then again, you could argue that the cop's transgression was on the side of arresting the criminal, while the lawyer's transgression is on the side of lessening or eliminating the punishment of the criminal. While I cringe at the violation of privacy and illegal search and seizure laws, one might argue that the iilegal search of an innocent person's home will yield nothing, while that of an alleged perpetrator would.

A demotion or loss of overtime would be more than sufficient punishment for a cop, as it would involve significant financial penalties and functionally undo the convictions they have already gotten that would have led to their previous promotions.

[supercat]

A demotion or loss of overtime would be more than sufficient punishment for a cop, as it would involve significant financial penalties and functionally undo the convictions they have already gotten that would have led to their previous promotions.

Such punishments would be great if they were consistently applied against cops who violated people's rights. Indeed, if they were consistently enforced the Supreme Court probably never would have imposed the exclusionary rule. It had been demonstrated, however, that cops' supervisors were consistently able to overlook the misdeeds of cops who got convictions. Since a cop who kicks down people's doors without a warrant would probably find more crooks than one who went by the book (even if the former cop also harmed a lot more innocent people) police departments had been very lax in actually punishing them.

It's unfortunate that a court has no means of punishing a malfeasant cop except to throw out the evidence he gathered, but since police departments won't punish such cops it falls to the court to do so.

Personally, I would like to see a law which rules that any cop(s) entering any premises under circumstances requiring a warrant shall lose all protection of law if the entry party does not have in its posession a warrant which is at least superficially valid for conducting the search, or if the warrant is not served in a manner at least superficially consistent with its requirements.

In other words, while cops would not be required to thoroughly investigate the process behind issuing a warrant to ensure there was no funny business, all cops involved on a search/raid would be responsible for verifying information like the date, address, and manner of search on the warrant itself. If a bunch of cops raid 1235 Elm Street with a warrant for 1234 Elm Street, all cops on the raid should at minimum be prosecuted for breaking and entering; if anyone is hurt or killed on the raid, the cops involved should be prosecuted for battery, attempted murder, or murder. A cop's claim that someone told him the address was correct would not be any sort of defense. All cops on a raid should verify for themselves the essentials of the warrant; any cop who fails to do so has no business conducting a raid.

[Stone Mountain]

but I believe that protecting the rights of the innocent take precedence over punishing the guilty.

...and this is exactly the point.Protecting the criminals while the victims get the shaft. This is one fine justice system we have in place.

So you believe that punishing the guilty should take precedence over punishing the guilty? I think that would lead to an even worse justice system than the one you are complaining about now.

[Stone Mountain]

If lawyers refuse, then it would be assigned to a public defender. O'Reilly supports this action and had no argument against pubic defenders. However, the pubic defender should not be obligated to get the guy off; only ensure that he is treated fairly by the court system.

Public defenders are lawyers too. They have just as much obligation to fight for the rights of their client as do lawyers with paying clients.

[Stone Mountain]

How does my post 30 imply that the justice system has failed?

[Stone Mountain]

Thanks - very interesting!

[cinFLA]

Public defenders are lawyers too. They have just as much obligation to fight for the rights of their client as do lawyers with paying clients.

Why do you also include in these rights the right to go free after committing a crime?????

[cinFLA]

Have fun trying to get these guys free:

Thursday night, July 18th, at 6 p.m., Andy Walters stopped to buy a case of beer, and headed home to 5243 Comanche Trail in Las Cruces.


Three people-- Walters, 21, Stephanie Lopez, 19, and her twin brother Steven Lopez, 19, drink through the evening.


Stephanie went to bed after about three beers. According to court documents, Andy Walters and Steven Lopez admitted to playing with Stephanie and Walters's 5-month old daughter, Brianna.


Police records show that Walters and Lopez threw the child into the air, causing her to hit her head on the ceiling 3 times, then dropped her twice on the floor.


Andy Walters told investigators that Brianna was conscious and crying.


At around 12:30 a.m., Friday morning, Andy Walters fell asleep not knowing where Brianna was.


At three in the morning, Walters says he awoke to find Brianna on the floor near the bed. He said he wrapped her in a blanket and put her in a bouncer.


By 7 a.m., Brianna needed a diaper change. Stephanie Lopez asked about the bruises on Brianna, and according to court documents, Walters admitted that he and Steven Lopez "played a little rough with her".


Walters changed the diaper and took a baby wipe, wrapped it around his index finger and inserted it into brianna's anus.


The complaint also states Andy Walters admitted he bit Brianna on several occasions, but he told Dona Ana County Sheriff's Deputies he is not not the only family member to bite Brianna.


Walters also told authorites that Stephanie Lopez pinched and threw Brianna out of frustration.


The uncle, Steven Lopez, admits to throwing Brianna in the air and not catching her. Steven Lopez claims to have drunk ten beers the previous night.


During his interview with Sheriff's Deputies, Steven Lopez admitted to having sex with Brianna Lopez.


By 10 a.m., July 19th, Stephanie Lopez checks on her daughter, notices Brianna is not breathing, and she calls 9-1-1.


11:10 am, Friday July 19th, five month old Brianna Lopez died at Memorial Medical Center in Las Cruces.


Autopsy results show Brianna Lopez had 11 bite marks on her body, broken ribs, skull fractures, bleeding of the optic nerves and brain swelling.

[danmar]

Okay, let's just let you decide in advance of a trial whether a person is guilty

No, I never implied that scenario...I should've, perhaps, made myself a little more clearer. What i was implying/referring to, was the sharade we had with OJ Simpson trial, and the inability of judge Ito to control his court from the prosecution to the defense theatrics for the camera.
What I was refering to, was the little Samantha's case whereby Sheriff Carrona emphasised that they have strong, very strong evidence against that Avila animal.

Keep also in mind, that animal was set free prior, because of some sort of judicial techno babble, so that he can go again and kill little girls.
Well in my book, that jury and the lawyers involved in that case against Avila, have innocent blood on their hands.Period!

Now a days, in our esteemed judicial system the "VICTIMS" are put on trial, while everyone is going bonkers protecting criminals, and their so called "rights"[(the cops did not have their radars calibrated on time(speeding tickets and/or misc traffic violations), on the crime scene the rookie cop did not have his special gov. issued gloves on, while collecting evidence, one cop sez something un-PC about 20 Years ago, therefore he is disqualified as a witness, etc.,etc.)].

That's what I meant, and I will stick with it, like it or not!

[Dog Gone]

Judge Ito was a joke, I agree. I'm not sure, however, that the jury would have found OJ guilty even if Justice Anton Scalia had been presiding in that courtroom.

I don't have an answer to the problem you describe. Defense attorneys attempt to defend guilty clients. But the prosecution and police also will attempt to convict someone who is innocent. Check out this thread, DNA Exonerates Man Jailed in 1984.

I'm not suggesting that they do this on purpose, at least most of the time. A few cases of prosecutorial and police conduct have occurred, but those are exceedingly rare.

What I am suggesting is that the adversarial system is the best system we can come up with. We can't let some "independent panel" be the investigator, judge, and jury. That is a grave threat to all of us.

The current system results in more guilty people getting off than innocent people it convicts. It's frustrating, but there has to be some satisfaction the system does result in the overwhelming percentage of people charged with a crime being found (or pled) guilty.

It's the exceptions that drive us nuts.

[RogerFGay]

So you still think it is ok to play the race card to get a guilty man free?

The jury decides, not the defense lawyer. The prosecutor had her chance. Too bad she was preoccupied with maximizing her child support award so that she could get nicer cloths for her TV appearances -- or did you forget that side of the affair?

[RogerFGay]

Having been in many internet discussions, my guess is that you believe there's an obvious discussion-related point to your story.

[RogerFGay]

It's the exceptions that drive us nuts.

There certainly seems to be a dangerously high percentage of the population these days that want to change the whole system fundamentally whenever they hear something they don't like. I've been concerned for years, that too few people think in a mass media world and it is therefore possible to produce mass hysteria with a few carefully chosen words. Let's change the system because Bill O'Reilly said so? He's been a very successful mass media personality -- but come on guys -- it's not like he's a real contender in the midst of the founding fathers.