After 25 years, this piece of shit finally gets what he deserves!
And why have the tax payers been paying to keep this first class citizen alive for the last 25 years? Doesnt is cost something like $35k/year to keep these guys behind bars? thats $845k that couldda gone to schools or towards giving our police a raise or whatever else.
Although there would be mitigating circumstances if he killed a Defense Attorney... LOL
What would those circumstances be? He would get to share a room in hell with the lawyer?
that is the whole fucking problem. Our justice system allows for seemingly unlimited appeals for these dirtbags, take Gardener, he commited his murder in front of God and Country, everybody saw it.....what in the hell is there to appeal?
I believe in maybe a three appeal system max, as new evidence could come to light etc. If you can't convince the court of your innocence in three tries then it is time to face your punishment.
Also think about all of the taxpayers dollars that are paying the thieves....err....ahh Lawers to represnt these guys, it seems like the system was designed by lawyers for lawyers, to keep those bastards perpetually employed.
Disclaimer: I hate Criminals, Lawyers fall into that catagory
If he does get a new trial we pay for the
but we only have to pay the prosecuter once for the trial, not for the next 25 years worth of appeals....
Just remember that everyone hates lawyers, until they need one...
It only cost a couple of bucks for the .30-30 rounds to snuff him. A couple of bucks vs. $845K (OozeRat's figure). And Hampster, one appeal ought to be plenty.
Clint, you're right about people needing a lawyer. And we can't legitimately damn an entire profession for the actions of a few venous individuals.
for a living and our friends the lawyers expect $300 per hour to think about (research) things that they already know the answers to, whats not to like?
I have had enough experience with them to know how they opperate.
(edit) Agreed clint, ecaman, there are contract lawyers etc. which are reasonable people, my disdain is tword ambulance chasers and divorce lawyers.
We all know about heaven, the pearly gates and all that, but few people know that satan and St. Peter are supposed to take turns polishing the gates, and of course being satan he never did it when it was his turn. After a few millenia St. Peter got tired of this and says, "Now Lucifer it's your turn to polish the gates so you'd better get crackin so all is well when God comes to inspect them." Satan's reply to this was, "What are you going to do if I don't?" St. Peter says, "If you fail to uphold your end of the contract I will have to take this matter to the courts and let judge decide." Satan replies with a big grin, "And now where exactly in heaven to you plan on finding a lawyer?"
suck ass,oops sorry,don't mean to denegrate an entire field after having only experienced minimal interaction with said individuals,...who am i kidding,THEY SUCK.
In case you forgot:
1. John Adams
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. Alexander Hamilton
4. James Madison
honorable mention maybe: John Jay, He was a statesman, not necessarily a lawyer.
back in the day when lawyers/politicians were men of honor.....I am afraid those days are long gone.
Some would say the same thing of salesmen, but I know better. You are a salesman and I hold you in high regard. We should not be looking at the individual, but the process. It is the judicial system (lawyers, judges, jury, lawmakers, etc.) that have dis-honored the profession of practicing law. Most of the lawyers are doing the job they were hired to do. How is that wrong? I agree integrity is at question, but I believe it is the minority (like most facets in life) that ruin it for the majority. The members of this site have the same problem as most lawyers. We all get lumped into a pool of blame for the actions of a few. Did any of us kill high school kids at Columbine? No. Did any of us assassinate JFK? No. But gun owners are considered scourges for what soulless miscreants do with what amounts to a tool.
Amendments 5,6,7, and 8 to the Constitution allows for the use of defense attorneys. People are SUPPOSED to be innocent UNTIL proven guilty in the U.S.A. If not, then it would be a martial country and heading down the road of socialism/communism/dictatorship. Because we do not like the verdict handed down by a judge or jury, we should not condemn a profession for doing their job. Unless we are entrenched in the battle, we do not know the trial. The media is the same way, they do not have all the facts, they will report only what they know and then speculate to try and increase ratings, thus doing their job. Rush Limbaugh coined the term "Drive-by-media". That is the source of information so many people get today without using critical thinking to analyze the source and information presented to them.
Are there some bad lawyers out there? Yes of course, Are there some bad gun owners out there? Yes of course. Should we base a hatred of these two groups because of the minority? I do not think so.
Mr. Lebo. Actually one of my good friends from highschool is a contract lawyer and a really great guy. sigh.....All lawyers have ever done for me is take my money and give away my shit, hence my jaded attitude....Beware of auto parts salesmen, they are not to be trusted, especialy used auto parts salesmen! Have I got a deal for you..........ha ha ha
There were 2 lawyers on the street I grew up on, good guys. One of them represented the lady who sued me after she ran a red light and t-boned me. The case was settled out of court between the two insurance companies, but it was pretty scary there for 5 or 6 years as they did watever it is they do that takes so long. I have no hard feelings towards the lawyer, the lady however is another story.
This never should have been a case and a lawyer should never had taken it up. This would end if the courts would start charging laywyers and the people sueing for bringing cases that are totally bogus into the court. She ran a red light case dissmissed the lawyer and client owe the court $20,000 each for wasting the courts time. Then see how many lawyers start useing ethical judgement.
that reminds me, In the UK if you sue sombody and lose, you are responsable for ALL costs incurred by both parties. This simple rule goes a long way towords limiting frivolous lawsuits, an idea we should adopt in the US.
I think the only reason she tried to sue is that no one who saw it came forward to be a witness to what happened. Who is the judge more likely to believe, 35 year old mother of four or the 18 year old? My understanding of the outcome is that she sued claiming that she has severe back pain since the accident. Part of the case involved openeing up her midical records (mine too for that matter) and what do ya know she has a degenerative back problem that can casue the same symptoms. That was the part where she all of the sudden got real cooperative (did i spel that rite? looks weird to me) and wanted to settle outta court.
back in the late 80's, multi car rear ender accident....Anyway some lady tried to sue everyone involved, that son of a bitch dragged on for 10 years. I guess the Ins. companys settled the matter because I finaly quit getting notices in the mail.
Two of my neighbors are Lawyers for the LDS church, nice people as well.
Lawyers will always been seen at least two to the bunch.
1 lawyer will never make money, but two arguing...now there is the money making program.
I like the accountability that Hamp brought up. Perhaps We the People shall initiate a referendum to implement such a program. The only problem would be to get it to stay legal. Most of the politicians have a law background and would most likely fight it. Back to the town scenario...