Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtles
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Jesus Christ, are you kidding me? The Revolutionary War? Dude, I'm playing chess and you're playing Connect-4. You haven't even graduated to checkers yet. I understand that you're a smart enough guy, but I'm not some idiot hipster you ran into at IHOP -- step your game up. Do you think that's some profound point you just made? The comparison between "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" is made every fucking day. And guess what? It's not two sides to a story. It's two interpretations of the same story.
American colonists: We dumped some motherfucking tea in the motherfucking harbor.
British: They dumped some motherfucking tea in the motherfucking harbor.
Same story. The difference was how that act was interpreted. There is no dispute over the fact that the tea was dumped.
Similarly,
Al Qaeda: We flew some motherfucking planes into some motherfucking buildings.
US: Al Qaeda flew some motherfucking planes into some motherfucking buildings.
Same story.
And you obviously don't know dick about being a lawyer. Pushing your client's argument as fact, when the opposition has overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is the #1 way to put your client in jail, or lose a case. The easiest thing in the world is to prove someone is lying or their story is false. You weren't in 7/11 at 9:28 PM on the night of July 2nd, 2010? Oh, that's funny -- here's security footage of you, in 7/11. And here's security footage of your car, with your license plate, parked outside. At that point, nothing anyone else says matters. You've lost, because the assumption is that if you're lying, there's a reason. You're also no longer trustworthy in the eyes of the Court.
What you do is poke holes in the evidence and try to raise reasonable doubt over whether or not the evidence proves anything with 100% certainty. If your client says he didn't have 8 pounds of cocaine on him, and two cops say he did, your client is fucked. If you try to argue he didn't, your client is even more fucked. The best you can do is question how they can be 100% certain it was actually his (ie: was it in the trunk? Under a car seat? Could've been stashed by someone else), or attack the search procedures, ie: was he illegally searched?
You're welcome.
|
Holy semantics Batman!
Let's say "different interpretation" instead of "two sides". let's say "poking holes in evidence" instead of "blurring the truth"
You're coming at me with paragraphs twisting words to suit your argument, we all know lawyers, police officers, judges and prosecutors are lying, extorting pieces of shit, we also know there will always be two sides of every story because it's a moniker for interpretation and anytime you deal with a dispute there will always be several different "views" depending on whom you ask.
You're just raging, and for the sake of arguing.... semantics