Sad but true...

 

The only thing I could think of it being detrimental is if he started maybe developing a bad rep because of it, and that could possibly hurt "business" for him. 

Why should his or her reputation suffer for it?  He or she is a lawyer, and is doing their job for their client.  If anything, the Judge who allowed the lawsuit to go forward should suffer a reputation loss.  But not the lawyer.  The lawyer is just doing their job.

 

A lawyer around here has defended some of the biggest scum of the earth, including the DC Sniper, and a child molester case that involved a (most likely) murdered 5 year old girl.  Two high profile cases.  On paper it sounds horrible.  But honestly, he's just doing his job.  Just as this lawyer is.  

 

It's easy to dislike lawyers.  But until you've needed one yourself, it's hard to appreciate the job they do. It would be dishonest for the lawyer to not tell their client all of their options for legal proceedings.  And unethical.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

See the story on the dad who beat the absolute hell out of the 18 year old who he caught in the act of raping his boy, (4 or 5 I think). Beat the kid absolutely senseless, face looked unrecognizeable. Police said the dad was justified in the beating. Guy could have stopped the 18 year old and simply held him til police came here too.

 

If someone comes into a place of business, or your home with the intent to rob you (or more),  in this case the guy in the original post had a gun. The person doing the robbing (or more) better be ready for some repercussions if his evil intent is foiled by the owner of the business or home.

 

Absolutely people are allowed to defend themselves.  But if you are going to allow people to also administer punishment beyond that, then where do you draw the line?  This is why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights.  Questions of punishment are reserved to the courts, not the victims or the witnesses or the mob.  

 

Go back to the story of the man in Detroit who struck a child with his truck.  When he got out of his truck to check on the child, he was attacked by a mob and severely beaten.  They may have thought they were administering justice, too.  

 

As for a robber who comes into your business to rob you, suppose you manage to disarm him and he is on the floor on his stomach not moving.  You are holding him at gunpoint.  Can you then shoot him?  Of course not.  No more than a mob can disarm a pizza store robber, hold him down, beat him and scald him with hot soup.   At that point he is not a threat, and he should be held for the police, and the courts should decide his punishment. 

 

The difference between this country and Afghanistan is that we have constitutional rights.  We don't allow punishment without a trial. 

---

Absolutely people are allowed to defend themselves.  But if you are going to allow people to also administer punishment beyond that, then where do you draw the line?  This is why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights.  Questions of punishment are reserved to the courts, not the victims or the witnesses or the mob.  

 

Go back to the story of the man in Detroit who struck a child with his truck.  When he got out of his truck to check on the child, he was attacked by a mob and severely beaten.  They may have thought they were administering justice, too.  

 

As for a robber who comes into your business to rob you, suppose you manage to disarm him and he is on the floor on his stomach not moving.  You are holding him at gunpoint.  Can you then shoot him?  Of course not.  No more than a mob can disarm a pizza store robber, hold him down, beat him and scald him with hot soup.   At that point he is not a threat, and he should be held for the police, and the courts should decide his punishment. 

 

The difference between this country and Afghanistan is that we have constitutional rights.  We don't allow punishment without a trial. 

I am not sure of the number, but I know there are some, where the law allows the use of deadly force if someone is breaking into your home/business/car etc., to protect yourself/family/workers in the case that the home/business/car is getting broken into to prevent rape, severe injury, or death. Quite a deterrent, or should be to bad guys, unto itself.The det

 

The story you posted about Detroit doesn't fall in line with the original story posted whatsoever.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

I am not sure of the number, but I know there are some, where the law allows the use of deadly force if someone is breaking into your home/business/car etc., to protect yourself/family/workers in the case that the home/business/car is getting broken into to prevent rape, severe injury, or death. Quite a deterrent, or should be to bad guys, unto itself.The det

 

The story you posted about Detroit doesn't fall in line with the original story posted whatsoever.

 

I dare someone to break into my house at night.  I'll be upstairs playing sniper. 

---

Absolutely people are allowed to defend themselves.  But if you are going to allow people to also administer punishment beyond that, then where do you draw the line?  This is why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights.  Questions of punishment are reserved to the courts, not the victims or the witnesses or the mob.  

 

Go back to the story of the man in Detroit who struck a child with his truck.  When he got out of his truck to check on the child, he was attacked by a mob and severely beaten.  They may have thought they were administering justice, too.  

 

As for a robber who comes into your business to rob you, suppose you manage to disarm him and he is on the floor on his stomach not moving.  You are holding him at gunpoint.  Can you then shoot him?  Of course not.  No more than a mob can disarm a pizza store robber, hold him down, beat him and scald him with hot soup.   At that point he is not a threat, and he should be held for the police, and the courts should decide his punishment. 

 

The difference between this country and Afghanistan is that we have constitutional rights.  We don't allow punishment without a trial. 

The truck story in Detroit with the kid is not a good example here whatsoever.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

Sue for what, he got a whole pot of soup, sounds like dinner to me. 

---

The truck story in Detroit with the kid is not a good example here whatsoever.

 

It's a perfect example of what can happen when a mob takes "justice" into their own hands. 

---

It's a perfect example of what can happen when a mob takes "justice" into their own hands. 

But the example given is not even close to the scenario of someone breaking into a place of business or home.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

I am not sure of the number, but I know there are some, where the law allows the use of deadly force if someone is breaking into your home/business/car etc., to protect yourself/family/workers in the case that the home/business/car is getting broken into to prevent rape, severe injury, or death. Quite a deterrent, or should be to bad guys, unto itself.The det

 

The story you posted about Detroit doesn't fall in line with the original story posted whatsoever.

You are allowed to defend and protect yourself but at what does your self defense stop and vigilante justice begin?

---

But the example given is not even close to the scenario of someone breaking into a place of business or home.

 

A mob saw what they thought was a crime, and they thought they were dispensing "justice."  It's the same thing. 

 

Aside from self-defense, do you think an accused criminal deserves a trial before they are punished?  Or should we allow mobs to dispense justice without the courts getting involved?  This is what the pizza robber is alleging: that he was held down, beaten, and scalded by a mob. 

 

The Constitution says that everyone, even criminals, deserve their day in court before they are punished.  That constitutional protection is for you and me.  Do we throw that away and take the risk that next time, it may be one of us, and we may be innocent like that truck driver in Detroit? 

---

It wouldn't matter if he won anyways. He'll spend 40 years in jail before he even gets a chance to touch the money. And that's if his lawyer doesn't take it all.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

It wouldn't matter if he won anyways. He'll spend 40 years in jail before he even gets a chance to touch the money. And that's if his lawyer doesn't take it all.

His lawyer will take it all. It's what lawyers do. It's pretty much all they do. A felony is perpetrated, and regardless of the outcome, someone walks away with thousands of dollars, and everybody's ok with it because that someone is the lawyer.

 

Like I said. They're the lowest form of life. 

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

His lawyer will take it all. It's what lawyers do. It's pretty much all they do. A felony is perpetrated, and regardless of the outcome, someone walks away with thousands of dollars, and everybody's ok with it because that someone is the lawyer.

 

Like I said. They're the lowest form of life. 

 

I dunno....pro sports agent has to be close

---

A mob saw what they thought was a crime, and they thought they were dispensing "justice."  It's the same thing. 

 

Aside from self-defense, do you think an accused criminal deserves a trial before they are punished?  Or should we allow mobs to dispense justice without the courts getting involved?  This is what the pizza robber is alleging: that he was held down, beaten, and scalded by a mob. 

 

The Constitution says that everyone, even criminals, deserve their day in court before they are punished.  That constitutional protection is for you and me.  Do we throw that away and take the risk that next time, it may be one of us, and we may be innocent like that truck driver in Detroit? 

No, no it's not. Not even close. One involves protecting a place of business, something they own. The other is nothing more then street violence.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

No, no it's not. Not even close. One involves protecting a place of business, something they own. The other is nothing more then street violence.

 

Yes, they are different.  One man was guilty, and the other man was innocent.  And as you say, one involved a pizza joint, and the other involved a traffic accident.  But in another way, they are the same.  A mob decided to dispense justice without the aid of the police and the courts. 

 

And as far as "protecting a place of business," once you have the man down and in a helpless position, you are finished protecting that business.  Beating the man and scalding him with hot soup, when he has already been disarmed and restrained, had nothing to do with protecting that place of business.   It was all vigilante justice.  No rule of law.  Mob rule.  No trial, no court, no judge and jury.   Next time it might be you. 

---

His lawyer will take it all. It's what lawyers do. It's pretty much all they do. A felony is perpetrated, and regardless of the outcome, someone walks away with thousands of dollars, and everybody's ok with it because that someone is the lawyer.

 

Like I said. They're the lowest form of life.

Or they are, you know, protecting someone's constitutional rights.


A whole lot of people who walk around claiming to be patriotic dont have any interest in upholding or supporting the upholding the concepts, ideals, and spirit behind what makes this country great.


I guess they are the "lowest forms of life" because they make money helping someone in their greatest times of need?


Meh, then again you aren't going to change someone's mind when it is rooted in willful ignorance so they can avoid looking at the reality. They'd rather blame the lawyers. They rather believe popular notions of the "McDonald's coffee" case so they can have an excuse for their own shortcomings, or have something else to complain about.

---