General Discussions
So, everyone is disappointed in Alan now, eh?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, February 14, 2011 18:42
VIEWED: 20575
PAGE 7 of 7
Monday, February 14, 2011 6:33 PM
Quote:I see myself more on the same side as Alan Tudyk's attorney than on PirateNews's side. A defense lawyer will use innuendo, dark conspiracy theories, and shady “expert” witnesses to convince the jury. If it is necessary to say rude things about the government of the village of Soquel, so be it. A dirty win is still a win for Alan Tudyk. That's why a good DUI lawyer is paid so well to defend the guilty -- it is to compensate for burning in Hell forever. Or bad karma in the next life.
Originally posted by pennausamike:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So, Chris.... how does it feel to be teamed up with the local loony tune, against everyone else?
Who?
pennausamike? two? bytemite?
Ohhh, I bet you mean PN.
Not everyone who thinks DUI in this country can be poorly administered to corruptly mismanaged is a looney tune.
I stand by my posts.
Mike
Less controversially: The role of a defense lawyer is to vest lies with respect and depict them as reasonable statements to be subjectively considered by the jury along with the truth. In other words, the most creative storytelling allowed by the judge.
This is a national disgrace: we cannot allow an alcohol gap to persist.
My question to the resident constitutional scholars is this: Would it be legal for U.S.Congress to mandate a minimum level of alcohol consumption for every American, in order to remedy our shame? - www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/02/19374
The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, February 14, 2011 6:42 PM
Quote:
Wait what? Speeding -> refused breathalyzer (shady) -> failed field sobriety test -> innocent!
How'd you work through that logic?
The initial logic is to whether or not there's a court case.
We'll never know exactly what happened that night because we weren't there.
I find it unlikely that they would be able to convict Alan on the circumstantial evidence.
Now, I did make a leap in logic to say that I think he might only be convictable-guilty of speeding, but under such a scenario where the charge is against the spirit of the law.
I think it's entirely possible he would be vindicated in court, and under the current system, and owing to our inability to know all the details, a non-conviction is the best determination of innocence or non-innocence we have. Of course, that system isn't foolproof, Alan might very well have been DUI, but I'm not sure with the facts we have that we'll ever know.
Therefore, I'm starting to fall on the side of reasonable doubt and Alan may not have done anything wrong.
Under my most basic definition he'd already fulfilled that, in that he hadn't harmed or killed anyone, but this is under the legal perspective.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME