On DOR's absurd point that this guy is somehow a good guy for dumping a client publicly like this
First off. I never claimed it was fact. I never actually heard the lawyer state his reasons for dropping the case. I still haven't seen him on video or read a quote from him. I only assumed he saw the video and realized everything his client said to him was a lie and he dropped the case. If he is going around doing what you say he is doing, that's on him... I'm not condoning that. Just simply stating I'm glad that he dropped him. I respect the act of doing that single thing. Don't put whatever he may or may not be doing after said fact on me.
And for someone crying at the beginning of this thread about "I've never said anything close to supporting anything like this" you should know the difference between the two.
First off, there's very little historical context on cases like this as there have been very few cases where something like this has been caught on video.
So only cases caught on video are considered valid historical context? No other police-citizen interaction has bearing?
Considering the concern over historical police homicides, do you think it would be best that avoiding any potential jury bias would kinda be good? I don't see how speculating what someone is going to remember over what time period is going to be fruitful, for all we know the entire jury will each have photographic memories. An attorney is going to have privileged information that a jury will not have access to and given that information along with the video, almost anyone will have their opinion changed in some fashion upon knowing that dude dumped him after seeing the video.
I do think avoiding jury bias is good (although all jurors are biased, inasmuch as all humans are biased), but that wasn't the question. The question was about how strong an impact his statement would have in influencing a jury over and above their own judgment, based on available evidence. For example, if I'm a juror, I see the video clip and the other evidence, and I:
1) Think "Clearly this cop murdered this guy, he's guilty".
2) Think (at the other extreme) "That guy was clearly a dangerous thug, good thing the cop shot him".
3) Think " Well he did shoot the guy in the back while he was running away, but I don't know what happened before the video was taken, so I can't be 100% certain something didn't happen that would justify it".
Does the knowledge of the first lawyer walking away after seeing the video change my POV? What if he had walked away, but we didn't know it was because he saw the video? How great would the difference be? The cop will definitely have another lawyer by that point. Does that lawyer's opinion hold less weight than the first? Why or why not?
I would think it's fair to say that examples 1 and 2 aren't likely to change at all. As for 3, it seems unlikely that they're going to take in all the evidence presented, come to a mental stalemate, and then say "Well, his first lawyer quit, so I'll have to go with guilty."
What if the other forms of potential jury bias I mentioned come into play? That's already happened, BTW... Scott's family court warrant, arrests for failing to pay child support (a jailable offense in SC) and 20+ year old assault charge, plus the standard "officer felt threatened" statement, are out there... and if there's anything else in that category to be found, it'll come up soon enough. Will these things have more or less impact than the thing about the officer's lawyer? Which type of information has historically had more impact? Is there a reason why we should be more concerned about one than the other?
Also, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the boundaries of attorney-client privilege, but I thought that was specific to confidential information passed between client and attorney. Since the video is public, wouldn't that mean mention of it is not protected? Wouldn't it also be the case that an attorney is within their rights to say why they dropped a case, as long as they don't reveal any confidential information about the case or the client in the process of doing so?
On DOR's absurd point that this guy is somehow a good guy for dumping a client publicly like this
First off. I never claimed it was fact.
His first lawyer abandoned too as soon as he saw the video. Good to see a defense lawyer not give a shit about the money and just walk away.
You're right, I don't see a sworn statement here that you, DOR, say that this was a factual statement. I feel like someone should have pushed me further into investigating this. In the future, if I ever decide to respond to your posts, I will ask you if you are claiming a fact or just merely speculating even if it seems extremely clear cut. I apologize for that.
I never actually heard the lawyer state his reasons for dropping the case.
Never heard his reason but....
His first lawyer abandoned too as soon as he saw the video.
k
Just simply stating I'm glad that he dropped him. I respect the act of doing that single thing. Don't put whatever he may or may not be doing after said fact on me.
I'm not putting anything on you beyond addressing your glee that someone who did something you don't like is not getting fair representation. Had this been a citizen against a cop with the same circumstances, you would be raging out of control. Regardless of the crime, people deserve fair representation.
And for someone crying at the beginning of this thread about "I've never said anything close to supporting anything like this" you should know the difference between the two.
I've only addressed your post in this thread, did not carry anything from some other thread, and have not extrapolated any disagreement with Soulstrut groupthink into some evil conspiracy theory. Slight difference between the two. Merely stating that I think it's absurd to be happy that someone got thrown under the bus by their former legal council.
this killer pig swill transcends race
latinos,whites,browns and yellows are all on the same kill grid as everyone else as soon as they step out they door and or get behind the wheel.
First off, there's very little historical context on cases like this as there have been very few cases where something like this has been caught on video.
So only cases caught on video are considered valid historical context? No other police-citizen interaction has bearing?
You can't look a sample of all police cases and compare it to something like this which clearly shows a crime being committed and covered up. I'm guessing you would have a similar conviction rate for all crimes captured on video that clearly show the offense; regardless if police were involved or not.
Considering the concern over historical police homicides, do you think it would be best that avoiding any potential jury bias would kinda be good? I don't see how speculating what someone is going to remember over what time period is going to be fruitful, for all we know the entire jury will each have photographic memories. An attorney is going to have privileged information that a jury will not have access to and given that information along with the video, almost anyone will have their opinion changed in some fashion upon knowing that dude dumped him after seeing the video.
I do think avoiding jury bias is good (although all jurors are biased, inasmuch as all humans are biased), but that wasn't the question. The question was about how strong an impact his statement would have in influencing a jury over and above their own judgment, based on available evidence. For example, if I'm a juror, I see the video clip and the other evidence, and I:
1) Think "Clearly this cop murdered this guy, he's guilty".
2) Think (at the other extreme) "That guy was clearly a dangerous thug, good thing the cop shot him".
3) Think " Well he did shoot the guy in the back while he was running away, but I don't know what happened before the video was taken, so I can't be 100% certain something didn't happen that would justify it".
Does the knowledge of the first lawyer walking away after seeing the video change my POV? What if he had walked away, but we didn't know it was because he saw the video? How great would the difference be? The cop will definitely have another lawyer by that point. Does that lawyer's opinion hold less weight than the first? Why or why not?
I would think it's fair to say that examples 1 and 2 aren't likely to change at all. As for 3, it seems unlikely that they're going to take in all the evidence presented, come to a mental stalemate, and then say "Well, his first lawyer quit, so I'll have to go with guilty."
What if the other forms of potential jury bias I mentioned come into play? That's already happened, BTW... Scott's family court warrant, arrests for failing to pay child support (a jailable offense in SC) and 20+ year old assault charge, plus the standard "officer felt threatened" statement, are out there... and if there's anything else in that category to be found, it'll come up soon enough. Will these things have more or less impact than the thing about the officer's lawyer? Which type of information has historically had more impact? Is there a reason why we should be more concerned about one than the other?
Also, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the boundaries of attorney-client privilege, but I thought that was specific to confidential information passed between client and attorney. Since the video is public, wouldn't that mean mention of it is not protected? Wouldn't it also be the case that an attorney is within their rights to say why they dropped a case, as long as they don't reveal any confidential information about the case or the client in the process of doing so?
Not trying to be rude or anything but really don't have the time to respond to all this alternate reality possible scenario stuff. Let me restate my point, legal council (who are assumed to be in possession of confidential information) should not be publicly casting suspicion on their clients (or former clients); regardless of the crime and especially while a case is still going on. This applies to anyone for any crime committed; even the ones I personally dislike. You can't make arbitrary standards based on some "well i dont think its going to influence the case so who gives a shit" shit.
I was going off reading that he dropped him as a client. Which happened right after the video went public. I didn't search for a press release on the reason. Believing Soulstrut was not a court of law or my former university professor, I hypothetically put my thoughts into a theory and wrote them on an online board. Unless I'm including a source or directly quoting, don't assume my thoughts on someone else's actions are facts.
Perhaps you should just stick to telling people to kill themselves online.
It's telling that in a thread on the subject of police abuse, your only interaction with the strut community is to attack others. I hope you don't treat the people in your real life like this. You're an adult. Grow the fuck up.
I was going off reading that he dropped him as a client. Which happened right after the video went public. I didn't search for a press release on the reason. Believing Soulstrut was not a court of law or my former university professor, I hypothetically put my thoughts into a theory and wrote them on an online board. Unless I'm including a source or directly quoting, don't assume my thoughts on someone else's actions are facts.
Dude, I really don't understand what you're getting at here. You posted up some news, I disagreed with your take on it and said why I disagreed on it. You're talking about all these hypotheticals and whatever else but you're the one who posted something that actually happened.
It's telling that in a thread on the subject of police abuse, your only interaction with the strut community is to attack others. I hope you don't treat the people in your real life like this. You're an adult. Grow the fuck up.
I was personally attacked in the initial post without ever posting in the thread. I responded to that. I responded to your post and you got all worked up. I have not "attacked" anyone in this thread beyond the people who feel that it's necessary to mention me for no reason.
And yes, if someone says some ignorant ass garbage regarding me in real life, I react the same way. Do you react the way you do in real life when someone slightly disagrees with your ideas?
...dude basically violated attorney-client privilege by saying that he dumped him after watching the video...
Honest question...are you more outraged about the attorney's behavior or the actions of a cop who shot and killed a man?
What do you think?
You frankly seem more upset about the attorney's actions, based off the posts. I can only assume this isn't the case.
Personally, I think the attorney's actions aren't very relevant to the actual event nor do I think they will hurt the chances of a fair trial.
Honestly I wasn't even going to post in this thread based on the subject matter and knowing how Soulstrut reacts to everything that doesn't follow the groupthink but decided to respond to the two idiots on the first page. I saw DOR's post later and responded to it because I was honestly baffled at his take on it.
I agree with your second paragraph for THIS particular case but don't think that applying arbitrary legal standards based on whether you like the person or not is a great path to venture down.
I saw DOR's post later and responded to it because I was honestly baffled at his take on it.
Brian, I'm telling you right now. My take on it was that I read he dropped the case (Not why he did). I concluded that he saw the video and he dropped his client. My personal opinion is I respect that. Too many times we see lawyers take or continue cases because they are high profile and/or for the money. I was personally glad to see someone who see's without a doubt a murder take place and is unwilling to profit or push their profile on that. If you feel like he's being dishonest on what he's doing. That's your opinion.
I have now read this article and I will quote the following.
"I can't specifically state what is the reason why or what isn't the reason why I'm no longer his lawyer. All I can say is that the same day of the discovery of the video that was disclosed publicly, I withdrew as counsel immediately. Whatever factors people want to take from that and conclusions they want to make, they have the right to do that. But I can't confirm from an attorney-client standpoint what the reason is."
If you feel so strongly that he did something illegal or he should be disbarred. Maybe that's a cause you can take on or support someone who is.
I apologies for saying the part about attacking others. To be honest, I rarely pay much attention to what LazarusOblong post. So I missed your name attached in the first post. I still don't think it warranted you telling him to go kill himself. But whatever...
All I ask is you don't make what I said out to be that I support or advocate the lawyer in question "stage a press campaign and give interviews" if that is indeed happening. I have no opinion on that. Except if you really believe that it will "influence a jury's opinion". I wonder how much you think the video will influence the jury's opinion? Or the fact that the local police association decided not to provide funding for his legal defense...
I've never said anything close to supporting anything like this but I guess if you don't fall in line with the Soulstrut hive mind people don't like it. Seems like your boy (and yourself) could not resist talking shit which is kinda sad given the subject matter.
Apparently even his union has abandoned him.
SC is a right to work state, it could be this officer shunned the union and is now getting payback.
Still, expect his lawyers to delay trail for 2 years. Defame Scott and paint him as a dangerous criminal. Get a change of venue. Convince at least one juror that Slager was afraid that Scott was an imminent danger to others. (Which is all he needs to get off.)
His first lawyer abandoned too as soon as he saw the video. Good to see a defense lawyer not give a shit about the money and just walk away.
He was probably lied to. Difficult to represent someone that gets caught lying to your face.
On DOR's absurd point that this guy is somehow a good guy for dumping a client publicly like this, dude basically violated attorney-client privilege by saying that he dumped him after watching the video.
" All I can say is that the same day of the [strong]discovery of the video that was disclosed publicly[/strong], I withdrew as counsel immediately. Whatever factors people want to take from that and conclusions they want to make, they have the right to do that. [strong]But I can't confirm from an attorney-client standpoint what the reason is[/strong]. "
Not trying to be rude or anything but really don't have the time to respond to all this alternate reality possible scenario stuff. Let me restate my point, legal council (who are assumed to be in possession of confidential information) should not be publicly casting suspicion on their clients (or former clients); regardless of the crime and especially while a case is still going on. This applies to anyone for any crime committed; even the ones I personally dislike. You can't make arbitrary standards based on some "well i dont think its going to influence the case so who gives a shit" shit.
Good thing this attorney didn't do any of that stuff.
With all the mandatory range time he must have spent, going for the shins should have been no problem. Make him hobble in pain for the rest of his life for a stupid decision, but don't empty a full magazine in a man's back! Of course, not all police officers are bad. Some are good. So on and so forth. Better Call Saul!
Comments
Actually, gag orders are pretty much standard in high profile cases in the US.
First off. I never claimed it was fact. I never actually heard the lawyer state his reasons for dropping the case. I still haven't seen him on video or read a quote from him. I only assumed he saw the video and realized everything his client said to him was a lie and he dropped the case. If he is going around doing what you say he is doing, that's on him... I'm not condoning that. Just simply stating I'm glad that he dropped him. I respect the act of doing that single thing. Don't put whatever he may or may not be doing after said fact on me.
And for someone crying at the beginning of this thread about "I've never said anything close to supporting anything like this" you should know the difference between the two.
I do think avoiding jury bias is good (although all jurors are biased, inasmuch as all humans are biased), but that wasn't the question. The question was about how strong an impact his statement would have in influencing a jury over and above their own judgment, based on available evidence. For example, if I'm a juror, I see the video clip and the other evidence, and I:
1) Think "Clearly this cop murdered this guy, he's guilty".
2) Think (at the other extreme) "That guy was clearly a dangerous thug, good thing the cop shot him".
3) Think " Well he did shoot the guy in the back while he was running away, but I don't know what happened before the video was taken, so I can't be 100% certain something didn't happen that would justify it".
Does the knowledge of the first lawyer walking away after seeing the video change my POV? What if he had walked away, but we didn't know it was because he saw the video? How great would the difference be? The cop will definitely have another lawyer by that point. Does that lawyer's opinion hold less weight than the first? Why or why not?
I would think it's fair to say that examples 1 and 2 aren't likely to change at all. As for 3, it seems unlikely that they're going to take in all the evidence presented, come to a mental stalemate, and then say "Well, his first lawyer quit, so I'll have to go with guilty."
What if the other forms of potential jury bias I mentioned come into play? That's already happened, BTW... Scott's family court warrant, arrests for failing to pay child support (a jailable offense in SC) and 20+ year old assault charge, plus the standard "officer felt threatened" statement, are out there... and if there's anything else in that category to be found, it'll come up soon enough. Will these things have more or less impact than the thing about the officer's lawyer? Which type of information has historically had more impact? Is there a reason why we should be more concerned about one than the other?
Also, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the boundaries of attorney-client privilege, but I thought that was specific to confidential information passed between client and attorney. Since the video is public, wouldn't that mean mention of it is not protected? Wouldn't it also be the case that an attorney is within their rights to say why they dropped a case, as long as they don't reveal any confidential information about the case or the client in the process of doing so?
You're right, I don't see a sworn statement here that you, DOR, say that this was a factual statement. I feel like someone should have pushed me further into investigating this. In the future, if I ever decide to respond to your posts, I will ask you if you are claiming a fact or just merely speculating even if it seems extremely clear cut. I apologize for that.
Never heard his reason but....
k
I'm not putting anything on you beyond addressing your glee that someone who did something you don't like is not getting fair representation. Had this been a citizen against a cop with the same circumstances, you would be raging out of control. Regardless of the crime, people deserve fair representation.
I've only addressed your post in this thread, did not carry anything from some other thread, and have not extrapolated any disagreement with Soulstrut groupthink into some evil conspiracy theory. Slight difference between the two. Merely stating that I think it's absurd to be happy that someone got thrown under the bus by their former legal council.
latinos,whites,browns and yellows are all on the same kill grid as everyone else as soon as they step out they door and or get behind the wheel.
You can't look a sample of all police cases and compare it to something like this which clearly shows a crime being committed and covered up. I'm guessing you would have a similar conviction rate for all crimes captured on video that clearly show the offense; regardless if police were involved or not.
Not trying to be rude or anything but really don't have the time to respond to all this alternate reality possible scenario stuff. Let me restate my point, legal council (who are assumed to be in possession of confidential information) should not be publicly casting suspicion on their clients (or former clients); regardless of the crime and especially while a case is still going on. This applies to anyone for any crime committed; even the ones I personally dislike. You can't make arbitrary standards based on some "well i dont think its going to influence the case so who gives a shit" shit.
man, I'll bet the POC population never has to deal with something like that.
Brian, you're a soggy twat-waffle.
that's a given
hard to believe lupus still shows up for the cruddy game at all
I was going off reading that he dropped him as a client. Which happened right after the video went public. I didn't search for a press release on the reason. Believing Soulstrut was not a court of law or my former university professor, I hypothetically put my thoughts into a theory and wrote them on an online board. Unless I'm including a source or directly quoting, don't assume my thoughts on someone else's actions are facts.
Perhaps you should just stick to telling people to kill themselves online.
It's telling that in a thread on the subject of police abuse, your only interaction with the strut community is to attack others. I hope you don't treat the people in your real life like this. You're an adult. Grow the fuck up.
Honest question...are you more outraged about the attorney's behavior or the actions of a cop who shot and killed a man?
Dude, I really don't understand what you're getting at here. You posted up some news, I disagreed with your take on it and said why I disagreed on it. You're talking about all these hypotheticals and whatever else but you're the one who posted something that actually happened.
I was personally attacked in the initial post without ever posting in the thread. I responded to that. I responded to your post and you got all worked up. I have not "attacked" anyone in this thread beyond the people who feel that it's necessary to mention me for no reason.
And yes, if someone says some ignorant ass garbage regarding me in real life, I react the same way. Do you react the way you do in real life when someone slightly disagrees with your ideas?
Personally, I think the attorney's actions aren't very relevant to the actual event nor do I think they will hurt the chances of a fair trial.
I agree with your second paragraph for THIS particular case but don't think that applying arbitrary legal standards based on whether you like the person or not is a great path to venture down.
so you decided to make the second post in the thread:
i, and everyone else, thank you for your levity.
good going brah
Brian, I'm telling you right now. My take on it was that I read he dropped the case (Not why he did). I concluded that he saw the video and he dropped his client. My personal opinion is I respect that. Too many times we see lawyers take or continue cases because they are high profile and/or for the money. I was personally glad to see someone who see's without a doubt a murder take place and is unwilling to profit or push their profile on that. If you feel like he's being dishonest on what he's doing. That's your opinion.
I have now read this article and I will quote the following.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/08/exclusive-michael-slager-s-attorney-dumped-him-as-soon-as-he-saw-video.html
"I can't specifically state what is the reason why or what isn't the reason why I'm no longer his lawyer. All I can say is that the same day of the discovery of the video that was disclosed publicly, I withdrew as counsel immediately. Whatever factors people want to take from that and conclusions they want to make, they have the right to do that. But I can't confirm from an attorney-client standpoint what the reason is."
If you feel so strongly that he did something illegal or he should be disbarred. Maybe that's a cause you can take on or support someone who is.
I apologies for saying the part about attacking others. To be honest, I rarely pay much attention to what LazarusOblong post. So I missed your name attached in the first post. I still don't think it warranted you telling him to go kill himself. But whatever...
All I ask is you don't make what I said out to be that I support or advocate the lawyer in question "stage a press campaign and give interviews" if that is indeed happening. I have no opinion on that. Except if you really believe that it will "influence a jury's opinion". I wonder how much you think the video will influence the jury's opinion? Or the fact that the local police association decided not to provide funding for his legal defense...
:whambulance: :whymustIcry:
He was probably lied to. Difficult to represent someone that gets caught lying to your face.
No, he didn't.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/08/exclusive-michael-slager-s-attorney-dumped-him-as-soon-as-he-saw-video.html
" All I can say is that the same day of the [strong]discovery of the video that was disclosed publicly[/strong], I withdrew as counsel immediately. Whatever factors people want to take from that and conclusions they want to make, they have the right to do that. [strong]But I can't confirm from an attorney-client standpoint what the reason is[/strong]. "
Good thing this attorney didn't do any of that stuff.
Truth.