So his advice is to stalk and harass? He is essentially advising the guy to be creepy and abusive.

And she interrupted you to talk about Jesus! If you’re going to bother me, at least have the decency to flirt!

Sorry to hear that, but I’m glad you vaccinate your children!

Thank you for sharing your story.

Yeah I guess I am not that concerned about non-violent crime. I mean, it sucks when your identity is stolen, that can fuck up your life, but it’s not the same as having your brains blown out by a murderer, or being raped. Violent criminals pose an actual, rawer, existential danger to the members of society they…

The left has a bit of an incoherent take on the carceral state sometimes.

This is a good point. And in this case, I don’t think the problem was necessarily the law-the problem was the judge. I’d rather make it a point to select/elect better judges. Which is a lot more work than just passing a law, but probably better.

Good lord. Someone needs to be fired for allowing that photo to be taken.

My now wife made the first move. Sadly, I had to surrender my man card and Jack Bauer came flying in on the back of a bald eagle and cut my nuts off with a ballpoint pen.

That’s true. I guess one problem you run into is that unlike in some countries, judges aren’t on a separate career track. They’re lawyers who have taken another oath and put on a black robe. So their thinking is probably colored in the same way as the attorneys before them.

He’s always been a sort of “point me at the water and lemme swim fast” kind of athlete.

Nowhere in there does it say that selecting a favourable fact-finder (whether jury or judge, assuming that you too have judge-alone trials) is a breach of that duty to the court.

Of course we have a duty of candor to the court. At least where I practice. Certainly in federal court and the states I practice. I’ll eat my shoe if there’s a jurisdiction in America where this isn’t the case.

Like I said upthread, these two things are not mutually exclusive. Framing it that way is sloppy thinking.

Depends if you are in it to win it or in it to serve justice.

(for example, they may not understand that in cases of acquaintance rape, the victim frequently initially reaches out to their rapist and attempts to remain friendly

And of course “neutral” is so often a dishonest way of masking/denying privilege. In this case male privilege.

It does depend on how the judge “determined” this. When I did jury duty and said I had an issue with sitting on a jury in a drug possession case (due to an uncle of mine and his life being ruined because he had some coke-not a dealer tho). The judge said “OK, but if you believe the prosecution proved their case beyond…

A man like that, with a gun. That’s a dangerous man!

Yeah there’s a difference between someone who legit can’t help it and an attention seeker.