They let people like this be attorneys?

[shdwfx]

I did not say "all" or even "most" lawyers are antis.

Like it or not, the prominent organization for lawyers does fall in that category.
If a sizable number of lawyers did not agree with the ABA (American Bar A), one wonders why a group of professionals is so impotent to change their own professional organization's stance on important issues.

Should one disagree that the ABA is the prominent organization for lawyers in America, I merely point out its 400,000 person membership in comparison to the mere 3,000 members in the rival NLA (National Lawer's A.).

 

[Aaron Baker]

Welcome to the forum Aaron.

My intent is not to impugn the profession and if you read my post, you'll find I did not, nor will I. I'd like to think that attorneys are capable of more common sense than this former DOT "special agent" dimbulb apparently possesses.

Thanks for the welcome.

My post was more in response to the anti-lawyer Shakespeare reference. I'm in complete agreement that the guy in question is seriously lacking in critical thinking skills. I'm hesitant to connect that to any of his personal characteristics (in this case, being a lawyer).

I recently signed up for this forum, and so far I'm really impressed with the high-minded discourse on firearms. The only problem I see is that some people seem to think that the "antis" as a group should be hated for their views. The unfortunate truth is that whenever you're on the opposite side of a debate from someone, they usually hold their views because out of ignorance, not out of any ill intent. I just hope that people can remember that. It tends to reduce the personal attacks. (Please note that I'm not accusing anyone in particular of making personal attacks, but it's very easy to slip into doing.)

Again, thanks for the welcome.

Aaron

 

[rust collector]

As an attorney, I believe I am qualified to observe that the media seek out those who enjoy hearing themselves speak, and that is somewhat of an occupational hazard with some attorneys. Others of us subscribe to the theory that it is better to maintain our silence and be thought a fool than to open our mouths and remove all doubt.

No group or trade is without its unfortunate examples. I'd like to think that this language was lifted out of context, but whether it was or not, I don't think anyone was relying on his analysis to form a conclusion. Then again, we love our professional athlete/actors' endorsements, and we elect the most interesting examples of the species, so perhaps analytical thinking has become too time consuming...

 

[Pilgrim]

Wow,, I think it is alarming how many people/attorneys with this type of mindset are running around using their mouths...

Some of them go on to be appellate and supreme court judges and write opinions like that.

Pilgrim

 

[XLMiguel]

Lawyers, well, when you need one, you need the best you can get, and the bottom half of the class sets out to practice just like the top half. God bless the good ones.

NM lawyers really take the cake, though. Last year a guy who had been drinking all day (he admitted to having at least 20 beers) ran his pick-up truck into a family of 5 (mom, dad, 3 kids, 2 on horseback) walking their 2 horses along a county road late in the day. He killed the 2 horses, injured the dad and 2 of the kids. He hit them so hard that the 11 y.o. girl ended up in the back of the truck with a badly mangled leg, and the S.O.B. didn't stop until 700' down the road when the girl finally got his attention by throwing beer cans in his open window. Th defense lawyer tried to claim that the driver was "an experienced drinker, who drank beer ike water" and that alcohol played no part in the accident[/I"]!!! He also blamed the low sun in the drivers eyes and alledged that the family was in the middle of the road where they didn't belong.

Fortunately, NM juries aren't as stupid as that lawyer and the guy went to jail for IIRC, 7 or 9 yrs. Low sunlight? The guy didn't slow down, and a gaggle of 5 people and 2 horses is pretty hard to miss under most any circumstance. I don't know if they were in the road or by the road, but regardless, you still don't get to hit them.

Frankly, I won't bore you with what I'd do to the driver had it been my family he hit, and IMNSHO, that lawyer needs a sever beating with a spiked cluebat within an inch of his life for trying to foist such a preposterous pile of manure as a defense.

Then there was the 24 y.o. idiot who had a fight with his pregnant GF and then ran her over with his PU as she walked towards her grandma's house. Three people stopped to try and help the girl, and scumbag BF ran down one of the samaratans, knocking him 50' in the air as the man's wife looked on. The scumbag's lawyer tried to put forth that his client didn't hurt the GF (never mind the broken leg she didn't have when she started walking), and he went on to claim that his client didn't see the guy he hit, even though all the witnesses said he deliberately swerved to hit the guy. He also said it really wasn't his client's fault anyway because he was high on coke and booze.

The idiot in question got a life sentence.

Please don''t tell me that them lawyers were "just doing thier jobs" I undersand that everyone is entitled to a reasonable defense, but those clods go beyond the pale IMO. Some of them do need killing, or at least should share the fate of their 'clients' for such amoral, unethical shenanigans.:banghead:

 

[Aaron Baker]

XLMiguel,

I won't say that anything those lawyers presented in defense of their clients was tasteful, but lawyers are trained to be zealous advocates. That's probably why you're seeing hair-brained defenses like that advanced when there's no GOOD explanation for their client's behavior. To be honest, I don't see a huge problem, because you pointed out, juries don't buy that kind of BS. Those guys got exactly what they deserved.

Now, the lawyers? While I agree the defenses presented were tasteless, your suggestion that they "need killing" is definitely far from "taking the high road." Also, it sounds like in each of those cases, the defendants must have testified in order to be able to make the claims that they did. The one thing a lawyer doesn't get to decide (unfortunately, sometimes) is whether his client testifies. That's the client's own idiotic decision. So if he gets up there and says some distasteful stuff, the lawyer can't do anything about it but stand by.

Given that, in life, sometimes the strangest things turn out to be true, how can you really judge whether the strange and seemingly distasteful defense is true? I'll tell you how--you let a jury decide. And they did. And justice was done.

The talk about killing lawyers really gets old.

Aaron

 

[Rem700SD]

Pilots train at a federal center in New Mexico. Classes hold 48 people and have been filled or nearly filled for five years, Minerly said.

Sounds like they need more facilities...

 

[XLMiguel]

Aaron, you're right, and I apologize. In one case (the drunk driver/horse killer), the defendent did testify, in the other, I don't believe that he did. I understand your point about a zealous defence, but these cases are just rediculous

Perhaps I should have said the lawyers' careers should be 'killed', as the defense they offered is just so effing stupid, unprofessional, morally bankrupt, and ethically repugnant that IMO, they have no business practicing law. Then again, we used to have a fromer beautician as a municipal court judge (she got bounced for 'amending' traffic records...). Santa Fe just passed an initiative requiring that judges at least be a memeber of the bar, though given the performance of the two clowns cited, that's no guarantee that it will improve the quality of 'justice'. Judges here are elected, so I guess we get what we deserve.

As you noted, this time the system worked, but the more subtle point is that we have a legal system, not a justice system, frought with human frailty. We've only been in NM for ~2 yrs, and it has a lot going for it (moved here from the DC area), but it's definitely got its strange side, too. Maybe these guys came from Area 51-

 

[outerlimit]

You may have overlooked the last line of the story... classes have been running at capacity, or nearly so, since they began. The program is only about five years old.

Not everyone has the ability to take a week off, plus travel time, unpaid, to attend training. For a lot of airline pilots one week would be the equivalent of somewhere between one and three thousand dollars of lost compensation. Upon completion of training flight deck law enforcement officers serve unpaid in that position. There is no expense reimbursement. There is no compensation for recurrent proficiency training or equipment. They are true patriots.

Seems to me a totally voluntary organization that gets a 10% participation rate is pretty darn successful.

Somewhere in the comments section there's a reference to air marshals - somewhere around 1% of flights have air marshals at a cost of $750M, but 10% have armed pilots, at a cost of $5M. Don't know the source of these figures, but talk about bang for the buck...!

I don't disagree at all. But you may have overlooked my point. That's there's too much red tape.

We trust them with the plane don't we? Why not a gun.

 

[230RN]

CAS700850:

Second, an idiot who graduates from law school is still an idiot, but properly called idiot, esq.

Now, that is comedy.

"That's a scary number," said Joseph Gutheinz, a former Transportation Department special agent and aviation attorney in Houston. "By allowing so many pilots the opportunity to fly armed, we're giving terrorists opportunity to identify somebody who has a gun and overpower him."

Now, that is tragedy.

 

[v35]

We trust them with the plane don't we? Why not a gun.

I agree with your logic Outerlimit. I wish it were as easy as that, but it isn't.

While I fervently believe in everyone's 2A rights to carry whatever and wherever they choose, I don't disagree with the additional training required to carry in the capacity of an airline pilot. An airplane flight deck is a highly structured environment in which safety is paramount. Changes to that structure have to be carefully developed, refined, and examined to avoid disastrous consequences. Carrying is an additional responsibility with procedures that have to fit into that environment. If you carry in your daily life (and I hope you do) you may have had the benefit of formal training. But even if you didn't, you probably already have procedures and training that you developed on your own, though you might not think about them in that way. Think of the four rules, for instance, and how you apply them to what you do. It probably works just fine for you. However, formal training to carry in a highly structured airline crew environment is a must.

Certainly the requirements for formal training limits participation. A lot of pilots have already had their spare time and spare income slashed to zero and zero respectively, and this program demands both. Many feel they already put in enough effort to be given command of a $35M airplane with a couple hundred people on it, and being involuntarily granted additional responsibility for no additional compensation already happens with sufficient regularity in the airline business. I imagine that's why the TSA believes participation will only reach the 16.5% they project.

Bear in mind it's a federal program. Any mishap is going to result in the kind of attention no Fed program administrator wants. So there are a lot of hoops to jump through, to make sure the .gov covers its rear in the event the inevitable happens like it did with US Airways 1536.

A friend of mine, former LA city cop, told me they had a number of police cars with bullet holes through the driver's seat, about where the seat belt attaches, i.e. of NDs went on there. Not much of a problem when all that gets hurt is a cheap vinyl seat and some dirt beneath it. People are skittish enough about all that aluminum flying over their heads every day though, let alone all those federally sanctioned lead launchers... hence the hoops ya gotta jump through...