For The Right $, Could You Be An Attorney For A Murderer?

cochran-in-court.jpg
 
Inori said:
Rapist? Hell nah. Not ever. Get them the fuck outa here. Aint enough money in the world.

I came in here initially prepared to say that if i knew for a fact that if the defendant murdered someone and are guilty? Nah Im not wit that shit. Dont think theres enough money for me to defend someone who murdered someone else.

then I said hol up...

View attachment 1605090

Was the person that was murdered an abuser or a rapist or someone harming the innocent? Someone who escaped actual justice? damn.. 🤔 I could see a world where I could try to make a case legally to defend some things depending on the situation.. 😕

sidenote: Im curious why the lady shot the attorneys and not the officers who allegedly abused and killed her moms. Were they better protected or something?
Click to expand...

They have guns. She chose the easier targets.
 
Freeman said:
They have guns. She chose the easier targets.
Click to expand...
makes sense logically.. I feel like a person would wanna get the ones that did the deed personally, not the ones defending them. the way these muhfuckas move I doubt they was under witness protection. Mad killer cops show up to the court house - you know what..

lol thoughts and prayers
 
Inori said:
makes sense logically.. I feel like a person would wanna get the ones that did the deed personally, not the ones defending them. the way these muhfuckas move I doubt they was under witness protection. Mad killer cops show up to the court house - you know what..

lol thoughts and prayers
Click to expand...
 
Thing is, you ain't proving they didn't do it. You didn't even have to pretend they didn't do it

It's simply can the evidence prove they did it beyond a reasonable doubt?

It's not about good or bad, right or wrong. It's about the evidence presented. Even if you know they did it, if the evidence can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt... The system we built laws on says they're good.

So if you in that field, it's your obligation to make sure that burden of proof is presented every single time. Ultimately, making sure every single person gets consistent treatment over rules that one person you KNOW is guilty. If they have no evidence convicting them... The moral thing to do is present that reasonable doubt 10 times outta 10.
 
Duwop said:
Thing is, you ain't proving they didn't do it. You didn't even have to pretend they didn't do it

It's simply can the evidence prove they did it beyond a reasonable doubt?

It's not about good or bad, right or wrong. It's about the evidence presented. Even if you know they did it, if the evidence can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt... The system we built laws on says they're good.

So if you in that field, it's your obligation to make sure that burden of proof is presented every single time. Ultimately, making sure every single person gets consistent treatment over rules that one person you KNOW is guilty. If they have no evidence convicting them... The moral thing to do is present that reasonable doubt 10 times outta 10.
Click to expand...

to me.. it boils down to - if you KNOW without a doubt that they fuckin guilty are you still willing to represent and defend that person. For me, it has to be a specific set of circumstances for me to feel ok doing that
 
Inori said:
to me.. it boils down to - if you KNOW without a doubt that they fuckin guilty are you still willing to represent and defend that person. For me, it has to be a specific set of circumstances for me to feel ok doing that
Click to expand...
Burden of proof not enough?

What if it was a bullshit murder. But all the evidence was clearly fabricated?

Like yes they did it, but they lying to convict them. Do you represent them?

Cuz if you don't , it's essentially giving the ok to fabricated evidence.

It's a slippery slope.
 
Duwop said:
Burden of proof not enough?

What if it was a bullshit murder. But all the evidence was clearly fabricated?

Like yes they did it, but they lying to convict them. Do you represent them?

Cuz if you don't , it's essentially giving the ok to fabricated evidence.

It's a slippery slope.
Click to expand...
its a slippery slope for sure and I am legit biased on the cases I would take lol

id prolly be a terrible lawyer all things considered but id be tryna get some justice
 
Inori said:
its a slippery slope for sure and I am legit biased on the cases I would take lol

id prolly be a terrible lawyer all things considered but id be tryna get some justice
Click to expand...
I'd be like Lincoln lawyer in my imagination
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top