Lawyer bashing on CD [Archive]

Kris Verdeyen

12-04-2004, 16:23

You know, it's that 90 percent of lawyers that give the rest a bad name.

I've noticed that lately, the civilized discourse on these forums has been sullied by repeated attacks on a specific group of people. These people, some wonderful (http://www.lawyerswithoutborders.org/) examples of (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0195685/) gracious professionalism (http://www.probono.net/deathpenalty/index.cfm), have become the example of everything that we FIRSTers shouldn't be.

In post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=252269&highlight=lawyer#post252269) after (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=242160&highlight=lawyer#post242160) post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=242967&highlight=lawyer#post242967) after (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=239231&highlight=lawyer#post239231) post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=242967&highlight=lawyer#post242967) after (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=218292&highlight=lawyer#post218292) post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=242160&highlight=lawyer#post242160), lawyers are slammed, or more often, simply held up as the de facto example of pure evil. Why? No other profession faces such disparagement on these boards, we are largely a civilized group who are loath to use stereotypes (except occasionally in a self-disparaging sense).

So, what gives? Why do we act in this way with regard to lawyers, and what can be done to bring an end to it? Or is the stereotype a valuable illustration as to how not to look at the rules? I'm not sure. I do know that I cringe every time someone brings up "lawyerism" or some other such nonsense as the reason their interpretation of the rules is right.

Wayne C.

12-04-2004, 16:28

In the movie Brockovitch claimed that she hated lawyers too, that she just worked for one...

Yan Wang

12-04-2004, 16:40

I agree with Kris that stereotypes are bad in general. There are just as many unlikable engineers and software engineers (*caugh*Gates*caugh*) as lawyers.

Of course, that doesn't stop me from enjoying jokes related to the aforementioned. :)

Jessica Boucher

12-04-2004, 16:53

On one hand, I think the jokes are made to light-heartedly tell us to not be nitpicky when it comes to the rules.

On the other hand, I feel that FIRST is within a growing stage. We have gotten to the point where we have changed the face of engineering culture, but we're still working on that general culture thing. With that, we're partly making jokes about other professions to make ourselves feel good that we're all on a better track that is different from what we make fun of. I strongly feel that the next step for FIRST is to recognize that just because you're in the program doesn't mean you're going to become an engineer or go into something science-based...but it means that you have an appreciation for the healthy integration of technology into our everyday lives....no matter what profession you go into.

But then again, I think it's just that Dean likes to make fun of lawyers (just like I like to make fun of Brandon just because he's Brandon :) ), and we all follow along because it's Dean. :) Which isn't a bad thing, necessarily...it used to be that Dean's speeches weren't complete without a lawyer joke thrown in there. That's just how he is.

Cory

12-04-2004, 17:00

I think everyone needs to chill. Lawyers try to interpret laws to their advantage, even when there isn't much room to do so. People are simply making a perfectly acceptable analogy between the way people nitpick the rules, and the way lawyers study laws for any inconsistancies they can find.

Besides, everyone knows lawyers like to debate the meaning of stuff all the time. My dad tells me I'd be the best lawyer he's ever met :-D

Cory

mtrawls

12-04-2004, 17:06

Yeah, I've noticed this too. Heck, I just got back from a meeting at UVA ... during which, the head of the Rodman program (the honors program in the engineering school) was asked if ethics was part of the bio-engineering curriculum; then, as a follow up if the law school offered any ethics classes (presumably that engineering students could then take). So he pondered for a minute and said: Ethics in the Law School? ... No, I think I'd like my engineers to learn ethics from people who actually practice them! (Rough paraphrase.)

Granted, making jokes is fun and all, and I'm not annoyed at any of it ... but some of us engineering types want to be lawyers! (So don't assume it as an insult, eh?)

Jeff Rodriguez

12-04-2004, 17:08

mtrawls

12-04-2004, 17:27

Now that i think about it a little:

It's not so much the actual lawyers that are to blame, it would be the people who hire them.
The lawyer's are just doing their job, favorable or unfavorable. Unfortuntely, it's the lawyer's that are defending their clients. It, for the most part, wasn't the lawyer themselves who challenged someone else.
There's always someone who sues for a stupid reason (i.e. the Winnebago one). Let's blame them from now on. We'll refer to them as...umm...'dics'.
So, don't be a dic.

You want someone to blame? Try the root of the problem -- CONGRESS! Hrm, let's see here ... bloated government, intentionally vague laws and an absence of reasonable tort reform. Does that sound like a friendly combination? Lawyers are just trying to interpret the law they are given; they work in a well defined, advesarial fashion -- for all that people complain, they just do their jobs. And sure, we have a litigious society; but what is wrong with people trying to get there due? And it's up to the courts to determine that "due" -- but the courts don't make law (well, some try awfully hard to, but that's another discussion entirely). It's congress; the courts/lawyers/clients are all confined to the laws congress makes. But for the most part, that is very little confinement ... blame the real source, crummy politicians.

Joe Matt

12-04-2004, 17:34

Before this thread is closed for political mud slinging, let just say that lawyers interpret the law and try to apply it to their people. I agree that lawyer slamming is way to common here, even from some larger members of FIRST, but I still think that bending of the rules is part of engineering. It's needed under pressure from deadlines, cost constraints, and labor restraints to solve the complex and hard problems thrown at us. The use of teathers like in 2002 is a great example.

Lets chill guys. Drop the lawyer slams and jokes and lets all enjoy our last few sane days before Championships. :ahh: :p

Kris Verdeyen

12-04-2004, 17:36

You want someone to blame?...blame the real source, crummy politicians.

I wasn't really looking for another target for our community's venom, but I thank you for your suggestion.

jonathan lall

12-04-2004, 17:43

Blame Canada!

Gabriel

12-04-2004, 18:16

I have noticed this, and it does disturb me. Lawyers serve an important function in society, and while many of them are famously unethical many of them are courageous and generous individuals who dedicate themselves to serving their communities. I would venture a guess that there would be a lot fewer engineers without intellectual property lawyers and we would all be a lot worse off without our much derided judicial system. Now, I don't think I would ever be a lawyer, but I don't think that its right for Dean to be bashing lawyers, I know for a fact that he employs quite a few, and many, many lobbyists to boot. What's wrong with saying "don't be a weasel?" instead of "don't be a lawyer?"

There are good people and bad people in every profession. Einstein was a scientist, but so was Josef Mengele, Usama Bin Laden is an engineer, so lets try to to keep a little perspective.

Guest

12-04-2004, 18:50

mtrawls

12-04-2004, 19:07

Why not stick to the rules (Yes, this is related)? The rules are there to be followed, not bent. And don't say don't follow the rules to the letter, 'cause that's what the rules' letters are for!!!

Well it's a very tricky issue. I actually did several debates (LD debate) on this issue: the letter of the law verse the spirit of the law. On the one hand, you need to follow the letter for consistency, and to allow people to actually know what in the heck they need to do. This is more applicable to actual laws, though, where for obvious reasons people need to know what to do. So far as FIRST is concerned, the emphasis is on learning, not winning. You need to realize that if the spirit of the rules is in conflict with the letter of the rules, that means its a bad rule ... why arbitrarily follow it (remember not everything can be forseen), to the detriment of those involved? Now obviously it depends on the situation ... but sometimes the rules need to be bent ... othertimes they need to be followed. You have to weigh everything, and try to figure out just what your goals are.

KenWittlief

12-04-2004, 20:00

There are just as many unlikable engineers and software engineers (*caugh*Gates*caugh*) as lawyers.

...

Gates is not one of us - he never got a degree in anything, and he not an engineer

more of a pirate/business shark

BTW - who is the first lawyer mentioned in all of recorded history?

Hint: "did God say you may not eat from any tree in the garden?" :^)

Adam Y.

12-04-2004, 20:14

So, what gives? Why do we act in this way with regard to lawyers, and what can be done to bring an end to it? Or is the stereotype a valuable illustration as to how not to look at the rules? I'm not sure. I do know that I cringe every time someone brings up "lawyerism" or some other such nonsense as the reason their interpretation of the rules is right.
In all honesty I think it has to do with the fact that people consider lawyers to be slightly higher than telemarketers.
Gates is not one of us - he never got a degree in anything, and he not an engineer
I don't think Dean Kamen never got a real degree. That doesn't make him any less of an engineer.:)

Rafi A

12-04-2004, 20:21

KenWittlief

12-04-2004, 22:18

lawyers have earned the reputation they have - it didnt land on them for no reason.

In every lawsuit or trail you have a lawyer 'defending' the guilty or loosing position - think about it -how often do you see a guilty person plead guilty?

lawyers consider it their job to get the best possible judgement for their client - doenst matter if their client is wrong, guilty or at fault.

KenWittlief

12-04-2004, 22:22

no he didn't ever get a real degree, but he did receive honorary degrees from many educational institutes.
Personally, I'm all for following the spirit of a rule/law vs. the text. Although in a debate round I might say other wise ;)

Dean Kamen never got his degree because he was too busy running his business and BEING an engineer

Gates never got his degree cause he was too busy buying someone else work (Dos 1.0) and selling it to IBM.

Kris Verdeyen

12-04-2004, 23:03

lawyers have earned the reputation they have - it didnt land on them for no reason. Even if this were true, it still wouldn't justify a stereotype used across the whole profession. To use some familiar language (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=248346&postcount=61), how many decent, hardworking lawyers are you willing to offend?

In every lawsuit or trail you have a lawyer 'defending' the guilty or loosing position

That's what the lawsuit or trial is for, to determine which position is right. If everyone knew how it was going to end ahead of time, well, then, the whole process would be a lot easier.

lawyers consider it their job to get the best possible judgement for their client - doenst matter if their client is wrong, guilty or at fault.

It is a lawyer's job to get the best possible judgement for their client. That's what the client pays them to do. That's what you or I would pay our lawyer to do if either of us were falsely (or even rightly) accused of a crime.

That's what the sixth amendment to our Constitution guarantees us:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

MikeDubreuil

12-04-2004, 23:21

Engineers can be just as unethical as lawyers. Sure, it's more often than not indirect. For instance, a lot of people in this forum will or currently work for a defense company; engineering the next fighter jet, automatic assault weapon or bomb.

The fruits of their labor are usually used responsibly and for the correct reasons. Unfortunately, they can also be used to kill civilians accidentally or purposefully when they end up on the black market.

Not every engineer creates insulin pumps or better wheel chairs, some create better methods for killing people.

To wrap things up, engineers are no better than lawyers; often we do good, but sometimes we do bad.

Mr. Ivey

12-04-2004, 23:24

There are two kinds of lawyers, good and bad. The good ones protect and defend the innocent much like the police, fire fighters, and the armed forces, yet they do it in a court. These lawyers defend people who are accused of things they didn't do, or help fight for people's rights. They take up the cause of single mothers with children, against the dead beat dads, the keep children away from predators, and they fight for the rights of equality. And they never make the morning headlines nor do they make the 6 o'clock news. They are do gooders, they don't cause scandal or upset. The bad ones do. These guys bend the rules so much that if Dean says this is stratteling the line, they will find a loop hole somewhere, somehow. They are Johnny Cockren, and Mark Garragos, the represent those that you know have done wrong, yet the whezile into the minds of the people that you can not convict just because of a small piece of otherwise inconclusive evidence. And this is why layers are bashed. It only takes a few bad apples to spoil the whole bunch, or in the case of lawyers, ther reputation to society. You see when someone uses an annology of a lawyer they are not taking into consideration the Ken Pacciccacos of the word (Ken is the parent of a good friend of mine, he got arson charges droped from a young boy who was only involved because his brother was driving the car, and he was not old enough to drive, nor did he know what was going on). Nor are the Bob Rices considered, who fight for justice, and for free helped my mom and grandpa settle the assets of my grandmother when she passed. When the term lawyer is put into context in some of the posts mentioned, you are more substituting the term for the correct term of stickler of the rules, one who can not see in grey, it's either black or white. In some ways some lawyers have tainted their profession by defending the not so innocent, but go down to a local court house and go to the juviniale and domestic relations cases, there you will find men and women with a heart of gold, people that fight for what is right. Not bottom feeders that we so commonly associate with the term of lawyer. This is just my rant on lawyer bashing. I see it as not saying a lawyer is the target, but an alternate name for a target. I don't rightly know if that makes perfect sence, but I hope someone gets the gist of it.
ivey

David66

12-04-2004, 23:33

My best friend's father is a lawyer. He is a great person, with a HUGE heart for his community, his friends, and his family. But when it come to his profession, he ahs emntioned to me personally that he does "whatever it takes". It is impossible IMO to be a lawyer (at least a good one) without fitting into the stereotype sometimes. The laws of our United States of America were written vaguely for a reason. take say...the constitution for example. it was written over 200 years ago....how could they possibly know what types of needs and wants-both politically and socially- we would have today? Allthey had was the foresight to make sure laws were vague enough to be adapted to any social situation. laws are vague to protect the innocent. and the mostly innocent. and-unfortunately-sometimes the guilty. they were written to prevent tyranny. they were written to give us the freedoms we enjoy today. they were written by some of the 'best' lawyers. they may not have had the best profession in the world-and they may not have always been truthful-but they are good people. this applies to every profession. so i believe this 'lawyer bashing' isnt about bashing poeple who are lawyers, but ratehr the mentality it refers to. i believe FIRST is right in their want for us to avoid this mentality. it is the main reason that so many flags are being thrown. (ie, i wasnt hurting anyone in that corral-no you werent, but you WERE in it). They are promoting healthy PROFESSIONAL attitudes,because they know that we are all good people privately (we hope ;)

Guest

13-04-2004, 00:18

Dean Kamen never got his degree because he was too busy running his business and BEING an engineer

Gates never got his degree cause he was too busy buying someone else work (Dos 1.0) and selling it to IBM.
It seems by your quote that engineers are more worthy people than others, like businessmen. What makes the engineering better than other careers?

I hope I'm misunderstanding you.

Ryan F.

13-04-2004, 00:20

Okay, I would have to say it's pretty simple in my view. Lawyers are necessary to protect peoples rights. Next time your on trial :yikes: (which I hightly doubt) and believe your being falsely accused, don't come back telling me that having a lawyer is a bad thing. The thing that sickens me is lawyers that defend people they know are guilty just to make money. OJ Simpson ring a bell to anyone? Also, the current fad of stupid cases such as suing fast food places for obesity sickens me. Lawyers are there for a reason, but some of them definetly go overboard just for the money.

Caution Coffee is HOT!

Elgin Clock

13-04-2004, 00:28

You know, it's that 90 percent of lawyers that give the rest a bad name.

I've noticed that lately, the civilized discourse on these forums has been sullied by repeated attacks on a specific group of people. These people, some wonderful (http://www.lawyerswithoutborders.org/)examples of (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0195685/) gracious professionalism (http://www.probono.net/deathpenalty/index.cfm), have become the example of everything that we FIRSTers shouldn't be.

In post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=252269&highlight=lawyer#post252269) after (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=242160&highlight=lawyer#post242160) post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=242967&highlight=lawyer#post242967) after (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=239231&highlight=lawyer#post239231) post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=242967&highlight=lawyer#post242967) after (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=218292&highlight=lawyer#post218292) post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=242160&highlight=lawyer#post242160), lawyers are slammed, or more often, simply held up as the de facto example of pure evil. Why? No other profession faces such disparagement on these boards, we are largely a civilized group who are loath to use stereotypes (except occasionally in a self-disparaging sense).

So, what gives? Why do we act in this way with regard to lawyers, and what can be done to bring an end to it? Or is the stereotype a valuable illustration as to how not to look at the rules? I'm not sure. I do know that I cringe every time someone brings up "lawyerism" or some other such nonsense as the reason their interpretation of the rules is right.
Sounds like you are taking these attacks personally..
<looks up at your team role - Engineer..>
Hmm..
<Wonders why Kris Verdeyen has such deep interest in defending lawyers>

/me Totally confused!

10intheCrunch

13-04-2004, 00:35

Gates is not one of us - he never got a degree in anything, and he not an engineer

more of a pirate/business shark

BTW - who is the first lawyer mentioned in all of recorded history?

Hint: "did God say you may not eat from any tree in the garden?" :^)

Ken, I don't like Gates very much either, but this comment seems to highlight the exact problem we are having. The FIRST community is great to itself but not always to the people who aren't "one of us." The point is that there are people of the engineering profession who are just as despicable as some lawyers, just as there are lawyers that are fantastic human beings. Judge person by person, not by title.

And Hammurabi's set of laws predates the Bible, I believe.

Gabriel

13-04-2004, 00:37

Here's a question for you guys - Under the Constitution, the Federal Government has very limited power. So, in 1964, what Federal power did Congress use to establish the Civil Rights Act that helped ensure African Americans could vote, desegregated the south and prevented employment discrimination?

Why the power of Congress to regulate Interstate Commerce!

Apparently, when they had to solve a desperate problem a bunch of lawyers got together and came up with a clever solution and they managed to help solve an enormous social problem despite massive opposition. Not too shabby.

I think a lot of engineers involved in FIRST have to deflate their professional egos a little. Its not what you do for a living that matters but who you are as a person. There are plenty of wonderful engineers out there and plenty of bad ones (Usama Bin Laden for example), just as there are plenty of good lawyers out there and plenty of bad ones.

Alright, you guys are going to flame me for this one, but I'm going to say it anyway:

I hate to say it but I think that there is a fundamental flaw in the FIRST philosophy and that is that many leaders in FIRST choose to promote engineering as a contrast to something they say is bad, like law or entertainment. There's nothing WRONG with wanting to be an entertainer, and I can't believe the number of people who roll their eyes every time Dean says he's rescuing American youth from dreaming about being rockstars. Engineering is a wonderful profession, but we should be inspiring people by being positive about science and math and technology rather than being negative about what other people do.

I think that it is the height of hypocrisy for Dean Kamen to talk about the problems with our media-oriented culture when he refuses to learn anything about or participate in any way in that culture! I think that it is the height of hypocrisy for him to run a business that relies on influencing legislation (the legislative affairs people at Segway were so powerful they actually ran the sales department at one time) and then turn around and pretend that lawyers are the scum of the earth.

The world needs lawyers, and it needs engineers and entertainers and scientists, but it mostly needs good people who are passionate about what they believe in whatever field they go into.

Gabriel

13-04-2004, 00:41

And Ken - for what its worth, most defendants DO plead guilty.

Grommit

13-04-2004, 01:10

Reading through the posts, I don't think anyone has really hit on the essence of the matter: I don't think that we personally bash lawyers at all. To be more precise, we dislike the philosophy behind the concept of the study of law.

We dislike the approach to law that involves drawing precise conclusions from the wording, and we dislike the approach to writing law that creates this wording. We dislike the mentality of trying to find loopholes and we dislike the mentality of trying to find contradictions.

But we do not dislike lawyers. We just have a distaste, after years of sifting through meaningless legal jargon, for the spirit of law writing and the mess of law interpretation.

Where does our distaste come from? Can it be our everyday experience? No, because although America in general has a similar feeling towards law, people in Robotics have a particular dislike that glows in posts on this forum.

The answer lies in FIRST and Gracious Professionalism. We don't see the necessity of precision in lawwriting or law interpretation. Although outsiders might desire very precise guidelines behind a game or sport, such as ping-pong, whose rules are unmistakably precise about the most obscure of situations, under Gracious Professionalism, we have a stronger respect for the general idea and attitude that governs a game's existence than for the precision in crafting the specifications of the game itself. We see it as Gracious that teams should observe what most reasonably appears to fall within the legitimate boundaries of the intent of the game. We see it as professional to abide by the referees' ruling, especially considering how much thought the referees have put into most fairly carrying out the intent of the creators of this year's game. We feel that the attitude of those who overly examine the wording of laws and take unneeded precision in crafting rules that define every possible situation clearly are in conflict with the general values of FIRST. We do not necessarily feel that such procedures would be entirely unwelcome, but we do not welcome criticism that stems from "inaccuracy of the rules" nor "finding loopholes" in the game manual.

Kris, please realize that we bear no contempt towards the hardworking lawyers that keep our streets safe... we only find bitter an attitude that subtitutes nitpicking for common sense and bickering for gracious professionalism.

Guest

13-04-2004, 01:18

Your "we" seems too general. I don't think EVERYONE in FIRST agrees with that.

I know I definitely do not. Rules need to be followed to the letter because that gives everybody a 100% level playing field. Team X cannot say that they interpreted/bent the rules one way and have an advantage over the rest of the teams. That is the precise reason the rules are created by FIRST. Otherwise FIRST would say, do whatever you want, just be GP. Well, they don't say that, so let's all follow the rules, completely.

Joe Ross

13-04-2004, 01:38

Dean Kamen never got his degree because he was too busy running his business and BEING an engineer

Gates never got his degree cause he was too busy buying someone else work (Dos 1.0) and selling it to IBM.

Bill Gates was a prelaw (maybe that's why you don't like him) student at Harvard. He dropped out in his junior year so he could concentrate on making BASIC interpreters for Microsoft, the company he founded the year earlier. Dean also dropped out in his junior year, also to run a business.

Bill Gates and Paul Allen wrote a simulator for the 8008, which they then modified to simulated the 8080 used in the Altair. Then, they wrote a BASIC interpreter that ran on their simulator. All this was without ever touching an Altair. When they finally got their hands on an Altair, the code worked fine. To do this, without ever touching hardware takes a level of software engineering (or genius) that most people don't have.

In Dean's earlier speeches, he often said that his goal was to make Bill Gates as much of people's hero as Michael Jordan. I'm pretty sure that Dean respects Bill Gates.

I know you don't like Bill Gates (I don't like much of microsoft's current software, nor some of their business dealings) but to say what you said, without anything to back you up, borders on slander.

Edit: a lawyer-to-be just PMed me and said it's libel not slander, since it's written.

Jessica Boucher

13-04-2004, 02:39

I've read this thread a couple of times, and I've been asked to say something, but I don't know what to really say...but I can see that it's getting kind of heated. Can we bring it back to the original topic of the thread?

Why do we act in this way with regard to lawyers, and what can be done to bring an end to it? Or is the stereotype a valuable illustration as to how not to look at the rules? I'm not sure. I do know that I cringe every time someone brings up "lawyerism" or some other such nonsense as the reason their interpretation of the rules is right.

AzNiCe

13-04-2004, 04:37

why do we regard lawyers in this way? in the US it seems to me that the richer guy with the better lawyer wins, and the better lawyer seems to be the smoother-talking one who can find the loophole. i know this obviously doesnt apply to the majority of lawyers but i have no idea how to correct this.

but before we go on, id just like to say that lawyers are paid to do their jobs, and their jobs are to win cases.

Jack Jones

13-04-2004, 07:28

In reviewing your post after post after post after post examples, I think you have confused our contempt of ill-conceived, poorly worded, and/or ideological rules with contempt for the legal profession.

The circumstance is that engineers are the legislators of FIRST. So, given some the results, we should welcome participation by a lawyer or two. Provided, of course, they don’t try to play engineer. ;)

Bill Gold

13-04-2004, 07:50

The circumstance is that engineers are the legislators of FIRST. So, given some the results, we should welcome participation by a lawyer or two. Provided, of course, they don’t try to play engineer. ;)
I realize you're kidding, but just so you (and more importantly, others) know... There are a lot of very well respected robot designers in FIRST who aren't engineers, and aren't interested in becoming an engineer. Also, there are many lawyers who have engineering degrees, some of which had been in that profession before they turned to law.

I spent about an hour or so composing a post meant for this thread about 8 hours ago. I was put off by a few of KenWittlief's comments about lawyers and the whole devil thing. I've since decided not to unleash hell, as was my original reaction, in favor of just saying how disappointed I am that someone would say that all people in one group deserve to be prejudged as evil or otherwise demonized.

-Bill Gold @ 4:50am

jonathan lall

13-04-2004, 10:32

Why is there lawyer bashing in the FIRST community? One huge reason that has barely been touched on is that Dean Kamen, and others, have made on more than one occasion, degrading comments about lawyers. Is that unexpected? No. But I think it is a tad uninformed. Nobody here needs me to lecture them about how lawyers are the only group of people out there to protect their personal rights. Most people here are smart enough to figure that out themselves. In this thread, I keep seeing comments like, 'crooked lawyers like Johnny Cochran' are out there to screw you. To a small extent, you are right, but to a bigger and much more important extent, there's another truth.

You are all wrong.

Are you honestly saying the guilty do not deserve the best defense they can get? Are you honestly saying that the burden of proof and the rights of the accused are not to be protected? Johnny Cochran and his team put up a pretty brilliant fight, and while they defended a man who kill--sorry, it's called "wrongful death" in the States' civil court--who caused wrongful to his wife, they also did their job, fulfilling a bigger need of society than punishment for the guilty. The Government's case and prosection against a guilty man were bad, and it's as simple as that.

Now, back to FIRST, the thread's original topic, and the second reason people hate lawyers on CD and in FIRST. The truth is that people are not born with jurisprudence. As such, we end up with those not trained in that field despising people who are capable of thinking in that way. It's perfectly natural, but it's also disappointing. I find it difficult to respect someone who sees in black and white and can't put up an argument. For some here, it's the opposite. When the average person sits down and reads the rules, he sees the rules. When a so-called 'lawyer' sees them, he sees the rules to mean exactly what they mean. If a rule is open to interpretation, it is either meant to be that way or it is a bad rule. Yes, there is such thing. FIRST's resident 'lawyers' jump on this and get flak for it.

In the end, before you jump on the bandwagon and hang you a lawyer on CD, make sure you're not doing it because said lawyer thought of something you wouldn't have thought of. I find that the majority of lawyer-bashing incidents on CD occur when someone comes up with a brilliant idea that is seemingly within the rules. I find it especially annoying when someone gets it clarified and approved by FIRST and still gets flak for it. A lot of the time, it's an engineer who comes up with a device that needs a 'lawyeristic' interpretation of the rules.

</rant> *ducks*

mtrawls

13-04-2004, 10:44

In every lawsuit or trail you have a lawyer 'defending' the guilty or loosing position - think about it -how often do you see a guilty person plead guilty?

lawyers consider it their job to get the best possible judgement for their client - doenst matter if their client is wrong, guilty or at fault.

And such is their job ... and no, it doesn't matter if their client is wrong, guilty or at fault! We have an adversarial legal system -- one advocate for the accused and one advocate for the victim. Throughout the centuries it's been found out that this works best; afterall, what kind of country would it be if my lawyer wasn't concerned with my best interest? I think you are complaining about people getting off on "technicalities" and such ... but it is these "technicalities" that keep the government from busting down your door! I know people complain when some criminal gets off because the police mishandled the evidence, or something else ... but these rules/procedures are in place to protect you. It's one of those funny little ideas that liberty should be preserved (albeit the concept seems to be dying out these days).

We dislike the approach to law that involves drawing precise conclusions from the wording, and we dislike the approach to writing law that creates this wording. We dislike the mentality of trying to find loopholes and we dislike the mentality of trying to find contradictions.
...

The answer lies in FIRST and Gracious Professionalism. We don't see the necessity of precision in lawwriting or law interpretation. ... We see it as Gracious that teams should observe what most reasonably appears to fall within the legitimate boundaries of the intent of the game. We see it as professional to abide by the referees' ruling...

This wonderful idea about GP and not needing "precision in lawwriting" works fine for the very small scale and relatively unimportant FIRST competition. But you can't be advocating this on a large scale can you? For say, the nation's laws? It's hard enough for people to understand the laws as they are passed now ... but not only do you want them to know what the law says, but now they've got to interpret the "spirit" and figure out what 535 bandits meant -- and it's very likely that they all had different intentions. Oh, and then it would just be wonderful if we trusted every judge and let his decision be final -- 'cause, as you know, judges are above normal people, they're perfect and never make any mistakes or hold any grudges. The idea of specific laws is that people know what they have to do. If this is not the case you give the judge a very wide lattitude; you give the judge the power to convict anybody for anything. You can talk about GP, but the world ain't gracious or professional -- people are rotten ... that's the premise the constitution was written under, anyway, and I'd trust that a lot more than blindly trusting any judge to protect my rights. To summarize, my point is that all that "precision" and "loophole"-finding is necessary ... it might not sound glamorous, but without lawyers here to keep it all in check, believe it or not, our society would be in utter chaos!

ngreen

13-04-2004, 11:10

I think you are complaining about people getting off on "technicalities" and such ... but it is these "technicalities" that keep the government from busting down your door! I know people complain when some criminal gets off because the police mishandled the evidence, or something else ... but these rules/procedures are in place to protect you. It's one of those funny little ideas that liberty should be preserved (albeit the concept seems to be dying out these days).

Reminds me of those silly essays they tried to have you write for scholarships. "How to Balance Freedom and Security". Right now we are leaning more towards the security side but it is a balance. Their is a definite tradeoff between the two. "Do you want police busting down your door, taking you downtown, suspending habeus corpus, torturing you until you admit to crime you didn't commit, and sentencing you without a lawyer or jury or with reasonable doubt or do you prefer getting attacked by terrorist? Personally I prefer somewhere in the middle.

Lawyers are alright by me. I guess I have some of the questioning and looking for loopholes. My school must of done a horrible job at creative problem solving..huh? But I guess that should be in the public vs. private thread. But really they are just people doing a job. Stereotypes aren't particularly good. Let lawyers be lawyers and engineers be engineers.

Gadget470

13-04-2004, 11:39

I have not read every word of this thread, but I did read most of the posts. If my statements are already mentioned by someone else, so be it.

Oddly enough.. I'm writing this to the spotlight for Dave:
"Lawyers find loopholes. Engineers find solutions. For which would you rather be known? - dlavery "

Most major engineering companies have a department or partnership with lawyers who find out what is legal to do, what isn't, and what might be. I say what might be, because the "might be" is the point where loopholes are. It is the job of the lawyer to find out those three points, and then use them to the best advantage of their clients.
You can't shoot someone because they stuck their tounge out at you. That's illegal.
But, if for some reason you had a traumatic childhood disturbance (which could be proven) from someone sticking their tounge out at you, there is a chance you could get off scott-free on a plea of Mental Disturbance (Sorry, I don't know the technical term).

There are many cases which are won based on profoundly stupid points. Lately, the US has become sue-happy (you may remember www.sue-it.com [gone now] which was bent on creating lawsuits against the Segway HT BEFORE it was even released to the public!). There have been cases of "Fast Food made me fat" or the recent one.. A High School girl on the basketball team was told by her coach that "[She] would be a better player if [she] dropped 10 pounds." According to the case, this statement alone caused her to have eating disorders and a feeling of disgust for herself. She was awarded $2 Million from the School District, but the case is going to be under appeals.
There was also a case a ways back, called the "Twinkie Defense". A man claimed that malnutrition (based on his own decisions to eat nothing but Twinkie's and other Junk Food's during the 2 weeks before commiting murder) led him to a state of mental unrest. Due to the malnutrition, he was unable to reason as he normally would and should be aquitted of his murder charge. He won the case.

So, why do most people generally dispise lawyers? Because it is a lawyer's job to perform in the best interest of their client by interpretting laws which may apply profitably to their client.

Few other professions require their professionals to study the laws governing their business. As all people are flawed, so are the things created by people. There will always be loopholes in laws, and most commonly it will be lawyers who find them. The stereotype that "Lawyers are bad people" stems from people seeing lawyers win cases that are based on loopholes that the normal people don't see themselves (because normal people don't search for them).
It is probably quite rare that a malicious action is performed knowing of a loophole which can be used. It is when the lawyer is hired that the loophole is discovered.

So why the bad rep on lawyers?
I personally don't like them because of many of the high profile cases which surround their profession.
Are there lawyers out there who want to help people that deserve to be helped? Yes.
Are these lawyers the top money-makers of their field? No.
In a materialistic society, to grow in value and class you need more money. Many people make their money in dishonest ways. It seems, however, that most people see finding loopholes in laws a dishonest practice.
So, to be a high class and highly paid lawyer, you must perform a dishonest practice.

</rant1>
About previous comments:
KenW's comment about the first lawyer in recorded history.. to save you the trouble of finding out.. it was the Serpent (symbol of satan) in the Adam and Eve tale.
I don't think that the Bible should be considered "recorded history" in a public forum. Many do not believe any of the Bible to be factual, while others claim it to be the greatest writings of all time. "Recorded History" is writtin (pen/paper, film, etc.) as the event happens or soon after. The bible makes no claim of Adam and Eve actually writing Genesis, so any information would be through a 3rd party. We all know that things get skewed when told to someone else (ever played the "Telephone" game in a line when you were a kid?). In short: The Serpent may or may not be a factual occurance, and therefore can not be fully counted as factual. (Now I feel like the lawyer...)

Ogre's comment: "There's always someone who sues for a stupid reason (i.e. the Winnebago one)." While I gave a few stupid cases above, the "Winnebago" case is a hoax. The hoax goes basically.. a man driving his new Winnebago on the highway set the cruise control to 70 MPH, then went to the back of the Winne to get a cup of coffee. The Winne was totaled when the cruise control didn't follow the lines of the road. The man was awarded a new Winne and some money because the owners manual did not claim it the vehicle wouldn't follow the road.
More on this:
http://www.atla.org/homepage/debunk.aspx
Short story, an old friend of my girlfriend was dim witted enough to believe her SUV's cruise control would follow the road. She set it to 45 MPH and began fiddling with the radio and talking on her cell phone. The road turned and she didn't, causing the car to flip and finally land against a tree. Car was totaled, but at least she didn't sue.

KenWittlief

13-04-2004, 13:59

wow , I make a couple tongue in cheek comments in here and my reputation page fills up like a christmas tree (both green and red)!

where to start?
at the beginning?

taken at face value biblical genesis is the account of the 1st man and women, so you could not have human history that predates it. It was written by Moses who was reportedly in the presence of God on Mt Sini for 40 days - and it was from that meeting that Moses wrote Genesis - since God was present when Adam and Eve was in the garden of Eden, the event was what? a second hand account? God told Moses, Moses wrote it down? (as I said, if taken at face value).

Some people got really upset for me pointing out that the serpent was the first to question the law of God - the one simple law, 'dont eat from that one tree' - cross examined Eve, questioned what God really said or meant, and in the process confused her to the point where she thought God said she could not touch the fruit either, or she would die (God said nothing about touching it, only eating it)

Techincalities? yes. If the serpent was the first to bring up technicalities in the law, and confuse the issue, why get upset with me if you read Genesis and see the legal profession reflected in the act of the serpent? I didnt write Genesis. If you read it and dont see the connection, then you dont see it - maybe its my imagination - but why get upset with me for noticing it and pointing it out in a lighthearted fashion?

Bill Gates: back when small computers first started being developed with disk drives an engineer took on the incredibly complex and cryptic fuctions of what was normally called "job control language' and created the first easy to use disk operating system, CPM. Forgive me I forget the guys name - He was an engineer, not a businessman, and he did not make any money off this incredible leap in computer system technology.

another engineer took the concepts of CPM, and since he could not copy the source or hex code line by line (that would be a copywrite violation) he rewrote the whole thing, sorta like paraphrasing the other mans work. This was the basis of Dos 1.0. He tried to sell this code to IBM for the original PCs, but could not agree to a price. Along comes Bill Gates, who buys the code from the guy, and then sells it to IBM (with some minor modifications) on a machine by machine lease basis. If it were not for this deal Microsoft would be a footnote in computer history books. This is what I was referring to about Gates selling 'someone elses' SW to IBM. Gates did not write Dos 1.0, he bought it from someone else. It may have been a briliant business deal, but that does not make him a exceptional engineer. (I dont see how anyone could say this is slander or libel)?!

The engineer who originally came up with the concepts for CPM tried unsuccessfull to sue Microsoft. He died several years ago, pennyless.

so the genius who came up with the revolutionary concepts for CPM got practically nothing for his innovation or hard work in making it a reality. There was no legal means to protect his ideas (you cant patent a concept). The engineer who laboriouisly cloned CPM into Dos 1.0 got something on the order of $30 or $50 thousand for his work. Gate/Microsoft who contributed very little to it, made a fortune.

Lawers in general: finally back to the topic of this thread. I dont know about where you live, but here in my town you cant watch TV or turn on the radio for more that 10 minutes without being flooded with commercials from lawyers who want to help you sue people for car accidents, malpractice, insurance.... They are everywhere, the cover of the phone book, the newspapers, billboards.

The US is the only country in the world where you can sue for friviouls reasons and have no fear of recompense - in every other county in the world if you bring a suit against someone and there is no basis for it, YOU have to pay the other persons legal fees - but here in the US its out of control - it IS a nighmare - companies routinely settle claims out of court that have no basis, but it will cost more in legal fees to goto court than it will to pay off the plantiff.

and from an ethic perspective, there was a case here several years ago where a very young girl dissapeared from her apartment complex in broad daylinght. A guy in his 20's had lured her into his apartment and killed her. The police were going door to door looking for her, and he refused to let them check his apartment (only a few doors from hers).

A few days later he disposed of her body, and then pretended to help the search parties look for the girl. After a few years his conscience caught up with him, he called the local police chief (or sherrif), met him in a resturant, and confessed - telling them where her body was.

He was arrested and the little girls body was recovered, right where he said it was. Case closed. Right?

no. This guy ends up with a lawyer who tries to get the case THROWN OUT because the confession was made in a resturant and not at a police station - the lawyer convinces the guy to plea not guilty at his arraignment!

the beginnings of a huge trial got underway, jury selection was started, but someone else (minister or someone) convinced the guy that this was a mistake and he changed his plea to guilty, took his punishment.

Are there good lawyers out there doing a valuable service to society? of course there are - but all it takes is a handfull like these in the public spotlight to taint the entire profession.

If lawyers dont like the perception the public has for them, they need to clean up their profession. Most congressmen are lawyers. Most judges are lawyers. They have the power to clean up the profession, if they choose to. Its not like this in the rest of the world.

mtrawls

13-04-2004, 14:45

since God was present when Adam and Eve was in the garden of Eden, the event was what? a second hand account? God told Moses, Moses wrote it down? (as I said, if taken at face value).

Ah, but II Timothy says that all scripture is God-breathed ... so if you were to look at it from a technicality, you could even say it was a first hand account ;)

The US is the only country in the world where you can sue for friviouls reasons and have no fear of recompense - in every other county in the world if you bring a suit against someone and there is no basis for it, YOU have to pay the other persons legal fees - but here in the US its out of control - it IS a nighmare - companies routinely settle claims out of court that have no basis, but it will cost more in legal fees to goto court than it will to pay off the plantiff.

Hrm ... companies used to settle out of court, but I thought in general that practice is on the turn around because it only encouraged more frivolous law suits. Either way, you struck at the head of the problem which is no fear of recompense ... which gets back at laws and congress being the problem, not lawyers. Lawyers are going to exploit the current system to their client's advantage; such is their job. A dash of tort reform from congress, and all would be well in the world (well, perhaps not everything ;)).

no. This guy ends up with a lawyer who tries to get the case THROWN OUT because the confession was made in a resturant and not at a police station - the lawyer convinces the guy to plea not guilty at his arraignment!

It's the lawyer's job to defend his client's rights. It seems to me the lawyer made a foolish decision, because I don't think he has much of a case so far as case law is concerned. But merely trying to get the case thrown out is not bad -- he should fight for his client's rights and if he is mistaken the state should win the case. He makes a claim, the other side counters; don't get upset until a judge comes back with some crazy decision!

Are there good lawyers out there doing a valuable service to society? of course there are - but all it takes is a handfull like these in the public spotlight to taint the entire profession.

Well, I guess that depends on your perspective.

They have the power to clean up the profession, if they choose to.

Really? How? You said it just takes "a handfull" to "taint the entire profession." People can only control their actions ... and it is human nature that there will always be some rotton scum around. Granted, serious tort reform is needed, I agree with you inasmuch ... but it is Congress that has to pass this, and the lawyers, for the time being, are stuck in the current system.

Its not like this in the rest of the world.
True. But in "the rest of the world" the police can do some pretty frightening things. In "the rest of the world" you can't depend on the judiciary for your rights. Personal freedom, liberty and such are things I value very highly ... as do most Americans. I will cede that they come at a cost, but I'm willing to pay it.

KenWittlief

13-04-2004, 14:54

Either way, you struck at the head of the problem which is no fear of recompense ... which gets back at laws and congress being the problem, not lawyers....

by a wide margin the state and federal legislatures ARE made up almost exclusively of LAWYERS

they write the laws, they sit in the judges benches, they argue the cases on both sides

that was my whole point - they already are in complete control of the entire system.

It's the lawyer's job to defend his client's rights....

rights?! the guy told the police that girls body was wrapped in a chain at the bottom of a cooling tank in a building where he use to work as a security guard - he put it there -the police drained the tank and found her body

what rational person would have any doubt that person was guilty of murdering a 6 year old girl, but the lawyer tries to get the guy OFF?!?!? on a technicality?!

the accused have rights, he was not accused by anyone - he called the police and confessed of his own free will.

mtrawls

13-04-2004, 15:28

by a wide margin the state and federal legislatures ARE made up almost exclusively of LAWYERS

they write the laws, they sit in the judges benches, they argue the cases on both sides

that was my whole point - they already are in complete control of the entire system.

Well, sure, if everybody agreed then their "complete control" might mean something. As it is, the "they" you speak of is not so unified. And sure, many congressmen used to practice law ... does that mean "lawyers" as a whole group of people are responsible for everything Congress does or doesn't do? It seems that not only are you painting with a wide brush here ... but you are assuming that the whole lot of them are controlled by some central leader. Maybe I misunderstand what you're saying?

rights?! the guy told the police that girls body was wrapped in a chain at the bottom of a cooling tank in a building where he use to work as a security guard - he put it there -the police drained the tank and found her body

what rational person would have any doubt that person was guilty of murdering a 6 year old girl, but the lawyer tries to get the guy OFF?!?!? on a technicality?!

the accused have rights, he was not accused by anyone - he called the police and confessed of his own free will.

Oh, the guy's guilty sure. Let's string him up and get rid of him, I'm all for it -- but not until due process has been followed. He confessed, yes. Then the lawyer brought up a question as to the validity of that confession. "What rational person would have any doubt"? I don't know ... but either way I think that the question deserves to be resolved in court, so that rational people can debate the issue to see if there is any doubt. As you said, it all worked out in the end, no? You can bring in emotional aspects of the case, but it doesn't change the fact that the guy has rights until he is proven guilty. On a whole, it may take a long time, but the legal system tends to work things out mostly ... and just remember all that time and legal proceeding is designed to protect the innocent -- if we automatically knew who were guilty and who were innocent it wouldn't be so darned difficult.

Kris Verdeyen

13-04-2004, 15:58

rights?! the guy told the police that girls body was wrapped in a chain at the bottom of a cooling tank in a building where he use to work as a security guard - he put it there -the police drained the tank and found her body

what rational person would have any doubt that person was guilty of murdering a 6 year old girl, but the lawyer tries to get the guy OFF?!?!? on a technicality?!

the accused have rights, he was not accused by anyone - he called the police and confessed of his own free will.

Are there sleazeball lawyers out there? Absolutely. I've never met one, but, then, I don't know many lawyers. I do, however, know lots of engineers, teachers, electricians, and umpires, and I've run across sleazeballs in each of those categories. I figure, since engineers, teachers, electricians, umpires, and lawyers are all people, there are bound to be some shared characteristics between the groups.

The fact that I've met some sleazeball engineers in my life doesn't mean that they are representative of every engineer.

A lawyer's job is not to tell his "obviously guilty" client to throw himself on the mercy of the court. A lawyer's job is to do what is in the best interest of his client. The system works better if there's someone who knows the rules of the game on both sides. Would a better alternative be to have the judge and the arresting officer get together before each trial and decide who was guilty and who wasn't? Maybe that's how they settle things beyond Thunderdome, but not here in the good old US of A.

---

Regardless of all this, whether the lawyer-as-weasel stereotype is a valid one or not, it is still a stereotype. In using it, you lump together every tireless crusader for the rights of the underdog with the slick, money-grubbing sleazeballs who earned the stereotype in the first place, and that's not right.

KenWittlief

13-04-2004, 16:06

It seems by your quote that engineers are more worthy people than others, like businessmen. What makes the engineering better than other careers?

I hope I'm misunderstanding you.

I have devoted the last 24 years of my life to being an engineer, and being the best engineer I can

so obviously I feel this is the best profession choice for me (or I would be doing something else)

everyone has their own unique gifts and talents, and has to find their own place in the world

does that mean that people in one profession are more worthy than others?

Im not sure what you mean by worthy, but ask yourself - with regards to professions, which ones come to mind when you think of

noble, honorable, professional, admirable

and which ones when you think of people who are

sleazy, underhanded, slimy, crafty, sneaky, dispicable....

or how about

greedy, profiteering, ambitious, selfserving...

we all have our own preconceived notions on which professions tend to draw or attract which type of people, right?

there is a whole universe of information out there. we would not be able to function if we did not try to sort and catigorize it, to make generalizations that are accurate on some level

that doesnt mean there arent exceptions

Yan Wang

13-04-2004, 16:13

Im not sure what you mean by worthy, but ask yourself - with regards to professions, which ones come to mind when you think of

noble, honorable, professional, admirable

KNIGHTS!

KenWittlief

13-04-2004, 16:16

Are there sleazeball lawyers out there? Absolutely. I've never met one, but, then, I don't know many lawyers. I do, however, know lots of engineers, teachers, electricians, and umpires, and I've run across sleazeballs in each of those categories. .

I take it you dont have a TV then? borrow one and turn it on for ten minutes and see how many lawyers faces you see, who want to handle your million dollar lawsuit against a trucking company or doctor...

and see howmany engineering firms have ads every ten minutes who want to build a shoddy bridge or tower for you for $2M , or who want to sell you a car that will burst into flames when you back it out of the garage?

Ryan F.

13-04-2004, 17:37

Okay, in my opinion, this thread has been taken too far. What are you accomplishing anymore? Right now all I'm seeing is a couple people bickering...and everone has such strong beliefs that your really not going to change each others minds. Just give it a rest.

JVN

13-04-2004, 17:53

What are you accomplishing?Kris is showing that he is a man of tolerance and intelligence, and is trying to show that the common stereotype of lawyers is unfair and often unjust.

Ken is showing that he supports the lawyer stereotype, and has done so in front of several hundred HS kids of whom he is supposed to be a role model.
Then again, I think that is what this thread is all about.

Both have proven their points admirably.
Others have chimed in on one side or the other (or somewhere in between).

I just can't tolerate, intolerant people.:rolleyes:

John

michael_obrien

13-04-2004, 17:56

jeez, relax everyone, we're just comparing finding loopholes in FIRST rules to finding loopholes in law, we're not plotting to take over the government and have all the lawyers slaughtered... or at least... I'm not. :eek:

the true purpose of FIRST has been discovered! :ahh:

Guest

13-04-2004, 18:37

Im not sure what you mean by worthy, but ask yourself - with regards to professions, which ones come to mind when you think of

noble, honorable, professional, admirable

and which ones when you think of people who are

sleazy, underhanded, slimy, crafty, sneaky, dispicable....

or how about

greedy, profiteering, ambitious, selfserving...

we all have our own preconceived notions on which professions tend to draw or attract which type of people, right?Is it not true that one of FIRST's objectives is to change the negative stereotypes that some young people in this society have against science, technology, and engineering? If this is true, then what purpose does supporting negative stereotypes about other professions serve? Sure, we could show how engineers are better than lawyers, but what greater good does that create?

These steretypes (or any stereotypes about any career) seem to be polar opposites of how FIRST is supposed to mold our minds.

Kristina

13-04-2004, 18:52

Thoughts from an aspiring lawyer:

Over the past day, I've received this link from many people and finally reading the many pages, I was surprised to see how much has been written. I think that Kris identified a viable problem on these boards and it was fittingly put under the forum suggestions/comments section. I thought merely the solution would be: cut down on the lawyer bashing.

It shouldn't matter if you don't like people finding loopholes or not and it shouldn't matter if there are sleazy lawyers out there. We can all talk about gracious professionalism but wouldn't also encompass the idea: If you don't have anything nice to say, just don't say it?

Why do lawyers get a bad rep, because people sit there an complain. Well essentially when I see people make fun of lawyers, they're doing the same. If you think they're so bad, making jokes about them isn't going to improve the situation. If anything, I think it just makes it worse. How do you expect the law to become a respectable profession if no one respects it?

So if there's a problem out in the world, I think there are far better ways to go about solving it than utilizing stereotypes. To use another elementary school cliche, two wrongs don't make a right. I personally have grown a thick skin from my dabbling in politics so I'm not offended by lawyer jokes, I knew what I was signing up for basically when I set my sights on law school. However, I will say that I am disappointed at times by what I see written. The jokes really do just get old and I often wonder what the joy is in putting down other people or other professions.

So here's my challenge to all of you: If you want the world of science and technology to be respected, you have to respect other areas. The jokes may just be lighthearted and in jest, but just remember that there are people on this board or people who have family in or aspiring to be in the areas that you make jokes about. I would greatly appreciate it if people laid off the jokes and analogies, and in general, are just careful about what you write. While conversation is colloquial, forum boards are different than just a conversation with a friend. They're in writing for people all across the nation to see. You're representing yourself, your team, and the entire FIRST community. Certain remarks, even the jokes, can make the entire community seem exclusive and elitist, and I know that's not how it is at all, but that's how it can appear. I may not like science but I have the utmost respect for engineers; I would appreciate if that respect was reciprocated for the field I would like to go into.

ngreen

13-04-2004, 19:06

Kris is showing that he is a man of tolerance and intelligence, and is trying to show that the common stereotype of lawyers is unfair and often unjust.

Ken is showing that he supports the lawyer stereotype, and has done so in front of several hundred HS kids of whom he is supposed to be a role model.
Then again, I think that is what this thread is all about.

Both have proven their points admirably.
Others have chimed in on one side or the other (or somewhere in between).

I just can't tolerate, intolerant people.:rolleyes:

John

Looks like we are going to have to take some people to the museum of tolerance or tolerance camp. Just like there are gay people and then Mr. Garrison, there are lawyers and then there are the money-hungry, coniving people who work as lawyers. Don't confuse the two.

Weird how this come up the week before Lemmiwinks returns. I know I'll be crashed down in my Embassy Suite room trying to get some more insight into if lawyers are bad tommorow night.

Also, weird how every question is somehow answered in South Park.

MikeDubreuil

13-04-2004, 19:43

I think a big problem is that Dean Kamen doesn't communicate his intentions effectively when he attacks lawyers.

Does Dean believe the negative stereotypes of lawyers and is imposing his intolerent beliefs on us? Or is Dean simply using the legal system as a metaphor for what he doesn't want to see happen to the rules in FIRST?

Can you really fault anyone in FIRST for thinking a certain way about lawyers when the "head role model" sends such a scrambled message?

Guest

13-04-2004, 21:42

Can you really fault anyone in FIRST for thinking a certain way about lawyers when the "head role model" sends such a scrambled message?Yes, one cannot use the mistakes of another as an excuse to make those same mistakes.

I saw this on a spotlight (I paraphrase):
If FIRST asked you to jump off a bridge, would you?
Of course not.

We need to be leaders not followers.

KenWittlief

13-04-2004, 21:51

maybe Dean has reasons for joking that the model of stonehedge on his island is 'where we sacrifice the lawyers' ?

Ive clearly stated that there are many in the legal profession who are providing a valuable service to society

but I keep getting bashed in this thread for 'supporting negative stereotypes' about lawyers

why is it wrong for me to agree that to a large extent lawyers have earned a negative reputation (in general, in society as a whole)

but its ok for people to generalize what I have said in this thread and label me as a poor role model now?

Ive given a few specific examples of cases I have personal knowledge of, and I could give many more

but Ive already taken enough flack in this thread - if you live in the US you will deal with lawyers sooner or later in your personal and professional lives

see for yourself - then decide if the 'negative stereotype' has any validity to it?

learn from your own experience - form you own opinions.

Collin Fultz

13-04-2004, 22:26

not all lawyers are bad...there's always Matlock :)

mtrawls

13-04-2004, 22:59

why is it wrong for me to agree that to a large extent lawyers have earned a negative reputation (in general, in society as a whole)

but its ok for people to generalize what I have said in this thread and label me as a poor role model now?

I sure hope no one thinks you "a poor role model" -- I'm quite sure it couldn't be farther from the truth! Some people just don't like the idea of generalizations for whatever reason ... but I do agree with you that lawyers have a bad reputation, and some of them deserve it (and more)! But a lot of it, all the technicalities and such, have their place; even though someone disagrees with another, he still has his rights until proven guilty following due process of law. I can't claim to make any statement as to how many lawyers might be good and how many bad (for one "good" and "bad" aren't so easy to define, and it just so happens I'm not yet surrounded by lawyers) -- my point is just that some of what makes people angry at lawyers is completely necessary in our justice system.

I wouldn't go so far as others, though, to say to stop all this lawyer bashing -- just to keep it in perspective. I for one don't want to lose a valuable source of humor ;)

And to re-iterate what I said earlier ... no one ought to think you a poor role model for this discourse -- offering your opinion candidly for all to see (despite apparent disagreement from many) is certainly nothing to be considered poor role modeling! Oy, is it just me or is this thread beginning to get crazy? I make a motion for a gag order! (Just kidding ...)