Lawyer bashing on CD

[mtrawls]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

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]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

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]

Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen

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.]

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]

Originally Posted by rforystek

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.

John

[ngreen]

Originally Posted by JVN

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.

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]

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?

[michael_obrien]

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.

the true purpose of FIRST has been discovered!

[Kristina]

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.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

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.