protesters throw bricks and bottles at riot police as six officers are injured in clashes after young black father, 25, dies after being arrested in routine traffic stop

First topic message reminder :

Six police officers have been injured after rioters launched bricks, bottles and lit street fires over the death of a young black father-of-one.

The family of Edir 'Edson' Frederico Da Costa claim he was 'brutally beaten' and left with a broken neck after he was stopped by the Met in Newham, east London on June 15 - he died in hospital six days later.

Police admit they used CS spray and some force to arrest him but believe he fell ill because he had 'swallowed a large quantity of drugs' - a post-mortem found no neck or spinal injuries.

Last night a march in his memory from Forest Gate to Stratford turned violent after protesters chanting 'f*** the police' clashed with officers in riot gear.

Protesters, many with their faces obscured by scarves and t-shirts, hurled bricks and glass bottles, attacked police cars and lit fires in the road.

Four police officers were taken to hospital - including a female officer with head injuries and a male sergeant with facial injuries - and two others were treated at the scene.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4637904/Campaigners-confront-police-death-man-east-London.html

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, but not for profit.  A lawyer is supposed to undertake the hatred that people have for one another, and turn it into a foil to get results (whatever the client wants, within legal bounds).  

Lawyers step right into a pool of hatred...that's their job.  If they are good at it and accomplish favorable results, they make lots and lots of money.  Their own clients love them.

The legal system is adversarial for a reason.  When it was invented the founders believed there is no absolute 'good' and therefore no Solomon, with all the right answers.  So, they devised a kind of contest (adversarial system), in which the winner would prevail.  At first, when religion reigned, it was who would survive the dunking.  As reason began to reign, it became a system of rules and laws, with arguments, such as we have today.

But the litigants don't care about all that.  They want to win.  Thus, the idea of a good lawyer came about...loved by his own client, hated by all others.

I don't know how a decent person can ever become a defence lawyer who takes on cases where the most heinous crimes have been committed...knowing they are defending some monster or other.
Morally, I don't know how they can justify doing what they do....no matter how many riches it may bring their way.

Technically, given the adversarial nature of the system, the lawyer's job is just to make sure all the rights and procedures are followed. In the Napoleonic system, there is no one to do that. It's important to make sure the system is working.

What I've said about winning, above, goes beyond that.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't know how a decent person can ever become a defence lawyer who takes on cases where the most heinous crimes have been committed...knowing they are defending some monster or other.
Morally, I don't know how they can justify doing what they do....no matter how many riches it may bring their way.

Technically, given the adversarial nature of the system, the lawyer's job is just to make sure all the rights and procedures are followed.  In the Napoleonic system, there is no one to do that.  It's important to make sure the system is working.

What I've said about winning, above, goes beyond that.

I thought a lawyers job was primarily to win for his client.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, but not for profit.  A lawyer is supposed to undertake the hatred that people have for one another, and turn it into a foil to get results (whatever the client wants, within legal bounds).  

Lawyers step right into a pool of hatred...that's their job.  If they are good at it and accomplish favorable results, they make lots and lots of money.  Their own clients love them.

The legal system is adversarial for a reason.  When it was invented the founders believed there is no absolute 'good' and therefore no Solomon, with all the right answers.  So, they devised a kind of contest (adversarial system), in which the winner would prevail.  At first, when religion reigned, it was who would survive the dunking.  As reason began to reign, it became a system of rules and laws, with arguments, such as we have today.

But the litigants don't care about all that.  They want to win.  Thus, the idea of a good lawyer came about...loved by his own client, hated by all others.

I don't know how a decent person can ever become a defence lawyer who takes on cases where the most heinous crimes have been committed...knowing they are defending some monster or other.
Morally, I don't know how they can justify doing what they do....no matter how many riches it may bring their way.

Well there is a simple reason why, everyone is innocent to proven guilty and everyone has a right to a defense in the court of law. You have to work off the principle someone is presumed innocent. You could argue the same using your principle, how could a prosecution lawyer try a case against someone you deemed innocent? Obviously if the defendant states to his lawyer they are guilty and then the Lawyer argues they are innocent in court, that is ethically wrong. 

Also how subjective is heinous?
To ISIS judges, or some Muslim majority countries adultery, blasphemy, Apostasy and homosexuality is seen as a heinous crime. Would you claim that any lawyer that defended those accused of the above for their very lives are then indecent?

Everyone is entitled to a defense

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Technically, given the adversarial nature of the system, the lawyer's job is just to make sure all the rights and procedures are followed.  In the Napoleonic system, there is no one to do that.  It's important to make sure the system is working.

What I've said about winning, above, goes beyond that.

I thought a lawyers job was primarily to win for his client.

Money talks.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Technically, given the adversarial nature of the system, the lawyer's job is just to make sure all the rights and procedures are followed.  In the Napoleonic system, there is no one to do that.  It's important to make sure the system is working.

What I've said about winning, above, goes beyond that.

I thought a lawyers job was primarily to win for his client.

Read my last sentence. You are supposed to win within the system. Many go outside the system.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I thought a lawyers job was primarily to win for his client.

Read my last sentence.  You are supposed to win within the system.  Many go outside the system.

Well they are the ones I'm talking about.
And don't forget, you did previously say... Thus, the idea of a good lawyer came about...loved by his own client, hated by all others.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't know how a decent person can ever become a defence lawyer who takes on cases where the most heinous crimes have been committed...knowing they are defending some monster or other.
Morally, I don't know how they can justify doing what they do....no matter how many riches it may bring their way.

Well there is a simple reason why, everyone is innocent to proven guilty and everyone has a right to a defense in the court of law. You have to work off the principle someone is presumed innocent. You could argue the same using your principle, how could a prosecution lawyer try a case against someone you deemed innocent? Obviously if the defendant states to his lawyer they are guilty and then the Lawyer argues they are innocent in court, that is ethically wrong. 

Also how subjective is heinous?
To ISIS judges, or some Muslim majority countries adultery, blasphemy, Apostasy and homosexuality is seen as a heinous crime. Would you claim that any lawyer that defended those accused of the above for their very lives are then indecent?

Everyone is entitled to a defense

Well stated.  I particularly like the reverse argument you make didge, what if the prosecutor argues for something that is patently wrong or unfair?  Unfortunately, people see lawyers as expensive suits and forget that they are the same as the ones on the other side...doing the same things.

When I talk about obsessive winning, I'm talking about lawyers going outside the rules to get a certain result.  I remember a prosecutor, Michael Byron Nifong, was disbarred in Durham County, North Carolina, for being too zealous going after some Duke University lacrosse players in a sexual assault case.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong

It works both ways.

Alternatively if a woman has been raped and her past sexual history is brought up and dissected even though it has sod all to do with the case.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well there is a simple reason why, everyone is innocent to proven guilty and everyone has a right to a defense in the court of law. You have to work off the principle someone is presumed innocent. You could argue the same using your principle, how could a prosecution lawyer try a case against someone you deemed innocent? Obviously if the defendant states to his lawyer they are guilty and then the Lawyer argues they are innocent in court, that is ethically wrong. 

Also how subjective is heinous?
To ISIS judges, or some Muslim majority countries adultery, blasphemy, Apostasy and homosexuality is seen as a heinous crime. Would you claim that any lawyer that defended those accused of the above for their very lives are then indecent?

Everyone is entitled to a defense

Well stated.  I particularly like the reverse argument you make didge, what if the prosecutor argues for something that is patently wrong or unfair?  Unfortunately, people see lawyers as expensive suits and forget that they are the same as the ones on the other side...doing the same things.

When I talk about obsessive winning, I'm talking about lawyers going outside the rules to get a certain result.  I remember a prosecutor, Michael Byron Nifong, was disbarred in Durham County, North Carolina, for being too zealous going after some Duke University lacrosse players in a sexual assault case.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong

It works both ways.

Thanks Quill, as I say, there is always two angles for everything.