Graybeard Outdoors banner
1 - 20 of 75 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,461 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just watched a short interview with one of the JAG lawyers, that are going to defend the Ft.Hood shooter, Maj.Hasan. Maybe one of our fellow residents here on graybeards, that are lawyers,(at least the ones with stone's big enough to admit their lawyers!) tell me something. How can you possibly stand in front of a courtroom,God, and fellow countrymen, and defend this piece of dung. I don't think I could make it 10 minutes into this upcoming trial, without just standing there and saying, yep, guilty as ****, lets take him out back and shoot him now. Why waste taxpayers money. I'm not trying to put down anybody here personally, just trying to understand how you can defend somebody,(whether it's this guy, or somebody else,who you know is guilty as sin), and still be comfortable in your mirror. Just wondering??gypsyman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,405 Posts
I am not a lawyer.
If they don't the whole process falls to pieces and there is room for litigation that would tie it up forever.
The question in my mind is--what is the method of the death penalty in the military?
Blessings
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,845 Posts
gypsyman said:
Just watched a short interview with one of the JAG lawyers, that are going to defend the Ft.Hood shooter, Maj.Hasan. Maybe one of our fellow residents here on graybeards, that are lawyers,(at least the ones with stone's big enough to admit their lawyers!) tell me something. How can you possibly stand in front of a courtroom,God, and fellow countrymen, and defend this piece of dung. I don't think I could make it 10 minutes into this upcoming trial, without just standing there and saying, yep, guilty as ****, lets take him out back and shoot him now. Why waste taxpayers money. I'm not trying to put down anybody here personally, just trying to understand how you can defend somebody,(whether it's this guy, or somebody else,who you know is guilty as sin), and still be comfortable in your mirror. Just wondering??gypsyman
It's done every day gypsyman, I watched it for 20 years. There's good money in it, and your attitude is mostly laughed off.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,631 Posts
It is the LAW, period, a Right to council and defense which a JAG officer is obligated to provide., how about temporary insanity, delusion, under the influence of drugs, all of these can be used as defense. If I recall correctly, General Court Marshall defendants have a right to hire civilian lawyers which however are bound by the military court procedure.


BTW There was a TV program titled JAG, one of my favorites, good stuff and pretty authentic IMO other then when Harm Rab fired a submachine gun into the court room ceiling ;D demonstrating that the gun was functional :D :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,631 Posts
jjas:
It isn't going to be a OJ type trial. The jury will be Army Officers his defense council JAG, if he asks for a civilian lawyer it comes out of his own pocket I believe and the rope or bullets are cheap. If it is prison it is miltary run and not a country club.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
26,228 Posts
pretty authentic IMO other then when Harm Rab fired a submachine gun into the court room ceiling demonstrating that the gun was functional
Seems I recall a handgun NOT a machine gun. The show was a favorite of mine as well.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,860 Posts
scumbag that he is, he is and american citizen and seeing as how he survived, he is entitled to that right. doesnt bother me a bit. what does bother me is enemy combatants of other nationalities being given those rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42,140 Posts
Being born in America, or just living here does NOT make him an American. He was never American, muslim came first. He is a prime example of a Godless, subhuman cancer that has infected the entire world. I don't want my tax $s supporting this scum the rest of his life, no reason for him to live. HIS RIGHTS????, I could care less about his rights. POWDERMAN. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,342 Posts
he deserves a trial and a fair one. the military or whomever should have no problem proving their case against him. they say the military has not executed anyone since 1961 or 62...that came from the cries of the lefties. its time to build the gallows or start drilling the firing squards.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,517 Posts
gypsyman said:
Just watched a short interview with one of the JAG lawyers, that are going to defend the Ft.Hood shooter, Maj.Hasan. Maybe one of our fellow residents here on graybeards, that are lawyers,(at least the ones with stone's big enough to admit their lawyers!) tell me something. How can you possibly stand in front of a courtroom,God, and fellow countrymen, and defend this piece of dung. I don't think I could make it 10 minutes into this upcoming trial, without just standing there and saying, yep, guilty as ****, lets take him out back and shoot him now. Why waste taxpayers money. I'm not trying to put down anybody here personally, just trying to understand how you can defend somebody,(whether it's this guy, or somebody else,who you know is guilty as sin), and still be comfortable in your mirror. Just wondering??gypsyman
If you believe in the Constitution and amendments (The whole thing, not just the parts about guns) you know the answer to this question already.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,517 Posts
williamlayton said:
I am not a lawyer.
If they don't the whole process falls to pieces and there is room for litigation that would tie it up forever.
The question in my mind is--what is the method of the death penalty in the military?
Blessings
I believe they have firing squads, perhaps they also have something more modern?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,517 Posts
Dee said:
gypsyman said:
Just watched a short interview with one of the JAG lawyers, that are going to defend the Ft.Hood shooter, Maj.Hasan. Maybe one of our fellow residents here on graybeards, that are lawyers,(at least the ones with stone's big enough to admit their lawyers!) tell me something. How can you possibly stand in front of a courtroom,God, and fellow countrymen, and defend this piece of dung. I don't think I could make it 10 minutes into this upcoming trial, without just standing there and saying, yep, guilty as ****, lets take him out back and shoot him now. Why waste taxpayers money. I'm not trying to put down anybody here personally, just trying to understand how you can defend somebody,(whether it's this guy, or somebody else,who you know is guilty as sin), and still be comfortable in your mirror. Just wondering??gypsyman
It's done every day gypsyman, I watched it for 20 years. There's good money in it, and your attitude is mostly laughed off.
JAG lawyers are not especially well paid, nor are most criminal defense attorneys. In fact, I'd guess that they are the lowest paid of all lawyers on average, and probably make less than the average person with a 3 year post-graduate degree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,461 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
dukkillr, yes I do believe in the constitution and what it stands for. All of it! I know you are a lawyer. You must be of a different mold than what I am made from. I couldn't look myself in the mirror in the morning, knowing what is right, and what is wrong. A 100 years ago, if this would have happened to some Texas rangers, justice probably would have been applied by now. Our justice system has been perverted to such a degree, common sense no longer prevails. gypsyman
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,845 Posts
Jag lawyers may not be paid very well, but this Jag lawyer will be paid VERY WELL, and he knows it. He has been given a gold mine. He will make millions in interviews, book deals, and on, and on, and on.
His job at the present will be to go after the witnesses, and destroy their credibility, along with blaming the entire system for not recognizing this poor man's mental problems.
Every witness will be picked at, for signs of weakness, and every word will be twisted to fit the defense of a dog that was rightfully shot down. Right and wrong will have very little to do with anything once Mr. Lawyer get his defense started. It will be a game instead of wits, and deception, and CLOUDING THE ISSUES.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,517 Posts
gypsyman said:
dukkillr, yes I do believe in the constitution and what it stands for. All of it! I know you are a lawyer. You must be of a different mold than what I am made from. I couldn't look myself in the mirror in the morning, knowing what is right, and what is wrong. A 100 years ago, if this would have happened to some Texas rangers, justice probably would have been applied by now. Our justice system has been perverted to such a degree, common sense no longer prevails. gypsyman
So you understand and believe in article 3, as well as the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments? Because that sure seems at odds with what you have written. Justice needs to be complete and correct, it does not need to be done by lynching, without hearing (by rangers or otherwise), in a matter of a few days.

This case will get the correct result, and is not the correct place to attack the system.

Pehaps the more correct thing would be for me to ask:
Explain to me, in your own words, what the above mentioned sections stand for, and how you believe they should be applied to the system. No mind-numbingly grand sweeping declarations, actual explanations of what you think those rights are, and what the practical applications should be to the case at hand.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,517 Posts
Dee said:
Jag lawyers may not be paid very well, but this Jag lawyer will be paid VERY WELL, and he knows it. He has been given a gold mine. He will make millions in interviews, book deals, and on, and on, and on.
His job at the present will be to go after the witnesses, and destroy their credibility, along with blaming the entire system for not recognizing this poor man's mental problems.
Every witness will be picked at, for signs of weakness, and every word will be twisted to fit the defense of a dog that was rightfully shot down. Right and wrong will have very little to do with anything once Mr. Lawyer get his defense started. It will be a game instead of wits, and deception, and CLOUDING THE ISSUES.
He will defend him to the best of his abilities because he swore an oath to do so, and it is the right or the defendant to have such a defense. That you wish he would do otherwise scares me to no end. In the end there will be a conviction, quite likely a death penalty, and the system will have likely reached the correct result.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,820 Posts
What might be tougher is getting an unbiased jury.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,845 Posts
dukkillr, I would like for the lawyer to acknowledge the evidence of dozens of witnesses, and the very acts themselves of murder and attempted murder, and maiming of innocents. I would also like for the lawyer to advise his client of his options prescribed by the law for each and everyone of these heinous crimes he is guilty of. Then I would like for the lawyer to throw his client on the mercy of the court.
BUT! That is not what he will do, and you and I both know it from personal experience. He will instead attempt to PERVERT THE FACTS. CAST DOUBT ON THE WITNESSES' CREDIBILTIY. CAST DOUBT ON THE MOTIVES OF THE DEFENDENT. CAST DOUBT ON THE DEFENDENTS' MENTAL STATE AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS. CAST DOUBT ON THE DEFENDENT'S MENTAL CONDITION TO STAND TRIAIL. CAST DOUBT ON THE ARMY'S FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THE DEFENDENT NEEDED MENTAL HELP. ACCUSE THE PROSECUTION OF "TARGETING HIS MUSLIM FAITH", and on and on and on.
dukkiller, you as a lawyer KNOW that's going to happen. If your a defense lawyer yourself, YOU"VE DONE IT YOURSELF. I as a former Peace Officer watched it happen MANY TIMES, and have been the recipient of it MANY TIMES, where clear evidence was distorted.
I once took six confessions from three murders, as an Investigator. One each, for attempted Capitol Murder, and one each for Capitol Murder. One each from each participant. Two of the actors pled guilty on each count, getting 35 years for Attempted, and 75 years each for Capitol Murder and they were ran CC. The third poor fellow's LAWYER, came after ME, saying I violated his civil rights when I took his CONFESSION ::). It was after a jury trial that I did not, and he liked one vote getting the death penalty, and we're in Texas. They WOULD HAVE put him down. The entire trial was about DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH BY THE "LAWYER".
All of this "article 3 crap, and the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments all well in good when used as it was intended, but it was NEVER INTENDED TO BE USED IN A DISTORTED, PERVERTED WAY to get someone off of something they damn sure did.
NOW! To set the record straight ON WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID dukkiller: He most likely will be convicted. Death? No way! But the Jag Lawyer will damn sure do, exactly what I said he would do, if the man doesn't plead guilty. You know it, and I know it. And last but, not least. I am sorry I frightened you dukkiller.
And gypsyman! You've got the correct picture. Don't let anyone talk you out of it. ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,517 Posts
Dee said:
dukkillr, I would like for the lawyer to acknowledge the evidence of dozens of witnesses, and the very acts themselves of murder and attempted murder, and maiming of innocents. I would also like for the lawyer to advise his client of his options prescribed by the law for each and everyone of these heinous crimes he is guilty of. Then I would like for the lawyer to throw his client on the mercy of the court.
BUT! That is not what he will do, and you and I both know it from personal experience. He will instead attempt to PERVERT THE FACTS. CAST DOUBT ON THE WITNESSES' CREDIBILTIY. CAST DOUBT ON THE MOTIVES OF THE DEFENDENT. CAST DOUBT ON THE DEFENDENTS' MENTAL STATE AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS. CAST DOUBT ON THE DEFENDENT'S MENTAL CONDITION TO STAND TRIAIL. CAST DOUBT ON THE ARMY'S FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THE DEFENDENT NEEDED MENTAL HELP. ACCUSE THE PROSECUTION OF "TARGETING HIS MUSLIM FAITH", and on and on and on.
dukkiller, you as a lawyer KNOW that's going to happen. If your a defense lawyer yourself, YOU"VE DONE IT YOURSELF. I as a former Peace Officer watched it happen MANY TIMES, and have been the recipient of it MANY TIMES, where clear evidence was distorted.
I once took six confessions from three murders, as an Investigator. One each, for attempted Capitol Murder, and one each for Capitol Murder. One each from each participant. Two of the actors pled guilty on each count, getting 35 years for Attempted, and 75 years each for Capitol Murder and they were ran CC. The third poor fellow's LAWYER, came after ME, saying I violated his civil rights when I took his CONFESSION ::). It was after a jury trial that I did not, and he liked one vote getting the death penalty, and we're in Texas. They WOULD HAVE put him down. The entire trial was about DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH BY THE "LAWYER".
All of this "article 3 crap, and the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments all well in good when used as it was intended, but it was NEVER INTENDED TO BE USED IN A DISTORTED, PERVERTED WAY to get someone off of something they damn sure did.
NOW! To set the record straight ON WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID dukkiller: He most likely will be convicted. Death? No way! But the Jag Lawyer will damn sure do, exactly what I said he would do, if the man doesn't plead guilty. You know it, and I know it. And last but, not least. I am sorry I frightened you dukkiller.
And gypsyman! You've got the correct picture. Don't let anyone talk you out of it. ;)
I can't follow the last part, and I simply disagree on the first part. He will advise his client on the choices he has. If an opportunity to plead guilty and avoid the death penalty is given I wouldn't be surprised if he takes it. That opportunity will not be given by the defense, but by the prosecution, as I'm sure you know.

Would you make it impossible for a defendant to confront the credibility of the witnesses testifying against him or are you arguing that the defense should choose not to do so here? If you would make it impossible can you please explain what you believe the confrontation clause of the 6th amendment means to you?

In your own situation I will assume that you did not violate anyone's rights by getting the confession, but I also assume you would not claim that to be an impossibility in some situations. Should defense lawyers simply not be allowed to protect their clients by discussing the situation in which a confession was given? Remeber when you answer, that DNA evidence has freed A LOT of convicted felons who confessed. You and I both know that not all confessions are collected correctly, or even accuate. In my jursidiction the audio recording doesn't start until after the police have worked the defendant for awhile. I've always wondered, what do they have to hide? Lets assume that police are always right, ethical, and fair. What do they have to hide by recording the ENTIRE interrogation? We both know the answer.

Finally, are you saying, "no way" to the prospect of the death penalty in the event of a guilty jury verdict? If so, please tell me (by PM) what you would like to wager on this statement.

You and I will always disagree on the implementation of justice and the protections granted to criminal defendants by the Constitution. To that extent, I'll leave my opinion above to cover my thoughts. Any further debate is simply repeating what you and I have said in many other threads. I understand and respect your opinion and your history in the area, we must simply agree to disagree.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,845 Posts
On that I agree. We come from opposite sides, and "view many times the same thing" DIFFERENTLY. We will agree "once again" to disagree.

By the way. All three defendents were given their miranda warning seperately, and IN WRITING, and they signed it. All three hand wrote their own confessions voluntarily. Like many murderers, all three found Jesus but, at the last minute one "mis-placed" Him, on the belief he might get off scott free.
 
1 - 20 of 75 Posts
Top