Blame the Lawyers, should we? - Page 2

Blame the Lawyers, should we?

This is a discussion on Blame the Lawyers, should we? within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; The problem is the BG in this case is using a law intended to protect someone who was attacked, not someone who was during the ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 38
Like Tree21Likes

Thread: Blame the Lawyers, should we?

  1. #16
    Distinguished Member Array dangerranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Exact center of CA
    Posts
    1,830
    The problem is the BG in this case is using a law intended to protect someone who was attacked, not someone who was during the commission of a felony was shot! And yes, His lawyer knows this! The judge in this case should have the ability to punish the BG not only for his crime of burglary, and attempted murder, but also further financial injury from having to defend himself in court. And should be able to sue the lawyer for even bringing the case to court!


  2. #17
    Member Array 2700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    SoFlo
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    On another thread lawyers are being raked over the coals for taking on a case where a criminal is attempting to use the law to punish a person for protecting himself. Here is my problem with this.
    Why is it we will attack the lawyer for using the law but will re-elect the person that wrote it? Or, we refuse to voice the same outrage about the law as we do about the person using that law. I don't see many people actively working to change the laws they believe are being abused.

    Its like blaming the police when they write you a ticket for doing 80 mph in a 65 mph zone. Then voting to re-elect the person who is responsible for the law you were ticketed for violating.

    Michael
    I've not seen that thread, but given your post here, you got 100%. The problem in short is we live in a society of too many people with a victim like mentality and/or a sense of entitlement and no accountability. People who stand out in the rain and complain they're wet and people who think the world owes them.
    Last edited by Rock and Glock; October 26th, 2012 at 11:12 AM.
    NRA Certified Instructor - RSO - Life Member

    The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.
    -Albert Einstein

  3. #18
    Ex Member Array lizjimbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    157
    I don't have problems with the laws. I think the "laws" are good. My beef is with the state supreme courts that write the rules that the lower courts are to abide by and that the lawyers are to abide by. The rules, which citizens have no control over, are what is corrupting the search for justice, the law itself is not corrupting justice. I have seen lawyers manipulate the rules constantly. "Well your honor, the rules said red, but nowhere in the rule did it exclude blue" Most people that have a smidgen of grey natter between the ears know when they break the law. When they break the law the bellyachin has to stop. It is post violation that is the problem. It is the rules for the courts to follow that destroy the sense of justice. Most folks in the courts become a victim of the rules!

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,380
    "Blame": there's plenty to go around.

    Yes, we should be blaming attorneys and clients who take advantage of situations, when (IMO) they know full well it's a stretch of both logic and ethics to even make the claim.

    Yes, we should acknowledge the root origins of making such situations available lay with the temporarily-elected hirelings who put the statutes in place, and/or who are continuing to defend such things.

    Yes, we should acknowledge the failure of judgment in judges that allows such things to reach a courtroom.

    And yes, we should acknowledge that we ourselves are partly responsible for allowing the situation to continue.

    Ahhh, a nation of laws. Where a bad one gets through occasionally, and where the force of the system more than occasionally gets in the way of erasing the bad ones.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  5. #20
    Sponsor
    Array luvmy40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Youngstown, OH
    Posts
    1,761
    I certainly see the OP's point and agree that there is a definite double standard being seen.

    I do however also see that the legal system as a whole is broke and needs fixed.

    One example is a friend of mine who had a fifteen year nightmare in the family courts system. Her and her children were victims of an abusive father/husband. She took the kids and ran, filed for divorce but never pressed charges on the abuse as she figured it be a he said/she said thing and get her no where.

    The divorce was granted, she retained child custody and the court ordered child support and visitation schedule was set. The father never paid on time, followed the visitation schedule when it suited him and demanded extra time when it was completely unreasonable and caused serious issues for her financially. When ever he got far enough in arrears on support to be hauled in on contempt he would pay a month's worth and file a custody suit. She would then be forced to hire a lawyer to defend the suit at the "reasonable cost" of $3k-$6K. All to get a measly $350.00 of the several thousand that she was owed. The Judges continued to allow his transgressions and warned her that she would be seen as malicious if she filed suit against him about the visitation issues since she was the the one who petitioned for divorce and got custody.

    This went on for 15 years. The only reason it stopped is because the kids are now old enough in the eyes of the law to decide who they want to live with. All told, my friend spent well over $50k on legal fees and court cost and is still owed over $15k in back support with no hope of ever recovering it.

    Lawyers at fault? Debatable.

    Does the system work, Hellz Naw!
    Jeanlouise likes this.
    T*A*N*S*T*A*A*F*L
    The best things in life are not free.
    They are paid for with the blood of brave men and women!
    M&P Forum
    Ohioans For Concealed Carry
    Holsters

  6. #21
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,894
    A shovel and a .45 are so much cheaper, and would anyone really have missed him?
    Jeanlouise likes this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  7. #22
    Ex Member Array Piratesailor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    206
    Most politicians, that write the laws, are lawyers.. Go figure.

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array Doghandler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    West Branch
    Posts
    2,176

    Re: Blame the Lawyers, should we?

    Blame the lawyers? Sure. It's worked for the last 5,000 years. Why stop now.
    Hopyard likes this.
    There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
    Doghandler

  9. #24
    VIP Member
    Array Jeanlouise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Almost Heaven
    Posts
    2,199
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    A shovel and a .45 are so much cheaper, and would anyone really have missed him?
    I'm sure the Lawyers would. What good is a meal ticket that's buried 6 feet under?
    It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

    http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown...eaves%20office

  10. #25
    VIP Member
    Array Jeanlouise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Almost Heaven
    Posts
    2,199
    I know someone who worked as a warden in a prison. He said that many prisoners spend all their time suing people because it doesn't cost a dime to file a suit, gives them something to do and gets them out of prison to attend hearings. They are transported, fed, given attention, court time and counsel all on the taxpayers dime. If they lose, they just file another ridiculous suit and it starts all over again.

    Legislators and lawyers are both to blame and unless we somehow change the laws as to who can sue and for what, I don't see it ever ending. Of course that opens up another can of worms because WHO decides that?

    I'm 100% for tort reform and "loser pays" when it comes to personal injury lawsuits. At least that's a place to start.
    Piratesailor likes this.
    It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

    http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown...eaves%20office

  11. #26
    Member Array 2700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    SoFlo
    Posts
    177
    Hey Rock and Glock,

    I figured if the word could be said on TV and the radio, it was permissible.

    It's all good, but if your going to edit my posts, would you please make any necessary spelling and grammar corrections.
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    NRA Certified Instructor - RSO - Life Member

    The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.
    -Albert Einstein

  12. #27
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,721
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeanlouise View Post

    I'm 100% for tort reform and "loser pays" when it comes to personal injury lawsuits. At least that's a place to start.
    Sounds great until you are the injured party hiring a plaintiff's lawyer and you quickly figure out
    that should you lose your (in your view) meritorious case it will cost you thousands in fees.

    Plenty of meritorious claims are filed, and lost. There are actually usually two sides to the story.

    Or, turn it around, how would you like to be the defendant in a civil case who genuinely believes
    they did nothing wrong, but loses anyhow, then has to pay the plaintiff's legal fees as well as the
    "damages" you didn't cause in the first place.

    By and large cases don't get to a courtroom unless both sides have something going for their side.
    And even then settlements happen long before a trial.

    The loser pay's idea only serves to keep the middle class and poor away from access to the courts,
    while the rich -- who can risk the cost of being forced to pay if they lose-- can then run roughshod
    over ordinary people.

    Here, take this example. You bring your nearly new car in to the dealer for an oil change.
    Next thing you know the engine is done in. Would you be able to risk filing on the dealer
    if you knew that you might end up spending as much on his legal fees as you did on the car in the first
    place?
    Last edited by Hopyard; October 27th, 2012 at 05:38 PM. Reason: removed a misplaced parenthesis
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array Doghandler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    West Branch
    Posts
    2,176

    Re: Blame the Lawyers, should we?

    There seems to be a widely held perception in these times that our modern society has gone "sue happy", that we are somehow more litigious today than in past times. Is this really true? I don't know for sure but my intuition says no and I'm too lazy to research the question at the moment.
    There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
    Doghandler

  14. #29
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,721
    Quote Originally Posted by Doghandler View Post
    There seems to be a widely held perception in these times that our modern society has gone "sue happy", that we are somehow more litigious today than in past times. Is this really true? I don't know for sure but my intuition says no and I'm too lazy to research the question at the moment.
    Both Aaron Burr and Hamilton made handsome livings as practicing lawyers in NYC--at least
    when they paid attention to their business instead of politics.

    Their offices were near each other, and they sometimes worked together on the same case.
    Civil trial law has existed since.... before recorded history probably.

    The Romans had a trial law system in which "lawyers" were employed. During our
    colonial period and early history, those wishing to become lawyers were often required
    to study Cicero's writings on the law.

    There was plenty of litigation during our colonial times and early history as well.
    All of the colonies and all of the newly formed states had well developed civil
    litigation systems modeled on English law.

    Lawyers are a lot like street cops; hated until you need them.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #30
    StarPD45
    Guest StarPD45's Avatar
    One problem with laws is they are so vaguely written that it's virtually impossible for the average person to understand.
    This in itself gives lawyers an in. They play the game, at our expense.
    One thing about civil trials. They are almost always jury trials. The ignorance of so many people on juries is unbelievable. As a juror, I have seen that first hand. Maybe if more juries practiced jury nullification, or at least common sense, things would change. But you better not mention nullification in the courtroom or you will be off the jury in a heartbeat, and maybe even cited by the judge.
    BTW: My late father-in-law had a bumper sticker on his truck. It said: Strike a blow for justice. Punch an attorney.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

powered by mybb bad faith insurance claim litigation

,

powered by mybb bad faith insurance lawyer

,

powered by mybb class action lawsuit

,

powered by mybb war risk insurance

,

who should we blame for bad lawyer

,

who should we fault for bad lawyers

Click on a term to search for related topics.