Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Susanm wrote:

<quoted text>It's moral for a lawyer to allow a killer/rapist/child molester go free when they have firsthand knowledge that they are guilty?

Yes. It is their moral obligation to protect the rights of their client. It is the moral and legal obligation of law enforcement to follow the law and all the rules in order to prosecute criminals.

Welcome to AMERICA. You must be new here. You should acquaint yourself with the US Constitution and basic high school civics and governmental systems.

Unbelievable.

Susanm wrote:

<quoted text>Unfortunately there are a lot of priest who will never be convicted, therefore they are innocent, because the statutes of limitations has expired or because the cops didn't dot all their i's and cross all their t's.

"ALL men are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty,"

Are you willing to view all priests, who have not yet been convicted, as innocent?

They are innocent until proven guilty

Do you believe they should be arrested and presented for trial when a complaint has been made?

Should they be subject to the same investigation, arrest and trial as any other child raping pervert?

Should those that hid him or kept him from being investigated be prosecuted for interfering in a criminal investigation?

Susanm wrote:

<quoted text>Not me, but then I am comparing two people who have firsthand knowledge of a crime and if they should either BOTH be required to report it, thereby protecting more innocent people, or should they BOTH be allowed to cover it up under the guise of "priveledged" information.

A lawyer CAN NOT betray client information.

A priest is a private citizen who is subject to the civil law just like you and me. If we know a child is being raped and do nothing, we are criminally responsible.

Why don't you know that?

Do you think a priest is above the law?

SassyJM wrote:

<quoted text> Your own side, who CLAIM to be pro -CHOICE weven want a woman to carry an *unwanted*@@ pregnancy to term when they "think"she shouldn't be allowed to(after the deadline).
Hypocrites.
Can you just IMAGINE a proabort thinking RESTRICTIONS for another is a "fair" deal?
Huh leesyboo?

We've been over this at least twice. Do you not remember? I'm only responsible for my views and my comments, so you'll have to ask those people what is up with that. I don't hold every PL accountable for you, so be fair.

Susanm wrote:

<quoted text>"How do you know he is guilty, if he was acquitted?"

My point was about a lawyer who was told by the accussed that he committed the crime.

"The priests you are talking about need to stand trial and be acquitted before they are protected by the Church."

Shouldn't a representitive of our legal system , who has first hand knowledge that a crime was indeed committed, be held to the same standard?

"The situations are different and the roles of the lawyer and the Church are different. They can't be compared."

The situation, as I presented is very much the same. Why should one person (the lawyer) be allowed to hide behind "priveledged information" and not the other (the priest)?

"What good is a defense lawyer if he doesn't defend his client? What good is a Church if it doesn't practice transparency?"

So the church should practice transparancey but not our legal system???

Wow. Incredible ignorance. Shocking.

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
Just because you are not proven guilty, doesn't mean that you are innocent. The conversation was about the morality of defending someone you know is guilty and getting him off not the legality of the situation. Will you find in your mind any priests who get off in court with the help of lawyers, innocent?

Ummm, yes, that's the way it works. By law, a lawyer cannot violate privilege. The lawyer can, with the permission of the court, recluse himself from the case, I think.

brad wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not condemning all,,,,,anything.
Just those that practice gain specifically at the cost of innocents.

All defendants must be represented. If no lawyer will take the case, voluntarily, one will be assigned, whether they want to do it or not. That lawyer must defend the client to the best of his ability and according to the clients wishes. I think I have this right; I'm NOT in the legal field. I do try to know basic civics, though.

elise in burque wrote:

<quoted text>Ummm, yes, that's the way it works. By law, a lawyer cannot violate privilege. The lawyer can, with the permission of the court, recluse himself from the case, I think.

An exchange of information between two individuals in a confidential relationship.

A privileged communication is a private statement that must be kept in confidence by the recipient for the benefit of the communicator. Even if it is relevant to a case, a privileged communication cannot be used as evidence in court. Privileged communications are controversial because they exclude relevant facts from the truth-seeking process.

Generally, the laws that guide civil and criminal trials are designed to allow the admission of relevant evidence. Parties generally have access to all information that will help yield a just result in the case. Privileged communications are an exception to this rule.

Privileged communications exist because society values the privacy or purpose of certain relationships. The established privileged communications are those between wife and husband, clergy and communicant, psychotherapist and patient, physician and patient, and attorney and client.

These relationships are protected for various reasons. The wife-husband and clergy-communicant privileges protect the general sanctity of marriage and religion. The psychotherapist or physician and patient privilege promotes full disclosure in the interests of the patient's health. If patients were unable to keep secret communications with psychotherapists or physicians relating to treatment or diagnosis, they might give doctors incomplete information. If doctors received incomplete information, they might be unable to administer health care to the patient, which is the very purpose of the doctor-patient relationship.

The Attorney-Client Privilege exists for roughly the same reason as the physician-patient privilege. In order to secure effective representation, a client must feel free to discuss all aspects of a case without the fear that her attorney will be called at trial to repeat her statements. Likewise, to retain the client's trust and do his job properly, the attorney must be allowed to withhold from the court and opposing party private communications with the client.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Brilliant_Chicky wrote:

<quoted text>
lily, who is in fact, Lynne/PerverseLiar, has never been threatened. You know it and I know it. Stop lying.

You know what I would do if someone on an anonymous internet forum threatened me?

Nothing. Laugh. Sign off. Go have lunch somewhere nice. Whatever.

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the sort of thing people say to justify the tremendous expensive and time needed to raise someone who, at the end of the day, just won't amount to much.
We're not going to see any severely retard children coming up with a cure for cancer or inventing a new engine that runs on water.
True, most normal people also won't accomplish those things -- but they MIGHT. They at least have the potential to.
Now, if you want to keep a kid and spend your money and your time raising it, fine. It's your money, it's your time.
But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that these people are a good investment of those resources when compared to a normal child.
Less time and less money, you could have adopted a kid that needed a family and produced someone who can do some good.

My son is developmentally disabled. He was diagnosed at 3 years old. He will need to live under supervision for the rest of his life. Would you advocate that a child with similar challenges be killed?

LadiLulu wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's face it, simply put, are they honestly saying that priests and lawyers are expected to be "moral equivalents"???

They are trying to compare apples and oranges. Their whole argument is gravely flawed.

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
You said all men are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore accordingly, if they aren't proven guilty then they are still innocent. You never SAID presumed. A big word in the phrase.
I do think the guilty should be defended but I wonder about the high paid lawyers who knowingly defend people they know are guilty and use all tricks possible to defend them. It doesn't seem like a respectable way to make a good living.

Someone has to do it. Literally. Ask a judge.

SassyJM wrote:

<quoted text> How DARE you.*I'm* the one APPALLED that she disgraced those poor, innocent children AND her daughter(for falling in love.with a biracial man).
She should be ashamed for THAT as well as ridiculing abused teenagers and supporting killing innocent humans in the womb. Now an apology is in order.

Lol! "How DARE you." Harrumph! Hilarious!

SassyJM wrote:

<quoted text> No..it's all are "presumed " innocent UNTIL proven guiltu.
And again, this has NOTHING to do with our discussion about people DEFENDING, HIDING OR EXCUSING those thay *are*.

Okay, what do you suggest a defense lawyer do if he knows that his client is guilty?

elise in burque wrote:

<quoted text>They are trying to compare apples and oranges. Their whole argument is gravely flawed.

What do you see to be the difference, there are two people both having first hand knowledge of the guilt of the accused disclosed to them as priveledged communication, why should one be required to report it and the other not?

Brilliant_Chicky wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes! I wonder if they still invade that house every year. The little girl that lived there too still hates ladybugs. Poor traumatized baby! Ladybugs taste kinda like pepper when they hide in coffee cups, or packets of hot Cocoa. Lol. Ew.

Too much of a good thing, eh? Ants taste peppery, too. Don't ask.

SassyJM wrote:

<quoted text>Sadly, your side thinks that its positively selfish to give birth to a child like yours.
I kid you not. They think that an "imperfect"(meaning someone not as perfect as them) DESERVES death via abortion. I've heard the word "cruel" being used to describe a woman giving birth to a child that she knows is imperfect.
Psst...act like you NEVER read my posts so that you don't *have* ro *pretend* to be angry that some proabort friend of yours thinks YOUR selfish and that your son *shouldnt* have been *allowed* to be birthed.

No it doesn't you skanky moron of a fool.

You paint with a broad brush you fool because you really are a special kind of stupid.

Unlike your side of the aisle. Over here we can disagree and not be in lock step like a bunch eye glazed moron that willingly work against our own best interest. That would be your side of the aisle.

And one more time for the fool. There is no such thing as a pro abort. no matter how much you would love there t be. No one out side of trolls is any one a pro abort.

So, you just continue to lie be a f*cktard. And work hard at being your own worse enemy.

LadiLulu wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong. A defense attorney's job is to ensure that their client get a fair trial. Attorney's also never act as if they are the representatives of G-d. Priests, on the other hand are required to protect the most innocent (the victims) and give them solace and comfort. They are G-d's representatives on earth. Furthermore, priests who cover up for another abusive priest enable the pedophile to continue to abuse innocent children. They FAIL in their responsibility to be *honest* and are simply not courageous enough to do the right thing. They are cowards who are afraid of the Vatican, simply put. Plenty of attorneys refuse to take cases that require them to protect monsters like pedophiles, BTW.
I'm surprised (and disappointed) to see you advocating for the cover-up of pedophile priest, sue.

Well stated.

LadiLulu wrote:

<quoted text>
She's a few sheets to the wind tonight, CP.

After reading the last few Sassposts I think you are probably correct. She sure seems high.

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:

<quoted text>
No they were NOT. They were perfectly free to homeschool. They are free to find a private school that doesn't require that. Nobody's FORCING them to do anything.
<quoted text>
No YOU are wrong. Or YOU'RE if you want an example (which you desperately need) of the PROPER way to use "you're".
**sheesh** You're a perfect example of the failure of our educational system.
They are free to CHOOSE another profession. When I joined the military, I had to have immuniziations to go to Grenada, or anywhere overseas. I was FREE to NOT JOIN the military. NOBODY FORD CED me to do a thing. Its a requirement of the job, but one is FREE TO NOT TAKE THE JOB.
<quoted text> And you are one of the biggest morons, I swear.

Medical personnel do not have to be vaccinated. They must wear a face mask when they are around patients during flu season. They are not required to be vaccinated for any other diseases because those vaccines protect them, not the patient.