Well I don't know... At least in theory, Martinez DID NOT defend violent criminals. In theory what Martinez did, was participate in a process to determine whether they were, or were not, violent criminals.
You cannot attack Martinez in this fashion without attacking the whole concept of a criminal justice system.
On the other hand, the criminal "Justice System" is in reality nothing but a tool of the ruling class, and there is no justice in it, so you might as well fire away...
I've been confounded by this for a while now. To think that those who have had their lives torn apart by violence, would then identify more with the criminals that perpetuate this violence, rather than the citizens trying to prevent the violence is astounding to me. I have since found a very thought provoking video out there that, to me, hits the mark. I was stunned by the psychological implications here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqVoeT5jzIM
The video is part of sci-fi narrative the author was engaged in at the time, which takes place in the latter 21st century (after the opposition has taken over), but the 45 minute narrative about the r/K psychologies is presented very well. It begins at the 5:20 mark and continues for about 45 minutes. Enjoy. Or, if you prefer the entire story...
From my reading around the 'Net, I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the "Situational Hypocrisy" exhibited. Defending "violent criminals" is not the hypocrisy; it is an essential element of what is purported to be a fair justice system: presumed innocence.
Everyone has the right to an effective defense. Probably even especially those "everyone knows is guilty"; after all, once you make an exception for one of "them" to get an easy, well-deserved conviction, it's easy to keep moving the bar to convict those... not so obviously guilty. Like... innocents.*
So Richard Martinez's hypocrisy is not that he defended "violent criminals" only to speak out against "violent criminals" only when he and his became victims. The hypocrisy is that he insisted on presumed innocence and due process for his clients, but demands preemptive assumptions of criminality on the part of millions of gun owners who haven't even been accused.
It may sound like nitpicking to some, but I think it's an important distinction. YMMV.
---------- * This is why I'm annoyed by bashing, conducted by some alleged conservatives, of criminal defense by political opponents. Ghu knows, there's plenty of real reasons to detest and oppose Hillary, without attacking her for -- for once in her hideous life -- apparently upholding the system that supposedly protects us. You might even ask yourself: "If these people oppose presumed innocence and defending the accused now, who might they target when they are in power?"
I once met an actual, honest-to-goodness "ethical attorney" (you know? the exception that proves the rule?). The man made his living OTHER attorneys for malpractice. (Of course he had to do it away from San Antonio; something about "fouling one's own nest) but he made a good enough living at it.
Anyhow, he told me he couldn't be a criminal defense attorney because he knew that if he did he'd be disbarred after his first case. Seems he knew that, if the moke he was defending admitted to him that he had committed whatever crime he was accused of, the first time he and his client were in court he would have an utterly irresistible urge to jump up, point to his client and yell "Nail him, your Honor! Throw the book at him! He's guilty as sin!". And then he'd be disbarred. So this guy did something else.
He didn't like business law (saw no reason to spend all his time making rich fat-cats richer by defrauding regular folk plus see the above and imagine it in a civil court) couldn't do tax law (hated paying taxes and actually believed in the golden rule) so he sued crooked attorneys for malpractice.
Paul X, there is no justice because the word "justice" is a semantic null. It is impossible to construct a rigorous, precise, objective definition of the word. Since the word "justice" cannot be defined, it is impossible to obtain it because it is impossible to hit a target that is not defined - PLUS even if you hit the target, how would you know? So "justice" is a semantic null; an empty, meaningless sound.
Add it that you seek this semantic null in GOVERNMENT courthouse, in a GOVERNMENT courtroom, before a GOVERNMENT Judge, prosecuted by GOVERNMENT lawyers (who effectively have no more scruples than restraints on their efforts to convict you), heard by regular citizens who were summoned by the GOVERNMENTand finally you are defended by another lawyer licensed by
. . .
(wait for it)
. . .
(you guessed it)
. . .
THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!
They ought to have a special door for criminal defendants to enter a courthouse. Over that door - carved in the most adamantine stone available - is the inscription ABANDON HOPE ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE."
Bear, "Presumed Innocence" is as much a myth and illusion as "democratic process", "rule of law" or that marvelous fairy tale that our votes count.
It ain't happening now and I'm not convinced it EVER DID!!!! There are so many laws now that NOBODY, ANYWHERE is truly "innocent". You may not be guilty of the specific offense for which the GOVERNMENT is prosecuting you, but are inarguably guilty of SOMETHING!
Do a quick search of the ties between both the National Lawyers Guild AND the National BAR Assoc. and communism and you will get some interesting info..Twice it is mentioned in the Constitution that no one in Govt is to have a "title of nobility", yet lawyers infest Govt and use the title "Esquire" after their name.("Esquire" is one rank below "knight"). There was even a 13th amendment forbidding titles of nobility and it strangely disappeared around the time of the war between the states and the present day 13th forbidding slavery and involuntary servitude (but not voluntary servitude)was put in it's place...Whenever you hire a lawyer, the court considers you an "incompetent" and as such you are now a "ward of the court" (basically an imbecile)..No lawyer will ever tell you that if arrested, you are being tried in a court that is under an Admiralty/Maritime/Equity jurisdiction (hence the gold fringe around the flag in the courtroom); not Common-Law which is your right under the 7th amendment. I could go on about this stuff all day. Learning the fiction imposed on us by the "legal" profession is important. The website "National Liberty Alliance" teaches how to get through this minefield...My point to all this is, lawyers are an underhanded bunch; many of whom have an agenda. I would exercise extreme care before giving my trust to any...
If you read to the end of my post you will find I am as cynical about it as you are.
If you keep thinking along these lines, you get to a point where it no longer makes sense to submit to an arrest. "Arrest" is what the state calls its declaration of war on you.
10 comments:
He's a f**king criminal defense attorney. What do you expect?
Well I don't know... At least in theory, Martinez DID NOT defend violent criminals. In theory what Martinez did, was participate in a process to determine whether they were, or were not, violent criminals.
You cannot attack Martinez in this fashion without attacking the whole concept of a criminal justice system.
On the other hand, the criminal "Justice System" is in reality nothing but a tool of the ruling class, and there is no justice in it, so you might as well fire away...
I wonder how many people have been killed as a result of gov't employees? Will make these "mass shooters" numbers look like peanuts I imagine.
I'll keep my ARs with mags of however many bullets I want.
I've been confounded by this for a while now. To think that those who have had their lives torn apart by violence, would then identify more with the criminals that perpetuate this violence, rather than the citizens trying to prevent the violence is astounding to me. I have since found a very thought provoking video out there that, to me, hits the mark. I was stunned by the psychological implications here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqVoeT5jzIM
The video is part of sci-fi narrative the author was engaged in at the time, which takes place in the latter 21st century (after the opposition has taken over), but the 45 minute narrative about the r/K psychologies is presented very well. It begins at the 5:20 mark and continues for about 45 minutes. Enjoy.
Or, if you prefer the entire story...
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Psychology-Behind-Politics-Conservatism-ebook/dp/B00DT9ZLS0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403109901&sr=1-1&keywords=anonymous+conservative
I'm making my way through this one now.
From my reading around the 'Net, I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the "Situational Hypocrisy" exhibited. Defending "violent criminals" is not the hypocrisy; it is an essential element of what is purported to be a fair justice system: presumed innocence.
Everyone has the right to an effective defense. Probably even especially those "everyone knows is guilty"; after all, once you make an exception for one of "them" to get an easy, well-deserved conviction, it's easy to keep moving the bar to convict those... not so obviously guilty. Like... innocents.*
So Richard Martinez's hypocrisy is not that he defended "violent criminals" only to speak out against "violent criminals" only when he and his became victims. The hypocrisy is that he insisted on presumed innocence and due process for his clients, but demands preemptive assumptions of criminality on the part of millions of gun owners who haven't even been accused.
It may sound like nitpicking to some, but I think it's an important distinction. YMMV.
----------
* This is why I'm annoyed by bashing, conducted by some alleged conservatives, of criminal defense by political opponents. Ghu knows, there's plenty of real reasons to detest and oppose Hillary, without attacking her for -- for once in her hideous life -- apparently upholding the system that supposedly protects us. You might even ask yourself: "If these people oppose presumed innocence and defending the accused now, who might they target when they are in power?"
I once met an actual, honest-to-goodness "ethical attorney" (you know? the exception that proves the rule?). The man made his living OTHER attorneys for malpractice. (Of course he had to do it away from San Antonio; something about "fouling one's own nest) but he made a good enough living at it.
Anyhow, he told me he couldn't be a criminal defense attorney because he knew that if he did he'd be disbarred after his first case. Seems he knew that, if the moke he was defending admitted to him that he had committed whatever crime he was accused of, the first time he and his client were in court he would have an utterly irresistible urge to jump up, point to his client and yell "Nail him, your Honor! Throw the book at him! He's guilty as sin!". And then he'd be disbarred. So this guy did something else.
He didn't like business law (saw no reason to spend all his time making rich fat-cats richer by defrauding regular folk plus see the above and imagine it in a civil court) couldn't do tax law (hated paying taxes and actually believed in the golden rule) so he sued crooked attorneys for malpractice.
Paul X, there is no justice because the word "justice" is a semantic null. It is impossible to construct a rigorous, precise, objective definition of the word. Since the word "justice" cannot be defined, it is impossible to obtain it because it is impossible to hit a target that is not defined - PLUS even if you hit the target, how would you know? So "justice" is a semantic null; an empty, meaningless sound.
Add it that you seek this semantic null in GOVERNMENT courthouse, in a GOVERNMENT courtroom, before a GOVERNMENT Judge, prosecuted by GOVERNMENT lawyers (who effectively have no more scruples than restraints on their efforts to convict you), heard by regular citizens who were summoned by the GOVERNMENTand finally you are defended by another lawyer licensed by
. . .
(wait for it)
. . .
(you guessed it)
. . .
THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!
They ought to have a special door for criminal defendants to enter a courthouse. Over that door - carved in the most adamantine stone available - is the inscription ABANDON HOPE ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE."
Bear,
"Presumed Innocence" is as much a myth and illusion as "democratic process", "rule of law" or that marvelous fairy tale that our votes count.
It ain't happening now and I'm not convinced it EVER DID!!!! There are so many laws now that NOBODY, ANYWHERE is truly "innocent". You may not be guilty of the specific offense for which the GOVERNMENT is prosecuting you, but are inarguably guilty of SOMETHING!
ABANDON HOPE ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE!
Any way to pull a list of people he represented? Should be public record, right?
Do a quick search of the ties between both the National Lawyers Guild AND the National BAR Assoc. and communism and you will get some interesting info..Twice it is mentioned in the Constitution that no one in Govt is to have a "title of nobility", yet lawyers infest Govt and use the title "Esquire" after their name.("Esquire" is one rank below "knight"). There was even a 13th amendment forbidding titles of nobility and it strangely disappeared around the time of the war between the states and the present day 13th forbidding slavery and involuntary servitude (but not voluntary servitude)was put in it's place...Whenever you hire a lawyer, the court considers you an "incompetent" and as such you are now a "ward of the court" (basically an imbecile)..No lawyer will ever tell you that if arrested, you are being tried in a court that is under an Admiralty/Maritime/Equity jurisdiction (hence the gold fringe around the flag in the courtroom); not Common-Law which is your right under the 7th amendment. I could go on about this stuff all day. Learning the fiction imposed on us by the "legal" profession is important. The website "National Liberty Alliance" teaches how to get through this minefield...My point to all this is, lawyers are an underhanded bunch; many of whom have an agenda. I would exercise extreme care before giving my trust to any...
@BadCyborg
If you read to the end of my post you will find I am as cynical about it as you are.
If you keep thinking along these lines, you get to a point where it no longer makes sense to submit to an arrest. "Arrest" is what the state calls its declaration of war on you.
I agree with Bear on where the real hypocrisy is.
Post a Comment