White cop charged with murder in death of unarmed black man

[grumbler]

Why?  The transparency state has already shown his guilt.

Thank God for cameras, eh, Timothy?

Thank God we have people willing and eager to jump to conclusions.  If only you were in charge, we wouldn't need those time-consuming trials, just your summary judgement and a quick hanging.  Of course, most of those people would likely be innocent, but eggs and omelets, eh?

[Ideologue]

I didn't say he shouldn't have representation.  I just said that the level of quality is probably irrelevant.

I suppose I was a little unnecessarily bloodthirsty.

[Eddie Teach]

I didn't say he shouldn't have representation.  I just said that the level of quality is probably irrelevant.

People said the same thing after the Rodney King beating.

[Martinus]

Yeah, everyone should get an equally decent representation, but I don't see any particular reason to announce this cold-blooded murderer should get good representation than, say, it would be the case for Manson or Bundy.

[Martinus]

By comparison, I don't see anyone in the Tsarnaev thread making similar alusions to the presumption of innocence or saying that he "deserves" a good lawyer when the jury was still out. Makes you wonder what exactly is the difference between both cases - as in both the evidence seems to be pretty damning.

[crazy canuck]

By comparison, I don't see anyone in the Tsarnaev thread making similar alusions to the presumption of innocence or saying that he "deserves" a good lawyer when the jury was still out. Makes you wonder what exactly is the difference between both cases - as in both the evidence seems to be pretty damning.

Some salient facts that a keen legal mind and everyone else would have noticed.  First, he did not deny he committed the act.  His only defence was that he was a pawn.  Second, his defence was vigorously pursued by his lawyer.

[grumbler]

By comparison, I don't see anyone in the Tsarnaev thread making similar alusions to the presumption of innocence or saying that he "deserves" a good lawyer when the jury was still out. Makes you wonder what exactly is the difference between both cases - as in both the evidence seems to be pretty damning.

Well, since Tsarnaev admitted his guilt, no one but a Polack alleged lawyer would expect someone to argue for any presumption of innocence.

Now, thevideo  evidence in this shooting appears to be quite damning, and I can't think of any circumstances that would mitigate the actions that we see there.  However, I don't pretend to know everything, and so wait to hear both sides before drawing any firm conclusions.

As for the guy's lawyer abandoning the case, I can see that it could be done without any elements of unprofessional behavior:  if the lawyer questioned his client on his side of the story, cautioned the client to make sure he was telling his lawyer the truth, and the client gave a story completely at odds with the video, the lawyer would be perfectly right to be totally pissed at his client, and tell the judge that he couldn't work the case due to [whatever euphemism lawyers use when they no longer trust or even like their clients].  I remember the Canadian radio dude's first reps abandoning him on pretty much those grounds.

[DGuller]

As for the guy's lawyer abandoning the case, I can see that it could be done without any elements of unprofessional behavior:  if the lawyer questioned his client on his side of the story, cautioned the client to make sure he was telling his lawyer the truth, and the client gave a story completely at odds with the video, the lawyer would be perfectly right to be totally pissed at his client, and tell the judge that he couldn't work the case due to [whatever euphemism lawyers use when they no longer trust or even like their clients].  I remember the Canadian radio dude's first reps abandoning him on pretty much those grounds.

Abandoning the case can be done without being unprofessional.  Giving an interview to a newspaper "not discussing" why you abandoned the case at length is starting to stretch the standards.

[jimmy olsen]

I am not sure what you mean.  Assuming the professional rules of conduct are similar in their jurisdiction when a lawyer withdraws it must be done without comment as to the reason.  Simply saying he will not discuss the evidence in the case isn't an excuse for giving a reason that would in any way prejudice his client's interest.

And in England at least even saying you quit because of the video would break the code of conduct. I think the default is to leave a client for 'professional reasons'.

Similarly I'm not going to criticise his lawyer for quitting but the guy does deserve a decent lawyer advising him.

Why?  The transparency state has already shown his guilt.

Thank God for cameras, eh, Timothy?

I have never argued against Cops wearing cameras.

[grumbler]

As for the guy's lawyer abandoning the case, I can see that it could be done without any elements of unprofessional behavior:  if the lawyer questioned his client on his side of the story, cautioned the client to make sure he was telling his lawyer the truth, and the client gave a story completely at odds with the video, the lawyer would be perfectly right to be totally pissed at his client, and tell the judge that he couldn't work the case due to [whatever euphemism lawyers use when they no longer trust or even like their clients].  I remember the Canadian radio dude's first reps abandoning him on pretty much those grounds.

Abandoning the case can be done without being unprofessional.  Giving an interview to a newspaper "not discussing" why you abandoned the case at length is starting to stretch the standards.

Agreed.  "No comment" is the only professional response once you've left the case.  After all, it's no longer your case and so you can't comment on it with any accuracy.

[11B4V]

I am not sure what you mean.  Assuming the professional rules of conduct are similar in their jurisdiction when a lawyer withdraws it must be done without comment as to the reason.  Simply saying he will not discuss the evidence in the case isn't an excuse for giving a reason that would in any way prejudice his client's interest.

And in England at least even saying you quit because of the video would break the code of conduct. I think the default is to leave a client for 'professional reasons'.

Similarly I'm not going to criticise his lawyer for quitting but the guy does deserve a decent lawyer advising him.

Why?  The transparency state has already shown his guilt.

Thank God for cameras, eh, Timothy?

I have never argued against Cops wearing cameras.

We should.

[grumbler]

I have never argued against Cops wearing cameras.

We should.

Agreed.  No reason not to.  The truth won't come out unless there is an impartial witness.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, everyone should get an equally decent representation, but I don't see any particular reason to announce this cold-blooded murderer should get good representation than, say, it would be the case for Manson or Bundy.

Manson and Bundy also deserve good representation.

Frankly I think the issue is less the high-profile cases in the news, they will normally end up with decent lawyers. The real issue is the numerous kids this man has probably arrested over his career who may not have been able to afford a good lawyer - they deserve them too.

[grumbler]

Yeah, everyone should get an equally decent representation, but I don't see any particular reason to announce this cold-blooded murderer should get good representation than, say, it would be the case for Manson or Bundy.

Manson and Bundy also deserve good representation.

Frankly I think the issue is less the high-profile cases in the news, they will normally end up with decent lawyers. The real issue is the numerous kids this man has probably arrested over his career who may not have been able to afford a good lawyer - they deserve them too.

Those kids got lawyers paid for by the state.  Now, you can argue that PDs are not good lawyers, because, if they were, they'd be in private practice, but that's equally true of the prosecutors, so it evens out.

[Drakken]

Yeah, everyone should get an equally decent representation, but I don't see any particular reason to announce this cold-blooded murderer should get good representation than, say, it would be the case for Manson or Bundy.

I sure hope he gets decent representation better than Manson or Bundy, since both Bundy and Manson represented themselves. The latter rested his defence without calling in a single witness to the stand.