http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/11/us/texas-teen-dwi-wreck/
QuoteTexas teen Ethan Couch gets 10 years' probation for driving drunk, killing 4
(CNN) -- To the families of the victims, Ethan Couch was a killer on the road, a drunken teenage driver who caused a crash that left four people dead.
To the defense, the youth is himself a victim -- of "affluenza," according to one psychologist -- the product of wealthy, privileged parents who never set limits for the boy.
To a judge, who sentenced Couch to 10 years' probation but no jail time, he's a defendant in need of treatment.
The decision disappointed prosecutors and stunned victims' family members, who say they feel that Couch got off too easy. Prosecutors had asked for the maximum of 20 years behind bars.
Boyles: Wife, daughter were givers Callan: Poverty in prison cures affluenza Dr. Drew: 'Affluenza' is ridiculous DUI crash kills 4, teen gets probation
"Let's face it. ... There needs to be some justice here," Eric Boyles, who lost his wife and daughter, told CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" on Wednesday night.
"For 25 weeks, I've been going through a healing process. And so when the verdict came out, I mean, my immediate reaction is -- I'm back to week 1. We have accomplished nothing here. My healing process is out the window," he said.
Lawyers for Couch, 16, had argued that the teen's parents should share part of the blame for the crash because they never set limits for the boy and gave him everything he wanted.
According to CNN affiliate WFAA, a psychologist called by the defense described Couch as a product of "affluenza."
He reportedly testified that the teen's family felt wealth bought privilege, and that Couch's life could be turned around with one to two years of treatment and no contact with his parents.
Couch was sentenced by a juvenile court judge Tuesday. If he violates the terms of his probation, he could face up to 10 years of incarceration, according to a statement from the Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney's Office.
Judge Jean Boyd told the court she would not release Couch to his parents, but would work to find the teen a long-term treatment facility.
"There are absolutely no consequences for what occurred that day," said Boyles. "The primary message has to absolutely be that money and privilege can't buy justice in this country."
His wife, Hollie Boyles, and daughter, Shelby, left their home to help Breanna Mitchell, whose SUV had broken down. Brian Jennings, a youth pastor, was driving past and also stopped to help.
All four were killed when the teen's pickup plowed into the pedestrians on a road in Burleson, south of Fort Worth. Couch's vehicle also struck a parked car, which then slid into another vehicle headed in the opposite direction.
Two people riding in the bed of the teen's pickup were tossed in the crash and severely injured.
One is no longer able to move or talk because of a brain injury, while the other suffered internal injuries and broken bones.
"There is nothing the judge could have done to lessen the suffering for any of those families," said defense attorney Scott Brown, CNN affiliate KTVT reported.
"(The judge) fashioned a sentence that is going to keep Ethan under the thumb of the justice system for the next 10 years," he said. "And if Ethan doesn't do what he's supposed to do, if he has one misstep at all, then this judge, or an adult judge when he's transferred, can then incarcerate him."
Earlier on the night of the accident, June 15, Couch and some friends had stolen beer from a local Walmart. Three hours after the crash, tests showed he had a blood alcohol content of 0.24, three times the legal limit, according to the district attorney's office.
"We are disappointed by the punishment assessed but have no power under the law to change or overturn it," said Assistant District Attorney Richard Alpert. "Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and we regret that this outcome has added to the pain and suffering they have endured."
It is very rare, but not impossible, for prosecutors to challenge the sentence on the ground that it was too lenient, CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin said.
"To give him a pass this time given the egregious nature of his conduct -- four deaths -- is just incomprehensible," she said.
It is unfair that other young defendants without the same wealth could end up in jail for a lot less, said Hostin, of CNN's "New Day" morning show.
"I think in terms of policy, this really flies in the face of our criminal justice system," she said. "There have to be consequences to actions, and that is what our system is about, even for juveniles."
Shit, Laura Bush got less than that, and she was sober. Maybe.
So the defense successfully argued for leniency because the parents had been too lenient in the past?
This is why I hate youth court.
Sounds that way.
Well I'll be damned, Yi was right. Higher rates of wealth amongst the richest Americans does lead to more freedom.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2013, 02:13:54 PM
Well I'll be damned, Yi was right. Higher rates of wealth amongst the richest Americans does lead to more freedom.
:lol:
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2013, 02:12:22 PM
This is why I hate youth court.
this is why I hate these psychiatric expert in court.
QuoteHis wife, Hollie Boyles, and daughter, Shelby, left their home to help Breanna Mitchell, whose SUV had broken down. Brian Jennings, a youth pastor, was driving past and also stopped to help.
Lesson here is don't be a good Samaritan.
Affluenza will be a new national trend.
Urge to purge the rich: rising.
Why? The kid if a victim of having too much money. Wealth redistribution will cure him of that.
The civil suit will be interesting.
Is there any reason to believe his sentence was inconsistent with what non-rich kids get who are responsible for fatal car accidents involving alcohol?
For the record, the dumbasses who were hurt because they were riding in the back of a pickup truck bear some small measure of responsibility for *their* injuries.
Yeah, it seems to me that 20 years in prison would be a bit out of what is normal for first time vehicular manslaughterers.
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2013, 03:42:22 PM
The civil suit will be interesting.
Wrong.
Civil suits are never interesting.
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2013, 03:55:38 PM
Is there any reason to believe his sentence was inconsistent with what non-rich kids get who are responsible for fatal car accidents involving alcohol?
For the record, the dumbasses who were hurt because they were riding in the back of a pickup truck bear some small measure of responsibility for *their* injuries.
This chick http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/fredericksburg-teen-gets--year-sentence-for-vehicular-homicide/article_f0ddda96-af50-11e1-b073-0019bb2963f4.html Got 10 years. Course she killed a dog as well as a man.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2013, 05:09:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2013, 03:55:38 PM
Is there any reason to believe his sentence was inconsistent with what non-rich kids get who are responsible for fatal car accidents involving alcohol?
For the record, the dumbasses who were hurt because they were riding in the back of a pickup truck bear some small measure of responsibility for *their* injuries.
This chick http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/fredericksburg-teen-gets--year-sentence-for-vehicular-homicide/article_f0ddda96-af50-11e1-b073-0019bb2963f4.html Got 10 years. Course she killed a dog as well as a man.
And then was in prison what - like 100 days?
http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/teen-imprisoned-on-vehicular-homicide-charge-released-from-prison/article_dc5c7458-4567-11e2-ad82-001a4bcf887a.html
I guess the question is which is worse? 100 days in jail or ten years probation?
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2013, 04:18:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2013, 03:42:22 PM
The civil suit will be interesting.
Wrong.
Civil suits are never interesting.
To be fair, neither is criminal law. Only once the illegitimate legal system is set aside and a system of Neilist judges is organized will justice be both proper and interesting.
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2013, 05:29:47 PM
I guess the question is which is worse? 100 days in jail or ten years probation?
Well actually she still has 5 years probation and has to live in specified facility.
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2013, 05:31:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2013, 04:18:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2013, 03:42:22 PM
The civil suit will be interesting.
Wrong.
Civil suits are never interesting.
To be fair, neither is criminal law. Only once the illegitimate legal system is set aside and a system of Neilist judges is organized will justice be both proper and interesting.
:ike:
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2013, 05:31:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2013, 04:18:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2013, 03:42:22 PM
The civil suit will be interesting.
Wrong.
Civil suits are never interesting.
To be fair, neither is criminal law. Only once the illegitimate legal system is set aside and a system of Neilist judges is organized will justice be both proper and interesting.
I think it's spelled 'nihilist.'
Quote from: Scipio on December 12, 2013, 06:33:42 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2013, 05:31:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2013, 04:18:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2013, 03:42:22 PM
The civil suit will be interesting.
Wrong.
Civil suits are never interesting.
To be fair, neither is criminal law. Only once the illegitimate legal system is set aside and a system of Neilist judges is organized will justice be both proper and interesting.
I think it's spelled 'nihilist.'
Not to a narcissist.
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2013, 05:31:35 PM
a system of Neilist judges
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ootonline.com%2FOOTnews%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F10%2Fnd_3111-235x300.jpg&hash=d7a30219cd929add8cb5d61a5314944e23d725eb)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 12, 2013, 07:18:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2013, 05:31:35 PM
a system of Neilist judges
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ootonline.com%2FOOTnews%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F10%2Fnd_3111-235x300.jpg&hash=d7a30219cd929add8cb5d61a5314944e23d725eb)
I could support that.
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2013, 05:39:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2013, 05:31:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2013, 04:18:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2013, 03:42:22 PM
The civil suit will be interesting.
Wrong.
Civil suits are never interesting.
To be fair, neither is criminal law. Only once the illegitimate legal system is set aside and a system of Neilist judges is organized will justice be both proper and interesting.
:ike:
My faith in my system isn't any more ridiculous than yours in your own.
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2013, 03:55:38 PM
For the record, the dumbasses who were hurt because they were riding in the back of a pickup truck bear some small measure of responsibility for *their* injuries.
No argument there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 12, 2013, 07:18:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 12, 2013, 05:31:35 PM
a system of Neilist judges
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ootonline.com%2FOOTnews%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F10%2Fnd_3111-235x300.jpg&hash=d7a30219cd929add8cb5d61a5314944e23d725eb)
Everyone goes, because everyone knows Brother Neil's show.
Quote from: garbon on December 12, 2013, 05:21:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2013, 05:09:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2013, 03:55:38 PM
Is there any reason to believe his sentence was inconsistent with what non-rich kids get who are responsible for fatal car accidents involving alcohol?
For the record, the dumbasses who were hurt because they were riding in the back of a pickup truck bear some small measure of responsibility for *their* injuries.
This chick http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/fredericksburg-teen-gets--year-sentence-for-vehicular-homicide/article_f0ddda96-af50-11e1-b073-0019bb2963f4.html Got 10 years. Course she killed a dog as well as a man.
And then was in prison what - like 100 days?
http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/teen-imprisoned-on-vehicular-homicide-charge-released-from-prison/article_dc5c7458-4567-11e2-ad82-001a4bcf887a.html
Not comparable though, as she was 18, and hence an adult.
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2013, 10:08:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 12, 2013, 05:21:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2013, 05:09:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2013, 03:55:38 PM
Is there any reason to believe his sentence was inconsistent with what non-rich kids get who are responsible for fatal car accidents involving alcohol?
For the record, the dumbasses who were hurt because they were riding in the back of a pickup truck bear some small measure of responsibility for *their* injuries.
This chick http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/fredericksburg-teen-gets--year-sentence-for-vehicular-homicide/article_f0ddda96-af50-11e1-b073-0019bb2963f4.html Got 10 years. Course she killed a dog as well as a man.
And then was in prison what - like 100 days?
http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/teen-imprisoned-on-vehicular-homicide-charge-released-from-prison/article_dc5c7458-4567-11e2-ad82-001a4bcf887a.html
Not comparable though, as she was 18, and hence an adult.
Note quite sure. She did it in November of 2011 and was 18 in June of 2012. Possible she was 17 at the time.
At any rate, I was just highlighting that yeah, Raz's quick search wasn't really a good one.
The article just says that a witness testified that the defendant suffered from "affluenza". There's no indication that the judge agreed or based sentencing on it. Witnesses say a lot of things.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2013, 02:13:54 PM
Well I'll be damned, Yi was right. Higher rates of wealth amongst the richest Americans does lead to more freedom.
And Raz wins the one liner of the year with a brilliant late entry.
Well done.
Quote from: garbon on December 12, 2013, 10:14:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2013, 10:08:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 12, 2013, 05:21:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2013, 05:09:02 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2013, 03:55:38 PM
Is there any reason to believe his sentence was inconsistent with what non-rich kids get who are responsible for fatal car accidents involving alcohol?
For the record, the dumbasses who were hurt because they were riding in the back of a pickup truck bear some small measure of responsibility for *their* injuries.
This chick http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/fredericksburg-teen-gets--year-sentence-for-vehicular-homicide/article_f0ddda96-af50-11e1-b073-0019bb2963f4.html (http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/fredericksburg-teen-gets--year-sentence-for-vehicular-homicide/article_f0ddda96-af50-11e1-b073-0019bb2963f4.html) Got 10 years. Course she killed a dog as well as a man.
And then was in prison what - like 100 days?
http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/teen-imprisoned-on-vehicular-homicide-charge-released-from-prison/article_dc5c7458-4567-11e2-ad82-001a4bcf887a.html (http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/teen-imprisoned-on-vehicular-homicide-charge-released-from-prison/article_dc5c7458-4567-11e2-ad82-001a4bcf887a.html)
Not comparable though, as she was 18, and hence an adult.
Note quite sure. She did it in November of 2011 and was 18 in June of 2012. Possible she was 17 at the time.
At any rate, I was just highlighting that yeah, Raz's quick search wasn't really a good one.
She was 17 at the time. I did find that part. I didn't see that the sentence had been trimmed down after the fact.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 13, 2013, 12:54:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2013, 02:13:54 PM
Well I'll be damned, Yi was right. Higher rates of wealth amongst the richest Americans does lead to more freedom.
And Raz wins the one liner of the year with a brilliant late entry.
Well done.
POTM? Or POTY?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 13, 2013, 01:45:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 13, 2013, 12:54:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2013, 02:13:54 PM
Well I'll be damned, Yi was right. Higher rates of wealth amongst the richest Americans does lead to more freedom.
And Raz wins the one liner of the year with a brilliant late entry.
Well done.
POTM? Or POTY?
I am willing to give him POTY for that one. It nicely sums up a lot of what has been posted throughout the year.
Quote from: Gups on December 13, 2013, 05:18:41 AM
The article just says that a witness testified that the defendant suffered from "affluenza". There's no indication that the judge agreed or based sentencing on it. Witnesses say a lot of things.
That wouldn't make for such a compelling article!
In today's segment of "Where are they now":
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/12/affluenza-teen-wanted-for-violating-probation.html?mid=facebook_nymag
QuoteTexas 'Affluenza' Teen Who Killed 4 Drunk Driving Skips Probation, Goes On The Run
County police near Fort Worth, Texas, are working with U.S. Marshals and the FBI to track down Ethan Couch, the teenager whose infamous "affluenza" defense won him a reduced sentence of 10 years' probation after he killed four people while drunk driving in 2013.
A "directive to apprehend," – the juvenile justice equivalent of an arrest warrant – was issued for Couch on Tuesday after his probation officer was unable to reach him for several days, the Dallas Morning News reported.
Now, the paper reports, officials say they have also been unable to track down Couch's mother and fear that he may have fled the country.
Couch's disappearance may have something to do with a video posted to Twitter earlier this month that purports to show him playing beer pong.
Authorities are also investigating whether the man in the video is indeed Couch. Under the terms of his probation, he is not allowed to drink alcohol.
If apprehended, the teen could face a ten-year jail sentence for violating his probation. His case remains in juvenile court, but prosecutors have moved to have it transferred to the adult court system when he turns 19 in April.
On the night of June 15, 2013, Couch was driving his pickup truck with seven people piled into the back, when he swerved off the road, killing the driver of a broken-down SUV and three others who had stopped to assist her. Two of his passengers were thrown from the vehicle and severely injured. The then-16-year-old had a blood alcohol content of 0.24, three times the legal limit for an adult, and was driving 70 mph in a 40-mph zone.
His defense made headlines when a psychologist testified that Couch suffered from "affluenza"— a condition resulting from having too much money and a dysfunctional relationship with his parents. This debilitating fictional illness left the defendant unable to feel responsibility for his actions.
At his trial in February 2014, prosecutors had sought to put him behind bars for 20 years, but State District Judge Jean Boyd deemed mandatory rehab and ten years' probation more appropriate, in light of the teen's ailment.
Boyd neglected to run for re-election that year, for some reason.
Quote from: Syt on December 18, 2015, 07:10:09 AM
At his trial in February 2014, prosecutors had sought to put him behind bars for 20 years, but State District Judge Jean Boyd deemed mandatory rehab and ten years' probation more appropriate, in light of the teen's ailment.
I hope the ailment he's referring to is being a teenager. :P
The kid is suffering from affluenza, so of course he can't be expected to suffer the same parole rules that common law breakers have to abide by. ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2013, 02:13:54 PM
Well I'll be damned, Yi was right. Higher rates of wealth amongst the richest Americans does lead to more freedom.
:lmfao:
I don't get it.
You had to have been there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2015, 12:00:35 PM
I don't get it.
Raz is suggesting he got probation because he was rich, rather than because he was a minor.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 18, 2015, 01:31:20 PM
Raz is suggesting he got probation because he was rich, rather than because he was a minor.
I don't get the "Yi was right" part.
Oh, there he's suggesting you adhere to "trickle down" economic policies.
Gotcha.
Stories like this make me think vigilante justice may not be such a bad idea after all. The kid, his parents, the lawyer who defended him and the judge who sentenced him would make for a nice hanging arrangement for Christmas.
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2015, 01:51:54 PM
Stories like this make me think vigilante justice may not be such a bad idea after all. The kid, his parents, the lawyer who defended him and the judge who sentenced him would make for a nice hanging arrangement for Christmas.
You need a heavy duty Christmas Tree for such ornaments ... :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2015, 01:32:34 PM
I don't get the "Yi was right" part.
I can see why that would be bewildering for you.
Quote from: Malthus on December 18, 2015, 01:57:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2015, 01:51:54 PM
Stories like this make me think vigilante justice may not be such a bad idea after all. The kid, his parents, the lawyer who defended him and the judge who sentenced him would make for a nice hanging arrangement for Christmas.
You need a heavy duty Christmas Tree for such ornaments ... :hmm:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.comicvine.com%2Fuploads%2Fscale_small%2F5%2F58790%2F1804507-6th_gun2.jpg&hash=8f2002d51b5f0321ae0ae5e452e951e39991bddd)
Festive!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2015, 01:47:49 PM
Gotcha.
If I recall correctly this was a call back to a series of debates we had on whether high levels of wealth inequality were bad or not. You argued that they were not necessarily bad but (in this case) simply a result of high economic freedom.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2015, 03:10:32 PM
If I recall correctly this was a call back to a series of debates we had on whether high levels of wealth inequality were bad or not. You argued that they were not necessarily bad but (in this case) simply a result of high economic freedom.
That makes sense, but then your joke doesn't, since it's talking about greater freedom deriving from wealth, not wealth deriving from freedom.
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2015, 01:51:54 PM
Stories like this make me think vigilante justice may not be such a bad idea after all. The kid, his parents, the lawyer who defended him and the judge who sentenced him would make for a nice hanging arrangement for Christmas.
It's a bit strange to hear an attorney calling for vigilante justice. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on December 18, 2015, 03:22:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2015, 01:51:54 PM
Stories like this make me think vigilante justice may not be such a bad idea after all. The kid, his parents, the lawyer who defended him and the judge who sentenced him would make for a nice hanging arrangement for Christmas.
It's a bit strange to hear an attorney calling for vigilante justice. :hmm:
I have always taken pride in not being a criminal trial lawyer.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2015, 03:12:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 18, 2015, 03:10:32 PM
If I recall correctly this was a call back to a series of debates we had on whether high levels of wealth inequality were bad or not. You argued that they were not necessarily bad but (in this case) simply a result of high economic freedom.
That makes sense, but then your joke doesn't, since it's talking about greater freedom deriving from wealth, not wealth deriving from freedom.
Yeah, but it got some laughs.
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2015, 03:26:52 PM
I have always taken pride in not being a criminal trial lawyer.
Fine, but shouldn't you have the backs of your homies though? :sleep:
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2015, 02:44:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 18, 2015, 01:57:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2015, 01:51:54 PM
Stories like this make me think vigilante justice may not be such a bad idea after all. The kid, his parents, the lawyer who defended him and the judge who sentenced him would make for a nice hanging arrangement for Christmas.
You need a heavy duty Christmas Tree for such ornaments ... :hmm:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.comicvine.com%2Fuploads%2Fscale_small%2F5%2F58790%2F1804507-6th_gun2.jpg&hash=8f2002d51b5f0321ae0ae5e452e951e39991bddd)
Festive!
Really, it needs some colourful lights on it as well, if you want it to be festive. Maybe some tinsel, too.
Quote from: Caliga on December 18, 2015, 04:38:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2015, 03:26:52 PM
I have always taken pride in not being a criminal trial lawyer.
Fine, but shouldn't you have the backs of your homies though? :sleep:
No. From my professional experience, trial lawyers are some of the worst scum. :P
Also, while both trial lawyers and non-trial lawyers graduate from law schools, I think the work is very different and there is little love lost between the two.
Non-trial lawyers (whether M&A, antitrust, environment, corporate, IP, real estate, labour etc.) advise their clients and while they often negotiate, a lot of the work is very introvert - drafting contracts, opinions, working with the "system" - it is a lot like the work of a programmer. You "win" if you are right - you do a good job, close off loopholes, make sure the system works.
Trial lawyers* are the opposite. Their work is very extrovert - you don't have to be right to "win" - just to convince a bunch of other people you are. Once you get the judge and the jury to side with you, it doesn't matter if the argument you made works and can be tested again in future (contrary to what the case is with contracts, where no matter how well you negotiate, if you end up drafting it poorly, it will come back to bite you in your ass years later).
*I guess this is mainly the case for criminal trial lawyers and class action / tort civil trial lawyers. Admittedly, in specialistic arbitration, trial lawyers are much more similar to non-trial lawyers.
I wonder if other professions have a similar divide - perhaps medical doctors and psychiatrists could view each other in a similar way?
I suspect the MDs all look down on urologists.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 18, 2015, 05:59:27 PM
I suspect the MDs all look down on urologists.
I don't think it is about looking down among trial/non-trial lawyers - many trial lawyers are among some of the high profile and successful lawyers. I think it's more about mistrust and dislike - because of the differences I described, I think both groups end up having a very different approach to truth and integrity.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 18, 2015, 05:59:27 PM
I suspect the MDs all look down on urologists.
All proctologists look up at other MDs.
Quote from: grumbler on December 18, 2015, 11:32:02 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 18, 2015, 05:59:27 PM
I suspect the MDs all look down on urologists.
All proctologists look up at other MDs.
Where do gynecologists look? :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on December 18, 2015, 05:51:03 PM
Also, while both trial lawyers and non-trial lawyers graduate from law schools, I think the work is very different and there is little love lost between the two.
Non-trial lawyers (whether M&A, antitrust, environment, corporate, IP, real estate, labour etc.) advise their clients and while they often negotiate, a lot of the work is very introvert - drafting contracts, opinions, working with the "system" - it is a lot like the work of a programmer. You "win" if you are right - you do a good job, close off loopholes, make sure the system works.
Trial lawyers* are the opposite. Their work is very extrovert - you don't have to be right to "win" - just to convince a bunch of other people you are. Once you get the judge and the jury to side with you, it doesn't matter if the argument you made works and can be tested again in future (contrary to what the case is with contracts, where no matter how well you negotiate, if you end up drafting it poorly, it will come back to bite you in your ass years later).
*I guess this is mainly the case for criminal trial lawyers and class action / tort civil trial lawyers. Admittedly, in specialistic arbitration, trial lawyers are much more similar to non-trial lawyers.
Working for a UK law firm, surely you're familiar with the terms "barrister" :cool: and "solicitor" :nerd:.
You talk that solicitors are like programmers and there is a difference between right and wrong. Well... the only way you can tell if you're right or wrong is when a barrister takes your matter to court to find out. There's no better a right or wrong in solicitors work than there is in barristers work.
I've heard different descriptions over the years of the barrister vs solicitor divide in our profession, but yours iw one of the worst I've seen. In particular there are a lot of introvert barristers, and a lot of extrovert solicitors.
I would imagine the more extrovert solicitors are involved in the sales side of the business.
Physicists don't see other scienticians. Why would they?
Because they reflect electromagnetic waves with frequencies on the visible spectrum.
Revenge. The family of the victims have the G-d given right to feed this criminal to the worms.
Wait, who ware you again? Are you Siege?
Can't we just leave him in Mexican Jail?
Quote from: grumbler on December 18, 2015, 11:32:02 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 18, 2015, 05:59:27 PM
I suspect the MDs all look down on urologists.
All proctologists look up at other MDs.
I think podiatrists are at the true bottom of the profession.
Quote from: Barrister on December 19, 2015, 01:48:01 AM
You talk that solicitors are like programmers and there is a difference between right and wrong. Well... the only way you can tell if you're right or wrong is when a barrister takes your matter to court to find out. There's no better a right or wrong in solicitors work than there is in barristers work.
Not really. Sure, some of it will be judged in that manner, but most of the work done by the specialties Marti listed is judged by regulators or other bureaucrats in non-trial settings, even if it gets changed at trial later.