Quote:
Originally Posted by Abacab "The REAL truth"
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
That is history 101, and you should've learned that in your core electives... It is even more troubling how you don't believe there are "two sides to every story" yet you're in law school which any attorney worth his salt will try and push his clients story as fact, even against what the prosecutor and evidence says in contrary.
To further explain the two sides...
In America the revolutionary war was considered "freedom fighting" in England it's written down as lawlessness which is paramount to terrorism, which would be a perfect example of having two sides to the same story.
In otherwords, drop your Ivy League education and go back to highschool because you missed some key points here and there.
|
Jesus Christ, are you kidding me? The Revolutionary War? Dude, I'm playing chess and you're playing Connect-4. You haven't even graduated to checkers yet. I understand that you're a smart enough guy, but I'm not some idiot hipster you ran into at IHOP -- step your game up. Do you think that's some profound point you just made? The comparison between "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" is made every fucking day. And guess what? It's not two sides to a story. It's two interpretations of the same story.
American colonists: We dumped some motherfucking tea in the motherfucking harbor.
British: They dumped some motherfucking tea in the motherfucking harbor.
Same story. The difference was how that act was interpreted. There is no dispute over the fact that the tea was dumped.
Similarly,
Al Qaeda: We flew some motherfucking planes into some motherfucking buildings.
US: Al Qaeda flew some motherfucking planes into some motherfucking buildings.
Same story.
And you obviously don't know dick about being a lawyer. Pushing your client's argument as fact, when the opposition has overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is the #1 way to put your client in jail, or lose a case. The easiest thing in the world is to prove someone is lying or their story is false. You weren't in 7/11 at 9:28 PM on the night of July 2nd, 2010? Oh, that's funny -- here's security footage of you, in 7/11. And here's security footage of your car, with your license plate, parked outside. At that point, nothing anyone else says matters. You've lost, because the assumption is that if you're lying, there's a reason. You're also no longer trustworthy in the eyes of the Court.
What you do is poke holes in the evidence and try to raise reasonable doubt over whether or not the evidence proves anything with 100% certainty. If your client says he didn't have 8 pounds of cocaine on him, and two cops say he did, your client is fucked. If you try to argue he didn't, your client is even more fucked. The best you can do is question how they can be 100% certain it was actually his (ie: was it in the trunk? Under a car seat? Could've been stashed by someone else), or attack the search procedures, ie: was he illegally searched?
You're welcome.