Treadz Auto shut down (WAS: Criminals running used car lot in Calgary)

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

snip

Perhaps he represents the legal system, and thoroughly enjoys a good professional challenge.

Some people go to work everyday and do their routine, some people go to work everyday and try to find a new way to push themselves.

[shakalaka]

Not the first time I’ve been asked that and won’t be the last. Simple answer is; defending anyone accused of a crime maintains the rule of law and protects human rights that can otherwise be very easily stomped upon by various agents of the State. Of course there are bad lawyers that can do bad things and they should be rightfully condemned. But the mere act of representing an accused and defending them to the best of your abilities (without misleading or lying to the court), is a moral good and a necessity in any properly developed society.

[spikerS]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not the first time I’ve been asked that and won’t be the last. Simple answer is; defending anyone accused of a crime maintains the rule of law and protects human rights that can otherwise be very easily stomped upon by various agents of the State. Of course there are bad lawyers that can do bad things and they should be rightfully condemned. But the mere act of representing an accused and defending them to the best of your abilities (without misleading or lying to the court), is a moral good and a necessity in any properly developed society.

Sorry on behalf of Googe. Normally I wouldn't dream arguing with him as his thoughts are normally pretty well thought out and very logical in nature and based in facts and reason which is why I am pretty shocked he posted something like that that is so closed minded and goes against the fundamental beliefs of North American society.

I understand the emotional feeling that scums like these, or worse, like mass murderers and such should be automatically sentenced to death for the crimes they have committed, but every person has the basic right or due process, and that includes representation. If you don't agree with that, I would like to point out places like Iran, Syria, China, Iraq, etc that does not share these values, and suggest that possibly a person's morals might fit in better there...

[shakalaka]

I appreciate that man but there’s no need to apologize on behalf of Googe, or at all. I am not offended. It is not always easy for the regular, law abiding people to understand or accept our justice system, especially when the situations involve innocent people that have been harmed in some way. But like you said, it’s one of the cornerstones of a developed, just and fair society and whether or not you like it, it’s needed and there for a reason. Without it, as you mentioned we’d just be same as other countries who think human rights are a joke.

[googe]

Haha, what a sensitive bunch we have here. It was just a question. He's an adult, I'm pretty sure he can handle it. An ISIS lawyer isn't gonna get rattled by googe from the internet, trust me

Anyway, that wasn't really the question or the point. I understand and appreciate the legal system just fine. Nobody is implying that those accused of crimes don't deserve a fair trial and proper legal representation or anything close to it, and I have no idea why anyone thought otherwise. I was asking him why he chooses to represent some of the specific people that he does. Especially because he sounded proud of the slap on the wrist he got for these Treadz auto guys. Since he identified himself, I just typed that name in to see what the full story was, and the ISIS uhaul guy popped up too.

When lawyers take cases like these, there is a bit of a conflict that they often have to deal with. If they believe their client is guilty, they can either sandbag it and give them a shitty defense, which they're ethically obligated not to do, or they work to the best of their ability to get a shitty person back on the streets with the least punishment possible, knowing that they are likely to cause harm to others, which most also aren't comfortable with. And there are career incentives to providing a "successful" defense. However, unless they're assigned as a public defender, lawyers have a choice to take every individual client, and they need to answer this question for themselves each time they take a case. For some, like OJ's lawyers, it's money and ego. But most people in that situation don't have OJ money. Certainly not these guys. Sometimes, they don't think the punishment fits the crime, or are morally opposed to the punishment in general (like defending death row inmates). Some take drug cases, because they view addiction as a health problem and not a crime problem. Everyone has their causes and their reasons for the types of cases they take. So I'm asking, what's his reason for representing this guy or the ISIS guy?

He's free to not answer, but I'm pretty sure he's used to this question.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why do you care who he represents? I don't see how that has anything to do with you. Just because he represents someone, doesn't mean he agrees with what they've done. This is some special snowflake mentality.

Not that it's any more your business why I care than it is my business who he represents, but yes, it does affect me and many others.

Also, I don't think you know what that phrase means. Doesn't really apply here.

[01RedDX]

.

[msommers]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I appreciate that man but there’s no need to apologize on behalf of Googe, or at all. I am not offended. It is not always easy for the regular, law abiding people to understand or accept our justice system, especially when the situations involve innocent people that have been harmed in some way. But like you said, it’s one of the cornerstones of a developed, just and fair society and whether or not you like it, it’s needed and there for a reason. Without it, as you mentioned we’d just be same as other countries who think human rights are a joke.

Exactly.

Imagine a society where someone accuses someone else of a horrendous crime and society deems them guilty right then and there, simply because it makes sense in their mind. Or imagine prosecutors tampering with evidence or botching an investigation to get someone (wrongfully) put behind bars simply because they don't like them. Imagine an organized society where no one would be willing to represent that person because society deems it unethical (because they're already 'guilty' after all).

Without someone intelligent willing do defend a person in court, society would be like Facebook and we'd have pitchforks again.

Of course there's going to be shit examples on either end -- someone so bloody guilty but can't get found guilty because the investigation was shit and evidence got lost; someone so bloody innocent and setup yet all the facts appear to make them plainly guilty. It should be obvious but the society can't pick and choose who gets to be defended rightfully and who doesn't. Of course more money = better chance of avoiding jail, but more money = better ___ is pretty universal lol.

Bottom Line: Groups like the Innocence Project exist for a reason.

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Imagine a society where someone accuses someone else of a horrendous crime and society deems them guilty right then and there, simply because it makes sense in their mind.

But aren't we already here? I believe it's called twitter.

[spikerS]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But aren't we already here? I believe it's called twitter.

it's anywhere that more than 2 soccer moms can freely exchange ideas and gossip on social media while suffering from PMS and sucking back a Starbucks. It seems particularly bad in the Coventry Hills community group, but I would assume it is bad across the board in all similar groups in the city.

[98brg2d]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I appreciate that man but there’s no need to apologize on behalf of Googe, or at all. I am not offended. It is not always easy for the regular, law abiding people to understand or accept our justice system, especially when the situations involve innocent people that have been harmed in some way. But like you said, it’s one of the cornerstones of a developed, just and fair society and whether or not you like it, it’s needed and there for a reason. Without it, as you mentioned we’d just be same as other countries who think human rights are a joke.

I think the thing people find harder to accept is that criminals sometimes admit to their counsel they are guilty and they and their counsel still proceed with a not guilty plea. Law abiding people have a hard time rationalizing how any lawyer could continue to defend, to the best of their ability, a person who has admitted to the crimes. In this specific scenario (Treadz), even if the defendant did not plead guilty, the only thing I can see as defensible is if the crown asks for punishment that appears to be totally out of line with previous.

I think the question behind the question here is would you defend somebody (with a not guilty plea) that has admitted to you they are guilty? Obviously there is no one size fits all answer to this.

Edit: the other part that irks is that Treadz preyed on people using car sales and this is a car forum. Often people that spend significant money on a hobby have a saying - thieves deserve the death penalty (or something similar). I have heard this from car enthusiasts, bikes, hunters, skiers, etc. Hard to imagine somebody on a car forum wanting to defend somebody that specifically offends their own interest group.

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think the thing people find harder to accept is that criminals sometimes admit to their counsel they are guilty and they and their counsel still proceed with a not guilty plea. Law abiding people have a hard time rationalizing how any lawyer could continue to defend, to the best of their ability, a person who has admitted to the crimes.

If someone admits that they're guilty to their lawyer, lawyer can still legally plead not guilty. The actual defense itself would be more complicated because the lawyer is not allowed to advise their client to lie under oath.

[msommers]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But aren't we already here? I believe it's called twitter.

Twitter, yep. Facebook as I mentioned, yep.

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Twitter, yep. Facebook as I mentioned, yep.

Relevant: https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/can...too-essay.html

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Relevant: https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/can...too-essay.html

"......felt forced to resign after it became clear that university publishers who advertise in the Review of Books were threatening a boycott."

What happened to the times when Universities were a bastion of free speech? It sickens me that so many cheer these moves as being "progressive", it's a non-violent form of social engineering and no one gives a fuck.

[rx7boi]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"......felt forced to resign after it became clear that university publishers who advertise in the Review of Books were threatening a boycott."

What happened to the times when Universities were a bastion of free speech? It sickens me that so many cheer these moves as being "progressive", it's a non-violent form of social engineering and no one gives a fuck.

Jordan Peterson feels the same way. People can't ask uncomfortable questions or bring up controversial topics in university institutions anymore.