3 ms·

I'm so tired of articles taking legal arguments made by lawyers in the middle of court cases and turning them into clickbait headlines that pretty much only exi

by wilg 3y ago

I'm so tired of articles taking legal arguments made by lawyers in the middle of court cases and turning them into clickbait headlines that pretty much only exist so people can have unrelated vents about their opinions of the person on social media. My guess is this guy did a bunch of illegal shit, but I just don't see what value this sort of "news" item has.

BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
Well I'm tired of dirtbags making dirtbag arguments in fraud/abuse cases and want people to get publicly punished for doing it instead of sweeping it under the rug.
- wilg 3y ago
  Would love to know how much your opinion is based on the actual situation versus the headline or your imagination. Did you read anything past the headline? What is your basis for saying this is a dirtbag argument? Separately, wouldn't you say that losing your fraud/abuse case is public punishment for making dirtbag arguments? Thanks!
- HWR_14 3y ago
  The lawyers for the defense have to say something. Usually at least one side is required to say something pretty morally wrong. That's not news. Somehow, I don't think absent this news story, you would have thought SBF was being swept under the rug. It's one of the more high-profile trials.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    Why would one side have to say something morally wrong if they don’t actually believe it? What’s the upside?
    - sudosysgen 3y ago
      The upside is maybe the judge will act upon it favourably.
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      It might be legally correct but morally wrong. Or it might be an alternative interpretation of ambiguous events, even one that is offensive. A lawyer's job is to present their client's interests in the best light, regardless of what they believe. Many people with bad morals need lawyers.
      - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
        Then it should be made legally wrong right? That’s what should happen next
scrubs 3y ago
Ask SBF this: what happens if the prosecution is the same and they get a conviction. Now what?
- wilg 3y ago
  I don't know him and I can't parse your question/point/jab.
  - salawat 3y ago
    They're asking: Suppose the prosecutiin makes shit up and gets a win resulting in a purpotedly innocent person going to prison on false pretenses. Under his (SBF's lawyer's) argument, this type of lapse would be fair. After all, the prosecution isn't out for monetary gain. Is that fine? Basically, his lawyers having made the arguments they have, if precedent were granted, it would amount to legitimizing a gross miscarriage of justice. Any judge should see this for what it is and quash it. Then again, the legal system always amazes me in it's ability to torture itself.
    - from 3y ago
      It's just a motion to dismiss, there's no grand strategy. Most of these do not go anywhere but any lawyer that is doing their job will file them.

by wilg 3y ago

BugsJustFindMe 3y ago

Well I'm tired of dirtbags making dirtbag arguments in fraud/abuse cases and want people to get publicly punished for doing it instead of sweeping it under the rug.

wilg 3y ago
Would love to know how much your opinion is based on the actual situation versus the headline or your imagination. Did you read anything past the headline? What is your basis for saying this is a dirtbag argument? Separately, wouldn't you say that losing your fraud/abuse case is public punishment for making dirtbag arguments? Thanks!
HWR_14 3y ago
The lawyers for the defense have to say something. Usually at least one side is required to say something pretty morally wrong. That's not news. Somehow, I don't think absent this news story, you would have thought SBF was being swept under the rug. It's one of the more high-profile trials.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Why would one side have to say something morally wrong if they don’t actually believe it? What’s the upside?
  - sudosysgen 3y ago
    The upside is maybe the judge will act upon it favourably.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    It might be legally correct but morally wrong. Or it might be an alternative interpretation of ambiguous events, even one that is offensive. A lawyer's job is to present their client's interests in the best light, regardless of what they believe. Many people with bad morals need lawyers.
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      Then it should be made legally wrong right? That’s what should happen next

scrubs 3y ago

Ask SBF this: what happens if the prosecution is the same and they get a conviction. Now what?

wilg 3y ago
I don't know him and I can't parse your question/point/jab.
- salawat 3y ago
  They're asking: Suppose the prosecutiin makes shit up and gets a win resulting in a purpotedly innocent person going to prison on false pretenses. Under his (SBF's lawyer's) argument, this type of lapse would be fair. After all, the prosecution isn't out for monetary gain. Is that fine? Basically, his lawyers having made the arguments they have, if precedent were granted, it would amount to legitimizing a gross miscarriage of justice. Any judge should see this for what it is and quash it. Then again, the legal system always amazes me in it's ability to torture itself.
  - from 3y ago
    It's just a motion to dismiss, there's no grand strategy. Most of these do not go anywhere but any lawyer that is doing their job will file them.