Random Thoughts.....What Are You Thinking?

Or even enjoying the sausage?

Paged!

I CANT FIND people to do sortie with on daily basis :(

THEY JUST SAID ME THEY DONT WANT TO DO SORTIE WITH YOU!

I actually meant that, but you were more explicit in what I just wanted to leave pointed out.

Say what you want from 80/90s media but i love moments like: the alpha male protagonist saves a woman whos about to be killed by the evil guy.

Then she asks to the protagonist: “why did you save me?”

Protagonist: “i couldnt watch your beautiful *** being bitten off like that”

Then she replies with a smile.

NINETIEEEEEEEES

THE NEW BLIZZARD SUCKS *** *** I HOPE WHOEVER CHANGED ERA dies choking on an ice cream cone i bet he is a fat SJW

Wow Alec Baldwin's case got tossed completely. Never should have been charged to begin with, but withholding evidence from the defense is inexcusable. People are going to get fired for that one.

Good morning you who are one of the top 40 players in FFXI. Also you who are top 100 players of FFXI. And you who are top 9999999 players of FFXI.

Anything to massage your ego

I see you are totally unfamiliar with the criminal justice system here in the USA.

Hint: there is a reason why it is called criminal justice.

Our "justice" system is a *** sham.

Literally preschool antics where if you say one word incorrectly guilt is decided. It'd be more honest if they just screamed nuh-uh at each other until one lost their voice deciding the trial.

It's all drill and ceremony and no substance.

You see when you filed the complaint you put that it was July 12th instead of July 13th so the whole case is void.

And trial by jury is just a contest to see who can manipulate stupid *** better. There's no "justice" in letting 12 slackjawded, room temperature IQ, illiterate high school drop outs decide validity of facts.

This is true, but it's usually going to be the better funded lawyer that can manipulate those people better. Well, excepting high-profile cases, where the syndicated media decides public opinion and ensures the jury will agree with it.

You can literally change the word "justice" to "humanity" and it'll lead to the same conclusion.

I can not imagination totally unbiased flawless justice system that can even exist anywhere. Human minds are going to be biased to a certain degree no matter what, that's how human brain works. it's just the matter who and which system is relatively more unbiased than another.

Also inb4 "just let AI overlord judge people so no human bias!". No thanks. Plenty of movies and anime already showed us how the world will be like if we let AI judge people.


tl;Dr: this problem will never have perfect solution imo, just relatively (bolded for importance) better solution with better systems.

sad truth is in its raw design, we probably have one of the better justice systems even possible in human society, in large part because as least we've built in do-overs with an appeals system.

Of course its eons away from perfect, but at least its an admission that the system has flaws, and we have a mechanism in place to try and address them.

As Afania said though, please no championing "just let AI handle it"....the faults mentioned prior all seem to agree that money results in the imbalances we see, perhaps one option is to remove the aspect of private legal defense from the system in the ways that prosecution is handled by public officials. Again, I can't see the system ever being perfect, but perhaps we can attack some of the things hampering that system from at least doing its best.

Are there any evidence or data to support that more expensive lawyers = higher chance to win in American justice system?

Because I am personally not seeing how hiring expensive lawyers always leads to better results. Lawyers are not magic, evidence still plays far bigger role on determining who win or lose afaik.

It's common sense that you get what you pay for. Not to mention wealth affords settlement and favorable terms for said settlement.

And that free lawyers do, as expected, the bare minimum (less than)

A free AI lawyer with infinite time and infinite knowledge is VASTLY superior to a court appointed lawyer. Purely presentation of fact, a machine will undeniably excel at. (when said machine can understand fact from disinformation)*

That is exaggerating, lol.

Even good Lawyers can't destroy evidences, they are good at "lawyering" which is gaining a slight advantage in arguable grey areas. If you have undeniable evidence even the best lawyers don't have magic to change facts.


It's kinda funny, because in my country we actually believed US justice system is one of the best in the world and proceed to copy it. Over the years it changed more and more like the US.

And yet real Americans here complained about it hardcore. Grass is greener on the other side I guess.....

money doesn't buy you just one lawyer. you pay the firm. you get a team of lawyers.

As with all things, it's "perfect" in theory and extremely flawed in practice.

Because humans are the flaw in the system. Easily manipulated, easily distracted, easily corrupted, and generally dumb as bricks.

But human has to be the one who judge no?

Judges can be bribed and be biased, at least in the US it is relatively(bolded for the 3rd time) less of a problem with
trial by jury.

(Yes, bribing and social trust has been a big problem in other less developed countries, surprise!)

Better than bad isn't good

If better system doesn't exist in reality then it is a waste of time to complain about it. Nothing will change if better options don't exist.

The problem in the USA's system is qualified immunity.

That's called withholding discovery. But the prosecutors have qualified immunity. Not even a reprimand.

Who can be payed by the cops or prosecutors to lie. Happens all the time. But hey! Qualified immunity strikes again. Also eye witness testimony is unreliable.

Cops can beat a confession out of an innocent person and if it is discovered... you guessed it. Qualified immunity.

This is "the fruit of the poisonous tree." And is actually a vital tool for defense.

Only recently have we begun to hold cops responsible for erogenous conduct or even murder. Prosecutors still always get away with gross malfeasance.

yeah, as others have stated more completely above, by paying more you get access to the resources and tools of an entire firm, not just a single person, and 'destroying evidence' isn't really 'destroying'.

As someone not professionally connected at all with law, I've always seen it as a chess match of sorts. You could have a natural savant play against a 30-year veteran who are both FIDE-ranked equally, but that veteran still has an insane advantage simply due to years of studying different openings and tactics....just the raw time.

And when someone spends copious amounts to hire a law firm, they get the time in saddle of all those combined resources and people, not just one court-appointed lawyer. Not even their fault, just raw scaling of the numbers that can't be competed with.

Regarding the 'destroying' bit- all those added years of experience and time learning means that those larger firms and more expensive legal defense teams can pour over each aspect of a case deeper, and find procedural errors that could exclude a piece of evidence from a case...in reality that evidence is still from that crime and still accurate, it may just have been processed wrong or handled wrong at some point along the chain. That's the 'destroying' being referred to.