View Single Post
Old 03-31-2015, 08:30 AM
brickbacon is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
Wait, so you acknowledge that he received a benefit? Or are you stating this as a hypothetical?
Strictly speaking yes, he received a benefit. Not from the state's conduct per se, but because he got a lawyer for nothing as many would have to pay for such services.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
And are you parsing "paid" as meaning "received cash"? Because I've been clear that I meant he was paid by receiving a thing of value, namely an arrangement with an attorney to which he was not entitled.
You cannot be "entitled" to someone else's services. Second, there is no reasonable definition of "paid" that is as broad as "receiving a material benefit". By that logic, convicts are paid by the state for the food they eat and the bed they sleep in is "free" to them. Kids would be paid to go to public school because they get free books and transportation, and Starbucks pays it's customers because they offer free wifi. The fact is you are using the term to impugn the character and motives of the witness rather than trying to make an accurate statement.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
Look, if I wanted to straw man your position, I'd say you would feel that no one can make a judgment without perfect information. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: you realize you have to make judgments all the time with imperfect data. So what's the minimum to have an opinion here? Is it reading the transcripts in their entirety? What about being briefed on the undisputed facts of the case? Not enough?
What are the undisputed facts of the case, and why do you think a jury would only base their opinions on undisputed facts? Think about that for a second. A trial is basically all about disputed "facts". That's why there is a trial.

Be honest, did you even know about the nurse or French teacher in this case, or Hae actively hiding from Adnan? If not, then maybe you should have some humility in realizing that at a bare minimum, you shouldn't rely on a podcast with a clear bias/agenda to form a definitive opinion. Or that if you are going to do so, you should be open to more information and less inclined to making definitive statements about what happened.