# Bricker, You're a Jackass Extraordinaire **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 12, 2012, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734 "2012-05-12T23:13:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/221 "2012-05-16T17:18:07Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think most of us area aware of that. That’s not at the core of disagreement, though. I dunno–I kind of think it might be. Look at **ywtf** saying “You’d only have a point if I said he’d be found guilty.” It seems clear she’s making a distinction between two things: 1. Doing the wrong thing; and 2. After going through a trial, being convicted of doing an illegal thing. There’s a third category–doing an illegal thing–but I think **ywtf** (and maybe you, John) has been going in and out of using that meaning. If it’s really important what folks think in any of these cases, it might be helpful to declare which meaning you’re using. For example: -I think John Edwards is guilty of the moral failing of using campaign money for personal ends. -I suspect John Edwards acted illegally when he used those monies for personal ends. -I have no idea whether John Edwards will be found guilty in a court of law for the crime of using those monies for personal ends. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/222 "2012-05-16T17:39:59Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I dunno–I kind of think it might be. Look at **ywtf** saying “You’d only have a point if I said he’d be found guilty.” It seems clear she’s making a distinction between two things: > > 1. Doing the wrong thing; and > 2. After going through a trial, being convicted of doing an illegal thing. > > There’s a third category–doing an illegal thing–but I think **ywtf** (and maybe you, John) has been going in and out of using that meaning. > > If it’s really important what folks think in any of these cases, it might be helpful to declare which meaning you’re using. For example: > > -I think John Edwards is guilty of the moral failing of using campaign money for personal ends. > -I suspect John Edwards acted illegally when he used those monies for personal ends. > -I have no idea whether John Edwards will be found guilty in a court of law for the crime of using those monies for personal ends. I didn’t mean to imply that it was completely irrelevant. But it’s not at the core of the disagreement, which is what I said. The core question is whether people are stepping back and looking at things objectively (or at least trying to do so), or are they seeing it only through the lens of their political beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/223 "2012-05-16T17:43:41Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > This is a foolish argument, in that it undermines itself. If you’re positing that \*\*Bricker \*\*could be telling the truth here IF he has a sufficiently smaller number of clients as a PD, then you’re arguing that he served as a PD too briefly to speak authoritatively on the subject of clients’ innocence. Either way, his anecdotal testimony is just that. **Bricker’s** statement was a personal anecdote. It was not an assertion about the overall rates of innocents in the justice system, only those he personally served as a PD. I’m not advancing **Bricker’s** post as evidence for the assertion there are no innocents being prosecuted. As far as I can tell that’s not even one of the propositions being discussed. I’m defending its plausibility as an accurate statement of fact as to his personal experience. **BobLibDem** was using it to impeach **Bricker’s** judgment by implying he is incapable of seeing past his biases to accurately determine innocence or guilt. If **Bricker** believed had never had an innocent client as a PD it’s because he was incapable of setting aside his biases and seeing the innocence of his clients. The plausibility of **Bricker** having never actually had any innocent clients, which is roughly proportional to his length of employment as a PD, is relevant to that discussion. All that having been said, it’s a long way off the mark for the original post, which was expressing anger at **Bricker’s** superciliousness and nitpicking. I would agree he’s supercilious and nitpicky. I just don’t agree that “I never had an innocent client” is clear evidence of his inability to see past his biases. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/224 "2012-05-16T18:08:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The core question is whether people are stepping back and looking at things objectively (or at least trying to do so), or are they seeing it only through the lens of their political beliefs. You forgot a third faction: Those who wrongly appoint themselves as the arbiters who is being objective and who is not. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/225 "2012-05-16T18:09:03Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > The Innocence Project has identified 289 cases of wrongful convictions in cases dating back about thirty years. The ratio of convictions versus exonerations is enormous and it’s why exonerations make the news. While any miscarriage of justice is a terrible thing, it’s not hard for me to believe they’re rare enough that a particular PD might not have been exposed to one in his time as a PD, especially if it was short. I agree with your general point, but this specific comparison is not appropriate. Bricker was not talking about post-conviction exonerations. Even if we grant that convictions of innocent people are extremely rare, that does not mean that innocent defendents are extremely rare. There could be a lot of innocent defendents who are found innocent. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/226 "2012-05-16T18:23:26Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > You forgot a third faction: Those who wrongly appoint themselves as the arbiters who is being objective and who is not. Which is why it is so important that those decisions be made by non-partisan persons. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/227 "2012-05-16T18:25:41Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > which is why it is so important that those decisions be made by non-partisan persons. four legs good, two legs bad. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/228 "2012-05-16T19:02:58Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Which is why it is so important that those decisions be made by non-partisan persons. Have you made a joke about **John Mace** and non-partisanship? I’m just not sure if you’ve made any jokes about **John Mace** and non-partisanship, so you’ll have to make some more, just in case someone hasn’t seen one of your jokes about **John Mace** and non-partisanship. Wouldn’t want anyone not to realize how clever you are. Repetition is the soul of wit, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/229 "2012-05-16T21:29:34Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I agree with your general point, but this specific comparison is not appropriate. Bricker was not talking about post-conviction exonerations. Even if we grant that convictions of innocent people are extremely rare, that does not mean that innocent defendents are extremely rare. There could be a lot of innocent defendents who are found innocent. I was looking for a number that doesn’t really exist and exonerations was the closest. In general the sequence goes like this, from most common to least common. Some small subset of Arrests are False Arrests Some small subset of Prosecutions are Wrongful Prosecutions Some small subset of Convictions are Wrongful Convictions Some, probably small, subset of Wrongful Convictions result in Exoneration **Bricker** was making an assertion about wrongful prosecutions being very rare, actually nonexistant, in his personal experience as a Public Defender. I thought about looking at acquittals, but there is similar hierarchy of ways someone could be factually guilty but still be acquitted there. Acquittals where the prosecution fails to prove its case(usually with significant help from defense counsel) - unknowable percentage Acquittals where bad behavior didn’t fit the strict construction of the statute - unknowable percentage Acquittals dependent on technicalities/procedural errors - possibly knowable Some tiny number of jury nullifications - unknowable percentage The number I’m looking for doesn’t really exist, but it would be some subset of wrongful prosecutions. The closest thing I could come up with was to go all the way through to the other side of the process and look at exonerations. Because if someone was exonerated it means they were, at one point, falsely arrested, wrongfully prosecuted, and wrongfully convicted. Then of course there are the falsely arrested, wrongfully prosecuted, and wrongfully convicted which make up 99.999% of the incarcerated, at least if you believe the inmates. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/230 "2012-05-16T22:19:06Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > Have you made a joke about **John Mace** and non-partisanship? I’m just not sure if you’ve made any jokes about **John Mace** and non-partisanship, so you’ll have to make some more, just in case someone hasn’t seen one of your jokes about **John Mace** and non-partisanship. Wouldn’t want anyone not to realize how clever you are. Repetition is the soul of wit, you know. You don’t have to read none of it. Just as soon you didn’t, all the same to you. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/231 "2012-05-16T22:50:21Z")
One old dog to another: sometimes you really should learn some new tricks. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/232 "2012-05-16T22:56:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > One old dog to another: sometimes you really should learn some new tricks. Mote, beam, etc. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/233 "2012-05-16T23:39:12Z")
So we’re agreed that **John Mace** is a jackass extraordinaire too? Very well then. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/234 "2012-05-16T23:41:35Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So we’re agreed that **John Mace** is a jackass extraordinaire too? Very well then. Let’s not be too hasty. I think we should clarify the various levels before we start giving out awards. I wouldn’t want to end up too man levels below the top. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/235 "2012-05-16T23:52:19Z")
Didn’t even mention your name, **John**. Have a hard time convicting on even so small a charge as petty snark with evidence like that. Therefore, I’m not guilty. (Let the record show that the respondent is batting big, brown, innocent eyes.) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/236 "2012-05-16T23:53:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Let’s not be too hasty. I think we should clarify the various levels before we start giving out awards. I wouldn’t want to end up too man levels below the top. Sorry, but you rate no higher than 720 millibrickers. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/237 "2012-05-17T01:14:54Z")
And that’s because you only have one schtick, the Libertarian Nonparticipant Superiority Dance. Which isn’t even original. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/238 "2012-05-17T01:53:37Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Sorry, but you rate no higher than 720 millibrickers. [/QUOTE] Huh. And here I thought it was measured in parts per 'luci. 720 milli-'lucies would be a lethal dose…that’s why they generally use micro- or even nano-'lucies. Elvis, of course, would be something on the order of 250 milli-'lucies, making him about a quarter of the master on the annoyance and tinfoil/ankle biting scale. Definitely lethal, though thankfully rare… -XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/239 "2012-05-17T04:58:16Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Sorry, but you rate no higher than 720 millibrickers. We may have killed the thread by not being nasty enough to each other. Such is life. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/240 "2012-05-17T16:35:00Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And that’s because you only have one schtick, the Libertarian Nonparticipant Superiority Dance. Which isn’t even original. Is it better than your own shtick, that of mean-spirited, humorless psychologizing, unable to experience disagreement without a hateful comment or four? I’ve been here a long time, until recently lurking more than posting, and I can’t recall a single individual whose presence has made me feel queasier than yours. You give the impression of such utter nastiness — of soullessness — that I can scarce convince myself there’s a genuine person behind your posts. You’re every bit as bad as (say) **Shodan** , except **Shodan** at least betrays the fact that he’s a compassion-bearing human every once in a while. Ugh. Now I feel dirty. But for all their faults, whatever they are, I’d take a thousand **elucidator** s, **John Mace** s, and **Bricker** s before even consenting to _think_ about you again. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734.md?page=13)