God DAMMIT Bricker, Just for once admit you were WRONG !

The BBQ Pit
1

Over in this thread, Bricker is once again showing his utter incapacity to admit he was in any way mistaken. Bad enough someone can NOT admit they were just plain wrong.

Now he’s a member of the SDSAB, and it puts the entire idea of a SDSAB into poor light for a new member to be so goddamned fucking pigheaded.

I figured it was time to stop hijacking the OP’s thread ( which is an excellent topic, by the by ) and just Pit the man.

Bricker, you are no less flawed than anyon else. God freakin’ knows my flaws show here when I get deeply involved in a thread. No arguing that. You’re not some demi-God machine of the Law, ok? You’re a member of the Virginia Bar. It does not give you the right to pass on legal judgements and rulings and statements with absolute authority throughout the United States.

When called on your shit, it is usually considered good form to simply say you were wrong and move on. You made an absolute statement, quoted below. You are wholly incapable of just stepping up and fucking admitting that another Doper did a smidgen more research than you decided you wanted to do that day, and found a good cite. ( My cites, meh- one was good- the Texas one- the other was sullied with drug use, and so really was not such a good cite to prove my point). DMC found a perfect cite, but you just simply cannot make yourself say the honest and simple thing. Instead you hedge around the truth.

Even when provided with one, you’re incapable of just admitting without any hedging, hemming, hawing or justifying that you made a mistake in saying what you said. Does it matter in terms of the quote just provided whether or not the charges were deemed not sustainable? It does not. The phrase you used was, " manslaughter charges", not a conviction on manslaughter charges. The two are very different animals, aren’t they?

In terms of reading each word in your quote, and responding to it as a complete sentence, you were proven wrong. The disposition of the case latter on in time by a Judge is wholly irrelevant, but you seem incapable of admitting such.

One wonders what you would have said if a cite provided gave us a person convicted, with appeal lost, who served a few years for vehicular manslaughter directly due to cellular phone use at time of accident.

Nicely done, Bricker. :slight_smile:

Lest we forget our place, the Straight Dope is dedicated to fighting ignorance, not puffing up one’s Jurisprudential Egos. The SDSAB is looked to for expertise in a wide variety of areas. Now and then someone there makes a mistake. If you want to help stamp out ignorance, you’ll simply admit you were wrong in your statement.

Or, you can hem and haw and issue clarifiers and justifications and rationalizations. It only serves to weaken the SDSAB when a member is publicly incapable of admitting a ( very minor, really ) mistake and just moving on with the overall topic.

Nobody doubts that you have a great education when it comes to the Law, but it is highly doubtful that you have a single droplet of common sense, or a sense of how this Board operates. If you did, you’d fucking man up and stop dancing around your fragile ego for long enough to say and do the right thing.

Fucking lame.

Cartooniverse

2

Lame pitting. Bricker admitted he was wrong about his first statement.

3

Twice, actually. What are you so yanked up about, Cartooniverse?

4

It’s hard to get Bricker to admit he’s wrong, but I’ve seen him to do it before. And he did it in the thread you alllude to - “I spoke…in error” is admitting you’re wrong.

5

After all the many times I’ve “helped” Bricker see where he’s been wrong, similarly without acknowledgment, it’s not easy to defend him on this one - but this was, in fact, one of the small percentage of times when he’s admitted it, however grudgingly.

His usual approach is to simply drop the topic altogether from then on, or even less honestly, go on with it but petulantly try to pretend that some trivial side issue he feels comfortable with is the *entire * subject.

Of course, it’s his own fault for posting flat assertions, even challenges like the one in the linked thread, without confirming them himself, out of some weird belief that it won’t be done by us mere nonlawyers either. You’d think he’d know better by now.

6

Zeros across the board, even from the Bulgarian judge.

7

I’m not getting this either. He very plainly admitted that he was mistaken twice. All the credit in the world to you for getting him to do that. Then you go and show your ass by starting this new thread. WTF?

8

Pot, I would like to introduce you to Kettle…

9

One of Bricker’s favorite gotcha tactics is to demand that someone promise to apologize for a prediction if it should not come to pass. But when he makes a similar prediction, no such retractions are ever forthcoming. What’s more, he lies about having made them.

We will see how Bricker responds when he loses his bet with me regarding the 2006 election.

10

Because he called the guy stupid. Cartooniverse wasn’t stupid and he wasn’t wrong. Bricker’s admittance, should’ve IMO, acknowledged that he called the guy stupid, when he wasn’t…and is typical of Bricker’s sickening tendency to treat non-lawyers like they’re well…stupid.

I confess I cringed when I saw Bricker’s new title, as I knew it would only increase his tendency for “got you” postings and sheepskin thugery.
YMMV, of course.

11

Now, let’s be honest here: in the first cite he was talking about O’Connor’s replacement, who turned out to be Alito, not Roberts. Therefore, when Roberts passed the Senate he was still OK. After Alito, however, he was fair game.

Then I looked at your second cite, in which he says that he has withdrawn his “extraordinary circumstances” comments in numerous places, and you admit not having seen them. How, pray tell, does that constitute lying?

You have now hurled incorrect allegations about Bricker, which makes you the second person in this thread to do so. What is this, dogpile on Bricker day? Jesus.

12

Did the Democrts filibuster Alito? No? Then Bricker was wrong. Did he admit his prediction was wrong? No he did not.

Hardly. I called him on this before, and he declined to respond. I will repeat my charge again; **Bricker ** is a liar.

13

Maybe but he was Pitted for never admitting when he was wrong when clearly he did admit that he was wrong.

14

Well then, I guess our OP was overly broad…

15

From the very next post after DMC’s cite:

and

He suggested that charges couldn’t be brought, and a cite later admits he was wrong, but defended the idea that a conviction wouldn’t stand. This is a person who can’t admit he’s wrong?

Just a little reading comprehension tip. When someone says “I was certainly wrong” usually that is an admission that they were wrong. I know “certainly” is a BIG word and may have confused you, but just sound it out and you’ll do fine.

16

Not only that, but he wasn’t as wrong as he admitted to being. The judge in the case in question dismissed that charge as a matter of law. That means that even if the prosecutor proved every fact beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant was not guilty. This would indicate to me that the prosecutor’s actions were inappropriate, and that the charge was bogus.

17

Friend Bricker is not guilty. Or, at least, not indictable. Much the same thing, in some circles.

I myself have crossed words with him, and presented arguments of such utter clarity and irrefutable fact that I fairly expected him to fling himself at my feet in abject renunciation of his error. In which I have been disappointed.

But in this instance, error was made and error admitted. *Nolo contendere * and stark staring decisis, go, and sin no more. The bar is open.

18

People look up to the SDSAB? Really? Since when?

Hell…people notice the SDSAB title?!

19

Bricker has weaseled when clearly in error on past occasions (psst…William Bennett…), but in this instance he does not demonstrate striking features of the genus Mustela.

20

My thoughts exactly. I don’t think I could name more than three of them, Bricker included.

Lame rant. Lame poster. You lose; good day, sir!