Yet you did what you did. You “bothered” to tell a complete stranger expressing a general opinion on lawyers “fuck you”. And I don’t have any respect for someone whose introduction to another person is “fuck you and the horse you rode in on”. It is exactly the kind of snotty superior attitude I was writing about. And I don’t care if you attach any weight to the things I say simply because it is me saying them. That is the antithesis of good argument. If I say something that has merit, I expect people who know the difference to decide that by themselves. If I say something stupid, then it can be disregarded.
Personally I don’t care if people think I’m an asshole for my views on the legal profession (or anything else). I am who I am, I don’t go around saying “fuck you” to complete strangers, and if they think I’m an asshole for my views or responding in kind to “fuck you” it says at least as much about them as it does me. And if you can’t take it after you start dishing it out, that says a lot about you too.
You need to read the cases. The prosecutors got the public defender fired for not disclosing that he knew the location of a witness. And criminally charged him. The charges were dismissed. The firing stuck.
The prosecutor in a different case in the same county was charged only under the ethics rules, not criminally, with falsifying evidence in four cases. He has been convicted by the Bar Court and is now appealing. The prosecutor was not only not criminally charged, he is still employed. Same county prosecutor’s office. The bar prosecutor (different office) only asked for three years’ suspension, the court imposed five years, he is appealing. Each of the four offenses is subject to disbarment and is a felony. There are no criminal charges from his own office. That says to me that the whole office is corrupt. He has been found liable in State Bar court and still no criminal charges or even a firing or even employer discipline, despite the fact that the conviction in the State Bar court establishes probable cause.
I don’t entirely approve of what the PD did. But it is not a fireable offense. It was not a criminal offense, yet he was criminal charged by the prosecutor’s office, who had to drop the charges. Same county, same prosecutor’s office.
And yes, my shock here is mostly at the corruption of the prosecutor’s office. If hypothetically I were the head of the prosecutor’s office coming into office just after the State Bar Court’s decision, the unethical prosecutor would be fired, appeal pending or not. I would then look to see what could be done about bringing criminal charges either in my office or ask the state Attorney General (Governor Moonbeam) to handle it on conflict grounds.
So you really don’t like the Santa Clara prosecutor’s office. How are these two cases are evidence of your claim that 45 percent of lawyers are sleazebags?
I said about half, the 45 percent figure was a response to someone else suggesting that it was only a very small percentage and I suggested it was about 45 points higher. I used the word “scum” not “sleazebags”.
I also said that it was my opinion that it is about half of the legal profession are scum. I did not claim that my opinion was “evidence”.
And yes, I really don’t like the Santa Clara prosecutor’s office. I am biased against them and was before I became aware of the Field case (crooked prosecutor) about a year ago. And no, I don’t live in Santa Clara. The Field case is absolutely sickening.
That you should avoid being accused of a crime in Santa Clara County. Oh, and that about half of the attorneys in this country apparently work for the Santa Clara prosecutor’s office.
I offered it as an example. But a comparison of two cases does not constitute nationwide data of “scum” attorneys, nor did is say that it did. I’ve been pretty clear from the get go that this is my opinion.
Sure. I don’t think I ever condemned an entire group of people because a few members of that group broke the law, though. If I did, I probably shouldn’t have.
OK, but it would be theoretically possible for you to form an opinion of an “entire group of people” if your experience was enough to constitute a representative sample. Even though you couldn’t point to any “evidence” if challenged on it.
You “bothered” to call an entire group of people scum who deserve to be heaped with scorn. That’s a textbook definition of prejudice. Like any prejudiced person, you’re going to have a few examples to support your bias, but overall, you are making a sweeping generalization about an entire class of people. If one of those people says “fuck you” back, well, you did kind of ask for it.
Is it not faintly possible that Jodi, her first introduction to you being one where you called her scum, felt that you were displaying a snotty, superior attitude? Therefore, she responded in kind. I’m not sure how you can see yourself as the wronged party here.