Why Bother? No One Reads It Anyway.

[Lord Jim]

Men's clothing.

http://www.josbank.com/menswear/shop/Su ... 50_1001500

There stuff's not bad and they run a lot of great sales.

[Sean]

That seems like a very long winded way of saying "I can't back up my statements".
If I am asked to back up my statements I back them up. If I can't then I say so. It's not important to me whether people read or not, what's important is that I can back up what I say.

If we all took your attitude then this whole board would be full of unsubstantiated shite rather than unsubstantiated shite from just a few posters.

What the fuck have you ever backed up?

Anything I have posted which I have been asked to back up. As I have previously stated, if I fail to find the evidence to back up my claims then I will state as much. It doesn't mean that I've changed my viewpoint, I just see it as a courtesy of honest debate. Next question...

Time after time after time after time, I have posted about what the Supreme Court has said about one thing or another. I have quoted the Court directly. I have given the names of the cases. I have given the volume numbers of the reports in which the cases appear. I have given the page numbers on which those cases begin. I have given the exact page numbers on which anyone can find the language that I quoted.

When have you done anything that even resembles that?

Never. Mainly because I couldn't give two shiny shites about Supreme Court rulings in another country. My claims can generally be backed up by a link or two. Do you want praise for your exhaustive research? Is that what this is about?

When I posted about John Yoo's torture memos, I linked them, and I cited exact pages for every single thing that I claimed was in those memos. Did you bother to read them? Did anyone?

Nope. Not interesting to me therefore why would I read them? Just to please you? I have never taken part in a debate on 'torture memos' here or anywhere else.

dgs49 routinely posts wild generalizations about Democrats and liberals and anybody else he doesn't like. Do you see Lord Jim or bigskygal or Scooter or any of the other people who have developed a fondness for jumping my shit calling dgs49 out for making all kinds of claims about what people do without citing one damn thing to support any of it?

Of course not.

Already answered by Scooter. You are completely wrong on that one.

Lots of people here spew pure shit time and time again. Rarely do they get called on it. And even when they do, most people here appear not to notice.

I think you'll find that when somebody is called out on their bullshit they generally either back it up or withdraw (not always of course. There are some who will press on with a pickaxe...) so there is usually no need for anybody else to be involved. It's only when posters go off on a tangent or use other tactics to avoid backing up their claims that others will press them for evidence.

I asked before, and I'll ask again: Has anybody bothered to Google "prosecutorial misconduct" and read what came up? Anybody? Anybody at all?

Certainly not me. Refer to my ' two shiny shites' comment above...

I think the problem here Andrew is that you seem to feel that the entire membership should be interested in everything that you post and if they are not, it irritates you. Stop and think for a moment... you are in the legal profession and this kind of stuff interests you greatly. The simple fact is that it doesn't interest everybody.

To be fair, that is nobody's problem but yours.

[Lord Jim]

I think the problem here Andrew is that you seem to feel that the entire membership should be interested in everything that you post and if they are not, it irritates you.

No, he really doesn't Sean....

If he did, it would surely have come up as an issue long before this....

No, this was just one in a long parade of a diversionary tactics he's engaged in the past couple of days to try and change the subject from his failure to back up his proof-free sweeping accusations against prosecutors and police officers.

It 's the fact that nobody has been taking the bait that "irritates" him....

(not always of course. There are some who will press on with a pickaxe...)

I keep hoping he'll stop, but each day he just digs deeper; apparently he's hell bent to make it all the way to China...

[Andrew D]

Apology accepted.

[Sean]

I beg your pardon? Who was that addressed to Andrew?

[Lord Jim]

I beg your pardon? Who was that addressed to Andrew?

Sean, I hope that's his way of signaling that he's going to stop digging.

If so, it works for me.

[Andrew D]

I was responding to what must have been Lord Jim's way of apologizing for having dishonestly turned this:

It bears noting that prosecutors rarely need to fabricate evidence.

into this:

... the assertion is that "most" prosecutors in this country suborn perjury ....

It must have been. What else could it be?

[Lord Jim]

Alas I was wrong;

He's thrown away the pick and shovel and gotten himself a back hoe....

Here is the full quote of what he actually said, complete, in context and with a link:

It bears noting that prosecutors rarely need to fabricate evidence. Most of the time, the police have done that for them. All they need to do is assume the truth of what the police say and present it as true.

But over time, most prosecutors become more and more jaded about the veracity of police testimony. That does not mean that they are actually suborning perjury; after all, they are not percipient witnesses to the underlying facts. It means that they have doubts about the truth of what the police claim, but nonetheless, they ask the court or the jury to believe that testimony.

"The court" is an important point. Most police perjury is not directed at juries. Most of it is directed at courts. The police are aware of the exclusionary rule, and they hate it. So they lie, not necessarily about the evidence itself, but about how they obtained it. They know perfectly well what their affidavits have to say to survive Fourth-Amendment challenges, so that is what they say. True? False? A consideration relevant only to tactics.

It is still true that in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it. And they won't think of themselves as "lying scumbags." They are convinced that the defendant is guilty -- and they are often quite right about that -- and they conclude that a little subornation of perjury is worth it to get some creep of the streets before he rapes and murders another victim.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3090&p=39842&hilit=suborn#p39842

(it should also be noted, that his other claim in that post, that "most of the time" the cops are fabricating evidence, is just as yanked out of his ass and completely unsupported by him with any evidence whatsoever, as the claim he makes about prosecutors)

The dishonesty is all Andrew's. He's trying to pretend he never said what he said and then he has the brass balled gall to try and accuse me of being the one who's lying.

Classic Steve behavior....

I had really hoped that he would finally STFU, about this, but since he now insists on sinking even lower by smearing me falsely as lying about what he has said, (I've quoted it verbatim repeatedly...he's trying to pretend that the first sentence of what he said is all he said) When I have a little more time, I will perform an advanced search both here and at the CSB for quotes with links that will provide the full picture of just what Andrew thinks of prosecutors.

[Andrew D]

I have not denied having said what Lord Jim has incessantly quoted me as saying.

I wrote it. I posted it. I still believe it. And in a recent thread, I have demonstrated that I am far from alone in that belief.

What I have denied is having said what I did not say. I did not say this:

"most" prosecutors in this country suborn perjury

Look at what Lord Jim just quoted from me. It does not say that most prosecutors (in the US or anywhere else) suborn perjury. It just does not. He would like it to, but it does not.

I have already pointed out the difference -- which should be obvious to anyone who claims to speak English -- between "would" and "do":

Yes, I posted that most prosecutors would, in particular circumstances, fabricate evidence, suborn perjury, etc.

Is the distinction between "would" and "do" just a figment of my imagination?

Suppose that I were to post that Lord Jim would kill to protect his children. (Which I assume is true; most parents would.)

Ten minutes later, my posting would be buried in a flood of claims that I had accused Lord Jim of running around killing people.

I have not seen any response.

Lord Jim has been taking me to task for what I actually posted. Which is fine. As I just demonstrated in another thread, he is wrong, but error is not dishonesty.

But Lord Jim has also claimed that I posted something which in fact, as anyone who cares to look can see, I did not post. And I have brought the fact that I did not post what he claimed I posted to his attention. And he has not retracted his claim.

That is not error. That is dishonesty.

[@meric@nwom@n]

It depends on what "is" is right?

[Lord Jim]

Here's an appetizer:

So we should presuppose their guilt of uncharged offenses. You'd make a good prosecutor -- the lowest thing that an attorney can possibly become.

http://www.cybersoapbox.com/SMF/index.p ... #msg501992

[@meric@nwom@n]

It depends on what "is" is, right?

[Scooter]

Have people stopped dying in Africa?

[rubato]

Unfortunately you presented it as fact rather than opinion.

But you have shown us another example of how people who are unable to back their claims up attempt to wriggle out of it...

Well done! Have a coconut.

Your opinion.

and a stupid one at that.

go shove the coconut up your ass.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Look at what Lord Jim just quoted from me. It does not say that most prosecutors (in the US or anywhere else) suborn perjury.

You're absolutely right Andrew...

You only said:

"in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it. "

So based on what you have said, presumably all of those prosecutors who don't care about whether or not they obtain convictions will not suborn perjury.

Ya got me there....

[Jarlaxle]

Looks like Rube is on the sauce.

Again.

[rubato]

OMG! Someone whose highest achievement in life is "tow truck driver" doesn't like me!

No one gives a shit Jarl. Go read your science-fiction fantasy books and get a hard on.





yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

For fuck's sake, Lord Jim. Can you at least pretend to read what I write before bitching about it?

No, forget it.

You pissed and moaned about my not having produced "any evidence whatsoever". After waiting to see whether you would bother to look for yourself at what evidence there might be, I produced evidence. You don't like the evidence I produced. So what?

You claimed that I was not producing evidence, I produced evidence, you have completely screwed the pooch, you know it, and now you're just flailing.

But, hey, it's not my problem. Go ahead. Just keep on digging ....

[Sean]

Unfortunately you presented it as fact rather than opinion.

But you have shown us another example of how people who are unable to back their claims up attempt to wriggle out of it...

Well done! Have a coconut.

Your opinion.

and a stupid one at that.

go shove the coconut up your ass.

yrs,
rubato

LMAO - Thus proving once and for all that you do not know the difference between a 'fact' and an 'opinion'.

[Lord Jim]

You pissed and moaned about my not having produced "any evidence whatsoever".

I'm terribly sorry Andrew, I really do owe you an apology....

I should have been more specific. I should have said, "any relevant evidence whatsoever that actually supports the claims you've made"....

Again, I apologize for the lack of clarity.