SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,068
A defence lawyer should never set themselves up for such a retort:
No way they'll acquit - America would be in flames. Light sentence followed by successful appeal when everyone has calmed down more likely.I don't see how they can possibly let this go... To find the guy not guilty would set off the biggest backlash in the country's history I expect....
A defence lawyer should never set themselves up for such a retort:
I wish I had your faith.No way they'll acquit - America would be in flames. Light sentence followed by successful appeal when everyone has calmed down more likely.
So basically death penalty for a misdemeanor?
From what I understood from the opening arguments, the defence is merely "But he was high!" as its case!
Odd that they don't seem to understand that being high doesn't mean you die. The dispatcher also was pretty forthright in calling her supervisor up when she saw what was going on. You heard her say on the recording "You can call me a snitch if you want" which to me is damning from a police employee who called up the chain cos her gut feeling said what she saw wasn't right.
A defence lawyer should never set themselves up for such a retort:
The girl that filmed it welled me up. Beating herself up about not doing more.
She's saved lives by doing that and got the questions being asked many privleged people want buried.
Minnesota in particular has it's laws written in a way that you don't have to be the exclusive cause of someone's death to be guilty of causing it.
It's a bizarre line of defence from a lawyer who's been made to look quite foolish by a 27 year old firefighter the past 2 days.
Quite honestly, I've not seen a defence lawyer team as open as this before on such a high profile case.
The cynic in me would have anyone believe that the firm they've come from have signed off on such a shitty team leading the defence...