Another Guy Discharging a Firearm in Carmel

[Bill of Rights]

Ranger and all,

I'm not very pleased at the fact that T. Lex went after one of our own either, BUT I also understand that it was then his job to do so and as my sig block used to say,
"Once a job has begun,
Leave it not until it's done.
Be the labor great or small,
Do it well or not at all."

I respect the fact that he did the job he was employed to do and prosecuted to the best of his ability a case he was told to take.

I also think it speaks volumes that he does not continue to work for the government, but instead is now in private practice where he can choose his own clients.

Make no mistake, I don't for a second agree that prosecuting Liberty Sanders was right or justified; in fact I think that that prosecution was a colossal waste of time and money. I just see an immense differentiation between doing a job well and the choice of subjects and cases to prosecute.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[bassplayrguy]

 

[Pocketman]

Ranger and all,

I'm not very pleased at the fact that T. Lex went after one of our own either, BUT I also understand that it was then his job to do so and as my sig block used to say,
"Once a job has begun,
Leave it not until it's done.
Be the labor great or small,
Do it well or not at all."

I respect the fact that he did the job he was employed to do and prosecuted to the best of his ability a case he was told to take.

I also think it speaks volumes that he does not continue to work for the government, but instead is now in private practice where he can choose his own clients.

Make no mistake, I don't for a second agree that prosecuting Liberty Sanders was right or justified; in fact I think that that prosecution was a colossal waste of time and money. I just see an immense differentiation between doing a job well and the choice of subjects and cases to prosecute.

Blessings,
Bill

I agree with Bill

And kudos to Kutnipe14 for resolving the situation in a professional manner.

 

[Rookie]

I have a question. What if he would have refused to step outside but was more than willing to talk to you?

 

[E5RANGER375]

Sorry Bill, but on this I cannot agree with you. I do not respect the job he did before nor do I think that he now currently is in private practice for anything other than the $$. your post seems to imply he might have has a moral issue with the job he did before. no I dont agree. I will continue to regard those that threaten our freedom to be false patriots of which I will never support. Even if they were "just doing their job" like the nazis did.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Sorry Bill, but on this I cannot agree with you. I do not respect the job he did before nor do I think that he now currently is in private practice for anything other than the $$. your post seems to imply he might have has a moral issue with the job he did before. no I dont agree. I will continue to regard those that threaten our freedom to be false patriots of which I will never support. Even if they were "just doing their job" like the nazis did.

I have to agree with Ranger here. Just doing your job is not a good enough excuse. If LEO and the military are told to collect weapons, well, they would just be doing their job.

 

[LPMan59]

Sorry Bill, but on this I cannot agree with you. I do not respect the job he did before nor do I think that he now currently is in private practice for anything other than the $$. your post seems to imply he might have has a moral issue with the job he did before. no I dont agree. I will continue to regard those that threaten our freedom to be false patriots of which I will never support. Even if they were "just doing their job" like the nazis did.

i was with you until you invoked Godwin's Law

 

[T.Lex]

Wow, Ranger - you seem to have made many assumptions about me based on... a few internet posts? Your preconceived prejudices against attorneys?

I'll make no excuses. You either understand the judicial process, or you don't. The judicial system may not be perfect, but it is the best one in the world. It reaches the "right" decision FAR more often than it doesn't. It wouldn't be the best system in the world if it didn't have good people (and attorneys) in the various roles.

You imply that I should've made some sort of principled stand and... what - been fired? So, not only do you give out bad legal advice, you're a poor career counselor, too.

Without going into too much detail (it is complicated), I was looking for a new job for a LONG time. The legal market in Indy has sucked for the last 2 years. It was purely coincidental that the timing of my leaving intersected with LS's case.

Sorry to go further offtopic on this.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Wow, Ranger - you seem to have made many assumptions about me based on... a few internet posts? Your preconceived prejudices against attorneys?

I'll make no excuses. You either understand the judicial process, or you don't. The judicial system may not be perfect, but it is the best one in the world. It reaches the "right" decision FAR more often than it doesn't. It wouldn't be the best system in the world if it didn't have good people (and attorneys) in the various roles.

You imply that I should've made some sort of principled stand and... what - been fired? So, not only do you give out bad legal advice, you're a poor career counselor, too.

Without going into too much detail (it is complicated), I was looking for a new job for a LONG time. The legal market in Indy has sucked for the last 2 years. It was purely coincidental that the timing of my leaving intersected with LS's case.

Sorry to go further offtopic on this.

i didnt hand out legal advice. just honest opinion as always. If I was in a job that was requiring me to do something illegal, or unconstitutional, or that I didnt morally agree with then YES, I personally would leave it. sorry but I stand for what I believe in. Im the one who has to look at myself in the mirror everyday.

I dont have it out for all attorneys as you say, but I do believe the profession is an inherently dishonest one because it has been infiltrated with bad apples and now dishonesty seems to be laughed off instead of ridiculed. also I do not have complete faith in our legal system because as long as a judge or a prosecutor has room to issue opinion verdicts instead of constitutional verdicts then its a flawed system. not that all judges do that, but some do.

Tlex, I judge you as a professional based on your prosecution of the LS case. I am of the strong opinion your actions were wrong and I wont just say oh well, like some others. also it has been my life experience that how people operate in a career is not far from the way they operate in their personal lives. all this is of coarse my opinion. no one is perfect, but you either stand for something or you dont. I dont change my integrity based on the dollar amount on my paychecks. but thats just the way I am, I guess im flawed. read my sig line. it explains a lot about what I stand for.

 

[T.Lex]

As an attorney, I swore an oath, too:

I do solemnly swear or affirm that: I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana; I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers; I will not counsel or maintain any action, proceeding, or defense which shall appear to me to be unjust, but this obligation shall not prevent me from defending a person charged with crime in any case; I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me, such means only as are consistent with truth, and never seek to mislead the court or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law; I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client at every peril to myself; I will abstain from offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged; I will not encourage either the commencement or the continuance of any action or proceeding from any motive of passion or interest; I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless, the oppressed or those who cannot afford adequate legal assistance; so help me God.

You can agree or disagree (that is your opinion) whether I satisfied (and continue to satisfy) my obligations under that oath, but I am very comfortable that I did (and will).

There's a rule that requires me to provide competent representation.

Another one states:

A lawyer's representation of a client, including representation by appointment does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities.

Here's a query - the Nuremburg defendants had attorneys - should they have declined? Pick any other trial that you disagree with - McVeigh's defense attorneys, whatever. A system that holds the attorneys responsible for the arguments on behalf the client is likely a corrupt one - subject to the whims of whoever is in control.

Opinions are like ... belly buttons, everyone has them. No problem there. It may be a communication issue, but - from my limited experience reading what you write - too often you transmit your opinions as if they were fact.

With that understanding, I will read what you write differently.

Edit:
In the case involving LS (I'm reluctant to call it 'prosecution' as it wasn't a criminal offense, and people might get the wrong idea), I was not asked to do anything illegal, unconstitutional, or that I morally disagreed with. I was tasked to enforce a properly legislated local ordinance. An ordinance that is legal and constitutional, and that, as a gunowner, I generally agree with - particularly in residential areas.

 

[Bunnykid68]

T. Lex, that is the problem here. You think the State was justified in charging him, most people here do not.

 

[Fargo]

As an attorney, I swore an oath, too:


You can agree or disagree (that is your opinion) whether I satisfied (and continue to satisfy) my obligations under that oath, but I am very comfortable that I did (and will).

There's a rule that requires me to provide competent representation.

Another one states:


Here's a query - the Nuremburg defendants had attorneys - should they have declined? Pick any other trial that you disagree with - McVeigh's defense attorneys, whatever. A system that holds the attorneys responsible for the arguments on behalf the client is likely a corrupt one - subject to the whims of whoever is in control.

There is a huge difference in the legal and ethical obligations of representing private clients versus serving in a prosecutorial position in which you wield the power of the state against the citizenry. If you don't understand that, you have no business in any sort of prosecutorial position.

I would have thought that a ex-DAG who did death penalty appeals might have some appreciation of that fact, but apparently I would be wrong.

Prosecutor's serve the people, not "clients" in the traditional sense of the word. They have higher obligations as pointed out in the rules of professional responsibility.

Joe

 

[E5RANGER375]

As an attorney, I swore an oath, too:


You can agree or disagree (that is your opinion) whether I satisfied (and continue to satisfy) my obligations under that oath, but I am very comfortable that I did (and will).

There's a rule that requires me to provide competent representation.

Another one states:


Here's a query - the Nuremburg defendants had attorneys - should they have declined? Pick any other trial that you disagree with - McVeigh's defense attorneys, whatever. A system that holds the attorneys responsible for the arguments on behalf the client is likely a corrupt one - subject to the whims of whoever is in control.

Opinions are like ... belly buttons, everyone has them. No problem there. It may be a communication issue, but - from my limited experience reading what you write - too often you transmit your opinions as if they were fact.

With that understanding, I will read what you write differently.

Edit:
In the case involving LS (I'm reluctant to call it 'prosecution' as it wasn't a criminal offense, and people might get the wrong idea), I was not asked to do anything illegal, unconstitutional, or that I morally disagreed with. I was tasked to enforce a properly legislated local ordinance. An ordinance that is legal and constitutional, and that, as a gunowner, I generally agree with - particularly in residential areas.

I wish that all my opinions could be fact. dont we all.

I just never thought that I had to iterate that I was speaking from opinion on here when I type. I always assumed that people would understand that since my name isnt god, or websters dictionary. everything anyone says in the world is a form of opinion. even "fact" can be up for debate. as you said before " there can be 2 versions of the truth" (paraphrasing a little). I might not agree totally with that statement but I think you can understand where im going. perception is reality to the one perceiving it.

 

[thompal]

You imply that I should've made some sort of principled stand and... what - been fired? So, not only do you give out bad legal advice, you're a poor career counselor, too.

In many peoples' minds, principles, ideals, and morals are more important than a paycheck. At some point a personal stand really has to be taken, otherwise it makes it appear that you are willing to prostitute your morals for money. And when you work for The State and you ignore your personal morals and principles, you are doing in it my name. That is when it becomes offensive.

If you worked for a private company, and you decided to use company rules to swindle someone out of money in order to please your boss and earn your paycheck, that may be a criminal matter, but only has the potential to affect customers of your company.

However, when you work for The State, and decide to swindle someone out of personal liberty using "company rules" in order to please your boss and get your paycheck, it is a matter which may affect every citizen.


Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]

 

[T.Lex]

everything anyone says in the world is a form of opinion. even "fact" can be up for debate. as you said before " there can be 2 versions of the truth" (paraphrasing a little).

I just didn't think you agreed with me on that.

Look folks, my personal honor and integrity is intact. You can go re-read that thread for all the reasons LS was not in jeopardy of criminal sanction and why the case was legally justified.

Also, any time a lawyer represents a gov't entity, he represents that entity as a body-politic, not each individual person. Otherwise, we could never prosecute a speeding violation or anything like that. Gov't employees don't work for "you" they work for the gov't agency. If you don't like what that agency is doing (especially a local agency) vote for new leaders. In our form of gov't, that's the answer.

 

[thompal]

Prosecutor's serve the people, not "clients" in the traditional sense of the word. They have higher obligations as pointed out in the rules of professional responsibility.

Joe

As envisioned by the founding fathers, yes. They hoped that the government would serve The People. Prosecutors would be serving The People, simply because government served The People. Government was intended to do The People's bidding. So, if you believe that our government serves The People, then your statement is true.

I, however, don't believe that to be the case. I believe that currently, government serves The State, and The State serves nobody. Government insists that The People exist to do the bidding of The State, and are beholden to it.

Prosecutors have no clients, but they have The State as their Master.
And The State doesn't care one bit about personal integrity, morals, or justice. The State only cares about "conviction rates," which is a professional sounding way of saying "the number of times that the bidding of The State was successfully done."

 

[Bill of Rights]

Sorry Bill, but on this I cannot agree with you. I do not respect the job he did before nor do I think that he now currently is in private practice for anything other than the $$. your post seems to imply he might have has a moral issue with the job he did before. no I dont agree. I will continue to regard those that threaten our freedom to be false patriots of which I will never support. Even if they were "just doing their job" like the nazis did.

You don't have to agree with me. I'm sure many people don't, so you're likely in good company. I did imply that he might have had a moral issue with the job, but I did so only because I haven't talked with him and I don't know whether that was the case or not. (though later posts in this thread indicate he did not)
The basis of our legal system mandates that both sides of the adversarial process have advocates. If we attempt to deny that process its ability to function, as many do in, for example, child molestation cases (i.e. "How can he defend that slimeball?! He doesn't even deserve a trial!") we begin the dismantling of the whole system. It's easy to deny that certain members of our society who have been accused of detestable acts should be allowed the rights our Creator granted us... We see it done all the time to so-called "felons" in re: their right of self-defense. Thus begins the incremental process. Don't believe me? Explain, then, why the "Lautenberg amendment" has for several years denied that right to those who have no conviction but only an accusation (and the de rigueur restraining order that accompanies it) for "domestic violence", which applies when violent action is accused by a present or former spouse, child, parent, girl- or boyfriend, etc., etc. No, I'm sure no one has EVER been falsely accused under that!

Domestic batterers are detestable, certainly, but is their crime that much more heinous than a battery committed against someone other than one of those people? Is this a good reason to deny them the lawful exercise of their rights?

Back on topic, the case T Lex prosecuted may have not been of his choosing. He may have been totally behind it (and I suspect from what he's said that this is so), but his profession and his dedication to the process requires that he give it the best possible effort he is able to provide. (Those of you who are attorneys, correct me if I'm mistaken, but are you not expected at some point in law school to argue both sides of the same case?) He had an obligation, personal feelings and desires aside, to prosecute that case. It is THAT which I respect, not for the position he took, but for the fact that he took on that responsibility. From my own experience, I had a call once where my patient was a woman of 30ish years whose report was that she was distraught because her daughter had just been found deceased. During the interview, I was made aware (by the deputy coroner on site) that 1) the child was NOT her daughter and 2) the child was deceased very likely due to abuse she had suffered, most likely at the hands of my patient. I could not have wished greater harm to befall another human than I wished at that time for her, however, my obligation was to provide to her the best care of which I was capable. It was very difficult to do, and I am not at all proud of those feelings I had. (and no, I'm not begging for compliments, I'm only giving an example, from comments you've made in the past, to which you'll be able to relate.)

Again, however, I don't think that prosecuting that case was necessary, proper, or for that matter, excusable, based on the information I have on it.

And for the record, prosecuting a case in which the worst possible result (discounting attorney's fees) is a monetary fine of $500.00 is hardly comparable to the killing of 13 million innocent people.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[E5RANGER375]

And for the record, prosecuting a case in which the worst possible result (discounting attorney's fees) is a monetary fine of $500.00 is hardly comparable to the killing of 13 million innocent people.

Blessings,
Bill

i was more going for the mindset not the actions. I respect your opinions on this Bill. I agree with you on a lot. we all cant agree on it all though. all the best

 

[Kutnupe14]

Hey guys, I honestly appreciate all the positive comments I've gotten from my story. I'm currently in Chicago, so I haven't been on in a few days. I'll be back to address any comments/questions when I get back home.

 

[dross]

Question for Ranger:

If you're a soldier and you're ordered to fight in a war you don't agree with, do you resign? Or if you can't resign legally, do you refuse to go and go to jail?

No one could be a lawyer if they had to live up to the standards that non-lawyers always want to put on them.

If you were a prosecutor, for instance, and you were given a case and you read the report and it smelled fishy to you. It looked made up. Let's say you talk to the cop and he sticks by his story, but now you believe him even less.

Does your viewpoint bind that prosecutor to refuse to prosecute? I would maintain that's not his job. Now, if he found facts that would indicate that the cop was lying, he shouldn't hide those away, and in fact, I don't think he's legally allowed to do this. That's a different story, however. It's not the lawyer's job to judge the case before it's tried.

By your standard, every lawyer would have to resign his position at some point.