HTownAg98 said:

---

If you're trying to convey an air of impartiality, hugging the prosecution team looks really, really improper.

---

He killed 17 people in cold blood…

I don't give a **** about appearances…

If we don't have judges that at least try to look impartial, then the system breaks down.

Even those that commit the most heinous of crimes deserve fairness.

He had an opportunity for a fair trial, but he plead guilty and waived that right…

lethalninja said:

---

They were probably referring to threats they got from the public for defending him. It was still tone deaf of them to say that in front of the families, though.

---

Nah man. It was totally okay for him to go after parents who wished that the PD's got a chance to feel what the parents felt regarding the death and safety of their children.....ya know in spite of the fact that the PD's were trying to help a child killer get a lenient sentence....that kind of karma wouldn't at all help these PD's think harder about helping a child killer escape true justice.

I mean for real...the children who died were fair game. Who gives a **** about their parent's feelings?

The PD's children are not fair game.....because their parents are virtuously trying to help a child killer escape justice. The PD's should in no way have to feel what the victims' parents felt. That would just be....wrong.

FireAg said:

---

He had an opportunity for a fair trial, but he plead guilty and waived that right…

---

The right to a fair trial doesn't stop at the guilt or innocence phase. It continues into sentencing too.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

lethalninja said:

---

They were probably referring to threats they got from the public for defending him. It was still tone deaf of them to say that in front of the families, though.

---

Nah man. It was totally okay for him to go after parents who wished that the PD's got a chance to feel what the parents felt regarding the death and safety of their children.....ya know in spite of the fact that the PD's were trying to help a child killer get a lenient sentence....that kind of karma wouldn't at all help these PD's think harder about helping a child killer escape true justice.

I mean for real...the children who died were fair game. Who gives a **** about their parent's feelings?

The PD's children are not fair game.....because their parents are virtuously trying to help a child killer escape justice. The PD's should in no way have to feel what the victims' parents felt. That would just be....wrong.

---

The job of a defense attorney is to vigorously advocate for their client, which means sometimes you have to do things that you personally find reprehensible. We have an adversarial system for a reason: it is to ensure that even those that commit the most outrageous crimes get treated fairly, even when we want to burn them at the stake.

Their grief should be directed at the person who took their child's life, not the person that's trying to keep the system from running off the rails into a system that ignores the rights of the accused because of feelings.

FWIW, I think he should have gotten death in this case.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

lethalninja said:

---

They were probably referring to threats they got from the public for defending him. It was still tone deaf of them to say that in front of the families, though.

---

Nah man. It was totally okay for him to go after parents who wished that the PD's got a chance to feel what the parents felt regarding the death and safety of their children.....ya know in spite of the fact that the PD's were trying to help a child killer get a lenient sentence....that kind of karma wouldn't at all help these PD's think harder about helping a child killer escape true justice.

I mean for real...the children who died were fair game. Who gives a **** about their parent's feelings?

The PD's children are not fair game.....because their parents are virtuously trying to help a child killer escape justice. The PD's should in no way have to feel what the victims' parents felt. That would just be....wrong.

---

The job of a defense attorney is to vigorously advocate for their client, which means sometimes you have to do things that you personally find reprehensible. We have an adversarial system for a reason: it is to ensure that even those that commit the most outrageous crimes get treated fairly, even when we want to burn them at the stake.

Their grief should be directed at the person who took their child's life, not the person that's trying to keep the system from running off the rails into a system that ignores the rights of the accused because of feelings.

FWIW, I think he should have gotten death in this case.

---

You don't get my point.

My point ISN'T that he is vigorously defending a murderer of children.

My point is that in his defense of the child murderer he pretended like the outrage of the parent's at his defense was inappropriate. He said that the line he draws for appropriateness of behavior is when someone's children are endangered.

When the judge asked hoe his children have been endangered he says that it is wrong for him to feel like his children have been endangered by statements of the parents of the victims....... he makes this impassioned argument against angry rhetoric which is "dangerous" as he vigorously defends someone who endangered children by shooting them in the head.

Apparently angry words are dangerous and not to be tolerated...but bullets to the head are totally defensible.

If he can't see the hypocrisy there and if you can't see the hypocrisy there then there is nothing else to say.

HTownAg98 said:

---

FireAg said:

---

He had an opportunity for a fair trial, but he plead guilty and waived that right…

---

The right to a fair trial doesn't stop at the guilt or innocence phase. It continues into sentencing too.

---

Please explain then how that was denied to him?