In arguing to keep Czuba detained, Will County Assistant State's Attorney Michael Fitzgerald said Czuba was a danger to Shahin and others.
"We also believe he is a threat to the safety of the community," he said.
Czuba's attorneys disagreed, citing Czuba's age and the fact that he is a veteran without any criminal convictions.
Minecraft wall
Czuba's attorneys disagreed, citing Czuba's age and the fact that he is a veteran without any criminal convictions.
I know it's like, their job or whatever, but I hope this guy's attorneys recognize they're shitbags
Nah I don't buy it. Procedural due process is valuable. Part of the procedure is evaluation of the claim and it's merits, and then it can be acted on or not. The attorneys are doing their job and it's important - now if the Judge GRANTS that request, the judge is a shit bag.
Well I agree with you - which is precisely why we should have a functioning and fair system for adjudicating claims, establishing facts, and evaluating the merit of various arguments.
One can and perhaps should imagine a more collaborative model of justice, but our current model is adversarial and, arguably, gladiatorial. Both sides present the strongest possible version of their case - intentional misrepresentation by prioritizing favorable context/evidence and ignoring, minimizing, or calling into question damning context/evidence is by definition what each side is supposed to do. By aggressively pursuing each party's interests to the extreme, neither can say they didn't receive a robust and fair hearing of their position. In fact, they had the best possible representation of their position and very likely better than they could have formulated on their own. Then the jury or judge weighs the merits, truth, and context against each other and determines which side is more trustworthy/meritorious. That can include punishment for perjury if either party knowingly lied.
To pre-assert that some people are not allowed to make claims in their own defense is wildly out of line with any presumption of innocence until proven guilty and immediately likely to result in further abuse of the most marginalized.
Where's the lie? They said he's a vet and he's x age, therefore he can't be dangerous. The fact that that's a fucking ridiculous and obviously weak defense only means that it's that much easier to say "no, fuck you, that's dumb, to the wall"
People have the right to put forward their best defense, and in cases like this where their crime is completely indefensible, that doesn't help them
Yeah, good. Okay.
Post revolution I'd still appreciate formal mechanisms of adjudication and rather we not default to beating each other to death during disputes - but to each their own I guess.
Whew. I was this close to doing a sectarianism lmao.
Also all lawyers ARE bastards... But that's just a coincidence! It's not systemically rooted in their position upholding oppression like the pigs.
I'd like the legal profession a lot more if it weren't for capitalism
Come join me in the Tax Prosecutors office (not really my area but close enough) and help create an entire new generation of fascists when you go to petite bougie and tell them that they can't use their business as a slush fund. I love it here
There's a Korean comic on webtoon called "The Tax Reaper", about a junior tax prosecutor with the magical ability to see how much back taxes someone owed as glowing numbers floating over their head. It's very enjoyable for the overdramatized confrontations with bougie tax dodgers.
Half the time I can't even get the bougie fucks to show up to court, which is always fun. But it does make my life easier, since I don't have to listen to them blabber on and on about how business owners are oppressed.
Literally murdered a child and he's NOT a threat to the community
The attorneys aren't the ones 'disagreeing' persay. They are acting on behalf of their clients wishes. If the client pleads not guilty and wants to get out, he's allowed to assert that and it's the legal obligation of the attorneys to frame it in the most compelling way possible within the confines of the law.
It's then on the Judge to evaluate the merit of the claim and grant/deny it. He SHOULD recognize it as bull shit, of course. But it's not an indictment of the system that shitbags get to argue in their own defense. It's only an indictment when that argument works.
That's the part I'm hung up on. "He's not a threat because he's been conditioned to kill"
it's just a flag for citizens of the reich to engage their soldier worship to get the murderer sympathy
they don't actally believe the bullshit they spout
citing Czuba's age
He was this age when he literally stabbed a child who trusted him
he is a veteran
I hate that people think this is a valid defense
he is a veteran
I hate that people think this is a valid defense
It doesn't make any sort of sense. It seems pretty obvious that someone who was trained to kill is more likely to murder someone than the average person.
I'd love to hear what possible defense anyone could produce for "not guilty"
