Anyone want to defend this guy?

[Bo Jackson]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371344,00.html

"I'm gonna rip them apart," Fagan said of young victims. "I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they’re 8 years old, they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”

So Massachusetts has elected this guy and Ted Kennedy? Bravo.

[kevinsmith]

What he's saying is wrong, but what I think he's TRYING to say is that to ensure the suspects get a "fair' defense, he will basically have to revictimize the victims. It's still fucked up, but I don't think as fucked up as it's going to be made.
Yeah, the guy's a douche and he should probably rot in prison alongside those he defends, but the response will be the typical emotionally charged one without logic.

[Bo Jackson]

As I understand it, he isn't addressing how to defend them, but rather how to protect them from getting the mandatory sentence that the Jessica Law would carry.

[Nocturnal]

"I'm gonna rip them apart," Fagan said of young victims. "I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they’re 8 years old, they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”

It's his duty to defend the suspects, NOT to destroy the victims. I know it's a fine line between being aggressive to defend your client and being a dick, but his comments suggest he wants to go beyond that.

[American Infidel]

Video Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq-NJ1YQu8M&eurl=http://www.rightwingnews.com/).

Are we still wondering why the Liberals are so soft on criminals and their punishment? It's not that a cross-examination would be inevitable, but one that would require him to practically torture a young child victim, who has been raped?

Hell has a special place for this type of former defense attorney.

[chrisvet]

Sorry guys, total disagreement. The sexual abuse industry is riddled with false accusations on the increase, often used to destroy innocent men for reasons of revenge or monetary gain. False accusation Stats spike through the ceiling during times of divorce. It lands good men in prison, alienated from their children for often several months, fired from their jobs, publicly disgraced, and financially crucified to the tons of 10’s of thousands on the mere accusations of a woman or child.

None of us would want to stand accused or locked away for 20 years on false allegations. Gives too much power to Children by exhonorating them from cross examination, in an already "child worshipping" society. Its nothing more than logic rooted by 'feelings' in a recent societal trend. From there, mandatory sex offenses will flow through to female sex abuse.
We don’t talk about it here a lot, but incredible percentages of Rape allegations are deemed false. If you’ve ever been dumped by an angry woman, you’ll understand all to well how a percentage of them willingly destroy their Ex’s.

Bottom line: Though sad, and tragic, children must be put on the stands in the quest for the truth. It should also be the rights of the defense to appoint their own psychiatrists for an evaluation of the child.

15 years ago I was neighbors with an ex firefighter who’s wife had her 2 boys falsely accused him. As I got to know his wife / kids over the years, it was clear she was a hateful cunt. Eventually both boys confided the truth about her coaching them the entire time.
Since then they’ve alienated her and become a part of their dads life again.
Be tough when it comes to finding the truth, children are resilient and can handle it.

Conclusion:

Don't get sucked in by Child worshipping society that does so to justify atrocious acts against men. (Ridiculous divorce laws etc.) Its all deliberate & part of a greater plan to remove the alpha male and break our families apart. Its also a Hitler philosophy:

A society that believes its working in the best interests of the children will suffer tremendous hardships. Adolph Hitler.

[Bo Jackson]

You're my favorite troll.

[chrisvet]

You're my favorite troll.

Debunk the material instead of subscribing to girly feelings (a feminist ideol) that squash out logic and truth masked by politically correctness. You should be ashamed of yourself for thinking like such a pussy and jumping on the media witchunt bandwagon without using your brain first.

What he's saying is wrong, but what I think he's TRYING to say is that to ensure the suspects get a "fair' defense, he will basically have to revictimize the victims. It's still fucked up, but I don't think as fucked up as it's going to be made.Of course, hes a theatrical idiot, but getting @ the crux of defending potentially innocent men against accusations and charges that are often false, and I stand by it.

[kevinsmith]

Of course, hes a theatrical idiot, but getting @ the crux of defending potentially innocent men against accusations and charges that are often false, and I stand by it.

It's a hard thing to deal with. Not all are innocent...not all are guilty. But we've seen what overzealous defense lawyers can do to the justice system. IE: OJ Simpson.

[chrisvet]

It's a hard thing to deal with. Not all are innocent...not all are guilty. But we've seen what overzealous defense lawyers can do to the justice system. IE: OJ Simpson.

Indeed, but we were talking incredibly stupid jurors & the dream team.

We're also talking about questioning accusers that have often wrongly landed good men behind bars for decades. If their feelings get hurt, I quite frankly don't give a shit if it exposes the truth, and neither should you guys.

[Methuser]

I saw this last night on Bill Oreilly and the guy is way over the top in my opinion.

I have no problem with super strict laws against child molesters as long as there is solid physical evidence. The problem is in most cases involving child rape it is really hard to prove so they have to rely on testimony. Unfortunately that testimony has to come from a child. And it doesn't matter what side of the political isle the defense attorney is on. That lawyer is going to be a complete scumbag to that child... hell even his own mother in order to boost his profile and defend his client.

[TFS]

Indeed, but we were talking incredibly stupid jurors & the dream team.

We're also talking about questioning accusers that have often wrongly landed good men behind bars for decades. If their feelings get hurt, I quite frankly don't give a shit if it exposes the truth, and neither should you guys.

That doesn't justify what he said though. He sounds almost as if he's looking forward to it, even if the child is telling the truth. That kind of mental anguish he just cheer-led is just as horrific as the rape they claim to have been subjected to.

I understand what he's saying, but the manner in which he said it should equate to political suicide, imo.

[Bo Jackson]

Debunk the material instead of subscribing to girly feelings (a feminist ideol) that squash out logic and truth masked by politically correctness. You should be ashamed of yourself for thinking like such a pussy and jumping on the media witchunt bandwagon without using your brain first.

Of course, hes a theatrical idiot, but getting @ the crux of defending potentially innocent men against accusations and charges that are often false, and I stand by it.

Girly feelings? Pussy? How very mature. And you're like 45 or something...

Anyways, the "crux" of the story is that this guy is addressing the issue (mandatory 20 year sentence for convictions) in the completely wrong manner. It's not even about defense. It's about sentencing. You either read it completely wrong or something*.

*C/E friendly

[MelL]

That doesn't justify what he said though. He sounds almost as if he's looking forward to it, even if the child is telling the truth. That kind of mental anguish he just cheer-led is just as horrific as the rape they claim to have been subjected to.

I understand what he's saying, but the manner in which he said it should equate to political suicide, imo.


I think the way he delivered it makes it all the better. And what I mean is that he did not pull any punches in letting people know what will happen when the child is on the witness stand. The man was being completely honest. I really think we should be lauding him for letting the people know what the result will be, and those results won't be pretty by any means.

It's just unfortunate that the video Infidel supplied did not go further to the beginning of his statements as I think that would have helped give more context to what he was saying. Not that I'm busting on you, Infidel, thank you for the link. :wave:

[Bo Jackson]

Yes, you're correct. We should praise him for saying he is going to ruin 8 year olds lives. He's a true American hero. GI Joe...

[Awesome-o]

The minumum sentence is bullshit. If they deserve 10+ years, give them 10+ years, but for something like a minor case of statutory rape doesn't deserve 10+.

Props to him for being against such a stupid bill, could have said it a bit better though.

"If this bill passes then, as a defence attorney, I will have to work twice as hard to defend my client from just the minimum sentence. I will really have to crack down on the already victimized witness to try and find holes in their testimony. No minimum sentence protects both the victim and the innocent."

^ that's how I'd probably go about it.

[TFS]

The minumum sentence is bullshit. If they deserve 10+ years, give them 10+ years, but for something like a minor case of statutory rape doesn't deserve 10+.

Props to him for being against such a stupid bill, could have said it a bit better though.

"If this bill passes then, as a defence attorney, I will have to work twice as hard to defend my client from just the minimum sentence. I will really have to crack down on the already victimized witness to try and find holes in their testimony. No minimum sentence protects both the victim and the innocent."

^ that's how I'd probably go about it.

I wouldn't call a case of rape (as in not just statutory because of age, but actually forced sex on someone actively protesting it) a minor case.

[Bo Jackson]

As a defense attorney, shouldn't you defend your client to the best of your ability regardless of the situation?

[MelL]

Yes, you're correct. We should praise him for saying he is going to ruin 8 year olds lives. He's a true American hero. GI Joe...

So you would rather it be a surprise that a defense attorney is going to fight harder for their client because of harsher sentencing? Or would you rather the defense attorney half-ass their duty to their client because of the charges being brought?

I wouldn't call a case of rape (as in not just statutory because of age, but actually forced sex on someone actively protesting it) a minor case.

I think he may have been referring to those cases where parents charge statutory rape, even if there has been no violence or even sex involved.

[evilmittens]

Weird thing about this argument, both Chris and Bo's beliefs.

They both are right. I work with sex offenders and sex offender victims. I have seen both sides of this arguement...the false accusations and the need to take an offender and destory them.

[Azwethinkweizm]

This man make a very good point, but it's a very indirect point that he badly doesn't address.

When we hear about rape cases, we always hear the name of the accused rapist but I think we should start broadcasting the names of the victims.

Why?

Why don't you ask the Duke Lacrosse team? All 3 of them were publicly blasted in front of everybody and not even their school, their friends, or their state would support them, even when we didn't know they were innocent. It wasn't until later until the "victims" name was released that we found out she was a fraud.

So her name wasn't tainted until the very end. Totally unfair and anybody who disagrees with me is just as sick as the liar who claimed to be raped.

[Methuser]

This man make a very good point, but it's a very indirect point that he badly doesn't address.

When we hear about rape cases, we always hear the name of the accused rapist but I think we should start broadcasting the names of the victims.

Why?


No. we shouldn't hear either name.

[MelL]

This man make a very good point, but it's a very indirect point that he badly doesn't address.

When we hear about rape cases, we always hear the name of the accused rapist but I think we should start broadcasting the names of the victims.

Why?

Why don't you ask the Duke Lacrosse team? All 3 of them were publicly blasted in front of everybody and not even their school, their friends, or their state would support them, even when we didn't know they were innocent. It wasn't until later until the "victims" name was released that we found out she was a fraud.

So her name wasn't tainted until the very end. Totally unfair and anybody who disagrees with me is just as sick as the liar who claimed to be raped.


Actually, I do disagree. I think we should go the other way and disclose nobody's name, the accused or the accuser. Even if found not guilty, there is still the stigma of being accused.

[Azwethinkweizm]

Actually, I do disagree. I think we should go the other way and disclose nobody's name, the accused or the accuser. Even if found not guilty, there is still the stigma of being accused.

But that's not going to happen. The accused names will always be released.

It's time for equality.

[MelL]

But that's not going to happen. The accused names will always be released.

It's time for equality.

The same could be said of naming the accuser, that it will never happen. I believe that if we are going to fight the odds, it would be best that we fight to ensure no names are named.

[chrisvet]

Weird thing about this argument, both Chris and Bo's beliefs.

They both are right. I work with sex offenders and sex offender victims. I have seen both sides of this argument...the false accusations and the need to take an offender and destroy them.


That’s got to be a hellova point of view you've got then, I bet you've seen some dandies in your day.


Girly feelings? Pussy? How very mature. And you're like 45 or something...

Anyways, the "crux" of the story is that this guy is addressing the issue (mandatory 20 year sentence for convictions) in the completely wrong manner. It's not even about defense. It's about sentencing. You either read it completely wrong or something

Actually 38, and you're right, I misinterpreted it, but the content in the post cannot be debunked and I stand behind it. Troll calling was unnecessary & disrespectful, when you could have simply pointed out the misunderstanding.
Did I think you wrote my facts off as bullshit? Absolutely, which is why I correctly stated only a pussy with girly feelings would disagree with the content. I can't help it if you don't like me or my posting style, but would ask if you attack the content instead of coming off like an intolerant asshole.

Azwethinkweizm Quote:
Originally Posted by MelL
Actually, I do disagree. I think we should go the other way and disclose nobody's name, the accused or the accuser. Even if found not guilty, there is still the stigma of being accused.

But that's not going to happen. The accused names will always be released.

It's time for equality.

Gentlemen, there is very little grounds publish the name of the accused every single time an accusation is made; false allegations are rampant, instant irreparable damage is done to the accused while the 'victim' remains anonymous in the name of encouraging more to come forward (another feminist crock of shit.)

I'm going to explain a double standard that happens in our legal system right before our eyes:
A. They claim family courts are closed 'for the best interests of the children.'
Bull fucking Shit. (They're closed because its a goddamn assraping circus)

B. When someone’s father gets accused & arrested for a sex crime, he's instantly splattered in the local media and a condemned man with no future in his town. He gets fired, alienated, ridiculed, and in the hole for often tens of thousands to get off the hook. In the meantime his children get bullied, teased, and beat up over the public information about their dad.

There's your double standard.
The only way possible to maintain equality in this situation is to NEVER publish a name until a conviction is made, and if no conviction: No publishing names, Ever.

And Azwethinkweizm, I've read your other posts regarding single mothers and so forth, so far you're the only poster in this forum who's shown interest in a subject that goes so deep you'd be amazed when you start piecing it together. You're on the brink of some major epiphanies, and I'm glad to see you consistently asking the right questions.
Welcome to the matrix. :boink:

People call you a troll in the C/E section, but you raise some really valid points and I find myself in agreement with you more and more.

I, too, am from Ontario, Kingston, actually. (Napanee, but no one's ever heard of that and Kingston is the closest, biggest city near me. Ha.)

Anyways, keep it up, don't let the other morons push you around or try to put you off your stance. Well done.

I’ve been getting PM’s like yours for years, and I think this was just a misunderstanding. Some doesn’t know or care to approach situtations in constructive ways. BTW I know your town well, home of Avril Lavigne. My older brother also fired one of his clothing store locations there a few years back. Too small, no money there :cool: I'm from Peterborough.

[_Joe]

What he's saying is wrong, but what I think he's TRYING to say is that to ensure the suspects get a "fair' defense, he will basically have to revictimize the victims. It's still fucked up, but I don't think as fucked up as it's going to be made.
Yeah, the guy's a douche and he should probably rot in prison alongside those he defends, but the response will be the typical emotionally charged one without logic.

He should be in prison? Now that I think is more over the top than what he said.


The mandatory minimum of 10 years, in my opinion, isn't that excessive, but they decided to include assault in the list of offenses included. I wonder what would happen to a parent spanking their kids. Do they get 10 years automatically?

A defense attorney would not be able to "tear up" a rape victim. Most of the time the child isn't forced to take the stand at all, but even if he/she does, it is most likely the DA would call him/her rather than the defense. Badgering a witness is against court procedure, last time I checked, and any inappropriate questions would not be allowed by ANY judge.

I dunno what to make of the law. I haven't seen it in its entirety.

[chrisvet]

Yes, you're correct. We should praise him for saying he is going to ruin 8 year olds lives. He's a true American hero. GI Joe...
This is the 2nd or third time I'm calling this guy out as a total idiot, but moreso a disrepectful cunt towards a very sensitive subject.

The theatrics were completely unnecessary.