Reply With Quote
He's like a modern day John Adams.
Quite a guy. Defender of Paris bombings Salah Abdeslam. Oh but not just him, read about who he defends for his career.
Makes Johnny Coachroach look like a minor demon.
http://www.france24.com/en/20160320-...nding-abdeslam
Marc Dutroux, a guy Sven Mary gladly defended.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Dutroux
It would be so sad if a vigilante made Sven Mary disappear.
He's like a modern day John Adams.
If you don't believe in the rule of law, get of the internets and be a vigilante yourself.
Your superpower will be confusing people with nonsensical nicknames.
Rumpy thinks it is legal to molest and torture children, then let them die.
GTFO.
Stay TFO.
I don't think that's what Chump said.
What Chump questioned you about is whether someone accused of such things -- that is, not yet proven to have done it in a court of law -- should just be presumed guilty and sentenced on your belief in his guilt or whether you actually believe in the rule of law and that those who are merely accused of crimes are en led to a presumption of innocence until a government proves their guilt (or until they confess to it) and whether those who are merely accused should be allowed to mount legal defenses to the accusations against them.
I realize that you're absolutely certain -- in virtually every case -- of what the outcome should be and that you don't really give a damn about things like cons utional due process or the rule of law, really. That's why Chump suggests that perhaps your better course would be to just become some vigilante who metes out "justice" based solely on your conclusions about that person, drawn from news reports, and without need of proof of a person's guilt.
By the way, people like Sven Mary have a very high profile for taking on the defense of cases that seem the most outrageous. You should be happy that those defense lawyers tend to have poor records in terms of avoiding convictions. They tend to operate as foils to the system, ensuring that it is put to the full rigor required instead of just perfunctorily adjudicating someone guilty. But, at the end of the day, most of the guys they defend are proven to have been guilty and frequently without much problem.
^^ yawn. You've tried this tactic before with me on the Aaron Hernandez case.
Here is a direct quote from Sven Mary regarding your defendant Abdeslam:
On March 18, after Abdeslam had been arrested but before Mary took up his defense, Mary expressed an interest in Abdeslam’s case. He clarified, however, that he wouldn’t represent Abdeslam if the suspect tried to argue that he hadn’t participated in the Paris attacks.
“That would bore me and I wouldn’t defend him,” Mary told L’Express.
Where did I say it was legal?
Show me a quote from me saying that.
You made some pretty strong accusations against me. You need to back them up.
one hit wonder. But it was a cool one hit at the time.
Right. We're all down with the fact that you despise due process.
The only test of guilt should be whether Fabbs has decided that someone is guilty. Once Fabbs has made that decision, the defendant should have no defense, there should be no rules of procedure or evidence applicable to him, and the courts should just rubber stamp a guilty verdict and assess punishment.
I guess the good news for guys like you is that President Trump might agree with you.
No, Fabbs has to kill them himself.
Since all he does is sit on the net and make up terrible nicknames, crime will run rampant.
Good job, Fabbs. How many children will be molested because of your refusal to kill their attackers?
If you can stay on thread topic, tell me how "due process" went for the victims in the Marc Dutroux career?
Sven Mary the liarwyer defending him on just one of his many crimes.
Do tell. I provided the link that outlined how it went with "due process."
Right. You convince yourself that the guy committed bad crime and you absolve the state of any obligation to prove guilt while denying the guy any chance to defend himself.
You'd make a fine dictator, Kim Jong Fabbs.
Classic defense liarwyer twist and avoid.
How did it go with due process in Marc Dutroux?
Deprived of a chance to prove himself innocent?
Aaron Hernandez deprived?
MultiJudgeDredd
Aaron Hernandez wasn't deprived. He was given a chance to defend himself, much to your distress, and wasn't able to demonstrate any reasonable doubt to a jury. Apparently, you don't actually trust juries to make those sorts of decisions.Classic defense liarwyer twist and avoid.
How did it go with due process in Marc Dutroux?
Deprived of a chance to prove himself innocent?
Aaron Hernandez deprived?
No one should be allowed to risk acquittals where the all-knowing Fabbs is certain of guilt, I guess.
And Dutroux's cases aren't a portrait in the "problems" with due process. Dutroux was convicted upon his first arrest and sentenced to prison. The prison system (which is a different thing altogether from legal concerns for due process) reduced his punishment and released him early. Law enforcement apparently did an abysmal job of investigating justified leads about his post-release conduct, which also isn't about due process and is about shoddy police work. When Dutroux was actually in the justice system and afforded the due process it offered, he was convicted -- twice.
Johnny Coachroach? Johnny Coachroach.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 03-21-2016 at 02:58 PM.
think there will be any self-reflection generated by this thread?
should be many.
these sophists remind me of the tactics of the DarrinS account just with a different cause.
rent free
Fastest rent free response ever
yes without you having to do anything more, events like this make me think you a sophist of the lowest order. you have accomplished so much.
the defender in the san bernardino case sounded just like your pla udes.
actually perfect timing
The original judge, by all accounts a fair non corrupt judge was *removed* from the case.
Is this part of the due process?
This su ion that Dutroux had been, or was being, protected was raised when the public became aware of Dutroux's claims that he was part of a sex ring that included high-ranking members of the police force and government.[13] This su ion along with general anger over the outcome culminated when the popular judge in charge of investigating the claims, Jean-Marc Connerotte (fr), was dismissed on the grounds of having participated in a fund-raising dinner for the girls' parents.[13] The investigation itself was wrapped up on grounds of conflict of interests. His dismissal and end of the investigation resulted in a massive protest march (the "White March") of 300,000 people on the capital, Brussels, in October 1996, two months after Dutroux's arrest, in which demands were made for reforms of Belgium's police and justice system.[14]On the witness stand, Jean-Marc Connerotte (fr), the original judge of the case, broke down in tears when he described "the bullet-proof vehicles and armed guards needed to protect him against the shadowy figures determined to stop the full truth coming out.[13] Never before in Belgium has an investigating judge at the service of the king been subjected to such pressure. We were told by police that [murder] contracts had been taken out against the magistrates." Connerotte testified that the investigation was seriously hampered by protection of suspects by people in the government. "Rarely has so much energy been spent opposing an inquiry," he said. He believed that the Mafia had taken control of the case.[15]
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
