I say let the Man out 6 months tops..... :smash:

 

Why all the lawyer bashing? Surely you jest?

As far as I'm concerned, from my experiences with lawyers, the greatest threat to America is not bombs from Saddam, no, its our own lawyers.

It is hard to get lawyers to admit that there is a growing problem of lawyers and legal decisions that are DETRIMENTAL to the good of society - you know that it has gotten out of hand when commercials start poking fun at all the disclosures and legalities that their own company lawyers require. The list of legal perversities is growing faster than the legal profession. Problem is that the dwindling ranks of good intentioned lawyers are unable or unwilling to do anything about the bad ones. Self enrichment carried to an extreme means that the overstepping of boundries of reason become more and more egregious over time - until the "truth" is obvious to all, but lost in some insanely written set of rules.

By the way, if you ever find yourself on the witness stand being cleverly questioned by a lawyer who is trying to force a certain kind of answer that is a twist upon reality - just remember that you are NOT required to answer yes or no just because the questioning lawyer says "yes or no, blah,blah,blah, what is your answer, yes or no?". When faced with a legal hijacking of the truth you should not give up. Instead you have the right to give your interpetive answer if you believe it to be the truth. Do not let a lawyer badger you with badly directed questioning. If need be, remind the lawyer that just because he doesn't like your answer it doesn't make it any less valid. If the judge asks you to answer the question as asked, tell him that this is your answer, and that you believe it is the best answer to the question.

Thomas

 

Zora,

I bet you would think differently if it had been your family that was touched by this tragedy.

I've put more thought into this subject, and I couldn't understand why others were thinking differently. It's not that I'm always right, but this incident (at least what I know of it) seems pretty clear cut. Then it dawned on me. This is a corvette forum, where most people here are into performance of their cars. I'm sure if it were a Dept. of Transportation site, or a Highway Safety site, the posters would feel much differently. Just to add to what I've already said before, Kevin does have some responsibility in all this. Lets not forget that he was also dumb in several aspects. First, why would he bait, or try to race a Lambo in the first place? To me, that's dumb to start with. Second, why do it on a crowded street? It reminds me of a scene from a movie called "Against All Odds", with Jeff Bridges racing against (?, guy/actor who looks like Peter Weller,,, James something?), with them pulling crazy stunts like pulling into oncoming traffic trying to beat each other.

Anyway, hopefully this will be a lesson to us all, don't street race in traffic! You can never know what the other driver might due in an effort "to win" or show off. What does it prove anyway?

 

First of all , the crash took place on Long Island.

Vic

 

Not intended as a flame, but did you read the last paragraph of my first post? My question was limited to the bashing of lawyers in this case.

I said: "On one other topic, what's with the lawyer bashing on this thread? Don't get me wrong, I'm used to it and accept it (and do it myself when dealing with opposing counsel!), but I don't follow the bashing over the website or the result of the case. It looked like the bashing was targeted at Corvette guy's lawyers. My guess is the website is run by the friends and family and just a way to raise money to pay legal bills. It doesn't do anything else. Who cares if their side of the story is out there? If you don't believe it, add it to the list of things on the internet that are false! (Y'know that huge list.) Corvette guy's lawyers did their job (I guess) at trial and he still got a sentence that many feel is excessive. So what's the complaint on lawyers?"

As I said, I have no problem with people bashing lawyers and don't take it personally. I only wondered aloud (or, in print) why there was bashing and complaining about lawyers in this case. Didn't seem to me like the lawyers did anything wrong, it was the racers who killed someone and the topic was whether a racer not physically involved in an accident should be responsible in some measure for the consequences.

This is horrible advice. A witness has to answer the question that is asked. If it's a yes or no question, you should answer yes or no. Arguing with the lawyer just ruins your credibility and makes you look like a liar. It's up to your own lawyer (or the other party's lawyer if you are just a witness and not a party to the case) to come back on redirect and ask you another question to let you explain. If what you are complaining about is a poorly worded question, that's another story. The opposing lawyer should object and the judge will ask him to reword.


[Modified by Charlutz, 4:22 PM 11/21/2002]

 

Indeed, why all the lawyer bashing? Sometimes the perception of lawyers is that "they" are the ones who are suing, "they" are the ones acting aggressively. Remember lawyers are hired by people or acting on behalf of a government entity. Lawyers can't do anything or take any action that their clients do not agree with or authorize (it would be malpractice, and it is a huge concern). If this is about pointing the finger, point it to the people who hire the lawyers, not the lawyers themselves. Lawyers are paid for their actions, clients seek action based on their own agenda, which such "agenda" is the indirect object of all the societal ridicule (usually misdirected at the lawyer). (Example: hot coffee, client sue mcdonalds, and the jury comprised of members of society finds for plaintiff and awards huge verdict, and people blame the plaintiff's lawyer?)
If you don't care for the profession because of the character or general traits of the individuals, thats one thing, but to blame the collapse of American society on thier actions, you should blame the people who cause them to act.
If your comments are directed to the events in this particular post, he should be found guilty according to the law (which is made by people you vote for), if its about the sentence, that is up to the judge who is either elected by the public or appointed by officials who you elect.

 

excellent point......I have 3 kids and would be :mad if ANYONE hurt or killed them, now their mother, well that's a whole other story.....J/k!! :jester I am guilty of racing on the highway, but NEVER in a residental or high density area where kids and people are. It make my spine tingle just thinkin about it... :eek:

 

Agreed castivers.............the dumbazz in the lambos at 100 percent fault. But that's not the way the law works man. The law works to those slick enough to WORK THE LAW. The law is nothing but crap ...........putty to mold into the hands of those who write it. The Lambo was at total fault for that crap. And everyone knows it. Blaming the vetter's just plain because they can in a stupid world filled with stupid moral judgement and no logical aptitude for a flat out problem that can be simplified to a prompt solution through common sense alone. This is the same reason why you have to kill an intruder if he comes into your house to rape your wife and claim self defense. Otherwise the dumbf*** can sue you if you "break his leg with more than enough force" and leave him for the police. Simply put...........the law is nothing but a written rule..........I make my own laws because I value the moral judgements of typical society about as much as I value the dogs*** in my backyard. That dude suing this vetter should be put to death simply for his stupidity in the situation. The vetter should be aquitted of all charges whatsoever in my opinion from what I read on the site and the coverage of the situation. :iagree:

 

I thought this might be an interesting article related to this discussion.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/u...tner=earthlink