Then I think you're a lousy lawyer, at least you are in how you represent the law outside of a courtroom. You, of all people, especially as someone who represents defendants in murder cases, should be one of the first people to insist that we let the facts of the case, not idle speculation, guide our reasoning and conclusions. You should be leading by example, not following the herd.
Haha, what? This is a bizarre statement.
The facts of the case are that a guy walked up to a crowd and started shooting. The material facts don't even appear to be in dispute.
We're discussing the potential motivations of the shooter and the political climate of the country.
There is nothing remotely inappropriate about this. I've sat around and had similar conversations with other lawyers thousands of times.
I think you're watched a little too much
Law and Order or something. You seem to be inhabiting a fantasy world.
Your excuse is like a doctor saying that, while he/she isn't in the clinic, they should refrain from speaking out against medical nonsense. Worse yet, it's like said doctor promoting said medical nonsense, because hey it doesn't matter since they aren't in clinic, right?
This makes no sense. Is there any confusion over the law, here? Anyone struggling with the concept of murder?
Did you have any discussions with people about what the hell was going on during hte 9-11 attacks? I did.
Let's say there's a treatment for a disease that hasn't gone through the studies yet. You don't think doctors will sit around and discuss what the likely outcome of the testing will be, "I think it will work because_____, I don't think it will work because_____."
If someone starts making incorrect statments about the law, rest assured that I will swiftly debunk the false statements. Speculating about what the facts will turn out to be is another matter all together.
