so you think they should not be catching big time criminals?

Hahaha, I told my buddy about this and he said he'd rather go to jail than go to Ohio.

Depends on a lot of factors. But these are not robots. They apes just like everyone else. Sometimes people are wrong and it is clear to everyone, but because they are vested into thinking the person is guilty they will ignore the other evidence. Happens on the defense side too. I've talked to defense attorneys who are adamant about this innocence of a client, when it's really clear they are in the wrong. Again, not because they are evil. Probably just because they are humans and people are ****ed up like that. I'm sure every states attorney would say they care, because they probably really think they do. But in practice life is a lot more complicated than just asking what someone's stance is on something.

To make a sports analogy I would say it's like when you're watching a football game and they do a review. You're watching two teams you don't give a **** about, but everyone you're with are all patriots fans. It's clear that the call will go against the pats, like really obvious. But you will still get some people who can't wrap their head around it. Apes gonna ape I guess.

You know I really don't know how to fix the problems that come with the states attorneys offices across the country. I want to reign in the office a little bit, but it must remain functional. Not an easy balance to strike. I am not saying it's completely ****ed or anything.

Isn't a prosecutor's job to use evidence gathered and make an argument as to why the evidence supports they are guilty of the crimes they are charged with beyond a reasonable doubt? Where does someone's personal opinion fit in there?

Case Closed,

Are you actually in law school? You seem clueless not only here but in other topics where I have seen you post stuff that law students should know.

Yes. Examples of me being clueless?

No. A prosecutor is not supposed to advance a case where they don't actually believe in the guilt of the accused. They further have a duty to stop the trial should evidence change their original opinion. They also have both a duty and personal self-interest in not advancing cases where the evidence is not strong enough to win.

Is it accredited?

Are you passing?

Just casually browsing the Zimmerman topic for example.

It's called prosecutorial discretion (http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_gui...eId-10015.html). We expect prosecutors to only charge people they think are guilty and to charge them with the appropriate crime and ask for the appropriate sentence.

We also expect them to not waste our tax dollars prosecuting losing cases like the Duke lacrosse case for their personal political benefit.

I'd generally also prefer they act in a more ethical manner than the Jefferson Parish DA (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...t_unusual.html)

What would influence them to "not actually believe in the guilt of the accused" if not for the evidence?

Of course if the evidence indicates they'll have a slim chance at a conviction they need to stop wasting court costs and peoples time.

Here, I'll make you feel better. I am failing and I am attending a 5th tier bum**** rural school packed with nobodies knuckle draggers. Now lets get to the fun.

The Zimmerman thread is just good ol' fashion politics forum fun. If you want to call me clueless over that then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you could try reading more closely. But that would be stupid because no one should have to read that thread closely unless you want your brain to explode.

Anything else, or something specific?

lol henry17 calling caseclosed clueless.

you are both morons.

You're a libertarian who just got his first job last year and had to ask the forum about the taxes you pay. I'd make fun of you, but then I'd feel bad.

zomg i got a job and had a question about taxes!! that's a hilarious story!

Obviously the evidence is all they have but people like Case Closed seem to think that regardless of the evidence they still just want to put people in jail. I

Doesn't make me feel better or worse. I'm just trying to understand your position. Being a hood rat was my first guess but someone already asked that and you denied so exploring other options.

It just stuck out to me because after you posted in this topic claiming you didn't need my help with evidence you immediately posted about hearsay in the other topic and reading those posts made me chuckle.

I'm an internet misanthrope. Take me as I am.

I never said I did not need your help with evidence. I just made fun of the idea that you were trying to give me a lesson about evidence law. Which is honestly hilarious. The funny thing is that I do need help with evidence, but I'll talk to real lawyers about that. Criminal lawyers who actually practice criminal law in the United States.

I gotta go to bat for CC here..

That Trayvon Martin thread is not a good way to judge anyones intelligence.

That thread is so full of petty bickering, incessant trolling and pure rage that I don't think that any of the regular posters in that thread, myself included, come off looking very intelligent.

Ohio is definitely a pretty relaxed state when it comes to weed. My buddies got pulled over with over 2 ounces on them, stupidly let the cops search the car and the weed was found. Cops confiscated the weed and essentially they got a ticket that is no worse than most traffic tickets.

You will get in more trouble for having a bowl then having a bag of weed. I try to make sure they don't ride around with paraphernalia since I know they are too dumb not to get caught with it. As long as you carry like less then 4 ounces you don't have much to worry about.

I do not envy wookie's job at all.

you could easily insert a poker analogy here. ppl dont even need to trick themselves into absolutely believing they have the best hand even tho an impartial observer is like ur lol beat. then even after they lose, they still will find a way to justify.

or just tangible things. like try to troubleshoot and fix a piece of equipment like a printer or car or computer with another person. if your opinions differ, even as evidence mounts, neither will secede from your convictions until its 100% certain.

ppl ghana ppl. or apes i guess.

I find these types typically hold the moral highground over people like me who know damn well the ******* is guilty and still fight to get them off.

I work for a lot of defense ****. I think they're usually guilty as hell.

It's possible I feel that way due to conflicting ideas from being a cop to being a defense investigator. Or maybe I'm a whore.

Who knows?

Working for defense investigations has to open you up to a lot of information that prosecutors don't get, right? Add that with being a cop (and a good one from what I've read in the ask a cop thread) you can usually put both sides together and have a pretty good idea of what actually happened. But being a whore and all is the deciding factor...

Side question: how often do cops work for defense investigations?

Pretty often although they're typically retired or out of their jurisdiction.

It's clearly a conflict of interest to work as a cop and a private investigator for the defense in your jurisdiction.