Redneck got owned by a kid who already probably has twice his IQ.

/Now only if our country's leaders could read the constitution...

Lordmontu: Redneck got owned by a kid who already probably has twice his IQ.

actually, if you read the letter, the redneck is a woman. Not sure if that changes anything, but just pointing that out.

Searched the archives for "Mary Voiles" and turned up these gems of wisdom:

March 9, Worried About Name
RANT: How can we have a U.S. president with a name (Barack Hussein Obama) that sounds like we already lost the war?

I can't even remember without looking it up.

I'm worried he may decide to rename the White House.

Mary Voiles
Alba


March 21: Take The Oil
Maybe I'm not the sharpest person regarding the reason of oil prices, but somebody tell me who/why/what is causing them to rise?

We give monies/help/support to these countries with the oil, so why can't we just go in, blow a hole smack dab in the middle and just take the blasted oil - forget paying!

Mary Voiles
Alba

Ladies and gentlemen, your electorate.

SilentStrider: actually, if you read the letter, the redneck is a woman. Not sure if that changes anything, but just pointing that out.

Whoops. Missed that.

Lordmontu: Redneck got owned by a kid who already probably has twice 4 times his her IQ.

/FIFM
//I keed

Someone takes her Ed Anger quite seriously.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that, like your garden variety Fark troll, this person is simply spouting the most acidic vitriol she can concoct because she knows it gets her name in print.

Pocket Ninja: Someone takes her Ed Anger quite seriously.

Nice. I haven't read Ed Anger since I was a supermarket bagger and needed something to read on my break.

She's a Troll.



/nobody is that ignorant.

Hmmmm...Before reading TFA I assumed that the readneck would be a man, so obviously I am sexist...

I just can't figure out if I am a feminazi or a patriarchal oppressor...

/shucks why can't I just be both

Hahaha....As someone living in Nebraska, I can guarentee you people are that ignorant. I'll send you to my grandparent's house, Bill O'Reilly is the second coming to them. That's straight from the no spin zone.

7 Reasons to hate hicks (new window)

RANT: Is it just me or do others have the same feeling regarding the quantity of commercials in between programs ... it is getting totally ridiculous to have one minute of programming and five minutes of commercials.

I have counted eight commercials during program breaks. Why don't these commercials get a Web site like the "paid programming" sites so I would have an option whether I want to view them? They are also timed in the same timeframe as other stations so you have no option but to watch commercials.

There must be something we can do to block them out.

Mary Voiles
Alba

(Cue "old man yells at cloud" Simpsons pic)

kronicfeld: Ladies and gentlemen, your electorate Texas.

Fixed. Seriously, it's the only state dominated by that combination of stupid, crazy, and self-righteous.

/and yes, there are some astonishingly cool people there too

While this woman seems like a professional retard, great work for the kid to respond in the best manner possible.

Poopspasm: kronicfeld: Ladies and gentlemen, your electorate Texas.

Fixed. Seriously, it's the only state dominated by that combination of stupid, crazy, and self-righteous.

/and yes, there are some astonishingly cool people there too

You have not been to Alabama.

GAT_00: Poopspasm: kronicfeld: Ladies and gentlemen, your electorate Texas.

Fixed. Seriously, it's the only state dominated by that combination of stupid, crazy, and self-righteous.

/and yes, there are some astonishingly cool people there too

You have not been to Alabama.

And West Virginia, apparently.

Before there were youtube comments, there were letters to the editor

Lordmontu: /Now only if our country's leaders could read the constitution...

It is rather mean spirited to wish that. After all, then the legislators wouldn't get to have all their fun and would be strongly inhibited in the laws they would be able to pass. You don't want to your senators cry, do you? :(

I think the 14-year-old's response to that insane letter may have restored a teensy bit of faith in my generation.

Farkin'round: She's a Troll.



/nobody is that ignorant.

the 2000 and 2004 elections would like to have a word with you.

The original letter writer must be a Hillary supporter. A redneck old woman that watches Matlock?

Everyone is in a big hurry to attack the writer Mary voiles for her post. Clearly she is not very well educated, or perhaps wrote what she did in a rush, but she has a good point.

Yes, our Constitution says everyone is entitled to a defense. But let's look more closely...how often do we read about criminals who CLEARLY did the crime they were accused of, but bought a high-priced attorney to get them off the hook?

If you are an attorney and you know your client is guilty, you are entitled to recuse yourself from the case. If an attorney chooses not to do that, are they making that choice because of the great and wonderful institution that is American Law, or are they doing it for the paycheck?

One could assume that at least a percentage of the time, it is the latter.

Here is an absolute fact - if you are an attorney who represents someone of a crime (rape perhaps? manslaughter? child molestation?) you strongly feel they are guilty yet you get them off the hook, and they go commit that crime again creating another family of victims, your actions in defending that criminal are directly responsible for the fact that the criminal was in a position to commit that crime again.

You can argue that the Constitution affords that criminal the right to a defense all day long, but it won't change the net result.

If a mother loses a child in a scenario like this, the fact that the perpetrator had his or her constitutional rights upheld will be no consolation whatsoever. And we as a society will of course scream and yell, "How did they let him get away with it again? What's wrong with our justice system?"

It's not the system. It's the people in the system. Prosecutors and defense attorneys are often much more concerned with preserving a favorable win ratio than they are with achieving justice in a particular case.

That's not the system's fault; that's the price we pay as a society when ambition and greed trump right and wrong.

Does this generalization always apply, to every attorney out there? Absolutely not. But it does apply in many cases, and I think we can all agree that there are examples of when this scenario creates innocent victims.

I think if Mary were capable, this is what she would have said.

FarkingSean: Yes, our Constitution says everyone is entitled to a defense. But let's look more closely...how often do we read about criminals who CLEARLY did the crime they were accused of, but bought a high-priced attorney to get them off the hook?

if they clearly did the crime, there shouldn't be trouble proving they did it beyond a reasonable doubt. if the prosecutor can't do that, maybe they didn't clearly do the crime.

sorry, the right to a defense is what it is, and for good reason.

RANT: I've got this goddamned boil on my ass and it hurts like hell. I can barely sit for 16 hours of the Matlock marathon it hurts so bad.

Its... its kind of yellow. The boil, that is, not my ass. My ass is pretty much Elmer's glue white, except around the boil, where it is a ring of angry purple.

Speaking of angry, when is someone going to do something about those dirty muslims? I'll bet they're the ones who gave me this boil.

Mary Voiles
Alba

FarkingSean: Everyone is in a big hurry to attack the writer Mary voiles for her post. Clearly she is not very well educated, or perhaps wrote what she did in a rush, but she has a good point.

It was a rant plain and simple, every single person has thought how could someone defend someone so guilty? If an attorney knows a man is guilty then he pulls strings or looks at loopholes to get them off, there are plenty of cases where guilty people get off only to kill/rape/rob again.

But there are also cases where not guilty have went to jail so you have the bad scenarios as well. Either way it was a heat of the moment rant and the kid sounds like a smug coont trying to defend her ambulance chaser father.

Besides its a defense attorney most of them are scum.

burndtdan: if they clearly did the crime, there shouldn't be trouble proving they did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Come on, you're smarter than that. Are you telling me that the guilty don't often go free in our society, then go commit more crimes?

FTFA: On the embarrassed side, this letter to the editor wishing harm would come to the families of criminal defense attorneys struck me as one of the most mean-spirited things I've seen in a while. As evidence there are few people as dumb as an East Texas redneck, the author declares, "You didn't see Perry Mason or Matlock take on a case of they knew the perp was guilty."

Yeah, and John Wayne never got off his horse to take a pee.


Maj. Frank Burns: I don't believe you did it. Officers don't steal.
Capt. Benjamin Franklin "Hawkeye" Pierce: Right.
Capt. B.J. Hunnicut: We don't go to the toilet either.
Capt. Benjamin Franklin "Hawkeye" Pierce: We just explode when we're 50.
[Radar looks up, concerned]

What with a 14 year old reading these forums?

Recommended reading for Ms. Voiles:

If you are an attorney and you know your client is guilty, you are entitled to recuse yourself from the case. If an attorney chooses not to do that, are they making that choice because of the great and wonderful institution that is American Law, or are they doing it for the paycheck?

Dumbest thing I've ever seen.

I was going to type something after this to tell why.... but the stupidity of this just sucked all the thought out of my head.

I'll be lucky if I can drive today.

RANT: Herpes, Crabs, AIDS, Chlamydia, Super AIDS, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis A,B,C, and Q, Super Duper AIDS.... I have all of these and I'm sick of it!

Mary Voiles
Alba

FarkingSean:

perhaps wrote what she did in a rush, but she has a good point.

No, not really. The perception of guilt is a powerful thing, and people will read what they need to get a conviction into circumstantial evidence and fraudulent reasoning. Sometimes it doesn't even take that, just the mere appearance of feeling guilty or smug about the crime is usually enough to convince juries to vote accordingly. Just because someone looks "obviously guilty" doesn't mean that they are actually a party to the crime.

/100 guilty men go for over 1 innocent going to jail
//When all the laws are cut down, what will be there to protect you from the devil
///[insert other pro-defendant type things here]

Suicidal Writer: 7 Reasons to hate hicks (new window)

Please, please don't confuse 'hick' with 'redneck'. There are many intelligent worldly people in the countryside that just choose a rural setting.

The goddamned rednecks are what wake me up at 3am back home with their farking straight-piped truck complete with it's own 'nutz'.

FarkingSean: I think if Mary were capable, this is what she would have said.

I think you give Ms Voiles too much credit, but that is beside the point.

When I was in school (in the 70s and 80s) I learned that one of the most fundamental principles of our judicial system is "it is better to let 10 criminals go free than to convict one innocent person." I'm not sure where it comes from, although one google attempt brought up the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in which Lot bargains God down to 10 from 50. (Kinda puts that disgusting phrase "jewing him down" in a new light, but I digress.) That is why the burden of proof is on the prosecution and why we have the right to "due process."

chipspastic:

I'm not sure where it comes from, although one google attempt brought up the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in which Lot bargains God down to 10 from 50.

It's a quote from Benjamin Franklin I believe.

FarkingSean: If you are an attorney and you know your client is guilty, you are entitled to recuse yourself from the case.

O RLY? From the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16(b)(1): states that you may withdraw if it can be accomplished "without material adverse effect to the interests of the client.

There are other rules of interest as well, such as rule 1.2(d), which states that a lawyer's representation is not an endorsement of their views or actions.

Simply put, withdrawing from representation where a suspect did something bad - that you took no part in - may be unethical and cause the lawyer to be sanctioned. Rule 1.16(c) allows a court to order you to continue representing a client - and that's something that may just happen if you bail out on a criminal defendant who you think might of did it, but who has a defensible case.

You make it seem really cut and dry, but if every lawyer simply withdrew from representing someone because he appeared guilty, then you'd end up having a miscarriage of justice.

/not a lawyer, not legal advice
//but at least do some research

chipspastic: "it is better to let 10 criminals go free than to convict one innocent person."

Oh really?

If one innocent person goes free, how many people get harmed?

If ten guilty people are free to go commit more crimes, how many people get harmed?

This is a favorite quote of libs everywhere, and it sounds nice and neat, but it's wrong. Dead wrong.

The right to defense is an important right, and it should not be taken away. But the attorneys involved become culpable if they subvert justice for the sake of their own victory. That's just a fact. And if you don't think that happens, you're living in a dream world.

Poopspasm: kronicfeld: Ladies and gentlemen, your electorate Texas.

Fixed. Seriously, it's the only state dominated by that combination of stupid, crazy, and self-righteous.

/and yes, there are some astonishingly cool people there too

No, it's not. Confirmation bias, asshole. Your state is as shiatty as mine.

FarkingSean:
I think if Mary were capable, this is what she would have said.

Except she didn't. She said she can't understand why people defend 'criminals.' As farked as the justice system is, it's necessary. The police are not the law.

FarkingSean: chipspastic: "it is better to let 10 criminals go free than to convict one innocent person."

Oh really?

If one innocent person goes free, how many people get harmed?

If ten guilty people are free to go commit more crimes, how many people get harmed?

This is a favorite quote of libs everywhere, and it sounds nice and neat, but it's wrong. Dead wrong.

The right to defense is an important right, and it should not be taken away. But the attorneys involved become culpable if they subvert justice for the sake of their own victory. That's just a fact. And if you don't think that happens, you're living in a dream world.

Because criminals are all farking loaded and all hire high-priced attorneys. If they were, they wouldn't be committing crime.

No one should go to jail for a crime they didn't commit. If you stand so heavily against this, I'm sure plenty of people wold gladly have you take their place.

Curbstomp Jesus: Searched the archives for "Mary Voiles" and turned up these gems of wisdom:

What's her Fark handle?

LocalCynic: withdrawing from representation where a suspect did something bad - that you took no part in - may be unethical and cause the lawyer to be sanctioned.

Unethical by what standards? I personally would applaud the ethics of an attorney who sacrificed standing in his profession because his conscience prevented him from defending something indefensible.

I said "If you are an attorney and you know your client is guilty, you are entitled to recuse yourself from the case.". May there potentially be consequences for your choice? Yes. But are the professional consequences to you more or less important than the potential consequences to society if a dangerous criminal goes free?

Again, it's personal ambition vs. right and wrong.

For progressives, lots of you aren't very progressive. You rely on the status quo of what the legal establishment considers ethical, without any thought towards reforming the system to allow for common sense and conscience.

Clearly our legal system has a lot of problems, so why should we point to the old guard's method of justice as being the standard to adhere to? It doesn't work, as evidenced by the fact that our jails are overflowing and crime rates aren't getting any better.

In a legal challenge, criminal or civil, the only guarantee is that at least one lawyer will arise victorious. The focus should be on justice in a justice system, not preservation of traditions that only benefit those who practice law.

FarkingSean

how would you define your position with regard to the different conceptions of substantive justice, and does that inform, or indeed is it informed by, some theory as to the practical implementation of a pure or impure-based procedural model of justice?

moothemagiccow: No one should go to jail for a crime they didn't commit.

I absolutely agree. And no one should get away with a crime they did commit. So let's focus on what really matters here - justice.

The statement "it is better to let 10 criminals go free than to convict one innocent person" has nothing to do with justice. It has to do with excusing the failings of a broken system by saying "well, at least we do a good job of not locking up innocents". Great. Well done. You have 50% of a functioning justice system. Is anyone satisfied with that?

FarkingSean: chipspastic: "it is better to let 10 criminals go free than to convict one innocent person."

Oh really?

If one innocent person goes free, how many people get harmed?

Read much?

Let me get this right. You would rather lose a few innocents just to round up all the criminals? And me thinking that's the wrong way to do justice makes me liberal?

What planet are you from?

FarkingSean:

This is a favorite quote of libs everywhere, and it sounds nice and neat, but it's wrong. Dead wrong.

I disagree. If the innocent are able to be sentenced for the sake of catching a few extra criminal, then everybody's rights and liberties are at stake. You'll excuse me for finding those concepts to be far more important than some authoritarian asshat being able to rub one out whenever they hear a guilty verdict has been rendered.

moothemagiccow: Except she didn't.

Not to mention that even if she had said it, she'd be just as blindingly ignorant about the justice system and the roles of those involved as she is now. Being able to say something stupid in a somewhat more eloquent way than "Hurr, fark the justice system. I wants to see me some hangins!" doesn't mean it suddenly gains validity.

21-7-b: FarkingSean

how would you define your position with regard to the different conceptions of substantive justice, and does that inform, or indeed is it informed by, some theory as to the practical implementation of a pure or impure-based procedural model of justice?

You remind me of that college guy in Good Will Hunting that tries to make an ass out of Ben Affleck at the bar. If I remember correctly, he looked like a complete jackass himself.

While you're all feting (or fellating?) this 14 year old legal eagle, you might wish to consider that he may not be as sharp as you think. When he states:

My father defends the Constitution of the United States of America, which states that any person who is accused of a crime has the right to an attorney.

...he may be being too clever by half. The Constitution states nothing about presumption of innocence, though it is considered by some to be implied. And the right to representation is mentioned, but at the time only applied to federal cases.

The lady was indeed an annoying redneck, but the kid isn't exactly Clarence F'ing Darrow. More like a legal beagle.

FarkingSean:

If I remember correctly, he looked like a complete jackass himself.

You could just admit that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that you're only defending the redneck because your "gut" agrees with her.