>Wisconsin governor dismisses petition of 270,000 people who believe Avery, who is the focus of the Netflix documentary series "Making a Murderer," was framed.
Lel what a bunch of retards. Why would you believe a documentary outweighs a judge and jury?
Reddit retards are easily swayed by a shitty documentary. Even if the cops were shitbags and he should have gotten off on reasonable doubt, Avery is an even bigger shitbag that they should have just dumped in a ditch somewhere.
>try suing state for 30+ million
>state frames you
>locks you back up
>decide to settle for 400,000 so you can afford lawyers
>ever thinking you'll get out of prison again even if the person who actually killed that woman admits to it and provides proof
seems like quite some ppl thought this would happen. idk the only thing thats realistically gonna put them out is if they find further evidence that proves em innocent. they also discuss this whole thing at the end of episode 10
>making a petition for avery
>not Brendan who's obviously been fucked by his lawyers
>mfw the american justice system is the same for regular people and the mentally retarded
>Why would you believe a documentary outweighs a judge and jury?
Because some of the legal personnel involved was corrupt.
Brendan's lawyer accomplice literally breaks into tears and appologizes for framing his client.
Judge Fox has a mild chuckle and sents Brendan back to prison.
I don't get this whole hype train about this.
Avery is pretty much legally retarded, he's probably functioning much better in prison than he ever could in the real world. And the world is probably better off with him in prison.
This. I don't give a fuck about Steven since he's a fucking scumbag either way (8 of his 18 years in prison was for illegal firearm) but Brendan got completely fucked over by everyone since he was a naive autistic kid basically.
It's not even just the cat, although that does show sociopathic tendencies. The dude burglarizes bars, runs people off roads, and threatens them with guns. I'm having a hard time drumming up sympathy.
So is everybody just going to ignore that this faggot and Kratz worked together to get Brendan to make false statements and fabricate fake evidence against Steven?
This is not a conspiracy theory or the documentary's bias. There's e-mails, video material and a confession from the lawyers accomplice.
Shouldn't the FBI or the local counselor look into this matter a little more thouroughly than not at all?
What was the legit proof against Avery (which wasn't mentioned in the documentary)?
The things I quickly found and remember are
>During his time incarcerated for the rape (he didn't commit) he confided to fellow inmates that he would hurt women when he got out
>Remains of his sweat was found on the murdered girls car, I forget where exactly
As soon as I learned this dropped the documentary after 2 and a half episode. Clearly it was very biased in favor of Avery.
There was some more, but I've already forgotten it. Anyone care to add something?
Wiegert and the other detective at some point just decided that that's how it went down and made Brendan guess until he got it right.
It was kinda bizarre seeing how they got frustrated when they realized Brendan was too fucking dumb to even guess they wanted him to say he shot her in the face.
>what did you do to her head Brendan?
> I...cut her... hair?
I really dont get how they dismissed that one investigator from the case because of the methods he forced/manipulated brendan to say what he wanted him to say, yet they kept brendans confession as a legit evidence. like what the fuck
None really. That's the thing.
All the relevant evidence (at the time of the trial)
proven to be entirely made up and contradictory to the presented evidence
Most likely planted by Lenk
>The blood and the car:
Most likely planted by Lenk
Probably planted by Lenk or a partner of his
Proven to be moved, most likely by Lenk, Avery himself, or the real murderer of Theresa
All relevant evidence has been shown to be tampered with. This doesn't prove Avery's innocence but it's certainly more than reasonable doubt.
You can after the verdict. If that gets denied or it isn't timely, the bar to have an appeal is really high. It's even higher if you want to introduce new evidence that wasn't introduced during trial.
Judge Fox is in on the conspiracy. Brendan and Steven never had a chance to begin with.
>you will never watch a cop show called Adventures of Lenk about a rogue detective who investigates criminals and plants evidence before the official team shows up, with his dumb friend Colborn helping him out
I have been falsely guilty multiple times. When a crime happens they try to pin it on somebody. Example one time riding my bike through a neighborhood to my house toward a scene of a crime and they arrest me and said I did it and they have witnesses; thats real life.
You guys know black people get exonerated just about every year for the crimes they served time for, right? One documentary on Netflix about some white loser and you all spam /tv/ like crazy for weeks. I don't get it. Except Avery is white, so you suddenly care.
>innocent woman turns up dead near an encampment of low-functioning, violent orcs
What the fuck is a community expected to do with a family like the Averys? They should've swept through and massacred them.
Avery would call auto trader multiple times and specifically ask for the woman who was murdered. One time he answered the door in just a towel in an attempt to come on to her. Her palm pilot was found in a burn barrel outside his house. He molested his nephew. These are just some of the things the film makers decided to conveniently leave out.
well that's good
the documentary was designed that way anyways you mong, to get white people to watch it and let black criminals skate easier. the propaganda wouldn't work if it was about a black criminal
You are seriously implying that he brings a massive case against the state, then 3 weeks later muders someone ?
Wow what a lucky break for those police men right ? Now that case will go away and they will all be ok. i bet they were also glad that the two of them in the depostion found the key to the car of the victim too.
Jesus anyone who thinks he wasnt framed is more retarded than brendan dassy
Could've been someone who lived close, the whole family is sex perverts so it could've been his brother and Scott. Did they heavily investigate them and the ex-bf? Either way my only major question is about the deleted messages on her phone.
>Shouldn't the FBI or the local counselor look into this matter a little more thouroughly than not at all?
FBI looked at it and didn't act. That should tell you everything about your retarded ass conspiracy theory.
>Her palm pilot was found in a burn barrel outside his house. He molested his nephew. These are just some of the things the film makers decided to conveniently leave out.
Source on any of this especially the molestation thing?
I bet it was one of the real tru trus Brendan told his mom on the prison phone after being interrogated by the agents again.
But it's not, it IS a conspiracy! That's what's so outrageous about it. Even if you ignore the police department, Lenk and all the other stuff involved in the case, the fact that Kratz and Brendan's lawyer worked together to fuck over Steven and Brendan proofes the existence of a conspiracy.
We have this in writing, on video and in an oral confession by the lawyers accomplice.
A THEORY would require the absence of evidence.
Scott Walker doesn't want to send the message that innocent people should be free. It goes against his party's strict dogma.
>He needed fast money for lawyers to pay for his second trial so he settled for $400K out of the original $30 million.
What a fucking idiot. If he would've posted this on reddit people would've flocked to help him.
Ed Edwards made a career of framing other people for murders he committed. He was in the area at the time and can even be seen in the court room in episode six of the series.
Seems like the poster just framed him for framing people.
Why would this fag testify against his own uncle?
He was related to Steven meaning he could refuse to testify, no?
What are some more similar docs?
Just watched the Jinx, those last 5 minutes were top fucking kek but overall I didn't find it that interesting except for a few good moments (him shoplifting that sandwhich, making the jurors laugh).
I've heard of
- Paradise Lost (WM3)
- The Staircase
- something about Friedmans and CP but I'll pass on that, don't want to confront myself with too gruesome stuff)
- Thin Blue Line
Which is best?
That's not Brendan, it's his brother I think, Bobby? Another nephew who wasn't involved at all.
He testified against Steven during his trial, why didn't he just keep his mouth shut?
>implying a documentary hasnt gotten an innocent man released before
He wasn't that ugly in his youth and he was pretty good at sweet talking his gf as seen in the documentary.
That chick that fell in love with him and he's still with currently however seems like a nutcase.
Well, the thing is, most of the people that the Innocence project frees are repeat offenders, or have done other criminal deeds and or are still locked up for them, it's just for that ONE scenario that they got put on death row/life in prison for they didn't do. Which is still wrong, but most of those people that are acquitted are NOT nice people.
>Brendan makes a statement, under coercion, that he cut her throat in the bedroom
Yeah? Where's the blood? Why wasn't a forensics team brought in
>Steven's DNA on key, but not her's.
>Blood in car, but none of Steven's DNA
Who is better, Dean Strang or Jerome Buting?
Both of them are based but somehow Buting seems less likeable in the beginning. But once you warmed up to him... swoon.
>mfw the american justice system is the same for regular people and the mentally retarded
Why shouldn't it be? Intelligence and propensity for rational action are gradients. At what point do you arbitrarily go from dumb crook to dindu nuffin tard?
There are people in jail - even death row - more worthy of your time and efforts to exonerate them but because you watch a fucking documentary on the internet you're investing your time into one AND ONLY ONE fucking case.
You people disgust me.
>i believe a one sided documentary
IQ of 69
For the death penalty at least. It's the difference in culpability between retards and normal/stupid people. Retards may not be fully responsible for their own actions (and so may not get the death penalty) but still did them, and can still be punished by life in prison. But that's just that case, people are ALWAYS punished for their actions regardless of personal culpability in criminal cases. Well, usually.
Nobody here is investing efforts to exonerate anybody, kek. We're just discussing the documentary, I doubt anybdoy here was stupid enough to sign the petition.
Also, better one than none, right? This is just a case people have heard about, what do you expect everybody who was touched by this to seek out every single innocent person in jail now or they are not allowed to care about this one case? Fuck off.
Honestly any convict could use social media to their advantage nowadays and have someone they know make a petition and a hashtag, their fault for not doing so.
>i know more than the people who followed and documented the case for more than 10 years
>i disagree with whatever the majority seems to be thinking so i feel smarter
>trust me i browse 4chan
>Nobody here is investing efforts to exonerate anybody, kek. We're just discussing the documentary, I doubt anybdoy here was stupid enough to sign the petition.
Holy fucking cherry picking batman
They did their job.
But why did Steven hire the two of them for himself instead of giving one to Brendan? Either one was capable enough on their own, although I get wanting the extra insurance but it's an asshole move, especially since Brendan probably would've gotten off the hook completely with a real lawyer.
Wonder if Steven would've fought for Brendan if he had been freed.
Geniune question, since the trials and jurors were completely seperate and they were both convicted for two completely different courses of action (one death in bedroom, one death in garage, etc)?
Would Brendan's case just have been dropped, was his trial months after Steven's?
t. Brendan-tier tard who has no clue how those things work
Show me a guy more worthy of exoneration than this literal retard who is incapable of understanding how or why anything of this is even happening to him. He can't even form a sentence for fucks sake.
He reminds me of the guy from the green mile. I bet he has a little pet mouse to dress up in tiny wrestlemania costumes...
No one should ever be pardoned because a documentary was made. Otherwise every convict will have a documentary made and get off.
This isnt a 3rd world country where you can either do the time, or pay for the crime.
That being said, Scott Walker is a piece of shit.
What should happen is now that this documentary was made, it should bring into light how fucked up his case was, and have it re-investigated.
> pro bono
This is what I always think when I see cases like this.
But I guess working for months on end with zero pay is not doable for an independent lawyer with his own office maybe? A large law firm of course could do it no problem and most of them do a small percentage of pro bono cases every year I think.
>This isnt a 3rd world country where you can either do the time, or pay for the crime.
that's basically how bails work.
Didn't you watch Oliver explain?
>doesn't even understand basic 2015 concepts
>that's basically how bails work.Didn't you watch Oliver explain?
that is not bail at all you fucking retard. You dont get bail after being convicted of a crime you shitlord.
Bail is for those who dont want to sit in jail while they wait to prove their innocence fuckface
Most lawyers do at least some pro bono work, but those guys aren't cheapo lawyers, and his case was very complicated. I doubt 240k was enough for their regular rates. I'm sure they made some sort of arrangement for a discounted rate or a "We'll take what you've got, and when you run out the rest is pro bono" or some shit, so they at least get something. They can't work for free.
If you're saying that there wasn't enough evidence to
convict, then that's fine. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold probably wasn't met. But if you seriously believe that he didn't kill Teresa, then you're willfully ignorant.
the letter at the end was amazing
>I am learning the Avery family history and about each member of the Avery family. These are criminals. There are members engaged in sexual activities with nieces, nephews, cousins, in-laws. Customers or their relatives unwittingly become victims of their sexual fantasies. This is truly where the devil resides in comfort.
>I can find no good in any member. These people are pure evil. A friend of mine suggested, "This is a one-branch family tree. Cut this tree down. We need to end the gene pool here."
Can someone post the link to the ex-bf's facebook again? Was too lazy to look at it yesterday.
Also if I was him I'd be pissed. Putting in the parts of him in the trial was a little unnecessary and inflammatory imo.
Now reddit-detectives and assholes like us who do it for fun are throwing his name into the mix of suspects.
Just about all of them. Rape kits are the primary source of DNA evidence for them. If the woman said 1 attacker, and there are 2 different DNA strands in the rape kit in the form of pubic hair or 1 in semen/fingernail scraping and they aren't that guy in jail, someone else obviously did it, not the guy in jail. It's very easy to prove innocence in a rape case like that, but rather more difficult for other crimes. Granted, a lot of the people who are wrongfully convicted are usually rapists and or violent felons themselves, but hey, they didn't do THAT one, and that means that someone else had been running the streets without consequences.
Killing small animals should be an offence punishable by life in prison anyway.
> tfw eye-witness testimony is so damn unreliable it might as well not be used in court
> especially because all niggers look alike
I don't agree but yeah, a person who does shit like that is no doubtedly a monster.
> inb4 shoveldog or zippocat
Animals aren't people. Fuck 'em. You should be able to flay animals alive over an open fire because god damn it how many fucking times do I have to say it ANIMALS ARE NOT PEOPLE. THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF DOING ANYTHING BUT THE SEEKING OF PLEASURE AND AVOIDANCE OF PAIN. THEY ARE NOT SAPIENT. Well, except for crows, they're fucking smart as shit.
Yup. Especially in rapes, the victim is traumatized, and is almost incapable of accurately remembering the face, or they get someone similar. The way that police conduct lineups and give out pictures also creates suspects rather than finding the right guy.
They can still feel pain bro and their lack of comprehending why that shit is happening to them is even worse.
Especially in Steven's case it was the fucking family cat, not some random stray but the pet he probably lived with and had an emotional bond with. Maybe he always hated Whiskers but he knew that at least his poor mother probably loved it.
And here we get into the difference between legal and social spheres. People should not be arrested and incarcerated for doing horrible things to animals because they are not human beings (and as long as they aren't someone else's property).
That isn't to say that they shouldn't be the scum of the earth, robbed of all social contact and decency, cut of from all of human contact, and be snubbed by everyone he comes across as if he was a leper.
But not incarcerated.
>Boyfriend shot and killer her
>Burned her body
>deleted incriminating voicemails of her phone with the help of her brother
>roommate possibly knew
>decided to frame Steven by planting what remained of her bones on his property
>police found her car days before in an unknown location that wasn't Steven's compound
>police took their chance to plant some evidence that further incriminated Steven because they know they purposely put him in jail for the rape case
>drove it onto his lot and placed the key in his room during one of the hundreds of searches
>planted a little of his blood in her car
Her brother was super creepy as well.
Yes they should. Our laws do not protect only people. Our laws protect many things, from property, to land, to living creatures such as trees, animals, crops and many other things. Your idea that only people are protected legally is retarded.
Can't people be incarcarated for example for setting a car on fire?
In my country, animals are treated as objects by the law.
So if somebody kills my pet, they have destroyed some of my property and I am entitled to damages at the very least.
He probably killed that girl, but none of this would ever be a question if they hadn't been such worthless pieces of shit and wrongfully convicted him the first time around. The sheriff's department and da's office deserves all of the scrutiny they could ever get for being fat lazy faggots who thought they could half-ass their jobs, and the attorney general letting them all off scott free was a disgrace. It's a systemic issue througout the entire country. Cops and politicians get way above the benefit of the doubt and the average joe gets fucking railroaded by the system.
haven't quite finished the doc yet, but if anything, the case was investigated poorly if it wasn't a straight up framing. Not only that, but the trial was a farce as well. Judge makes rules to pad the state's case, throw wrenches into the defense's ability to prove their case.
What exactly was the reason that a cop couldn't have killed her again? Will that come up later or is that just completely ignored?
>Judge makes rules to pad the state's case, throw wrenches into the defense's ability to prove their case
I had the same feeling during the Zimzam trial, why is this so common?
Do the defense just try to bullshit their way around a lot or do judges have an interest in convictions?
Like I said, as long as they aren't someone's property, in which case it belongs under reckless destruction. And other living things? Fuck that, if it's on your property, and you don't harm anyone else or anyone else's property, fuck it. Nothing should be illegal if it doesn't directly harm another person or their property, such as the purchase of drugs/alcohol/firearms, killing cats, cutting down trees, etc.
That isn't to say that I condone doing drugs/killing cats/destroying wildlife, and that I don't think there shouldn't be social repurcussions, but there should be
RAMIFICATIONS from doing something that doesn't harm anyone else or their property. If you do think so, then you're too far gone a statist, and I can't help you.
Honestly, after seeing the other evidence I think he probably killed her but he shouldn't be in prison based on the fact that the cops obviously planted evidence, clumsily as the government is apt to do, and the media (one of the least highlight culprits) ruined almost any chance of presumption of innocence in this case. To a lesser degree all the people/private citizens who kept tuning in and feeding off this spectacle are at fault as well.
Due process DOES NOT exist to get convictions or send all criminals to jail. It's to prevent even the glimmer that an innocent man or woman is deprive of life, liberty, or property unjustly.
If you want to take it to street justice and act outside the law, that's something else entirely and is a personal choice with consequences.
No idea. I'm so glad Trump has been curbstomping so hard. He was seriously considered to be a dark horse in the very early polls. One of the big ones I wanted out. Can't stand the guy.
Just an analytical chemist tearing apart the EDTA test.
The defense team for SA does the same thing but he goes into more details as to why the FBI "expert" was clearly just called in as a ringer.
the motive is in those voicemails that he deleted
It's because EVERYONE in the court system, from the police, to the prosecution, to the judge, are all PART of that system and only benefit from perpetuation of that system. The only advocate for the defendant is his attorney, and even that can be compromised by the legal system if he's a public defender.
Except for your own property. Or you buy it.
The point is that you are supposed to be able to do literally whatever the fuck it is you want to do with your own shit, as long as you don't fuck up anyone else's.
>10 minutes in and this guy breaks and enters a bar, stealing money and booze.
>Burning a poor innocent cat alive just for fun.
I'm pretty sure this guy deserves to rot in prison. Stopped watching right there.
This is unfair to public defenders. Any public defender you're likely to get is going to be better than 95% of paid attorneys. I would also add that judges generally genuinely try to be unbiased and decide cases on the merits.
Well destroying your own property is not criminal property damage, the law literally defines that as somebody elses, ie not your own.
So I don't even know what you're arguing here.
If you're saying people should be allowed to set their own cat on fire, I disagree again. Animal cruelty is also part of the law.
>Why would you believe a documentary outweighs a judge and jury?
They didn't think that. They thought an executive (either governor or president) could overturn or pardon a guilty verdict.
Which is factually true:
There have been countless examples in the past of this happening with no new evidence or sometimes even support for the pardon (e.g. Nixon and Spiro Agnew).
Everybody always goes on and on about muh cat but if you losers pay attention you'll distinctly hear that he threw the cat "over" the fire, meaning he didn't deliberately huck a cat into a fire. AND, that doesn't mean you can convict him of an actual unrelated crime idiot.
didn't the defense call for it? the other option was it just doesn't come back in time anyways. I almost get the feeling they lost on purpose to make the documentary more "impactful"
>Any public defender you're likely to get is going to be better than 95% of paid attorneys
Why do rich people who can afford attorneys mostly get off while poor people with public defenders mostly lose then?
yeah it's a retarded petitoin. One going to Obama directly is pending as well.
Should've asked for a retrial or something, and for Brendan not fucking Steve "raping, killing and mischief" Avery.
This is sadly not that uncommon.
What's weird is that you always think immediately, "that's a fucking sociopath/serial killer" because we all turn into amateur FBI profilers.
I have a cousin who used to pull wings off of butterflies and put a cat in the freezer. She's pretty normal now with two kids, marriage, professional job, etc.
Sometimes kids are just assholes.
Public defenders are by and large, completely useless when it comes to actually mounting a defense. The best you're gonna get is for them to curry some favor with the prosecution and get you a decent plea deal. To be fair though, small town defenders are usually bottom third lawyers from a shitty law school, and the ones in the city are overworked and jaded.
If you don't pay attention to the biased documentary you'll find that he doused the cat in oil and kerosene and threw it into the fire. Nobody's saying that he should be convicted based on that, but if some guy is setting animals on fire for fun, people are understandably suspicious of other things he may have done.
Not sure if this is bait so here goes:
He says over the fire because he's retarded and speaking in retard-speak. They keep saying "by" and "yet" instead of "to" and "still" as well.
He didn't only throw it INTO the fire, he doused it in gasoline before doing so.
But yeah, he did his time for that. Clearly an indication that he is a psycho though.
But that's not the point. I don't give a shit if he's sympathetic or not. I really don't. What I give a shit about is when law enforcement stops playing by the rules that make it fair for non law enforcement, i.e. manipulating evidence in the attempt to frame someone for a crime, regardless of whether or not that someone actually did it. If you've got proof, you've got proof, and if you don't, you don't. That's how it should be.
And I would genuinely like to believe that public defenders have their clients best interests at heart, and are truly competent. The unfortunate reality is that there is an insanely high ratio of PD cases to Public Defenders, and they cannot give the same amount of attention to a case as a private attorney, just by virtue of their case load. And as for the judges, I'd like to say that yes, they are fair and honest and genuinely try to be unbiased. I genuinely believe in the inherent goodness of humanity. However, in seeing the bullshit that judges have pulled for the defense, I'm left to wonder.
I'm talking about other things, like drug use, fireworks purchasing, gun ownership traffic violations, etc. that harm NOBODY that have so many laws legislating those matters that really shouldn't.
And again, animal cruelty is indeed heinous and morally reprehensable, but god damn it, they aren't people. You cannot murder a cat any more than you can murder a tree or a bush. No legal ramifications should ever come about due to that (excepting in the case of another's property, but we've already gone over this.)
I said 95% of attorneys, first of all. The rich are hiring the 5%. The average person is better off going with a public defender because they'll never afford anyone better. You're never going to pay the 500/hour an actual quality attorney costs.
Second, the rich don't "mostly get off," especially if you compare similar crimes (they do have a better exoneration rate, of course). The rich are often involved in more complex criminal activity that by its nature is hard to prove.
>I have a cousin who used to pull wings off of butterflies and put a cat in the freezer. She's pretty normal now with two kids, marriage, professional job, etc.
Harming small insects I can look over on some level although it's still pretty repelling.
But putting the fucking cat in the freezer? How old was she and is she retarded? Was it intentional or unintentional?
If the former, I'd be wary of her forever desu. Who knows what she has done to other animals that nobody has realized.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dean-strang-missing-evidence-making-a-murderer_568d51b3e4b0c8beacf53b78 (rebuttal to verified)
http://www.alternet.org/media/did-makers-making-murderer-leave-out-evidence-against-steven-avery (alternet so...verification pending)
He might have done it based on this but the cops obviously planted shit. You can't take shortcuts and reasonable doubt should've still landed him outside of jail, guilty or innocent.
He's white trash.
That doesn't make him a murderer.
It's like when /pol/ lists a dindu who's going to jail for murder or got shot when his long string of "heinous crimes" is minor drug possession and unpaid child support payments.
He might be an asshole, that doesn't make him a killer. Most people aren't actually killers.
Going to jail is better for him, he wouldn't have survived in the real world at all, Jail he actually has resources sure you have to suck some dick or take it in the ass but I'm sure he's fine with it.
What I still can't get over is the fact that they just up and interrogated his nephew without his mother or an attorney present. In the state of Massachusetts, as soon as an investigating body determines through questioning that a juvinile (under the age of 17) a parent or a guardian must be present, and mirandized ON TAPE, and given time to consult together ALONE, OFF TAPE, and THEN decide to speak with the investigating body or not, with an attorney or not, etc. none of which was done with Brendan, which I see as absolutely bizarre, including that joke of an interrogation, with the two investigators making up a story and having that retarded kid just say "yup" every so often.
>What exactly was the reason that a cop couldn't have killed her again?
No judge or prosecutor is EVER going to take evidence against a cop seriously unless you literaly have the guy on video committing a crime with two forms of government I.D. and clearly identifying himself. Even then it's 50/50. Those who make and enforce the laws in this country are above the law.
These are all in place and punishable because by violating those rules, you are putting other people in danger potentially. It's about minimizing risks.
Okay, not sure what this is about since I'm not an Ameritard but that probably is in place because too many retards blew their own arms off with this shit -> prohibited because too dangerous
Are you american or not? If yes, obviously you know every retard in your country can get a gun.
If now, guns exist for the sole reason of harming other people, nothing else -> potentially dangerous
Are you retarded? Traffic regulations exist to ensure safe traffic and minimize accidents. You can't just drunk drive and say it shouldn't be prohibited because you haven't hit anybody yet.
How old are you, 17?
You're saying things that don't harm other people shouldn't be punishable, but literally everything that's punishable is punishable in order to protect other people(property, etc). What country do you live in?
m8 I've been to court with a public defender and know a ton of people who also have. I don't totally blame it on the public defenders. They usually have a feeling that the case isn't winnable even if you SHOULD have a strong defense and don't want to waste their time. It's all part of the court system.
Harming animals is a pretty sick thing to do even for white trash. I don't think anybody cares much about him breaking and entering into that bar, or would care if he was a meth dealer or whatever. It's all about the cat.
Which is fucking retarded. Potential to commit a crime is not the commission of a crime. Jesus, have you ever seen or read Minority Report? It's like talking to a brick fucking wall.
You blow your hand off with fireworks? Shit, that's pretty bad, sorry to hear about that.
Blow someone ELSE'S hand off? You'd better believe that's a jail sentence.
Buy a gun? Sure. Shoot paper? Sure. Shoot an animal (that isn't someone's property)? Sure. Shoot a person (not in self defense, obviously)? Prison time!
Speed? Okay! Swerve around a car? Okay! Hit somebody? TICKETS AND POSSIBLE JAIL TIME HERE WE COME BABY.
The point is that if there isn't a victim, there isn't a crime.
>Her brother was super creepy as well.
No, the defense looked into a test and discovered one simply didn't exist and to develop an accurate and peer-reviewed/vetted one would take months.
The prosecutors stated something similar. UNTIL they discovered the tampered blood work and suddenly the FBI was ably to expedite a new test in a few weeks.
>Speed? Okay! Swerve around a car? Okay! Hit somebody? TICKETS AND POSSIBLE JAIL TIME HERE WE COME BABY.
Ehh, I agree with all of them except this one. Roads are a public utility and the government can and should regulate them. We all have to use them and some retard that wants to pretend he's 2fast2furious should get his ass thrown in jail for putting little kids' lives in danger. Ditto if you're shooting your gun in someone's direction recklessly even if you don't hit them.
I know many public defenders, though I've never been represented by one. They understandably don't want to waste their time on cases that they feel aren't winnable. But do you think they're wrong when they make that judgment? If they feel like there's some sort of legal avenue to pursue, I'm sure they'll pursue it. Of the public defenders I know, all have suggested to clients at one time or another that they shouldn't take deals when the public defender feels the case is winnable. The vast majority of the time, the client takes the deal anyways.
To be clear, I thought as a kid what she was doing was disturbing.
Two years older than me, so she'd have likely have been about 10 or 11 at the time.
It was intentional, we snitched on her, she was punished, cat was fine, etc.
>there is literally 0 pieces of definitive evidence in the case
You're retarded and you should appreciate the law more, it literally exists to protect you and is a well thought out system that has been improved and revised for hundreds and hundreds of years.
How can an underageb& like you you be so arrogant and believe that you know better than all those people who have worked on it, it's the result of ages of people trying to make life better. It's necessary for a civil society, sounds like you'd rather live in some third world shithole.
Laws exist to protect you (even if in some cases like this one law enforcement does not).
>But they also have infinitely more experience and expertise than almost anybody else you could hire.
You honestly think a private lawyer on retainer is less experienced than a public defender?
Are you serious?
This isn't a meme.
Better lawyers cost more money for a reason. If they sucked they wouldn't be able to charge millions. Shit, better lawyers can get someone like OJ off for technicalities.
Stop using words you don't understand.
I'm sure it's just hit or miss. My experience was in a small town pretty similar to the one in this case, (though obviously it wasn't anything nearly as serious.) My PD barely contacted me and wasn't willing to even entertain any of the questions I had about the case. It all turned out fine, but I honestly wasn't impressed with him at all. Then again, his partner does PD work as well, (small, poor town so all lawyers do), and has a great reputation, so maybe I just got a little unlucky. My mom had a DUI and got an awful PD as well. Some 300lb bitch who failed to even file paperwork on time.
That entire segment with investigators (the state's and the len's) I had to take a break.
There was just no humanity in any of those people question poor brendbrend.
And these are the "good" guys.
Yes. I do not just think that a public defender is more experienced than the average private lawyer, I know that. Public defenders have enormous caseloads and are in court every single day. Better lawyers do not necessarily cost money for a reason. Sure, lawyers who charge millions are very likely going to be better than a public defender. But anybody you could actually hire isn't.
Source: went to law school.
You almost have to admire the blatant shadiness of the officers interviewing Brendan, the full transcripts are a lot longer than what we are shown and they lead him the entire way.
He's too dumb to follow the leads so the transcripts are padded with nonsense like giving a corpse a haircut, so they have to call him back in to lead him into admitting those aspects of the confession were lies.
It's just shameless, I don't see how the officers can live with themselves for what they did to Brendan, regardless of how guilty they thought Steven Avery may or may not have been.
>Speed? Okay! Swerve around a car? Okay!
Man, are you fucking retarded? Are you saying it should be legal to do donuts in the middle of a busy intersection so long as you don't hit anybody? People have places to be, asshole.
The other is oxygen bleach but then you run into the problem of why was there halbach dna on the bullet and everyone else's dna still on everything else.
We're not dealing with Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty here. This is white trash vs. podunk keystone cops.
But if public defenders are overworked, though more experienced, maybe having someone who can invest more time and attention into your case would still be a better option.
Yeah, you've gotta file paperwork on time. To tell you the truth, I don't have much experience with small towns or their public defenders. I'm sure they're less competent than those in cities (most PD positions are extremely competitive, at least the ones in cities that I know of).
Public defenders make mistakes, of course, but so do all lawyers. I also know lawyers who work for huge law firms that bill them out at 500/hour and they've been known to miss a filing deadline on occasion. I'm not trying to excuse public defenders who are incompetent or anything. I do know that if I had average resources I would go with a public defender every time.
>I do know that if I had average resources I would go with a public defender every time.
Oh, no doubt. Unless it's extremely serious, you're better off saving your money and taking the plea deal.
Laws that don't directly affect someone (i.e. my fence ends where your fence starts) are unnecessary and often complicate the legal code.
Speeding should be legal. Hitting someone or their property with a car should be illegal. We already have laws for the latter but the former was created because horse and buggy lobbyists, essentially.
Strike drug laws. We already have laws for all the negative aspects of drug abuse (theft, homicide, robbery, etc.) why would being intoxicated while you murder me be worse or better than not being intoxicated? Besides of course lobbyists and special interest groups pushing these unnecessary and burdensome laws.
Here is a question, why do you want give the government more power than necessary to fulfill it's duties?
>bunch of idiots
In their defense seven (?) of them were not-guilty initially and only the three holdouts who refused to budge (likely the ones related to the state) wore them down.
...yeah, they were idiots. Should've just called for a hung jury.
speeding should be illegal in cities and built up areas, basically areas where there are a lot of people and cars around. out in the country or rural areas i think speed limits could be unlimited.
Well shit, if it doesn't work that way because it's a law than we should just leave it alone, eh?
I mean we all know that legal code is immutable and unchanging natural laws that we just have to live with. Fuck, I couldn't even think of any laws that were later repealed or removed...
>why would being intoxicated while you murder me be worse or better than not being intoxicated?
You being intoxicated while murdering somebody is actually beneficial for you and lessens your guilt, do you realize that, right? But of course that doesn't matter as long as you could still get pinned for illegal drug abuse?
So are you saying people who are high should have the same accountability as when they're sober in order so that drugs can become legal?
>Here is a question, why do you want give the government more power than necessary to fulfill it's duties?
It shouldn't and it doesn't in constitutional states.
You're honestly not going to be able to physically speed in a city like new york or dc so a speed limit is again redundant.
Most people just aren't going to do it because it wouldn't make sense. I get that laws are made for the lowest common denominator but when, as a society, do we start trying to raise the bar and expecting more from people?
>So are you saying people who are high should have the same accountability as when they're sober in order so that drugs can become legal?
Yes. I'm saying they DO have the same level of accountability.
It was series of choices the person began to make when they were sober that led to their actions when they weren't sober. Their level of intoxication when they actually affect someone else shouldn't be a factor.
No one forced them to imbibe or partake. They made a conscious decision.
I've driven in Iraq.
There were surprisingly few accidents for how chaotic the driving would seem at first.
But again, these are all anecdotes.
Avery's iq-test was made when he was in elementary school in the early 70s and is probably unreliable. I mean compare Avery with the supposed iq of 70 to Brendan with 73 - Avery is quite clearly a 80+ with quite decent social skills.
India is statistically the deadliest place on Earth to drive per capita. This is not an anecdote. It is a direct result of people disregarding safe driving practice due in large part to lax or complete lack of enforcement of established traffic laws.
This is fact. There is no grey area. You are wrong.
One question I got is how the heck do you get so fat in prison anyway? Never been myself but I'm pretty sure they don't do buffets or anything that regularly
You have the worldview of a simpleton and it seems you have a lack of understanding how the real world works.
A legal system based on what you're saying would not only be arbitrary but ineffective.
The way the doc puts it, he was a bit of a ne'er do well with a history of harassing people related to the police force during his first conviction.
The second time around though he looked like he was going to win a lot of money while exposing corruption high in the force
>This is fact. There is no grey area. You are wrong.
Alright, pic related. Portugal is known for having "bad drivers" and lack speed laws.
How about you stop assuming speed is the factor and not poor road conditions, driving training/ability, etc. and use a little context with your statistics? This isn't /pol/. We expect better.
> Portugal is known for having "bad drivers" and lack speed laws
And it's in the shitty half of that statistic.
Speeding is not the only cause of accidents. People drive without a license in Poland all the time, guess that shouldn't be illegal either from your point of view?
That statistic doesn't prove your point at all, if anything the opposite. Greece and Poland are shitholes with shitty law enforcement = more deaths.
Stricter law (enforcement), see germany and downwards = less deaths. And Germany even has Autobahnen with no speed limits.
YOU BE SAYIN WE WUZ BAD DRIVERS AND SHEET?
>And Germany even has Autobahnen with no speed limits.
Are you arguing for my point or against it?
Speed isn't the thing that kills. It's irresponsibility and inattentiveness. You can't feasible outlaw that so the best outcome is to outlaw the effects. Legislating a county with archaic laws doesn't elevate a society. How about we spent less of that money of enforcing terrible ideas and teaching people common sense (i.e. if your car can not reasonably and safely brake and handle in a school zone, don't speed in it).
Or we can continue treating everyone like they're idiots, it's worked out so far. Just look at the War on Drugs and how very rarely speeding tickets are given out.
Shit, just watch any major interstate and see how often cops actually care about speeding. It's just a tax at this point that most people have been made to believe is "good for society". As is every other law that was created using this methodology.
Not American so not familiar with that whole War on Drugs thing.
> Or we can continue treating everyone like they're idiots, it's worked out so far
Just look at every single member of the fucking Avery family in the documentary. These people exist and a lot of them exist. They can't just be taught common sense. Average IQ is what, 100? Plus every person interprets "common sense" differently, if a system like the one you want was in place some tards would still argue against it and call it too invasive or whatever (like you're doing now against the current one that I find to be common sense).
My example with the Autobahn is that it's designated areas, not everywhere and not arbitarily chosen, areas where the roads and conditions were deemed safe by the state to drive fast on, and it works. You can't just go as fast as you like anywhere, it's just unsafe and poses a high risk to you and the people around you, who rely on you acting responsibly. Which a lot of people won't do unless forced to.
You may find speeding laws annoying but it's not like you get shat on for going only 10mph too fast, at least not if law enforcement isn't shitty (which I agree law enforcement is not perfect).