When keeping it real goes wrong, lawyer edition

[HappyHighwayman]

I think the threat generally has to be credible, and actionable. Blowing your top at a depo and being a potty mouth probably doesn't count as assault.

My dad's client was arrested for threatening to throw his employee out of a window (his way of motivating her).

Either way the dude is fucked in this case the judge is agreeing to the opposing council's requests.

 

[mercurial]

My dad's client was arrested for threatening to throw his employee out of a window (his way of motivating her).

Either way the dude is fucked in this case the judge is agreeing to the opposing council's requests.

The judge's order evidences that opposing counsel's motion was unopposed, so he's losing by default. This guy is a fucking crazy monkey because the judge is now saying, "show me a good reason why I shouldn't throw out this entire case" and if the case gets thrown out, clients lose everything and can go after Mr. Pottymouth for malpractice.

 

[HappyHighwayman]

Reminds me of this guy https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...is-fitness-to-practice-questioned-judge.shtml

 

[clutchslip]

I think the threat generally has to be credible, and actionable. Blowing your top at a depo and being a potty mouth probably doesn't count as assault.

It depends on how good your attorney can swing his dick. If you "feel" threatened that may be enough to shove that bowl up dicks up this dumbass attorney's ass. Battery is the actual physical act of assault. Haven't people have won suits based on assault (threat) only?

 

[HappyHighwayman]

Do you mean a civil suit? because the state charges people with assault.

Are you asking if anyone has ever been convicted of assault, ever? Yes.

 

[bojangle]

You know threatening to harm people is illegal no matter how you phrase it right?

Nonsense! It's just a negotiation tactic. :laughing

 

[Eldritch]

I think the threat generally has to be credible, and actionable. Blowing your top at a depo and being a potty mouth probably doesn't count as assault.

Technically it does, it depends on how much the local system has a hard on for you.

 

[clutchslip]

Nonsense! It's just a negotiation tactic. :laughing

:thumbup The strength of your argument depends heavily on your perceived reputation. If you say your name is Guito and state that your friend," 'Two Thumbs Tony' has a problem with chu", I would probably pay close attention to your point of view.

 

[scootergmc]

I think the threat generally has to be credible, and actionable. Blowing your top at a depo and being a potty mouth probably doesn't count as assault.

Sure doesn't. Not criminally.

Most likely not civilly either, unless at the ready there was a bowl of dicks or waterboard (with enough water to make it happen- that would be some good expert testimony).

 

[byke]

You sure? I tell you I'm gonna punch your big toe at 1/100th effort and I've broken the law? Pretty sure standards like the Brandenburg Test exist exactly for the purpose of differentiating nonsense from an actual threat, because if nonsense is the standard, then we'd need a new police force comprised of half the population so they could arrest the other half of the population.

 

[HappyHighwayman]

You sure? I tell you I'm gonna punch your big toe at 1/100th effort and I've broken the law? Pretty sure standards like the Brandenburg Test exist exactly for the purpose of differentiating nonsense from an actual threat, because if nonsense is the standard, then we'd need a new police force comprised of half the population so they could arrest the other half of the population.

From what I can tell Brandenburg is solely regarding speech.

Also punching someone's toe would be battery, not assault. And obvously not battery if you literally flick someone's toe but if you make a habit of going around punching people's toes you'd eventually be breaking OTHER laws (e.g. harassment).

 

[mlm]

Well a lot of people prefer plain language to obtuse legal terminology.

That's actually why I find this kind of sad, as it's a reflection of the growing incivility and shifting values in our society. Words matter whether people realize it or not, and every day it seems like we take another step towards Idiocracy

 

[HappyHighwayman]

That's actually why I find this kind of sad, as it's a reflection of the growing incivility and shifting values in our society. Words matter whether people realize it or not, and every day it seems like we take another step towards Idiocracy

Yes words matter. We don't need to dumb down science and the law for the common man. Precision and accuracy are important. Entire contracts can change meanings over an oxford comma. It is not the job of the courts to interpret what a document means, only what it says and what people agreed to.

If the law is too complex for you don't be a lawyer.

 

[byke]

From what I can tell Brandenburg is solely regarding speech.

Also punching someone's toe would be battery, not assault. And obvously not battery if you literally flick someone's toe but if you make a habit of going around punching people's toes you'd eventually be breaking OTHER laws (e.g. harassment).

I thought we were talking about speech? With "threatening to harm people" were you thinking of a physical motion like the thumb across the throat kind of thing? And if Brandenburg doesn't apply, I've gotta think there's an equivalent for it.

 

[HappyHighwayman]

I thought we were talking about speech? With "threatening to harm people" were you thinking of a physical motion like the thumb across the throat kind of thing? And if Brandenburg doesn't apply, I've gotta think there's an equivalent for it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

The Brandenburg test was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. In the case, a KKK leader gave a speech at a rally to his fellow Klansmen, and after listing a number of derogatory racial slurs, he then said that "it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken." The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:

The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

---

So I'd say you're wrong in this case, but you're just as good a lawyer as I am

 

[byke]

Waaaaaiiiiit a second...you can't go saying things like "words matter" and then respond as if I asked what the definition was of the Brandenburg test. From my post, you should have confirmed what you meant from "threatening to harm people" if that means speech, or something symbolic, or something else. Then, comment on whatever you think about there being an equivalent for whatever manner of making threats we're talking about.

 

[HappyHighwayman]

I can do whatever I want within the confines of the law and BARF rules!

 

[byke]

YOU CANT TRIPLE STAMP A DOUBLE STAMP.

 

[scootergmc]

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA....

 

[Eldritch]

That's actually why I find this kind of sad, as it's a reflection of the growing incivility and shifting values in our society. Words matter whether people realize it or not, and every day it seems like we take another step towards Idiocracy

:hand

I prefer to refer to that film as, "The Great Prophecy," thank you.