"His defense attorney, Matt Fregi, said he harbored “no ill will toward” his client, who had already cycled through several attorneys before him.
“Nothing serious,” he said of his injuries. “Everyone thought it was a lot more serious than what it was.”"
That's a cool lawyer
Better call Matt
The radar technician? Dude, Matt straight up sucks.
Actually, that guy is completely fucked. That attorney will make sure that there is zero chance that guy can ever appeal any of his cases.
Are you suggesting that he'll purposely do a bad job? That sort of thing could get him disbarred.
No, he'll defend it fully to his duty so that the defendant can't claim lawyer incompetence.
Sorry, I'm not following. You mean the defendant is fucked and his lawyer he stabbed will try to get revenge on him?
If the lawyer does a very good job, then the defendant has no path to later appeal his case. Many defense attorneys aren't there to get their clients out of trouble, especially in high profile cases, they exist to make sure that the law is applied fairly.
If the lawyer does a very good job, then the defendant has no path to later appeal his case.
This is complete nonsense.
IANAL, but: It circles back to the right to fair representation.
Say he's convicted, but at a later court, claims "After my totally involuntary psychotic episode, now verified by multiple behavioral psychologists, my lawyer held my unintentional actions against me and did a demonstrably poor job in the remainder of the case. I deserve the right to a fair trial."
That COULD be enough to get the case declared a mistrial and re-scheduled.
But there's also a billion reasons you can make an appeal. Most of which have nothing to do with that. Also, being able to make an appeal is a low bar. Most criminal convictions can be appealed...the chance of that appeal overturning the conviction remains low.
Are you saying you think a defense attorney's job isn't to do their best to defend their client?
There could be issues with witnesses or evidence that wasn't handled properly. The attorney could point out all of those flaws in order to best defend their client. That of course would leave the defendant with nothing to try to apply with. A less thorough attorney might not find those issues.
OK, but your previous post says:
Many defense attorneys aren't there to get their clients out of trouble, especially in high profile cases, they exist to make sure that the law is applied fairly.
Do stand by what you said about defense attorneys not "there to get their clients out of trouble?"
Yes, they are there to present eveey possible defense to the alligatons even if the client is clearly guilty. Reasons for appeal could include improper handling of evidence, interviewing witnesses improperly, or jury issues. If the attorney catches those and brings them up at trial, then they can't be used during an appeal in order to get the client of on a technically.
You're really arguing that a defense attorney's job isn't to get their client out of trouble (or in other words, defend them)? Do you realize how ridiculous that is?
For several reasons, lawyers should defend their clients vigorously regardless of whether or not they believe them to be innocent.
From your previous post:
Many defense attorneys aren't there to get their clients out of trouble
Their job is specifically to get their clients out of trouble.
It's to provide the best defense possible, there's a difference.
This should not be hard to understand.
The police find that man A kills man B. A is now the defendant in a criminal trial. The job of A's lawyer is to introduce facts that improve the outcome of the trial. Sometimes, that's fighting because there isn't enough evidence available to assert that man A actually killed man B. Other times, it's getting their client to plead guilty because it's the easiest thing to do in a case that they're guaranteed to lose. Other times, it's to get a lesser sentence because B was abusive to A and A couldn't escape. It could be that A was acting in self defense.
Removing all nuance and saying that the one and only goal is to get their clients out of trouble is incorrect. Not every defendant is guilty, and not every criminal needs the maximum punishment.
according to a source at the scene, Randle jammed the pen into Fregi’s head and again near his jaw.
Well shit. I was imagining, like, the shoulder, or something.
I had to go back and re-read the title, i thought it said he 'slipped and stabbed lawyer' and i was like 'how the fuck did it happen twice?'.
I want that same lawyer so bad I'm willing to commit a crime for that
He's got top class courtroom etiquette and empathy.
assault with a deadly weapon
If a pen qualifies as a deadly weapon, what doesn't? Assault with bare hands?
I guess that whole "it's mightier than the sword" thing is coming back to bite.
Randle jammed the pen into Fregi’s head and again near his jaw
I suppose it’s to do with how deadly it could have been? Not sure why it isn’t attempted murder, but I am not a lawyer.
I suppose because it's harder to prove murder. Since he failed, they'd have to prove motive, and he could argue he only wanted to harm the lawyer.
But assault is about facts, no feelings.
Depends on the hands. A professional fighter can be charged with AWALW using their hands, or feet if that's part of their martial arts training, although their body parts can't legally be registered as such.
This guy clearly intended that pen to be lethal and likely had the strength for it, but was fortunately restrained.
You haven't been to prison I take it. Pens can definitely be a deadly weapon.
pen
John Wick glares menacingly
Dude broke through restraints, clearly a pen is a deadly weapon in his hands.
I guess. But you can also smother someone with a fluffy pillow. So that's a deadly weapon, too? Like where is the line between "deadly weapon" and "any random object".
There is no such line. The pillow counts as a weapon and all weapons count as deadly.
I think it might just be a line of how they used the random object could have reasonably resulted in death. So if you smack someone in the face with a fluffy pillow, it's not a deadly weapon. If you try to smother them with it, it is.
I'll be honest, if I roll 99 on a crit roll with a pillow I damn well expect an instant kill.
Why are you using a d100 for attack rolls?
It's a homebrew weapon from their last campaign in Pathfinder that they ported over, but the stats are legit and it's balanced trust them
Seems quite simple to me. Things like guns, swords, daggers and the like are designed to be weapons. So they're generally going to be assumed to be a weapon any time they're used/brandished.
But literally anything can be used as a weapon. So, in normal use they're not a weapon but if used as a weapon, they become one in that instance.
Yeah, but then the term "deadly weapon" is kind of meaningless as it basically just means "assualt with a thing".
Yeah, I'd agree there. It should be whatever the US equivalent of aggravated assault is. But the charges you could levy bearing in mind he aimed for the head could go as far as attempted murder I guess.
I think on a legal level it means it was an object that was being wielded as a weapon, and from the attack in the specific instance it was meant to kill and the object was capable of achieving that. Hence a deadly weapon.
If you used it as a weapon and it had the potential to kill the victim, then yes, it would be a deadly weapon.
Pretty much anything can be a deadly weapon in the right (or is it wrong) hands.
That's the thing.
Literally anything is a weapon. Banning weapons will only go so far, it'll definitely make it a lot harder for most mass killings to occur but if someone is determined enough they will make it happen.
Eventually we won't have a choice but to address the underlying mental health issues plaguing at least half the population.
True, although many countries in the world disagree with the US that banning firearms wouldn't make a huge difference. By virtue of, well, them having done so and it having made a huge difference.
I'm not saying don't ban firearms, I'm saying don't ignore the underlying problems too.
The rest of the world doesn't have easy access to firearms but they also have much better access to mental health services.
That's the other thing too, even objects not typically considered weapons can be made so, some more brual for mass killing/destruction than guns. Propane tanks, pressure cookers, even bleach and ammonia, even liquor has been used (quite effectively) historically.
None of it is right, but when you start considering banning cooking supplies (pressure cookers I believe around Boston marathon bomber time) you are right, we do have to address the underlying issues
"Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm" (CPC 245(a)(1)) can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the exact circumstances.
I feel like it's context-dependent, though. It's hard to argue that a pen in your head/jaw/neck does not have the potential to kill you.
The intent makes it so.
Maybe a pool noodle?
You can choke someone with a pool noodle.
That's what she said?
Assault with a penis. That's sexual assault
The guy is bonkers and needs medical intervention before he is fit for trial.
You're absolutely right and it's nice to see correct medical nomenclature here on Lemmy. Unlike some places where someone would say he's wacko and belongs in the crazy hospital.
Where does "looney bin" fall on this scale?
"Looney bin" is for the zany crazies and sits above the crazy hospital in the hierarchy.
At the bottom is the "nuthouse", which is reserved for the sickos.
Where is "funny farm"?
That's a place upstate where all the wackadoodles can run free and be happy with all the other wackadoodles
"His defense attorney, Matt Fregi, said he harbored “no ill will toward” his client, who had already cycled through several attorneys before him. “Nothing serious,” he said of his injuries. “Everyone thought it was a lot more serious than what it was.”"
That's a cool lawyer
Better call Matt
The radar technician? Dude, Matt straight up sucks.
Matt's more of a sonar kind of guy
https://youtu.be/FaOSCASqLsE?t=235
Actually, that guy is completely fucked. That attorney will make sure that there is zero chance that guy can ever appeal any of his cases.
Are you suggesting that he'll purposely do a bad job? That sort of thing could get him disbarred.
No, he'll defend it fully to his duty so that the defendant can't claim lawyer incompetence.
Sorry, I'm not following. You mean the defendant is fucked and his lawyer he stabbed will try to get revenge on him?
If the lawyer does a very good job, then the defendant has no path to later appeal his case. Many defense attorneys aren't there to get their clients out of trouble, especially in high profile cases, they exist to make sure that the law is applied fairly.
This is complete nonsense.
IANAL, but: It circles back to the right to fair representation.
Say he's convicted, but at a later court, claims "After my totally involuntary psychotic episode, now verified by multiple behavioral psychologists, my lawyer held my unintentional actions against me and did a demonstrably poor job in the remainder of the case. I deserve the right to a fair trial."
That COULD be enough to get the case declared a mistrial and re-scheduled.
But there's also a billion reasons you can make an appeal. Most of which have nothing to do with that. Also, being able to make an appeal is a low bar. Most criminal convictions can be appealed...the chance of that appeal overturning the conviction remains low.
Are you saying you think a defense attorney's job isn't to do their best to defend their client?
There could be issues with witnesses or evidence that wasn't handled properly. The attorney could point out all of those flaws in order to best defend their client. That of course would leave the defendant with nothing to try to apply with. A less thorough attorney might not find those issues.
OK, but your previous post says:
Do stand by what you said about defense attorneys not "there to get their clients out of trouble?"
Yes, they are there to present eveey possible defense to the alligatons even if the client is clearly guilty. Reasons for appeal could include improper handling of evidence, interviewing witnesses improperly, or jury issues. If the attorney catches those and brings them up at trial, then they can't be used during an appeal in order to get the client of on a technically.
You're really arguing that a defense attorney's job isn't to get their client out of trouble (or in other words, defend them)? Do you realize how ridiculous that is?
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/defending-guilty-people
From your link:
From your previous post:
Their job is specifically to get their clients out of trouble.
It's to provide the best defense possible, there's a difference.
This should not be hard to understand.
The police find that man A kills man B. A is now the defendant in a criminal trial. The job of A's lawyer is to introduce facts that improve the outcome of the trial. Sometimes, that's fighting because there isn't enough evidence available to assert that man A actually killed man B. Other times, it's getting their client to plead guilty because it's the easiest thing to do in a case that they're guaranteed to lose. Other times, it's to get a lesser sentence because B was abusive to A and A couldn't escape. It could be that A was acting in self defense.
Removing all nuance and saying that the one and only goal is to get their clients out of trouble is incorrect. Not every defendant is guilty, and not every criminal needs the maximum punishment.
I bet that attorney has so much good will for his client that he will give the best defense even though his client is a-hole.
Well shit. I was imagining, like, the shoulder, or something.
I had to go back and re-read the title, i thought it said he 'slipped and stabbed lawyer' and i was like 'how the fuck did it happen twice?'.
I want that same lawyer so bad I'm willing to commit a crime for that
He's got top class courtroom etiquette and empathy.
If a pen qualifies as a deadly weapon, what doesn't? Assault with bare hands?
I guess that whole "it's mightier than the sword" thing is coming back to bite.
I suppose it’s to do with how deadly it could have been? Not sure why it isn’t attempted murder, but I am not a lawyer.
I suppose because it's harder to prove murder. Since he failed, they'd have to prove motive, and he could argue he only wanted to harm the lawyer.
But assault is about facts, no feelings.
Depends on the hands. A professional fighter can be charged with AWALW using their hands, or feet if that's part of their martial arts training, although their body parts can't legally be registered as such.
This guy clearly intended that pen to be lethal and likely had the strength for it, but was fortunately restrained.
You haven't been to prison I take it. Pens can definitely be a deadly weapon.
John Wick glares menacingly
Dude broke through restraints, clearly a pen is a deadly weapon in his hands.
I guess. But you can also smother someone with a fluffy pillow. So that's a deadly weapon, too? Like where is the line between "deadly weapon" and "any random object".
There is no such line. The pillow counts as a weapon and all weapons count as deadly.
I think it might just be a line of how they used the random object could have reasonably resulted in death. So if you smack someone in the face with a fluffy pillow, it's not a deadly weapon. If you try to smother them with it, it is.
I'll be honest, if I roll 99 on a crit roll with a pillow I damn well expect an instant kill.
Why are you using a d100 for attack rolls?
It's a homebrew weapon from their last campaign in Pathfinder that they ported over, but the stats are legit and it's balanced trust them
Seems quite simple to me. Things like guns, swords, daggers and the like are designed to be weapons. So they're generally going to be assumed to be a weapon any time they're used/brandished.
But literally anything can be used as a weapon. So, in normal use they're not a weapon but if used as a weapon, they become one in that instance.
Yeah, but then the term "deadly weapon" is kind of meaningless as it basically just means "assualt with a thing".
Yeah, I'd agree there. It should be whatever the US equivalent of aggravated assault is. But the charges you could levy bearing in mind he aimed for the head could go as far as attempted murder I guess.
I think on a legal level it means it was an object that was being wielded as a weapon, and from the attack in the specific instance it was meant to kill and the object was capable of achieving that. Hence a deadly weapon.
If you used it as a weapon and it had the potential to kill the victim, then yes, it would be a deadly weapon.
Pretty much anything can be a deadly weapon in the right (or is it wrong) hands.
That's the thing.
Literally anything is a weapon. Banning weapons will only go so far, it'll definitely make it a lot harder for most mass killings to occur but if someone is determined enough they will make it happen.
Eventually we won't have a choice but to address the underlying mental health issues plaguing at least half the population.
True, although many countries in the world disagree with the US that banning firearms wouldn't make a huge difference. By virtue of, well, them having done so and it having made a huge difference.
I'm not saying don't ban firearms, I'm saying don't ignore the underlying problems too. The rest of the world doesn't have easy access to firearms but they also have much better access to mental health services.
That's the other thing too, even objects not typically considered weapons can be made so, some more brual for mass killing/destruction than guns. Propane tanks, pressure cookers, even bleach and ammonia, even liquor has been used (quite effectively) historically.
None of it is right, but when you start considering banning cooking supplies (pressure cookers I believe around Boston marathon bomber time) you are right, we do have to address the underlying issues
"Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm" (CPC 245(a)(1)) can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the exact circumstances.
I feel like it's context-dependent, though. It's hard to argue that a pen in your head/jaw/neck does not have the potential to kill you.
The intent makes it so.
Maybe a pool noodle?
You can choke someone with a pool noodle.
That's what she said?
Assault with a penis. That's sexual assault
The guy is bonkers and needs medical intervention before he is fit for trial.
You're absolutely right and it's nice to see correct medical nomenclature here on Lemmy. Unlike some places where someone would say he's wacko and belongs in the crazy hospital.
Where does "looney bin" fall on this scale?
"Looney bin" is for the zany crazies and sits above the crazy hospital in the hierarchy.
At the bottom is the "nuthouse", which is reserved for the sickos.
Where is "funny farm"?
That's a place upstate where all the wackadoodles can run free and be happy with all the other wackadoodles
https://archive.is/2305p