If you are certain you are innocent you have as much, if not more, reason to call an attorney. The job of the attorney is in no small part to make sure an innocent person's rights are protected so they aren't wrongfully arrested or convicted.
News Alec Baldwin Accidentally Shoots & Kills Cinematographer, Wounds Director with Prop Gun
- Thread starter Locutus of Bored
- Start date
Yes, it's utterly ridiculous and can never be that way because police and prosecutors are human beings and human beings make mistakes.
The closest thing one can ever have to a perfect system is one with a strong set of constitutional and procedural due process rights as well as an adequately funded, trained and equipped defense bar.
Even the "utopian" world of TOS still recognized that, at least as seen in "the Menagerie."
No, I said it was ridiculous.
No one should expect the system to put as much effort into proving your innocence as it does proving your guilt. Not because it shouldn't, but because it just won't.
Especially in a system where some officials are elected or are rewarded for successful prosecutions, which is bound to distort things.
Last edited:
So, moving on from the ridiculous aside....
Whether you are guilty of a crime or not—you lawyer up. I hate the old trick of asking the same damn question seven or eight hundred times. Hell I don’t remember what I had for breakfast this morning. Too many folks want to clear their books at any cost.
And if you hire an armorer, make sure they they’re older than 15!
And some people are simply afraid that it will make them look guilty if they lawyer up.
A true utopia wouldn't have lawyers in the first place.
A dystopia wouldn't, that's for sure.
One of the (few) bright spots of "Encounter at Farpoint" says it pretty well:
Actually, what I meant was, a utopia wouldn't have lawyers because it wouldn't need them. There wouldn't be crime in a utopia, would there? 
That said, a lot of the meaningless legalese bullshit in our society right now IS caused by lawyers, and if they could be made to dial it back a bit, that would be great.
That said, a lot of the meaningless legalese bullshit in our society right now IS caused by lawyers, and if they could be made to dial it back a bit, that would be great.
This is one reason why utopia was aptly named "no place" (οὐ (“not”) and τόπος (“place”) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia#Etymology_and_history]). It's not representative of any place that could possibly exist, and debates about what's in it invariably devolve into arguments akin to those about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.Actually, what I meant was, a utopia wouldn't have lawyers because it wouldn't need them. There wouldn't be crime in a utopia, would there?
So, why then can't utopia have lawyers, even if they're not needed? I mean, what if they are ever needed, wouldn't it be good to have them ready? And in the meantime, because it's utopia and it's a perfect place, they aren't fucking anything up.
Because it would have what our own society has largely lost:
Common sense.
Lawyers are the enemy of common sense. They exist largely to perpetuate their own existence, a world which is infested with meaningless bullshit legalese - incomprehensible fine print, "Do not attempt" warnings splattered all over things that obviously no one with a functioning brain cell ever actually WOULD attempt, the constant fear of saying or doing anything even remotely controversial for fear of being sued, Proposition 65 (seriously, look it up, you'll bust a gut laughing
), bags of what are clearly [a thing] which are nevertheless labelled with the warning "May contain [a thing]", SLAPP lawsuits, the notion that the first person you should talk to after you are hurt should be a lawyer and not a fucking DOCTOR....shall I go on? And after you've read all that, remember that I said "largely". Not "only".
Last edited:
Yeah, bullshit. Lawyers exist because there is the rule of law. If you want to eliminate (the need for) lawyers, you have to eliminate law.Because it would have what our own society has largely lost:
Common sense.
Lawyers are the enemy of common sense. They exist largely to perpetuate their own existence, a world which is infested with meaningless bullshit legalese - incomprehensible fine print, "Do not attempt" warnings splattered all over things that obviously no one with a functioning brain cell ever actually WOULD attempt, the constant fear of saying or doing anything even remotely controversial for fear of being sued, Proposition 65 (seriously, look it up, you'll bust a gut laughing
And after you've read all that, remember that I said "largely". Not "only".
And where did I fail to do that?
Most judges start of as lawyers anyway. Indeed, being a lawyer is often a stepping stone towards becoming a judge.
I'm still waiting to learn why the poster thinks I wasn't giving judges their due in this conversation....
Although the two of you may have concluded that Baldwin committed a crime, I have not read that the police have determined that a crime was committed.
Additionally, I think Baldwin would be doing things much differently if he’d been arrested, or was a suspect in a criminal investigation. Police have not labeled their investigation as “criminal” in nature, to my knowledge.
Baldwin believed, and still believes, he has committed no crime, so likely, in his view, why not tell police it was an accident? And, SO FAR, police apparemtly, agree..
besides the philosophical and existential issues of 'why do we need lawyers' there's also the issue of redundancy - at some point, all legal options under the canon of laws we live under will be predictable by and provisioned for by AI or some other type of smart filing tech -- meaning that no matter how good your human lawyer is, there is probably going to be an algorithm that can predict any and all possible arguments that any legal entity might give when faced with any law discussion - meaning it can file the optimal defense or other legal filing for you in many if not all cases. without a human lawyer existing solely to play the system for the outcome that is most profitable for the lawyer.
No where in any post did I "conclude" Baldwin committed a crime. I cited an article that said Baldwin may have and that, whether he did or not, he made a mistake talking to the police without his lawyer present.
In fact, in one post, I specifically pointed out that, if Baldwin (or anyone else) is innocent (or believes they are innocent) of a crime, they should not talk to the police without an attorney in order to preserve their constitutional rights.