Lawyer thinks motives are justifications of crime

[Tristan]

Charlotte Proudman is a lawyer. Yet she doesn’t seem to understand what a motive is.

a31e1118-ace6-4794-9006-4457a63bbdd0.jpeg (211.72 KiB) Viewed 1964 times

[Sciolus]

Yeah, that's annoying and stupid. It's another example of people who think that understanding why people commit crimes mean that you are approving them. See also John Major's ‘we should condemn a little more and understand a little less’.

The English language doesn't help, because words like "justification" have two distinct meanings, in a way that is both subtle and crucial: it can mean "a reason why an action is legitimate" or "an attempt to argue that an action is legitimate".

[snoozeofreason]

Yeah, that's annoying and stupid. It's another example of people who think that understanding why people commit crimes mean that you are approving them. See also John Major's ‘we should condemn a little more and understand a little less’.

And the motives suggested here would, I think, be considered aggravating factors if the attacker were caught and sentenced. So understanding them would result in him being condemned more, rather than less, harshly.

[Woodchopper]

Given that it’s published on Twitter it might be more likely to be deliberate click bait rather than a sign that a lawyer doesn’t understand basic legal concepts.

[Al Capone Junior]

Given that it’s published on Twitter it might be more likely to be deliberate click bait rather than a sign that a lawyer doesn’t understand basic legal concepts.

Ahem. Please do not entertain the notion that a lawyer who doesn't understand basic legal concepts is beyond the realm of possibilities in this modern era.

Cough, cough {trump!) Cough

[Martin Y]

Trump is an outlier though; he can't hire a lawyer bright enough to realise they won't get paid.

[cvb]

Trump is an outlier though; he can't hire a lawyer bright enough to realise they won't get paid.

I never looked at it this way.

I wondered why anybody would work for him as he habitually does not pay his bills.

[Grumble]

Trump is an outlier though; he can't hire a lawyer bright enough to realise they won't get paid.

I never looked at it this way.

I wondered why anybody would work for him as he habitually does not pay his bills.

His latest one has been paid $3m in advance

[Al Capone Junior]

Trump is an outlier though; he can't hire a lawyer bright enough to realise they won't get paid.

I never looked at it this way.

I wondered why anybody would work for him as he habitually does not pay his bills.

His latest one has been paid $3m in advance

It won't be enough to get him off, and the bill will be 6M, which won't pay

[/Prediction]

[noggins]

Maybe its “miss out on 3m from trump now, make 30m later from the maga loons ”?

[discovolante]

I just don't know why anyone would choose to work with a client like that even if they got paid. Just imagine.

[dyqik]

I just don't know why anyone would choose to work with a client like that even if they got paid. Just imagine.

Well, there's all the people in his orbit who you can make money from defending their criminal cases...

You could become the go to lawyer for defending corrupt Republicans and almost but not quite get them off everytime.

[IvanV]

I never looked at it this way.

I wondered why anybody would work for him as he habitually does not pay his bills.

His latest one has been paid $3m in advance

It won't be enough to get him off, and the bill will be 6M, which won't pay

[/Prediction]

That's Chris Kise who secured the advance in September 2022. I wonder if he has exhausted that by now, given the large quantity of legal work needed in that time. If he got that advance, he may be able to ask for further advances on exhaustion.

It's not uncommon to pay advances to lawyers, as security for fees, fines, etc. Indeed, it is a well-known form of money laundering to pay an excessively large advance to a lawyer, and then get most of it refunded. At least in this country, lawyers are supposed to keep a segregated client funds account. There's the occasional case of lawyers getting caught pilfering the client funds.

[cvb]

Sorry. Wrong thread.

[monkey]

Charlotte Proudman has just started a campaign (with others, I assume) to change rape law to affirmative consent, where you have to get a "yes" before having sex.

The campaign for it wasn't thought out very well.

I've put the picture behind spoilers, it's safe for work, but it's big and possibly triggering. It's of a woman's face with "I'm asking for it" in big pink letters written over it. It's also in the twitter link below.

Spoiler:

GH0FkakWUAAvpsl.jpg (344.65 KiB) Viewed 1008 times

clicky