Post: #101

This part of the conversation is interesting, because Merenguero is predicting a very difficult conviction by citing "the code" and "the statutes", and telling us to "educate ourselves".

Whereas I'm predicting a very easy conviction (provided it's a jury trial) by citing my own mindset in response to the planned, "It was totally consensual!" defense. (And I'm typing this while Tucker Carlson is interviewing the Chief of Police from Nassau County, New York, to cover a story about a four-time deported El Salvadoran gang member who is under arrest for sexually assaulting a fucking two year old.)

So which will win? Appeals to codes and statutes or appeals to the sanctity of childhood?

Post: #102

(03-24-2017 08:27 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 08:16 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  He was also way out of line in pressing regarding payment of the fee, which attorneys are bound by their duty of confidentiality not to disclose.

If we're talking about Tucker Carlson, I thought that was a bad spot in the interview. Whoever is paying or not paying for the defense is completely irrelevant. I know it was a "Gotcha!" moment for most TV viewers because it looked like Tucker was really showing the guy is slimy somehow, but the question shouldn't have ever come up and has nothing to do with anything.

I thought the defense attorney seemed pretty forthright in his responses. He didn't seem slimy at all. Everyone deserves a defense in a criminal case, and it doesn't make an attorney a scumbag for providing that role. I think the attorney did pretty well under fire.

He asked who is paying for his attorney because he's an illegal immigrant. Is his defense being paid for by the taxpayers? Special interests? An individual?

It's a very relevant question.

Post: #103

(03-24-2017 08:42 PM)Enigma Wrote:  He asked who is paying for his attorney because he's an illegal immigrant. Is his defense being paid for by the taxpayers? Special interests? An individual?

It's a very relevant question.

Even illegal aliens have a right to defense counsel and due process. And if the government or ACLU was paying or if the attorney was doing it pro bono (for free), then that has nothing to do with the rape case.

Post: #104

(03-24-2017 09:21 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 08:42 PM)Enigma Wrote:  He asked who is paying for his attorney because he's an illegal immigrant. Is his defense being paid for by the taxpayers? Special interests? An individual?

It's a very relevant question.

Even illegal aliens have a right to defense counsel and due process. And if the government or ACLU was paying or if the attorney was doing it pro bono (for free), then that has nothing to do with the rape case.

Agreed and I'll say this. I've been practicing for almost fifteen years and never received a dime from any government organization, charity, or anyone else except for my clients in criminal and domestic cases and insurance companies in personal injury cases. I've done a ton of pro bono, some intentionally and some unintentionally. The unintentional pro bono has been increasing lately.

Post: #105

(03-24-2017 09:21 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 08:42 PM)Enigma Wrote:  He asked who is paying for his attorney because he's an illegal immigrant. Is his defense being paid for by the taxpayers? Special interests? An individual?

It's a very relevant question.

Even illegal aliens have a right to defense counsel and due process. And if the government or ACLU was paying or if the attorney was doing it pro bono (for free), then that has nothing to do with the rape case.

Again, you're missing the point.

Illegal immigrant sneaks into the country.

Illegal immigrant uses taxpayer-funded benefits (school).

Illegal immigrant commits crime.

Illegal immigrant receives taxpayer-funded legal counsel.

Do you see where we're going with this?

No one is saying that he shouldn't receive legal defense. The point is that HE SHOULD NOT BE HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE and he is going to school, committing crimes, and using government benefits, all at the expense of the taxes and safety of citizens.

None of this would be an issue if he was back in Guatemala or El Salvador.

Get him out, out, out.

Post: #106

(03-24-2017 09:29 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Again, you're missing the point.

Illegal immigrant sneaks into the country.

Illegal immigrant uses taxpayer-funded benefits (school).

Illegal immigrant commits crime.

Illegal immigrant receives taxpayer-funded legal counsel.

Do you see where we're going with this?

No one is saying that he shouldn't receive legal defense. The point is that HE SHOULD NOT BE HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE and he is going to school, committing crimes, and using government benefits, all at the expense of the taxes and safety of citizens.

None of this would be an issue if he was back in Guatemala or El Salvador.

Get him out, out, out.

Well, we agree then.

But he needs to spend his time in prison first if warranted. And then ship his ass out. If he's found not guilty, then ship his ass out.

Post: #107

Yeah - it is racist for being upset about your daughter being raped.

I can tell you that if that were my daughter then the state would be the least of their worry. I know that they will walk away free in this case or be released in 2 years.

Post: #108

You guys are misinterpreting Merenguero's posts.

He's not trying to say these guys should or should not be found guilty, he's saying it will be hard to prove (based on what we know so far) in a court of law.

Trying to paint him as a rape apologist for simply applying his viewpoint as a lawyer is illogical.

Post: #109

(03-26-2017 10:00 AM)glugger Wrote:  You guys are misinterpreting Merenguero's posts.

No, we're not. (Or at least, I'm not.)

He's expecting a typical, lawyerly, logical trial. But I'm expecting a completely irrational one, based on a cultural backlash against illegal immigration.

We'll see what happens.

Post: #110

(03-26-2017 10:00 AM)glugger Wrote:  You guys are misinterpreting Merenguero's posts.

He's not trying to say these guys should or should not be found guilty, he's saying it will be hard to prove (based on what we know so far) in a court of law.

Trying to paint him as a rape apologist for simply applying his viewpoint as a lawyer is illogical.

That's also the way I see it. Unless an attorney is a crusader, then they're supposed to apply the law and the evidence and utilize facts and leave out their feelings and politics. That's why Merenguero's first instinct was to go look up the statutes.

It's not apologist to note that being an illegal alien has nothing to do with a criminal allegation. Their immigration violations, while infuriating to most of us, don't have any bearing on the rape allegation.

Post: #111

This is the last straw, I'm done with Maryland. Sanctuary state in spirit if not name, oppressive gun laws, high taxes, scumbag population, liberal heaven. Hello Northern Virginia!!!!! Anyone with relevant info please PM me what city is best.

The one silver lining from this tragedy is that it should become easier to crack down on illegals, oops I mean the undocumented

Post: #112

(03-26-2017 02:39 PM)Engineer Wrote:  This is the last straw, I'm done with Maryland. Sanctuary state in spirit if not name, oppressive gun laws, high taxes, scumbag population, liberal heaven. Hello Northern Virginia!!!!!

That's ridiculous. There's no such state as North Virginia. You're thinking of East Virginia.

Post: #113

(03-26-2017 02:41 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 02:39 PM)Engineer Wrote:  This is the last straw, I'm done with Maryland. Sanctuary state in spirit if not name, oppressive gun laws, high taxes, scumbag population, liberal heaven. Hello Northern Virginia!!!!!

That's ridiculous. There's no such state as North Virginia. You're thinking of East Virginia.

You mean West Virginia.

Post: #114

(03-26-2017 02:39 PM)Engineer Wrote:  This is the last straw, I'm done with Maryland. Sanctuary state in spirit if not name, oppressive gun laws, high taxes, scumbag population, liberal heaven. Hello Northern Virginia!!!!! Anyone with relevant info please PM me what city is best.

The one silver lining from this tragedy is that it should become easier to crack down on illegals, oops I mean the undocumented

Northern VA is not much better, but nothing is as bad as MD. I've lived in Arlington and Fairfax both have upsides. It depends how old you are and where you work.

Post: #115

(03-19-2017 12:55 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  I read the title as the men are illegally latino. Like, it was too much latino and they have to dial it back to stay within the law.

Even many days later, whenever I need to be cheered up I just return to re-read this comment

Post: #116

(03-19-2017 11:39 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(03-19-2017 11:28 AM)Buck Wild Wrote:  

(03-18-2017 11:39 PM)Chris Brown Wrote:  I have often wondered, is rape about power or pleasure, or both?

It's about using power to obtain pleasure. That much should be obvious.

The whole concept of it being about power and not sexuality is feminist projection. If it was only about power, then why the erection?

Feminists are all about power, and not fairness or equality or anything else.

They are speculating wildly, ie. projecting, when they talk about rapists, and that is that, as Jordan Peterson would say.

And I am not saying that there aren't power dynamics going on in the head of the rapist, I am only saying that feminists don't spend any time trying to figure out what is going on in the head of a rapist.

They want power, so they accuse others of wanting power, and it was ever thus.

"It's about power, not sex" is one of the more obvious feminist lies to anyone capable of critical thought. If it wasn't at least somewhat about sex, you would be pushing a rope and it wouldn't even be physically possible. How many things involving an erection and an orgasm don't involve sex? I'm amazed they've been able to push this arrant nonsense so long.

Post: #117

(03-24-2017 05:22 PM)Renzy Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 03:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This case would take a turn for crazy if it turns out the girl had prior sexual relations with at least one of the guys.

But Merenguero, I don't think it will be very difficult to show a lack of consent in this case. How can it reasonably be shown that this girl wanted to fuck in the boys bathroom right in the middle of a school day? These guys are looking at 10-20 years in the slammer or a deportation.

Reports I read stated that this happened around 9am. Maybe we're justing reaching new levels of depravity, but I have a hard time believing a 14 year old girl is ready to get double-teamed in the school's hallway bathroom at 9 in the morning.

Lets not forget the blood. She apparently thought a gangbang in the school bathroom was a romantic way to lose her virginity.

Post: #118

(03-24-2017 08:16 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 08:06 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 07:44 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 07:27 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 01:35 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  There is something here that a lot of the internet commenters (outside of the forum) and this Cucker guy apparently fail to understand.

Where in that segment did "Cucker" say the age difference was illegal? He didn't. He said she was a child, which she is.

Interesting that you heard something that was never said.

Are you kidding me? He said there were two men, one eighteen years old and one seventeen years old with a fourteen year old in a bathroom, how could that be consensual? This implies that a fourteen year old is legally unable to give consent, when the code clearly says that a fourteen year old is, as long as the alleged Defendant is not four years older than the alleged victim. How much clearer could he have made it that he completely misunderstands the code with regard to age of consent and ability to give consent?

Are you triggered?

He could have made it clearer by saying "a 14 year old can't give consent" or "this was statutory rape" or "it is illegal for an 18 year old to have sex with a 14 year old in Maryland".

He didn't say anything of those things. He asked how it could be consensual, given that the defense attorney had just said he planned to claim it was consensual.

Not all of us choose to ignore the fact that she was screaming and bleeding or the other context of the situation, as you do.

He mentions the ages of all persons involved at the exact same point in the interview when he asks how it could be consensual, without bringing up any factors such as screaming, bleading, or anything else. He was referring to the age thing, which he didn't at the time understand. Hopefully, he educated himself on the code since then. It only takes a few minutes and a few clicks online. He was also way out of line in pressing regarding payment of the fee, which attorneys are bound by their duty of confidentiality not to disclose. I'm not sure if he even understands that. At least one of the Defendants would be required to have an attorney who is normally a private attorney no matter what. The reason why is the public defender's office would have an obvious conflict of interest had both Defendants sought their representation. One of the Defendants would have to be paneled out to a court appointed attorney, who is not employed by the public defender's office and who is basically private counsel.

Is Tucker not understanding the law, or are you not understanding TV? Almost everything you complained about is good TV for his demographic. And how is he out of line asking for the fee? Just because you're not allowed to answer doesn't means others aren't allowed to ask. If the guy decides to get up on TV and raise questions about other people it's time to put on his big boy pants and be ready to deal with awkward questions himself.

Post: #119

(03-24-2017 09:21 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 08:42 PM)Enigma Wrote:  He asked who is paying for his attorney because he's an illegal immigrant. Is his defense being paid for by the taxpayers? Special interests? An individual?

It's a very relevant question.

Even illegal aliens have a right to defense counsel and due process. And if the government or ACLU was paying or if the attorney was doing it pro bono (for free), then that has nothing to do with the rape case.

But it would have everything to do with a journalist questioning these policies in a democracy.

Post: #120

(03-26-2017 11:26 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 10:00 AM)glugger Wrote:  You guys are misinterpreting Merenguero's posts.

No, we're not. (Or at least, I'm not.)

He's expecting a typical, lawyerly, logical trial. But I'm expecting a completely irrational one, based on a cultural backlash against illegal immigration.

We'll see what happens.

It can still be logical and rational if the laws themselves are not.

Post: #121

(03-24-2017 09:24 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 09:21 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 08:42 PM)Enigma Wrote:  He asked who is paying for his attorney because he's an illegal immigrant. Is his defense being paid for by the taxpayers? Special interests? An individual?

It's a very relevant question.

Even illegal aliens have a right to defense counsel and due process. And if the government or ACLU was paying or if the attorney was doing it pro bono (for free), then that has nothing to do with the rape case.

Agreed and I'll say this. I've been practicing for almost fifteen years and never received a dime from any government organization, charity, or anyone else except for my clients in criminal and domestic cases and insurance companies in personal injury cases. I've done a ton of pro bono, some intentionally and some unintentionally. The unintentional pro bono has been increasing lately.

I'm (usually) on the other side in the court room, but I appreciate your posts and insight.

Quote:The unintentional pro bono has been increasing lately.

Did you get pro-boned? Bono-raped?

Post: #122

(03-26-2017 06:13 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  Is Tucker not understanding the law, or are you not understanding TV? Almost everything you complained about is good TV for his demographic. And how is he out of line asking for the fee? Just because you're not allowed to answer doesn't means others aren't allowed to ask. If the guy decides to get up on TV and raise questions about other people it's time to put on his big boy pants and be ready to deal with awkward questions himself.

Tucker was a history major. The other guy has a law degree.

Tucker asked something out of line with regards to fees between attorneys and clients, and then the lawyer respectfully and truthfully answered why the question was inappropriate.

The lawyer did fine. The attorney was never an ass to Tucker in any manner.

Post: #123

(03-26-2017 05:41 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(03-19-2017 11:39 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(03-19-2017 11:28 AM)Buck Wild Wrote:  

(03-18-2017 11:39 PM)Chris Brown Wrote:  I have often wondered, is rape about power or pleasure, or both?

It's about using power to obtain pleasure. That much should be obvious.

The whole concept of it being about power and not sexuality is feminist projection. If it was only about power, then why the erection?

Feminists are all about power, and not fairness or equality or anything else.

They are speculating wildly, ie. projecting, when they talk about rapists, and that is that, as Jordan Peterson would say.

And I am not saying that there aren't power dynamics going on in the head of the rapist, I am only saying that feminists don't spend any time trying to figure out what is going on in the head of a rapist.

They want power, so they accuse others of wanting power, and it was ever thus.

"It's about power, not sex" is one of the more obvious feminist lies to anyone capable of critical thought. If it wasn't at least somewhat about sex, you would be pushing a rope and it wouldn't even be physically possible. How many things involving an erection and an orgasm don't involve sex? I'm amazed they've been able to push this arrant nonsense so long.

If rape was about power, then legalized prostitution would not reduce rape.

But the truth is that it was already tested out in some states for a few years - Rhode Island.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...3d959325b9



One reason why Germany still has a lower rape rate than Sweden despite having an impressive amount of enrichers there now is that Germany is a country where you can fuck passable women for 30-50$ at one of the many brothels. In contrast in Sweden the johns get punished severely, even shamed by being sent coloured mail that everyone knows what it is. Not only are brothels banned, but mainly high-class or lowest class illegal prostitutes at inflated prices remain.

Of course in the case of minors it would not help much, but legalized prostitution proves that rape is not about power at all. That is frankly more a feminist fantasy since being raped is one of their sexual fetishes.

Post: #124

(03-26-2017 06:22 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 09:24 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 09:21 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 08:42 PM)Enigma Wrote:  He asked who is paying for his attorney because he's an illegal immigrant. Is his defense being paid for by the taxpayers? Special interests? An individual?

It's a very relevant question.

Even illegal aliens have a right to defense counsel and due process. And if the government or ACLU was paying or if the attorney was doing it pro bono (for free), then that has nothing to do with the rape case.

Agreed and I'll say this. I've been practicing for almost fifteen years and never received a dime from any government organization, charity, or anyone else except for my clients in criminal and domestic cases and insurance companies in personal injury cases. I've done a ton of pro bono, some intentionally and some unintentionally. The unintentional pro bono has been increasing lately.

I'm (usually) on the other side in the court room, but I appreciate your posts and insight.

I have always been on the other side of the court room from Merenguero's point, but I understand that he's not my enemy because he's a defense attorney. When some defense attorney is grilling a cop on the stand and the cop is sweating, I'm always thinking, "This attorney is pretty good. And why the fuck is this cop sweating so much right now if he's just testifying?"

I have never one time in my life been on the side of the defense in any case, yet I was never angry with them. I've even had a defense counsel try to impeach me in a PERSONAL way on the stand. And then he called me on my cell afterwards and said, "It wasn't really personal at all, man. I just didn't have anything else to go on." And I was perfectly fine with it and told him so. It was just his job to do that shit and there were no hard feelings. And the federal magistrate shut his ass down when he attacked me, so I thought it was funny anyhow.

Post: #125

(03-24-2017 03:36 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 03:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This case would take a turn for crazy if it turns out the girl had prior sexual relations with at least one of the guys.

But Merenguero, I don't think it will be very difficult to show a lack of consent in this case. How can it reasonably be shown that this girl wanted to fuck in the boys bathroom right in the middle of a school day? These guys are looking at 10-20 years in the slammer or a deportation.

You seem to already know this, but the defense need not prove consent. The state needs to prove lack of consent. If you listen to Andy's comments at the early part of the video, it should start to make sense. Where are the wounds on the Defendants or on her? Would a fourteen year old girl not fight back? If so and there are no wounds on anybody, the state may have a serious problem. All you need is reasonable doubt as to any one element. I don't know all the facts, but I don't think it will be easy for the state to prove.

Nah, nothing you said will sway a jury. Lack of wounds is there because she was restrained by two men. The doctors report should show signs of trauma. The witnesses who heard screams can be recorded on cell phones now by the parents or cops.

Whatever legal technicalities may help the rapists, it won't matter. The prosecutors will pack the jury with White moms and these guys are done.

There was so much media sensation over this case there will be no impartial jury in Maryland. It's a small state and news like this is explosive. Even if the guys are in fact innocent and this girl was a skank, I still expect both of these guys to get convicted. The girl is crying rape and tons of evidence shows a rape happened beyond reasonable doubt.

I mean if someone wants to have sex who does it with their friend in the boys bathroom? It's completely ridiculous, no jury will buy it. I know how American people feel. I predicted Trump's victory 1.5 years in advance. I know the law doesn't matter in this case and I know how the jury will vote, as long as the prosecutors pack the jury with White Moms (Dads will work too).