You're taking the analogy too far. My point is that we need to come up with quality legal arguments rather than cool sounding quips that get retweets but don't survive two seconds in a courtroom.
Login to reply
Replies (2)
And one way you do that is by studying what prosecutors are saying. They have a 99% success rate, and an incentive to keep it that way. With all due to respect to criminal defense lawyers, their success rate is much lower and they'll get new clients even if they lose.
This is not making much sense to me.
First you deny that they are moved by any solid principle or that they are actually doing something that sounds reasonable, on the contrary, they are actually completely psychopathic people that will almost fake evidence in order to condemn you over anything they want no matter how unreasonable.
And then you say we need better legal arguments? How can such a battle be won with legal arguments?