OT: Media bias

[Gummee]

https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/kaitlin-armstrongs-lawyers-attempt-to-quash-evidence-in-pre-trial-hearing/

There are lots of ways to word that that aren't signalling that the reporter has nanged, drawn, and quartered Armstrong before the trial ever starts.

Me? IDK if she's guilty or innocent, but the author of that article is completely certain.

M

[oldpotatoe]

https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/kaitlin-armstrongs-lawyers-attempt-to-quash-evidence-in-pre-trial-hearing/

There are lots of ways to word that that aren't signalling that the reporter has nanged, drawn, and quartered Armstrong before the trial ever starts.

Me? IDK if she's guilty or innocent, but the author of that article is completely certain.

M

Only she knows if she really did it or not. Wonder what she told her attorney, looking at this 'vigorous' defense? Selling her jeep and running sure doesn't look good...why do that if you are innocent?

For you lawyers 'out there'. If your client admits to you that they did the crime...but you still try to get a 'not guilty' decision, is that illegal or just unethical or both?

[Mike V]

I wonder how many beers are on tap on Hurley’s?

[peanutgallery]

That lady's family is just shameless, they just keep funding and enabling this train wreck

The local 5-0 has bungled this pretty well, too

[Alistair]

For you lawyers 'out there'. If your client admits to you that they did the crime...but you still try to get a 'not guilty' decision, is that illegal or just unethical or both?

Neither. As a defense attorney, your job is to defend your client. No matter how egregious a crime may have been, everybody has a right to a competent defense.

[Alistair]

Armstrong’s defense also claimed that the interrogation was illegal as Armstrong never read her Miranda rights. Furthermore, her lawyers said that Armstrong requested to leave five times and that she wanted legal representation before proceeding with any more questions.

If this is true, that's not good. I hope they have other evidence beyond whatever statements Armstrong made before her lawyer arrived.

[jamesdak]

Neither. As a defense attorney, your job is to defend your client. No matter how egregious a crime may have been, everybody has a right to a competent defense.

Which to me means you (the lawyer) have a serious moral shortcoming. It's one thing to ensure someone gets a fair trail by law. It's a whole other thing to represent someone who has admitted their guilt to you. At least in my opinion.

[makoti]

Which to me means you (the lawyer) have a serious moral shortcoming. It's one thing to ensure someone gets a fair trail by law. It's a whole other thing to represent someone who has admitted their guilt to you. At least in my opinion.

If your client withholds information, how can you possibly defend them? I'm sure many trials were lost because "you didn't tell me that".
"Not guilty by reason of..." is what you would probably use. Reporting would likely shorten it to simply "Not Guilty"
Everyone, even the guilty, get fair representation.

If they didn't properly Mirandize her, then anything they got at that session is probably out. That's a huge goof. I know. I watch L&O reruns all the time. ;)

[mstateglfr]

https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/kaitlin-armstrongs-lawyers-attempt-to-quash-evidence-in-pre-trial-hearing/

There are lots of ways to word that that aren't signalling that the reporter has nanged, drawn, and quartered Armstrong before the trial ever starts.

Me? IDK if she's guilty or innocent, but the author of that article is completely certain.

M

What specifically is bad about that article?

The article gives brief background on the incident in question, gives suspected motive, and then recaps what the defense is alleging.

I really dont see anything that is biased...maybe my bias is keeping me from seeing bias?

[mstateglfr]

Which to me means you (the lawyer) have a serious moral shortcoming. It's one thing to ensure someone gets a fair trail by law. It's a whole other thing to represent someone who has admitted their guilt to you. At least in my opinion.

Its good that you arent a defense attorney- you would go broke from not representing people.

[jamesdak]

Its good that you arent a defense attorney- you would go broke from not representing people.

LOL, no it means I would never choose to go down that path same as I don't do other things I consider immoral, against my values, etc. ;)

[Mark McM]

Only she knows if she really did it or not. Wonder what she told her attorney, looking at this 'vigorous' defense? Selling her jeep and running sure doesn't look good...why do that if you are innocent?

You answered your own question. A criminal conviction isn't based on absolute certainty of guilt, but on certainty beyond a reasonable doubt - which means that it is possible that if the evidence strongly points toward quilt, a person can get convicted even if they are totally innocent (and sadly, the Innocence Project has found this happens a lot). In the transcript from the Austin PD interview with Kaitlin Armstrong, after presenting her with some of the evidence one of the officers said something to the effect of "it really doesn't look good for you." So it is possible that Armstrong may be innocent, but believed that there was a strong chance that she could be found guilty.

[Mark McM]

Neither. As a defense attorney, your job is to defend your client. No matter how egregious a crime may have been, everybody has a right to a competent defense.

The Catholic church has a firm stance that the devil is evil. Yet even they appoint a "devil's advocate" for many of their proceedings.

[RobbieTunes]

Which to me means you (the lawyer) have a serious moral shortcoming. It's one thing to ensure someone gets a fair trail by law. It's a whole other thing to represent someone who has admitted their guilt to you. At least in my opinion.
Many lawyers do have a moral shortage. The real harm is in the civil arena. Many don’t.

Many know their client is guilty, but they have a job they are required to do. As officers of the court, they are bound to defend, using procedure where facts are detrimental, tricks, persuasion, charm, whatever, as this has become psychological warfare, small scale, with a bad smell. It’s a business. It’s often about the jury, not the facts. Winning = money.

The media loves to convict, then loves even more to ridicule the prosecutor, police, etc if there is an acquittal. Rapid 180’s are the media’s shameless purview.

Marshall McLuhan was the media’s guru for years. Now that many of his criticisms of the media are proving true, they love him not so much.

Constitutional protections for the media, based on the assumption at the time that news was unbiased, are long in need of elimination. The market is big enough that a lack of credibility, or even outright falsehoods go unchallenged and money can be made.

Change will depend on politics, and I’m not touching that. Someone would complain, because intolerance is currently fashionable, debate is not.

[rallizes]

Well if Armstrong did it and gets away with it she will owe those 'detectives' a few beers.

Amateurs.

[RobbieTunes]

https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/kaitlin-armstrongs-lawyers-attempt-to-quash-evidence-in-pre-trial-hearing/

There are lots of ways to word that that aren't signalling that the reporter has nanged, drawn, and quartered Armstrong before the trial ever starts.

MPlenty of studies have been done that show the media’s choice of verbs, nouns, and syntax tend to correspond to the agenda, and serve to form opinions in the readership/viewership.

[RobbieTunes]

The Catholic church has a firm stance that the devil is evil. Yet even they appoint a "devil's advocate" for many of their proceedings.
In an attempt at fairness, seeing both sides? Don’t stop short at “devil’s advocate.” Explain why. Perhaps there is a reason.