I would like to get your opinion whether there is any evidence in this post to rule out a poster is actually a lawyer.

I saw this exchange and I think I see three things in what the second person posted to make me think he's not a lawyer much less a prosecutor. But he keeps insisting he is one. What do you think?

A prosecutor that is unaware of brandishing laws?

IANAL, and I dunno if the poster is or not, but he is an ignorant idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
A prosecutor that is unaware of brandishing laws?

That was my first thought also.

If he has to tell you he's a "prosecutor"...he's not a prosecutor.

quote:

A prosecutor that is unaware of brandishing laws?

Again, the person's point is that he or she needs a law to prosecute. In fact, the first post indicated a need for a law about licensing. Then a need for a law, either about brandishing or a gun free school zone. Without any of those laws, what is going to be prosecuted?

Absent laws prohibiting possession or conduct, you can't do a damned thing about a guy standing outside a school waving a gun around.

I was a prosecutor. I needed to be able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, how a defendant's conduct violated each and every portion of the relevant criminal law. Miss a point, you lose. If the law required intent, and he didn't have any, you lose. If the law required the gun to be real and it was a toy, you lose.

You need a law to prosecute; it is an absolute necessity. This is why you never see a conviction for being a bad guy. You see convictions for particular, completed legal violations.

I don't know if this person is a prosecutor or not, but they are absolutely correct about needing a law.

Remember that in the American legal system, we don't have laws that allow conduct, we only have laws that prohibit conduct. I.e., if something isn't prohibited in some way, you are free to do it. It follows from this that you are free to do whatever you want with a gun in front of a school unless it violates some law. Those laws can be as mild as breach of the peace, but that too is a law.

It looks like he's got a name that's blurred out. If he's a prosecutor, or even a lawyer for that matter, it should show up on a google search.

No idea if he is a lawyer or not. There are many lawyers who are plenty dumb as this guy appears to be. His idiotic response does not give us a real hint as to whether or not he holds a bar card.

I'm not a lawyer, but on the simplest level the guy isn't wrong. No law to violate no crime committed. Yes the poster was either ignorant of brandishing laws or omitted them and created a poor example. He seems a bit of an arrogant ass, but "just make a law against killing and everything will be fine" was only mildly amusing the fist time it was used in an argument somewhere around the time that Isaac looked at Abraham and said, "What the fuck was that all about?"

I can't tell. He may be simplifying to make the bigger point, about which he is right.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:

Again, the person's point is that he or she needs a law to prosecute.

Remember that in the American legal system, we don't have laws that allow conduct, we only have laws that prohibit conduct. I.e., if something isn't prohibited in some way, you are free to do it. It follows from this that you are free to do whatever you want with a gun in front of a school unless it violates some law. Those laws can be as mild as breach of the peace, but that too is a law.

But in making a point, would you dismiss things already that are already true?

I can't imagine a cop coming upon someone waving a gun in a public place and not doing anything until he shoots.

Also, he says "If it (the school) is a legally designated gun free zone." Why would he say if as if he isn't aware about the 1990 gun-free school act?

Rey:

It comes down to context.

I read the first post of the two as someone saying "Just make killing illegal [and then we won't need any other laws at all]." I.e., a fairly libertarian position, that regulatory or prohibitive conduct laws aren't necessary so long as killing itself is illegal and severely punished.

This alleged prosecutor is saying that if you want police to be able to influence events before a killing happens, you have to have other laws. I think the prosecutor is assuming that in the context of this discussion there are no brandishing laws, there are no gun free school zone laws, there are only laws against killing. Otherwise the first post in the sequence really makes no sense.

Much good discussion here, and although I’m not an attorney, I can attest through sad and sorry personal observation and experience that being a prosecutor doesn’t automatically mean that someone is fully aware of or understands all the laws he has some responsibility for. They’re all human beings, and there are good ones and incompetent ones—and in my opinion the latter well outnumber the truly competent.

quote:

Otherwise the first post in the sequence really makes no sense.

I took it as snark, often heard when people are trying to legislate morality. But I may have misread it.

Without any reference to the substance of the content of the post from the "prosecutor," I will wager he is not one. I arrived at this conclusion thus: prosecutor's make their living by convicting people of crimes at trial, whereby they must persuade a group of people, almost certainly not skilled in the art, that the prosecutor's position is correct. Anyone that trades on their ability to persuade knows that one is far more effective by not acting like an ass, but through a clear, concise and convincing argument. My rule of thumb is: any "expert" that begins their argument with a statement of their superior position and directly or indirectly asserts the diminutive position of the one they are talking to, is not truly an "expert."

Uhh, well,

quote:

Anyone that trades on their ability to persuade knows that one is far more effective by not acting like an ass,...

I’m not too sure about this one, having seen numerous examples in real life.

I think the bigger question is:

Why is the OP invested in the outcome of a facebook debate?

The world would be happier if everyone used facebook for what it was intended: posting pictures of food, babies, and puppies, and finding contact information for that chick that you saw once but didn't think to get her number.

Just a plus one on it being public info whether someone is a lawyer/prosecutor

I could see a lawyer trying to make an example though doing a poor job of it

Fwiw. Which is not much anyway.

For me, there is insufficient data to support forming an opinion one way or the other. Plausibly, it could go either way.

I would then have to take a guess. And I don't like taking guesses. Might as well flip a coin. And if Jung is correct, it could then also plausibly go either way.

However, the I Ching could crack it.

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
I think the bigger question is:

Why is the OP invested in the outcome of a facebook debate?

The world would be happier if everyone used facebook for what it was intended: posting pictures of food, babies, and puppies, and finding contact information for that chick that you saw once but didn't think to get her number.