Advantage Martial Arts Has Over Guns

A PD makes their living off the sheer number of cases they work. A plea is a much quicker way to a resolution, but not necessarily the best way to go.
Public defenders are government employees, and are on salary. They do not get paid piecemeal per case that they work.

PD offices may be underfunded which often means they are understaffed and each attorney has too many cases to give the best defense for everyone. That is a different issue. But they do not make their living off sheer numbers of cases.
 
Public defenders are government employees, and are on salary. They do not get paid piecemeal per case that they work.

PD offices may be underfunded which often means they are understaffed and each attorney has too many cases to give the best defense for everyone. That is a different issue. But they do not make their living off sheer numbers of cases.
True. In my case, I was a juvenile in Long Beach in the 1980s. The court system was absolutely overwhelmed at the time. Its the reason I was able to get them to accept me volunteering at the hospital for community service hours, because the road crews were all full at the time, and I started before I was sentenced.
 
True. In my case, I was a juvenile in Long Beach in the 1980s. The court system was absolutely overwhelmed at the time. Its the reason I was able to get them to accept me volunteering at the hospital for community service hours, because the road crews were all full at the time, and I started before I was sentenced.
People often begin a DUI program before they are sentenced as well. I believe it shows a good-faith effort on the part of the defendant to proactively improve his behavior, and may result it more lenient sentence.
 
Public defenders are government employees, and are on salary. They do not get paid piecemeal per case that they work.

PD offices may be underfunded which often means they are understaffed and each attorney has too many cases to give the best defense for everyone. That is a different issue. But they do not make their living off sheer numbers of cases.
You are correct, and I now see I did not word my statement appropriately. But remember, they are government employees in the lowest tier of government (city/county) where there are little to no control mechanisms.

'PD's are pushed by their workload to close cases as fast as possible' would be a better so say what I was trying to say. I saw this on a regular basis in my LEO days. And don't think money doesn't talk when it comes to how some of the PD represented cases are handled.
Most PD's are working to build enough reputation and relationships to open their own firm, nothing more. The dregs of the industry if you will. No worse than any other attorney.
Oh, my wife is an attorney.:rolleyes::)
 
Study how/who writes our statutes into bills then laws. It is not hard research.
How do you think they are written?
Well no. You made a claim that I find doubtful. I asked for some kind of information to substantiate that. It is your responsibility to provide that since you made the initial claim. It is not my responsibility to do research and see if I come up with the same conclusion.

If you will not do that, I can only conclude that you are unable to substantiate your point.
 
So where are you from?

By liberal I take it you mean democratic. In some states in the USA they are very liberal in that regard, in other states not so.

Again, that depends where in the USA. Not in a state such as New Jersey where guns are frowned upon. In a state such as Pennsylvania on the other hand, that would be much more likely.
Liberal to non Americans means exactly that, liberal. It doesn't mean Democratic or socialist. It means liberal. Look it up.

And while I'm here. In the UK you kill someone you will be arrested, now many will complain that killing in self defence is allowed in law so why the arrest. You will be arrested because the police turn up not knowing who you are, what you did it whether you're telling the truth so they look for evidence of what happened. When they find it, the Crown Prosecution Service (Procurator Fiscal in Scotland) decided whether it goes to court. A genuine self defence case won't go to court. You are allowed in the UK to use weapons, narwhal horns included, and guns to defend yourself. You aren't allowed to lure people to your house, try to trap them then shoot them in the back as they run away.....before you start, in a supposed self defence case here.
 
Well from what I heard about in Sweden is that you can get guns if you have a legitimate reason for getting them. Legitimate reasons would be reasons such as hunting and target shooting. Self defense, however, is not legitimate reason and carrying not just guns but any kind of weapon for the purpose of self defense can get you in trouble. Carrying so much as a stick for self defense in Sweden can get you in trouble, from what I've heard.
Stop listening.
 
Liberal to non Americans means exactly that, liberal.
Not really. The term "liberal" like so many words in the English language has come to mean a lot of different things over time. The full OED definition is worth examining, but is way too long to discuss here. An abridged definition, drawn from the Merriam-Webster dictionary online discusses the various uses of the term "liberal" (see further down below).

Most people are probably at least vaguely aware of liberal used to mean open-minded, inclusive and tolerant. That was how it used to be applied in politics in the States. That seems an almost obsolete usage today, as there's precious little tolerance towards diverse ideas in politics and society these days at either end of the spectrum, left as well as right.

An entirely different political meaning of liberal common in Latin America and on the European Continent is it's association with "liberal", unrestricted or laissez-faire economic policy. This is ironic for Americans, since that meaning aligns more closely with our traditional, "pro-business" conservative and/or libertarian positions (i.e. the opposite of what is commonly called "liberal" here).

Now as far as what you folks over on that quaint little island next to Europe call "liberal", I get a bit confused. Your old,19 century "Gladstonian" liberalism sounds to me a little like our "laissez-fair" pro-business conservatism. But then again, not. It's pretty much impossible to reduce the complexities of politics and economics into a binary, this vs that comparison ...although politicians are forever trying to do just that! And with your thousand years of history, your parliamentary system, and all your parties and alliances and splits and, well that's a lot! Anyway, I have tried to figure out what this word means in different places but it's way too much work...

...so, please forgive my over-simplifications. I never studied economics or government. I have an MFA in visual arts ...and I give up! :confused:

liberal

adjective

1a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts
liberal education
b. archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth

2a: marked by generosity : OPENHANDED
a liberal giver

b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way
a liberal meal

c: AMPLE, FULL

3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS

4: not literal or strict : LOOSE
a liberal translation

5: BROAD-MINDED
especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

6a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism


b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism
especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

liberally
li-b(-)r-l
adverb
liberalness noun
liberal
2 of 2

noun: a person who is liberal: such as

a: one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways
b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party (see LIBERAL entry 1 sense 6)
c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights
 
Not really. The term "liberal" like so many words in the English language has come to mean a lot of different things over time. The full OED definition is worth examining, but is way too long to discuss here. An abridged definition, drawn from the Merriam-Webster dictionary online discusses the various uses of the term "liberal" (see further down below).

Most people are probably at least vaguely aware of liberal used to mean open-minded, inclusive and tolerant. That was how it used to be applied in politics in the States. That seems an almost obsolete usage today, as there's precious little tolerance towards diverse ideas in politics and society these days at either end of the spectrum, left as well as right.

An entirely different political meaning of liberal common in Latin America and on the European Continent is it's association with "liberal", unrestricted or laissez-faire economic policy. This is ironic for Americans, since that meaning aligns more closely with our traditional, "pro-business" conservative and/or libertarian positions (i.e. the opposite of what is commonly called "liberal" here).

Now as far as what you folks over on that quaint little island next to Europe call "liberal", I get a bit confused. Your old,19 century "Gladstonian" liberalism sounds to me a little like our "laissez-fair" pro-business conservatism. But then again, not. It's pretty much impossible to reduce the complexities of politics and economics into a binary, this vs that comparison ...although politicians are forever trying to do just that! And with your thousand years of history, your parliamentary system, and all your parties and alliances and splits and, well that's a lot! Anyway, I have tried to figure out what this word means in different places but it's way too much work...

...so, please forgive my over-simplifications. I never studied economics or government. I have an MFA in visual arts ...and I give up! :confused:

liberal

adjective

1a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts
liberal education
b. archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth

2a: marked by generosity : OPENHANDED
a liberal giver

b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way
a liberal meal

c: AMPLE, FULL

3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS

4: not literal or strict : LOOSE
a liberal translation

5: BROAD-MINDED
especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

6a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism


b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism
especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially ecoInternational Self-defense law literature? Next Thread
https://www.martialtalk.com/threads/international-self-defense-law-literature.138491/nomic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

liberally
li-b(-)r-l
adverb
liberalness noun
liberal
2 of 2

noun: a person who is liberal: such as

a: one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways
b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party (see LIBERAL entry 1 sense 6)
c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights
[/QUOTE]

Liberal in the post was used in terms of 'liberal' as in being liberal in handing out plenty of drinks and food not as a political term.

You are using an American dictionary, we use a British one.
 
Last edited:
You are using an American dictionary, we use a British one.

A good American Dictionary (Merriam-Webster, Random House, etc.) like a good British dictionary will cover usage and pronunciation on both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere in the anglophone world as well. That's true (even if my 50 year-old Random House desk-top dictionary is titled "Dictionary of the American Language"! ;)

What my older American dictionaries don't have is pronunciation noted using IPA symbols. Instead they employ a separate, older phonemic system, or, in the case of newpapers and popular publications, a "respelling" system based on usage in commonly known words. See here: Pronunciation respelling for English - Wikipedia

FWIW I only became aware of the IPA back in the 1970s when I studied social anthropology and linguistics, and later when I worked nights teaching ESL (English as a Second Language) to immigrants. And, I never learned it well enough to make use of it. We Anglo North-Americans (US and Anglo Canada) are pretty isolated by geography. I love to travel but haven't had the money to leave this continent since I was a student. :(
 
A good American Dictionary (Merriam-Webster, Random House, etc.) like a good British dictionary will cover usage and pronunciation on both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere in the anglophone world as well. That's true (even if my 50 year-old Random House desk-top dictionary is titled "Dictionary of the American Language"! ;)

What my older American dictionaries don't have is pronunciation noted using IPA symbols. Instead they employ a separate, older phonemic system, or, in the case of newpapers and popular publications, a "respelling" system based on usage in commonly known words. See here: Pronunciation respelling for English - Wikipedia

FWIW I only became aware of the IPA back in the 1970s when I studied social anthropology and linguistics, and later when I worked nights teaching ESL (English as a Second Language) to immigrants. And, I never learned it well enough to make use of it. We Anglo North-Americans (US and Anglo Canada) are pretty isolated by geography. I love to travel but haven't had the money to leave this continent since I was a student. :(
According to the Urban Dictionary, it simply means a lot. And what dictionary is more credible than that?

Doc Sigma said so way back in 2003, and almost 10,000 people agree with him.

1719430952831.png
 
In the UK you kill someone you will be arrested, now many will complain that killing in self defence is allowed in law so why the arrest.
Yes. Flipping the situation might help persuade some of the veracity of your statement: can we imagine the police not arresting someone who kills someone else?

"You say that killing that guy was justified? Right. Off you go. Oh, here's my card."
 
Yes. Flipping the situation might help persuade some of the veracity of your statement: can we imagine the police not arresting someone who kills someone else?
Yes. It happens here in the US. But it's not as simple as the quote below:
"You say that killing that guy was justified? Right. Off you go. Oh, here's my card."
Depending on the evidence immediately available at the scene that the police can observe, the officers can make that determination. This does not mean that you're cleared of any wrongdoing. They can always take you into custody later.
 
Wow, thanks. Thats all I really need to know.
Public defenders are government employees, and are on salary. They do not get paid piecemeal per case that they work.
To be clear, your comment shores up my point. You are correct that PD's are on a preset salary. In this regard, they are as blue collar as the public servant who works at the sanitation department. It is the 'piecemeal' or per case work where defense attorneys can make an obscene amount of money. Why do you think there are so many 'ambulance chaser's?

And believe me when I say my wife paid her dues as a PD until she could open her own firm with a specific focus, far, far away from being a defense attorney. Hard to believe that was some 20-years ago.

If you take the time to research, which clearly you are not willing to do, you will find that almost all statutes are written by people with an expertise in the field of law. If you think about it, it's really not surprising at all. Even laws that start out with the most noble and virtuous of ideas are twisted and turned, analyzed and modified until they are usually fraught with exclusionary verbiage, some of which is rather straightforward and easy to see, some that takes quite a lot of, shall we say, liberal interpretation.
 
To be clear, your comment shores up my point. You are correct that PD's are on a preset salary. In this regard, they are as blue collar as the public servant who works at the sanitation department. It is the 'piecemeal' or per case work where defense attorneys can make an obscene amount of money. Why do you think there are so many 'ambulance chaser's?

And believe me when I say my wife paid her dues as a PD until she could open her own firm with a specific focus, far, far away from being a defense attorney. Hard to believe that was some 20-years ago.

If you take the time to research, which clearly you are not willing to do, you will find that almost all statutes are written by people with an expertise in the field of law. If you think about it, it's really not surprising at all. Even laws that start out with the most noble and virtuous of ideas are twisted and turned, analyzed and modified until they are usually fraught with exclusionary verbiage, some of which is rather straightforward and easy to see, some that takes quite a lot of, shall we say, liberal interpretation.
Of course laws are largely written by the staff of politicians and not politicians themselves. And those staff members are probably mostly attorneys. But that isnt the same as saying they are all written by defense attorneys and therefor have some kind of out written into them.

And I dont understand why you would describe Public Defenders as the dregs of the industry. I work in the industry (I am not an attorney) and I know some public defenders, including family members who spent time working in the PDs office. Far from the dregs of the industry, they are people who work hard and believe in the system and provide representation for those who cannot afford it, in the belief that everyone deserves to have legal representation. That is a cornerstone of our legal system. I dont see the need to disparage the office. If that is actually your position (please clarify if necessary), then you have lost my respect.
 
Of course laws are largely written by the staff of politicians and not politicians themselves. And those staff members are probably mostly attorneys. But that isnt the same as saying they are all written by defense attorneys and therefor have some kind of out written into them.

And I dont understand why you would describe Public Defenders as the dregs of the industry. I work in the industry (I am not an attorney) and I know some public defenders, including family members who spent time working in the PDs office. Far from the dregs of the industry, they are people who work hard and believe in the system and provide representation for those who cannot afford it, in the belief that everyone deserves to have legal representation. That is a cornerstone of our legal system. I dont see the need to disparage the office. If that is actually your position (please clarify if necessary), then you have lost my respect.
You are correct in your assertion about who does the mundane work of creating written law and that usually, politicians are only the 'face' of the law. But don't be naive about how they are written. My wife's education supports this, the professors word for word say this, regulators say the same, lobbyists prove this, lawmakers create this narrative, and my years of courtroom experience is real world proof.
I fully agree it is noble and even honorable to defend those who cannot afford representation, but not without exception. However, this has little to do with my assertion. Usually, a PD is representing someone on the wrong side of the law and have to argue using the very points I am trying to make. Any little work-around within the statute to wiggle someone out of trouble, whether they really deserve it or not. AKA, the dregs.
I have heard PD's rather often call themselves as much. Sometimes much worse.

No, I am Not disparaging our legal system, broken as it is. I am an proud American who has a rock star wife who is an attorney and I am a former LEO, so I am no stranger to the courtroom.
I have been in, around, and on both sides of the criminal system, and far more in the civil system than I ever desired to be.
I saw my wife come home too many times dejected after trying to manipulate the written law(s) to defend a person who was truly guilty.
I was wrongly sued for $3.5M from a auto accident that I was not involved in, but was witness to as I was at the scene. I simply got people out of a burning car before they died by kicking out the windshield. But I still got dragged through the mud for it. Cost me over $100k. How does that seem appropriate in a 'working' system?

As honestly as I can say it, if my wife was the kind of person/attorney that was okay with representing guilty people or people just trying to get paid day in and day out, we would not be married after 33-years.
 
Your friend made a choice. If you give someone any serious injuries, you also made a choice.

Look at the Mike Tyson incident on the plane. Tyson punched that guy in the face several times, and only left him with a few cuts. If Tyson can punch someone in the face without causing any serious injuries, then there's no excuse for anyone who causes unnecessary serious injury.
All situations are different and sometimes you might have to cause serious injury to stop somebody. I don't know the details of the case about Tyson punching somebody on a plane but there have been cases of people who've had their noses broken and have kept fighting, there have been cases of people who have been shot and who have kept fighting, there have been cases of people who kept fighting while they were dying. So depending on the situation you might have to cause serious injury to incapacitate and stop your attacker. There is also the fact that just about anything can happen in a fight, it is possible to kill when your intent was only to stop your attacker but to leave them alive.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top