MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
lymenheimer

Gold
Posts: 3979
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:54 am

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby lymenheimer » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:18 am

prospectiveT14 wrote:
lymenheimer wrote:
prospectiveT14 wrote:there's factors you're not untangling here. YES there are many drunk driving accidents but there are also many accidents in general. Only a fraction are from drunk driving. This doesn't necessarily mean that alcohol directly caused the accident. These could have been people that have reckless driving habits to begin with (speeding, etc.) So how do you know that the accident was not bound to happen without alcohol anyway?

And like I said - texting and driving is not persecuted at all despite it ACTUALLY being distracting because your eyesight is completely removed from the road and onto your screen. You cannot pull someone over in Florida for texting and driving or give them a citation because it's not a primary offense. How sad right? How sad that our legal system does not have enough common sense to see what is actually a direct factor, not a factor mixed in.

People drunk drive everyday. That's why there's happy hour. They don't expect you to get out of work and then call an uber and leave your car. They expect you to have a few rounds and drive yourself home. So if the system wants drunk driving to stop it needs to happen from within not from the outskirts where the damage is.


QFP


thank you for your attempt at slanting my paragraph like someone who is promoting drinking and driving when I am actually trying to teach someone how to analyze statistics


Actually, you're wrong. Please don't assume you know my intentions.

TuxedoCats

New
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby TuxedoCats » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:20 am

lymenheimer wrote:
TuxedoCats wrote:
prospectiveT14 wrote: To quote the stanford rape victim "You do not know me but you have been inside of me"

And that's what it feels like, day in, day out. The memory of someone violating you fading in all the time, reminding me you of a mistake you can't escape.


I'd also like to point out that this guy compared lawful arrest and processing to rape...


Holy shit I missed that. Was going to make a statutory rape comparison earlier, but I didn't want to substantively engage.


Whoa! It's a she! Even worse.

cavalier1138

Gold
Posts: 4954
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby cavalier1138 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:21 am

lymenheimer wrote:
TuxedoCats wrote:
prospectiveT14 wrote: To quote the stanford rape victim "You do not know me but you have been inside of me"

And that's what it feels like, day in, day out. The memory of someone violating you fading in all the time, reminding me you of a mistake you can't escape.


I'd also like to point out that this guy compared lawful arrest and processing to rape...


Holy shit I missed that. Was going to make a statutory rape comparison earlier, but I didn't want to substantively engage.


That was my mistake. The substantively engaging thing.

User avatar
PeanutsNJam

Gold
Posts: 4568
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby PeanutsNJam » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:22 am

I think explaining how your transcript is 8 F's and the rest are all A's with maybe 1 or 2 B's would make for a great personal statement.

User avatar
Barack O'Drama

Gold
Posts: 3275
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby Barack O'Drama » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:23 am

LandMermaid wrote:
prospectiveT14 wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
prospectiveT14 wrote:saying things like "don't go to UM" doesn't seem like good advice in MY opinion. I'm going to hold whatever options I feel have available open. I don't understand why you seem hell bent on assuming that everything on a forum - 3 pages worth so far is good quality advice.


Who said anything about assuming? I've been reading the advice you've been given, and it's all been pretty solid, including the stuff about UM not giving you very good employment outcomes.

But you're engaging in a common fallacy, which is that since someone is only telling you their opinion, that any contradictory opinion holds equal weight. If my opinion is that Miami doesn't offer you a very good shot at employment because their employment reports show a large portion of their class not being employed as attorneys, that is not on an equal footing with your opinion that employment opportunities are great, because you assume a large portion of their class is employed as attorneys but wasn't reported on the survey (and that this somehow negates all the people who directly report not being employed as attorneys).



the only fallacy going on here is that you are assuming - off the bat - what fallacy I'm engaging in.
I have my reasons for not believing in employment statistics - or a lot of statistics for that matter. Doing social studies is one of the hardest things to do, as explained by my professors, and it's not as simple as spitting back stats. That's why there's a lot of varying stats reported from different institutions and many factors not accounted for.

Even if only "66%" are employed as attorneys, that doesn't mean that they didn't use their JD for something else. That doesn't mean they are in fact, unemployed. That doesn't mean that they will remain unemployed either. Please look into all the varying levels of what someone is implying before simply spitting back an emotionally-driven answer.


What about that was emotionally driven?


You've argued literally EVERYTHING everyone has said. OP You are officially a dick. If you read the link it tells you what the other's are doing. 30%+ are unemployed. So, yes, maybe they are using their JD to get pussy at the local bar and then drive home to their parent's house at 27. Then when they get pulled over they can say "I'm a lawyer, you can't do this!" That is one way they could be using this.

Your evidence for UM being a good school is that a guy who detonated bombs in the military went there? LMAO. Yeah, that has to be a good school then!
One anecdote that couldn't be more irrelevant is your basis for arguing with statistics showing that 30% of the people from that school a year out don't have jobs period. Not just that they decided to do something else with the JD, but that they couldn't get a job worth doing at all. If you want to argue with statistics, fine. Yeah, you're right, I'm sure people with great legal jobs are just lying and saying they don't have them.

OK. Well even if you want to ignore statistics do you think the median GPA (3.3) and median LSAT (156) make for a good school? Those aren't fudged or made up.

Seriously, don't go to law school. All you do is make excuses for yourself and it's really sad, especially as someone on the older side of things. You were legally drunk, deal with it. It doesn't matter if you want to argue you were sober.
Last edited by Barack O'Drama on Fri Jan 26, 2018 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

prospectiveT14

New
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:54 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby prospectiveT14 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:24 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
prospectiveT14 wrote:mouse I feel like you don't really grasp what someone is saying before you spit back an answer.

Please, think critically about what you're saying. Just because someone is in a car, with weed (or any other drug), doesn't mean they don't think they don't have a problem. They could be going through a hard time in their life, it could be their first time trying it.

And you're also assuming that all people who go to rehab is of their own will. Some are court-ordered like how my boss is doing with her son, or there had to be an intervention by family members to get them to go. Or maybe some people don't understand in depth how rehab works or what rehab can do for them.

There are many many reasons that someone can go to rehab and not go to rehab. Please don't make universal statements that sum up things like "well there's a very obvious difference between person A and person B groups" that's not true. There's a lot of people in rehab who don't want to be there and end up doing more drugs later on. You cannot determine someone's substance abuse issue by whether they go to a rehab or not. You cannot determine it by whether they decided to drive that day or not.

Maybe you need to express yourself more clearly or read what I'm saying more closely. I never said you could determine someone's substance abuse problem by whether they go to rehab or get a DUI. I'm talking about what's legal and what isn't. Driving under the influence is illegal because it poses a tremendous risk to the rest of the public. Having a substance abuse problem and choosing to go to rehab isn't illegal because it doesn't pose a risk to the public and in fact shows an attempt to address a problem. Whether rehab will work or whether the person who gets a DUI actually has a substance abuse problem or just made a mistake is totally irrelevant. You're drawing comparisons that don't make sense. There is nothing unfair about treating someone who drives under the influence differently than someone who otherwise uses drugs. It's truly bizarre to say otherwise.

Simple possession laws are different, I would say. But if you're operating a car totally different considerations come into play.

Your arguments about drunk driving are actually pretty disturbing, as is the comparison to getting taken into custody and rape. It is not okay for people to drunk drive every day, it is not okay to have a few rounds and drive home, and alcohol absolutely does impair people's ability to drive safely. I don't even know what to say to that.

And Florida may be ass-backwards but plenty of states criminalize and prosecute texting and driving. Even if they didn't, though, because one kind of unsafe driving doesn't have a penalty doesn't mean it's okay to engage in other kinds of unsafe driving.




and yes, driving while high is probably even scarier than seeing someone who is driving belligerently drunk. ever been out of your mind high? like, you can't tell up from down? Ever thought you were going in circles on the highway and didn't know whether to speed up or slow down. Your perception of depth was challenged....as far as alcohol - the legal limit doesn't make sense based on people's body chemistry and tolerance, i've already said that. there is no legal determiner to how impaired someone can be. proven by the amount of people who actually drive home everyday, having drank, and don't get into accidents. I know it's not what anyone wants to hear because it's taboo but it is more likely that people drink and get home than if they get into an accident. what the STATE wants is to prove that because you drank - it contributed to any sort of problem you got into on the road.

wow I have to go to work, but will definitely revisit all this later. the claims you're making about how drugs and alcohol....o my

User avatar
Barack O'Drama

Gold
Posts: 3275
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby Barack O'Drama » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:25 am

prospectiveT14 wrote:
lymenheimer wrote:
prospectiveT14 wrote:there's factors you're not untangling here. YES there are many drunk driving accidents but there are also many accidents in general. Only a fraction are from drunk driving. This doesn't necessarily mean that alcohol directly caused the accident. These could have been people that have reckless driving habits to begin with (speeding, etc.) So how do you know that the accident was not bound to happen without alcohol anyway?

And like I said - texting and driving is not persecuted at all despite it ACTUALLY being distracting because your eyesight is completely removed from the road and onto your screen. You cannot pull someone over in Florida for texting and driving or give them a citation because it's not a primary offense. How sad right? How sad that our legal system does not have enough common sense to see what is actually a direct factor, not a factor mixed in.

People drunk drive everyday. That's why there's happy hour. They don't expect you to get out of work and then call an uber and leave your car. They expect you to have a few rounds and drive yourself home. So if the system wants drunk driving to stop it needs to happen from within not from the outskirts where the damage is.


QFP


thank you for your attempt at slanting my paragraph like someone who is promoting drinking and driving when I am actually trying to teach someone how to analyze statistics



LOL! As you argue every statistic everyone in here gave you.
Last edited by Barack O'Drama on Fri Jan 26, 2018 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

cavalier1138

Gold
Posts: 4954
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby cavalier1138 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:26 am

prospectiveT14 wrote:and yes, driving while high is probably even scarier than seeing someone who is driving belligerently drunk. ever been out of your mind high? like, you can't tell up from down? Ever thought you were going in circles on the highway and didn't know whether to speed up or slow down. Your perception of depth was challenged....as far as alcohol - the legal limit doesn't make sense based on people's body chemistry and tolerance, i've already said that. there is no legal determiner to how impaired someone can be. proven by the amount of people who actually drive home everyday, having drank, and don't get into accidents. I know it's not what anyone wants to hear because it's taboo but it is more likely that people drink and get home than if they get into an accident. what the STATE wants is to prove that because you drank - it contributed to any sort of problem you got into on the road.

wow I have to go to work, but will definitely revisit all this later. the claims you're making about how drugs and alcohol....o my


I am strongly reminded of arguments that tobacco companies have invoked in the past to claim that there's no causal link between smoking and lung cancer...

prospectiveT14

New
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:54 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby prospectiveT14 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:28 am

Barack O'Drama wrote:You've argued literally EVERYTHING everyone has said. OP You are officially a dick. If you read the link it tells you what the other's are doing. 30%+ are unemployed. So, yes, maybe they are using their JD to get pussy at the local bar and then drive home to their parent's house at 27. Then when they get pulled over they can say "I'm a lawyer, you can't do this!" That is one way they could be using this.

Your evidence for UM being a good school is that a guy who detonated bombs in the military went there? LMAO. Yeah, that has to be a good school then! - I never said UM is a "good school." They recruit exceptional people (look at the miami scholars thing) Even with that, though, it's not considered a top school at all.
One anecdote that couldn't be more irrelevant is your basis for arguing with statistics showing that 30% of the people from that school a year out don't have jobs period. Not just that they decided to do something else with the JD, but that they couldn't get a job worth doing at all. If you want to argue with statistics, fine. Yeah, you're right, I'm sure people with great legal jobs are just lying and saying they don't have them.

OK. Well even if you want to ignore statistics do you think the median GPA (3.3) and median LSAT (156) make for a good school? Those aren't fudged or made up.

Seriously, don't go to law school. All you do is make excuses for yourself and it's really sad, especially as someone on the older side of things. You were legally drunk, deal with it. It doesn't matter if you want to argue you were sober.


[b]LOL it sounds like YOU shouldn't go into law school. Your job is going to be to "make excuses" for your clients. Oh my god. Honestly. What do you think people do in law school? {/b]

prospectiveT14

New
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:54 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby prospectiveT14 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:30 am

I am astonished to the amount of people who skim read and keep pumping out emotional answers based on things they claimed I blatantly said when I never said those things!

please - read!

prospectiveT14

New
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:54 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby prospectiveT14 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:36 am

Very lucky that like probably 80% of the population who drinks and goes home doesn't need to "make excuses" for their behavior in front of a judge.

OMLS48

New
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 10:16 am

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby OMLS48 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:37 am

I lurk quite a bit, though lack on the posting, but my goodness.

TLS, while awfully cynical, and with a tendency to give off a perception of elitism, is refreshing in that there is no hesitation to call out someone's BS or give a poster hell when they border on delusion. This is one of those cases. In fact, I'm a little disappointed on the lack of viciousness.

I know youz guys have much more left in the tank for this winner. Let 'er have it.

prospectiveT14

New
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:54 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby prospectiveT14 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:39 am

I wonder if he knows that DUI attorneys come out of law school HMMMM

be funny if he ends up becoming one bc of the job demand

User avatar
Barack O'Drama

Gold
Posts: 3275
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby Barack O'Drama » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:40 am

prospectiveT14 wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:You've argued literally EVERYTHING everyone has said. OP You are officially a dick. If you read the link it tells you what the other's are doing. 30%+ are unemployed. So, yes, maybe they are using their JD to get pussy at the local bar and then drive home to their parent's house at 27. Then when they get pulled over they can say "I'm a lawyer, you can't do this!" That is one way they could be using this.

Your evidence for UM being a good school is that a guy who detonated bombs in the military went there? LMAO. Yeah, that has to be a good school then! - I never said UM is a "good school." They recruit exceptional people (look at the miami scholars thing) Even with that, though, it's not considered a top school at all.
One anecdote that couldn't be more irrelevant is your basis for arguing with statistics showing that 30% of the people from that school a year out don't have jobs period. Not just that they decided to do something else with the JD, but that they couldn't get a job worth doing at all. If you want to argue with statistics, fine. Yeah, you're right, I'm sure people with great legal jobs are just lying and saying they don't have them.

OK. Well even if you want to ignore statistics do you think the median GPA (3.3) and median LSAT (156) make for a good school? Those aren't fudged or made up.

Seriously, don't go to law school. All you do is make excuses for yourself and it's really sad, especially as someone on the older side of things. You were legally drunk, deal with it. It doesn't matter if you want to argue you were sober.


LOL it sounds like YOU shouldn't go into law school. [b]Your job is going to be to "make excuses" for your clients. Oh my god. Honestly. What do you think people do in law school? {/b]


LOL. You are so misguided and usually I am a nice guy and like to help anyone I can, but you'll just refute anything I say. So, yes, that is what lawyers and law students do. In law school you learn Contracts, Torts, Crim Pro, Con Law, Property, and of course, Excuses.
Last edited by Barack O'Drama on Fri Jan 26, 2018 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

prospectiveT14

New
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:54 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby prospectiveT14 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:40 am

OMLS48 wrote:I lurk quite a bit, though lack on the posting, but my goodness.

TLS, while awfully cynical, and with a tendency to give off a perception of elitism, is refreshing in that there is no hesitation to call out someone's BS or give a poster hell when they border on delusion. This is one of those cases. In fact, I'm a little disappointed on the lack of viciousness.

I know youz guys have much more left in the tank for this winner. Let 'er have it.



no in fact there's a lot of elitism going on right here. who are you? have you ever drank and gone home? ever gotten arrested? do you really have anything to say on these topics that would be credible? all you've done is insult someone in a lulsy way so far

prospectiveT14

New
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:54 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby prospectiveT14 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:42 am

Barack O'Drama wrote:
prospectiveT14 wrote:
Barack O'Drama wrote:You've argued literally EVERYTHING everyone has said. OP You are officially a dick. If you read the link it tells you what the other's are doing. 30%+ are unemployed. So, yes, maybe they are using their JD to get pussy at the local bar and then drive home to their parent's house at 27. Then when they get pulled over they can say "I'm a lawyer, you can't do this!" That is one way they could be using this.

Your evidence for UM being a good school is that a guy who detonated bombs in the military went there? LMAO. Yeah, that has to be a good school then! - I never said UM is a "good school." They recruit exceptional people (look at the miami scholars thing) Even with that, though, it's not considered a top school at all.
One anecdote that couldn't be more irrelevant is your basis for arguing with statistics showing that 30% of the people from that school a year out don't have jobs period. Not just that they decided to do something else with the JD, but that they couldn't get a job worth doing at all. If you want to argue with statistics, fine. Yeah, you're right, I'm sure people with great legal jobs are just lying and saying they don't have them.

OK. Well even if you want to ignore statistics do you think the median GPA (3.3) and median LSAT (156) make for a good school? Those aren't fudged or made up.

Seriously, don't go to law school. All you do is make excuses for yourself and it's really sad, especially as someone on the older side of things. You were legally drunk, deal with it. It doesn't matter if you want to argue you were sober.


LOL it sounds like YOU shouldn't go into law school. [b]Your job is going to be to "make excuses" for your clients. Oh my god. Honestly. What do you think people do in law school? {/b]


LOL. You are so misguided and usually I am a nice guy and like to help anyone I can, but you'll just refute anything I say. So, yes, that is what lawyers and law students do. In law school you learn Contracts, Torts, Crim Pro, Con Law, Property, and of course, Excuses.



that'll probably separate you from good attorneys later in life with that logic... your inability (shame/fear...conditioning) to find a successful legal loophole to defend your client. you seem to think that everyone who makes is a mistake in guilty. so really, why do you want to become a lawyer?

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29316
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:54 am

prospectiveT14 wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
prospectiveT14 wrote:mouse I feel like you don't really grasp what someone is saying before you spit back an answer.

Please, think critically about what you're saying. Just because someone is in a car, with weed (or any other drug), doesn't mean they don't think they don't have a problem. They could be going through a hard time in their life, it could be their first time trying it.

And you're also assuming that all people who go to rehab is of their own will. Some are court-ordered like how my boss is doing with her son, or there had to be an intervention by family members to get them to go. Or maybe some people don't understand in depth how rehab works or what rehab can do for them.

There are many many reasons that someone can go to rehab and not go to rehab. Please don't make universal statements that sum up things like "well there's a very obvious difference between person A and person B groups" that's not true. There's a lot of people in rehab who don't want to be there and end up doing more drugs later on. You cannot determine someone's substance abuse issue by whether they go to a rehab or not. You cannot determine it by whether they decided to drive that day or not.

Maybe you need to express yourself more clearly or read what I'm saying more closely. I never said you could determine someone's substance abuse problem by whether they go to rehab or get a DUI. I'm talking about what's legal and what isn't. Driving under the influence is illegal because it poses a tremendous risk to the rest of the public. Having a substance abuse problem and choosing to go to rehab isn't illegal because it doesn't pose a risk to the public and in fact shows an attempt to address a problem. Whether rehab will work or whether the person who gets a DUI actually has a substance abuse problem or just made a mistake is totally irrelevant. You're drawing comparisons that don't make sense. There is nothing unfair about treating someone who drives under the influence differently than someone who otherwise uses drugs. It's truly bizarre to say otherwise.

Simple possession laws are different, I would say. But if you're operating a car totally different considerations come into play.

Your arguments about drunk driving are actually pretty disturbing, as is the comparison to getting taken into custody and rape. It is not okay for people to drunk drive every day, it is not okay to have a few rounds and drive home, and alcohol absolutely does impair people's ability to drive safely. I don't even know what to say to that.

And Florida may be ass-backwards but plenty of states criminalize and prosecute texting and driving. Even if they didn't, though, because one kind of unsafe driving doesn't have a penalty doesn't mean it's okay to engage in other kinds of unsafe driving.




and yes, driving while high is probably even scarier than seeing someone who is driving belligerently drunk. ever been out of your mind high? like, you can't tell up from down? Ever thought you were going in circles on the highway and didn't know whether to speed up or slow down. Your perception of depth was challenged....as far as alcohol - the legal limit doesn't make sense based on people's body chemistry and tolerance, i've already said that. there is no legal determiner to how impaired someone can be. proven by the amount of people who actually drive home everyday, having drank, and don't get into accidents. I know it's not what anyone wants to hear because it's taboo but it is more likely that people drink and get home than if they get into an accident. what the STATE wants is to prove that because you drank - it contributed to any sort of problem you got into on the road.

wow I have to go to work, but will definitely revisit all this later. the claims you're making about how drugs and alcohol....o my

This has gotten rather far afield.

1) I never said driving while high wasn't a problem, so I can believe you that it's scary.

2) whether the legal limits for alcohol are appropriate doesn't have anything to do with whether you were over them, which you were. And while people do (stupidly) drive home drunk and are lucky enough not get into accidents, that doesn't mean alcohol doesn't also, indisputably, contribute to accidents. As a society, we've decided that's a serious enough problem to set legal limits where they are, regardless of whether an accident results. You can go advocate for that to be changed. But you were over the limit as it's currently set, and it sounds awfully self-justifying to insist that DUI accidents would have happened without the influence of alcohol. Some? Sure. But plenty of horrific and avoidable accidents wouldn't happen without the influence of alcohol, which is why we, as a society, have decided to criminalize drinking and driving. And you can't prove the numbers of people who have driven home impaired without issue because by their very nature those numbers are impossible to collect.

Again, that has nothing to do with how we treat someone who decides to go to rehab who hasn't driven under the influence. DUI laws aren't about curing substance abuse, they're about protecting the public.

3) if no one seems to be reading your posts properly that probably means you're not making your points clearly. Or they're just not very good points.

4) snarking about why someone else wants to be a lawyer because they don't agree with your take on DUI laws isn't very persuasive. No one here is your lawyer and they're not expressing legal opinions about how you could have got out of the charge.

prospectiveT14

New
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:54 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby prospectiveT14 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:01 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
1) I never said driving while high wasn't a problem, so I can believe you that it's scary.

2) whether the legal limits for alcohol are appropriate doesn't have anything to do with whether you were over them, which you were. And while people do (stupidly) drive home drunk and are lucky enough not get into accidents, that doesn't mean alcohol doesn't also, indisputably, contribute to accidents. As a society, we've decided that's a serious enough problem to set legal limits where they are, regardless of whether an accident results. You can go advocate for that to be changed. But you were over the limit as it's currently set, and it sounds awfully self-justifying to insist that DUI accidents would have happened without the influence of alcohol. Some? Sure. But plenty of horrific and avoidable accidents wouldn't happen without the influence of alcohol, which is why we, as a society, have decided to criminalize drinking and driving. And you can't prove the numbers of people who have driven home impaired without issue because by their very nature those numbers are impossible to collect.

actually, I could get a PRETTY good idea of those numbers by knowing all the people around me, in different social circles, who do it. And knowing the few people around who try to stop it.

Again, that has nothing to do with how we treat someone who decides to go to rehab who hasn't driven under the influence. DUI laws aren't about curing substance abuse, they're about protecting the public. - durrrr, let's fix the cause not police the aftermath. doesn't make any sense.

3) if no one seems to be reading your posts properly that probably means you're not making your points clearly. Or they're just not very good points. faulty logic - you're saying there's an excuse for skim reading and putting words in my mouth? i never said those things and they blatantly assumed I did because they didn't read all of my posts. last I checked an attention to detail is prettttyyy necessary to get into law school

4) snarking about why someone else wants to be a lawyer because they don't agree with your take on DUI laws isn't very persuasive. No one here is your lawyer and they're not expressing legal opinions about how you could have got out of the charge.
really? snarking? no - he is trying to criminalize someone for what they did without really knowing the story. become a prosecutor then, not a defense attorney. doesn't show that he has a passion for the law or the intricacies that allow us to protect our freedoms. and i don't understand why you think that I think people are my personal attorneys here? I never said I wanted representation or something... I believe that the LEGAL system (DUI is a big problem because it's the common man's violation...it happens to a lot of people and can happen to a big portion of people) from cops, to jails, to how people respond to polic officers, how civilians are educated on the. everything must change, from BOTH SIDES. tightening up on DUI laws could cost someone their future and sanity. Look into post-arrest psychology, it's frightening.
[/b]
Last edited by prospectiveT14 on Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29316
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:12 pm

What he thinks about your tortured attempts to justify drinking and driving has nothing to do with why he wants to be a lawyer or how good he'll be at it, especially since there are tons of lawyers who don't go into criminal law at all.

You've previously complained about how people in this thread handle statistics, but now you want to claim that you can know the numbers of people who drive drunk and don't get into accidents based on your social circle? Really?

And policing the aftermath of drunk driving doesn't mean fixing the cause isn't also important. They're just different things entirely. Yes, we should address the cause. That doesn't mean we shouldn't also pass laws to try to protect the public. You can certainly argue that there are problems with exactly how we police drunk driving, but the consequences are serious enough, people have decided we should try to deter and punish that behavior. It's nothing to do with how to treat someone who enters rehab who hasn't put others at risk by driving under the influence.

prospectiveT14

New
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:54 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby prospectiveT14 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:15 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:What he thinks about your tortured attempts to justify drinking and driving has nothing to do with why he wants to be a lawyer or how good he'll be at it, especially since there are tons of lawyers who don't go into criminal law at all. wow - this does not stop. STOP putting words in my mouth, I never said I'm justifying drinking and driving. Do you listen to yourself?

You've previously complained about how people in this thread handle statistics, but now you want to claim that you can know the numbers of people who drive drunk and don't get into accidents based on your social circle? Really? Yes and probably more accurate. In class we learn about how in sexual studies people overcompensate their answers, even when on anonymous polls. How the results are uneven because more men are reporting than women. And someone must be having sex with someone else. That being said - having an inside look to watching someone do it in the act - drink and DRIVE is actually an accurate statistic, not an inflated one.

And policing the aftermath of drunk driving doesn't mean fixing the cause isn't also important. They're just different things entirely. Yes, we should address the cause. That doesn't mean we shouldn't also pass laws to try to protect the public. You can certainly argue that there are problems with exactly how we police drunk driving, but the consequences are serious enough, people have decided we should try to deter and punish that behavior. It's nothing to do with how to treat someone who enters rehab who hasn't put others at risk by driving under the influence.
Last edited by prospectiveT14 on Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29316
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:16 pm

You've said plenty of people drink and drive home without incident. How is that not justifying drinking and driving as okay?

prospectiveT14

New
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:54 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby prospectiveT14 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:17 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:You've said plenty of people drink and drive home without incident. How is that not justifying drinking and driving as okay?



It's called a fact. Not a persuasion. I'm not telling you to go drink and drive. Know the difference.

I'm calling attention to an issue - there is no fix for the cause currently because people are still drinking and driving. Yes, drinking does ENHANCE factors that would cause you to crash, depending on the amount and how careful of a driver you are. (See: people who drive home and don't get into accidents) That doesn't mean that drinking is a DIRECT and SOLE cause for accidents or that a MAJORITY of people who drink and drive will get into an accident. 2/3 of people are getting away with it and nothing happens to them.

The ones who get caught feel unfairly persecuted because frankly it is unfair, it's un unfair distribution of punishment and the fact of the matter is that you can be rehabilitated from your choice to drink and drive, but your arrest record will always remain the same and punish you for it as if you were still the same "criminal." Yes, criminal offense.
Last edited by prospectiveT14 on Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29316
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:19 pm

OMG you actually are claiming that your social circle is somehow representative of the outcome of drinking and driving. Wow.

And what else am I supposed to take away from your "fact"? Why point it out otherwise?

Mikey

Platinum
Posts: 8047
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2015 5:24 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby Mikey » Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:20 pm

Well TT turned around pretty quick, whoa. OP, you're an adult, the DUI incident is said and done, just take responsibility for your actions. As A. Nony has said, it will more than likely not impact your admissions chances, but don't make excuses for it by saying the cop is to blame for the most part, because no one forced you to drive under the influence.

prospectiveT14

New
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:54 pm

Re: MANY QUESTIONS! URM/REPEAT CLASSES/ETC

Postby prospectiveT14 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:23 pm

TheMikey wrote:Well TT turned around pretty quick, whoa. OP, you're an adult, the DUI incident is said and done, just take responsibility for your actions. As A. Nony has said, it will more than likely not impact your admissions chances, but don't make excuses for it by saying the cop is to blame for the most part, because no one forced you to drive under the influence.


And no one forced him to send me to jail. See: discretion

See: the laundry list of legal mistakes he made that I can't even testify in court bc no footage and an acquittal is still a with adj

Legal system is messed up, will say it again. The issue is not whether I drink or drive, it's how law enforcement reacts to it after the fact.



Return to “Law School Admissions Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests