Novel Way to Get to Law School...T14 perhaps, too! Forum

[Zapatero]

If somebody is found guilty of theft, robbery, embezzelment, etc. of federally insured money, that individual, upon having served their sentence should not be allowed to reap the benefits of public funds upon release (grants, sholarship, student loans, etc.).

Do you realize how much public money it takes to incarcerate somebody? Also, why should he not be entitled to scholarships? This isn't necessarily public money. And loans? You think he has the cash on hand to pay for school out of pocket? Besides, loans are given with the expectation that they'll be repaid.

So we shouldn't give them more money because we already spent a ton jailing them.
Scholarships... maybe. Private loans? Sure. Federal ones, where the govt absorbs the interest while you're in school? No way. Grants? No way.

The man has served the sentence prescribed to him by the court. Whether you agree that he is reformed or of the necessary character to be an attorney is irrelevant; in the eyes of the law, he is now entitled to the same educational opportunities as everyone else.

[sibley]

If somebody is found guilty of theft, robbery, embezzelment, etc. of federally insured money, that individual, upon having served their sentence should not be allowed to reap the benefits of public funds upon release (grants, sholarship, student loans, etc.).

Do you realize how much public money it takes to incarcerate somebody? Also, why should he not be entitled to scholarships? This isn't necessarily public money. And loans? You think he has the cash on hand to pay for school out of pocket? Besides, loans are given with the expectation that they'll be repaid.

So we shouldn't give them more money because we already spent a ton jailing them.
Scholarships... maybe. Private loans? Sure. Federal ones, where the govt absorbs the interest while you're in school? No way. Grants? No way.

The man has served the sentence prescribed to him by the court. Whether you agree that he is reformed or of the necessary character to be an attorney is irrelevant; in the eyes of the law, he is now entitled to the same educational opportunities as everyone else.

Yes. Exactly. And would you give scholarships to some kid who was known to ... let's say... kill cats? No.

[loveistheway]

And loans? You think he has the cash on hand to pay for school out of pocket?

He would if he were a better bank robber! Kidding.

I think Michigan would be super lucky to snag this guy into their entering class of 2011, but maybe I'm just selfishly looking for more older, married, parental types to hang with during law school.

[Zapatero]

The man has served the sentence prescribed to him by the court. Whether you agree that he is reformed or of the necessary character to be an attorney is irrelevant; in the eyes of the law, he is now entitled to the same educational opportunities as everyone else.

Yes. Exactly. And would you give scholarships to some kid who was known to ... let's say... kill cats? No.

Does he get pleasure from killing cats, or did he resort to killing cats one time because he had fallen on tough economic times? The analogy is absurd.

[sibley]

The man has served the sentence prescribed to him by the court. Whether you agree that he is reformed or of the necessary character to be an attorney is irrelevant; in the eyes of the law, he is now entitled to the same educational opportunities as everyone else.

Yes. Exactly. And would you give scholarships to some kid who was known to ... let's say... kill cats? No.

Does he get pleasure from killing cats, or did he resort to killing cats one time because he had fallen on tough economic times? The analogy is absurd.

So he couldn't have gotten a loan rather than resorting to threatening violence?

[Zapatero]

The man has served the sentence prescribed to him by the court. Whether you agree that he is reformed or of the necessary character to be an attorney is irrelevant; in the eyes of the law, he is now entitled to the same educational opportunities as everyone else.

Yes. Exactly. And would you give scholarships to some kid who was known to ... let's say... kill cats? No.

Does he get pleasure from killing cats, or did he resort to killing cats one time because he had fallen on tough economic times? The analogy is absurd.

So he couldn't have gotten a loan rather than resorting to threatening violence?

Perhaps. I'm not saying what he did was excusable. What I am saying is that he has paid his debt to society. All the indignation in the world won't change the fact that he is entitled to an education. Whether a school wishes to admit him or give him a scholarship is that school's decision.

[sibley]

Yes. Exactly. And would you give scholarships to some kid who was known to ... let's say... kill cats? No.

Does he get pleasure from killing cats, or did he resort to killing cats one time because he had fallen on tough economic times? The analogy is absurd.

So he couldn't have gotten a loan rather than resorting to threatening violence?

Perhaps. I'm not saying what he did was excusable. What I am saying is that he has paid his debt to society. All the indignation in the world won't change the fact that he is entitled to an education. Whether a school wishes to admit him or give him a scholarship is that school's decision.

I agree. But I don't think he should be given access to government funds- grants, federal loans, stuff like that. Similar to when someone doesn't register for the selective service.

[Zapatero]

I agree. But I don't think he should be given access to government funds- grants, federal loans, stuff like that. Similar to when someone doesn't register for the selective service.

Fair enough. I think we must agree to disagree at this point. If he has proved himself to be reformed and served the sentence prescribed to him by the court, I would much rather give him public money to earn a professional degree than deny him that degree and increase the likelihood of that money being instead spent on his future incarceration.

[sibley]

I agree. But I don't think he should be given access to government funds- grants, federal loans, stuff like that. Similar to when someone doesn't register for the selective service.

Fair enough. I think we must agree to disagree at this point. If he has proved himself to be reformed and served the sentence prescribed to him by the court, I would much rather give him public money to earn a professional degree than deny him that degree and increase the likelihood of that money being instead spent on his future incarceration.

K - case closed. Just one question because I think I'm misunderstanding - are you saying he's going to stay in jail/be put back in jail if he doesn't get into law school?

[Zapatero]

I agree. But I don't think he should be given access to government funds- grants, federal loans, stuff like that. Similar to when someone doesn't register for the selective service.

Fair enough. I think we must agree to disagree at this point. If he has proved himself to be reformed and served the sentence prescribed to him by the court, I would much rather give him public money to earn a professional degree than deny him that degree and increase the likelihood of that money being instead spent on his future incarceration.

K - case closed. Just one question because I think I'm misunderstanding - are you saying he's going to stay in jail/be put back in jail if he doesn't get into law school?

I'm saying that denying him an education might help steer him down the same path. This man obviously has an extraordinary talent, and I don't think it should go to waste. I think there are far less noble ways that taxpayer money is being spent.

[JTX]

I'm saying that denying him an education might help steer him down the same path. This man obviously has an extraordinary talent, and I don't think it should go to waste. I think there are far less noble ways that taxpayer money is being spent.

TITCR

[sibley]

I'm saying that denying him an education might help steer him down the same path.

Disagree on basis of questioning whether it's a good idea to offer a law degree to someone who disrespects law and apparently can't think strategically enough to find other options. But, like you said... we're just going to keep disagreeing.

This man obviously has an extraordinary talent, and I don't think it should go to waste. I think there are far less noble ways that taxpayer money is being spent.

Agree.

[Gwen]

Yes. Exactly. And would you give scholarships to some kid who was known to ... let's say... kill cats? No.

I would. A cat isn't a person.

[09042014]

Do you realize how much public money it takes to incarcerate somebody? Also, why should he not be entitled to scholarships? This isn't necessarily public money. And loans? You think he has the cash on hand to pay for school out of pocket? Besides, loans are given with the expectation that they'll be repaid.

So we shouldn't give them more money because we already spent a ton jailing them.
Scholarships... maybe. Private loans? Sure. Federal ones, where the govt absorbs the interest while you're in school? No way. Grants? No way.

The man has served the sentence prescribed to him by the court. Whether you agree that he is reformed or of the necessary character to be an attorney is irrelevant; in the eyes of the law, he is now entitled to the same educational opportunities as everyone else.

Yes. Exactly. And would you give scholarships to some kid who was known to ... let's say... kill cats? No.

Blatant anti-Dwaterman trolling.

[real lawyerwives]

.

[JTX]

Sorry to hijack your thread here and I don't usually post but GATORTIM, I am seriously confused by the stance you are taking here when I have read that you yourself have a tarnished record.

This thread is long enough for it now: isn't it about time somone compared someone else to a Nazi??

[vanwinkle]

If somebody is found guilty of theft, robbery, embezzelment, etc. of federally insured money, that individual, upon having served their sentence should not be allowed to reap the benefits of public funds upon release (grants, sholarship, student loans, etc.).

Do you realize how much public money it takes to incarcerate somebody? Also, why should he not be entitled to scholarships? This isn't necessarily public money. And loans? You think he has the cash on hand to pay for school out of pocket? Besides, loans are given with the expectation that they'll be repaid.

Public money used to arrest and imprison somebody is spent protecting the public at large and is not to benefit the criminal.

If you were caught stealing from your company, would you still be allowed to work there or even in that industry? (I know this is not really the same as bank robbery, but all in all had he gotten away with this, the FDIC insures these deposits)

If he does not have the cash to attend school then he does not have to go. Higher education is not an entitlement. Clearly this man is of above average intelligence and I'm sure that he can make his way with or w/o a law degree.

It's not that I do not think he will not repay the loans, but that he should not be allowed to receive them in the first place.

Once he has served his sentence, though, he is no longer a criminal. His rights are reinstated (for the most part). What you are advocating is essentially a life sentence, not to mention a denial of the resources that would make him more productive to our society, which is a main purpose of federal loans in the first place. He is a citizen who has served his tine and is now law-abiding once more, and deserves the same access to higher education--including federal loans--as the rest of us.

[trutherd]

However, I'm willing to bet there was a threat of violence.

On what grounds? Because it will bolster your argument?

You're right though, I'm sure that this guy (whos name I have no f'n idea of right now) and his posse strolled into the bank with their weapons pointed in the air and prob had the safety engaged or even a gun-lock on their pistols.

Again, ON WHAT GROUNDS DO YOU MAKE THESE ASSUMPTIONS?!?!

It depends if your definition of violence is omnipresent or in the mind of the victim

What does this even mean? If the definition wasn’t only in the mind of the victim then it was universally present throughout all space and time?

I'm no expert in prison sentencing or parole protocol, but I do not think that our criminal justice system claims to only release inmates that have eradicated 100% of character flaws that landed them in prison.

Really? You actually start a sentence with “I’m no expert, but…” and then still put forth a claim about it?

Also the person you responded to specifically referenced “paying a debt to society” and “hopefully learning a lesson from it.” Yet you come back with a (completely unfounded) claim about the eradication of character flaws… Looks like you’ve expanded your repertoire from the Red Herring to the Straw Man.

Are you seeing the pattern yet?

Look, do a favor for yourself and those of us unlucky enough to make the mistake of engaging you in debate go pick up a copy of A Rulebook For Arguments and just stop talking until you’ve made your way through it. I know that from our earlier exchange in this thread you think I’m just trying to be a toughguy, but seriously, you are intolerable.

[legalized]

Yes, but he served his time. Should he no longer be allowed to integrate back in society? Moreover, he obviously has the skills and ability which could greatly improve our society, and he possesses a unique lens which should enable him to see things that 'those who did it right' cannot.

I agree that he has paid his debt to society and has gained useful knowledge at the expense of taxpayers while in prison. I just think that the seriousness of his crimes are being tossed aside in light of his accomplishments. If he was imprisoned for stealing cars or some white-collar type crime then I do not believe I would give a shit, but this man could very easily have taken an innocent life, regardless of his intent when he entered the bank (watch Point Break).

I'm not saying he should dawn a scarlet letter for the rest of his life and he should be allowed to provide for his new family. However, I just don't think awarding the man a seat at a prestigious law school at the further expense of tax-payers and another qualified, law abiding, applicant is right/fair/just/whatever. Either way it is not my call and will not impact my life...I'm just sayin'.

Do you think people who get behind the wheel of a car while drunk and risk innocent lives (despite the best intentions) deserve to go to law school?

oooooh good one.

[GATORTIM]

However, I'm willing to bet there was a threat of violence.

On what grounds? Because it will bolster your argument?

You're right though, I'm sure that this guy (whos name I have no f'n idea of right now) and his posse strolled into the bank with their weapons pointed in the air and prob had the safety engaged or even a gun-lock on their pistols.

Again, ON WHAT GROUNDS DO YOU MAKE THESE ASSUMPTIONS?!?!

It depends if your definition of violence is omnipresent or in the mind of the victim

What does this even mean? If the definition wasn’t only in the mind of the victim then it was universally present throughout all space and time?

I'm no expert in prison sentencing or parole protocol, but I do not think that our criminal justice system claims to only release inmates that have eradicated 100% of character flaws that landed them in prison.

Really? You actually start a sentence with “I’m no expert, but…” and then still put forth a claim about it?

Also the person you responded to specifically referenced “paying a debt to society” and “hopefully learning a lesson from it.” Yet you come back with a (completely unfounded) claim about the eradication of character flaws… Looks like you’ve expanded your repertoire from the Red Herring to the Straw Man.

Are you seeing the pattern yet?

Look, do a favor for yourself and those of us unlucky enough to make the mistake of engaging you in debate go pick up a copy of A Rulebook For Arguments and just stop talking until you’ve made your way through it. I know that from our earlier exchange in this thread you think I’m just trying to be a toughguy, but seriously, you are intolerable.

Intolerable to the point that you comment on all of my posts? I love how you remove the posts that I reply to and re-post mine as if I intended them to stand alone.

To answer your queston regarding me beginning a sentence with "I'm no expert, but...", yes, I did say that, but I did not make some wild speculation or post a wild claim only a plausible assumption.

I would love to sit here and go back and forth with you, but I'm not going to. Why don't you come up with some thoughts of your own instead of chasing me around TLS in effort to pass your cyber-self off as some great thinker. Go read the book "Get A F#@*in Life" and then do it.

[sibley]

I'm saying that denying him an education might help steer him down the same path. This man obviously has an extraordinary talent, and I don't think it should go to waste. I think there are far less noble ways that taxpayer money is being spent.

TITCR

Wasn't me.

[legalized]

Sorry to hijack your thread here and I don't usually post but GATORTIM, I am seriously confused by the stance you are taking here when I have read that you yourself have a tarnished record.

GATORTIM Post subject: Re: Stetson 2010Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:03 pm




Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:51 pm
Posts: 1378 [

wow caught in blatant hypocrisy. ouch.

[Chicklets]

Perhaps I can shorten the conversation to some extent. When I learned Shon Hopwood's remarkable story, I wrote about him to Sarah Zearfoss, our Dean of Admissions, recommending him for admission at such time as he applies. We did not talk about "reserving" a spot. That would have been foolish. I assume our Admissions Office never reserves spots for candidates in advance of their applications -- especially years ahead of time. (I don't think Shon wil lbe ready to go to law school before 2011.) Even if they ever did that, it is not my role -- as a member of the faculty with no responsibility over admissions -- to try to tie up spots for prospective candidates. And if I had tried that, I suspect Sarah would have stomped on me. All I did, really, was give Sarah advance notice of an unusual candidate and do a little advance pleading for his admission. And yes, I do hope he comes to Michigan, whatever his grades and whatever his LSATs, because he has already shown great legal talent and because, obviously, he would contribute a unique perspective. But nothing is reserved. Adam Liptak wrote a great piece on this story, but on this particular matter his language should not be taken literally.

Thank you ... I was wondering when someone would bring up the possibility that the media exaggerated or got it wrong (shocking that no TLS-er brought it up in a post --- the several pages of arguments reminded me of my elderly relatives debating the merits of any given National Inquirer headline).

[awesomepossum]

However, I'm willing to bet there was a threat of violence.

On what grounds? Because it will bolster your argument?

You're right though, I'm sure that this guy (whos name I have no f'n idea of right now) and his posse strolled into the bank with their weapons pointed in the air and prob had the safety engaged or even a gun-lock on their pistols.

Again, ON WHAT GROUNDS DO YOU MAKE THESE ASSUMPTIONS?!?!

It depends if your definition of violence is omnipresent or in the mind of the victim

What does this even mean? If the definition wasn’t only in the mind of the victim then it was universally present throughout all space and time?

I'm no expert in prison sentencing or parole protocol, but I do not think that our criminal justice system claims to only release inmates that have eradicated 100% of character flaws that landed them in prison.

Really? You actually start a sentence with “I’m no expert, but…” and then still put forth a claim about it?

Also the person you responded to specifically referenced “paying a debt to society” and “hopefully learning a lesson from it.” Yet you come back with a (completely unfounded) claim about the eradication of character flaws… Looks like you’ve expanded your repertoire from the Red Herring to the Straw Man.

Are you seeing the pattern yet?

Look, do a favor for yourself and those of us unlucky enough to make the mistake of engaging you in debate go pick up a copy of A Rulebook For Arguments and just stop talking until you’ve made your way through it. I know that from our earlier exchange in this thread you think I’m just trying to be a toughguy, but seriously, you are intolerable.

First of all, I'm all for this guy coming to talk at U of M. Amongst the student orgs we're trying to get this to happen. I'm also super in favor of the guy coming to U of M of a student.

That having been said, there was a threat of violence even if he didn't say something like "give me the money or we will shoot you."

This is what the NY times article says:

“We would walk into a bank with firearms, tell people to get down, take the money and run,” he said the other day, recalling five robberies in rural Nebraska in 1997 and 1998 that yielded some $200,000 and more than a decade in federal prison.

If you go into a bank with firearms and are telling people to get down, implicit is that they will use the firearms if people don't comply. It's just common sense. People there probably believed (I would have) that if they didn't, there was a chance of getting shot.

[GATORTIM]

Blatant hypocrasy (sp)?! What are you talking about? I posted in another thread that my record is not spotless, but it does not include bank robbery (the subject of this thread) or anything involving a firearm or fake I.D (not sure from who's ass u pulled that one, but I sure appreciate all of your research on Florida fake I.D laws).

It is stupid that my OPINION (and that is all it is) has rattled so many of you to the point of speculating about my own record (PM me and I will be more than happy to share with you the details of my speeding and underage drinking violation)