ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
What would you call a white lawyer that did everything he could to throw the book at black defendants, but also did everything he could to get white criminals (who have commited crimes against black people) out of jail as soon and as early as possible...? I don't know about you, but I know I'd call that guy a racist scumbag.
So why do people give Deval Patrick a free pass when that's exactly what he has been doing for the past few decades...? Just substitute "white" for "black" (and vice-versa) in the above paragraph and you have a perfect explanation of Deval.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
The double standard that exists certainly does upset me. However, I think that we also need to consider that White's really never feared being convicted simply because they were white, whereas our history clearly shows the prevelance of racist driven judgements versus blacks. I don't have a problem with people raising legitimate concerns of racism with respect to specific trials. What I have a problem with is racially driven rebuttals. It seems that Patrick was one of those who simply wanted to support his fellow black man. He seems to be of the same cloth as the fraud Jesse Jackson & his fony friend Al Sharpton. These clowns defend anyone and everyone who is black, just because they are black. That is wrong. They are frauds, and I'm begining to believe that Patrick is a fraud too. I heard him attempt to explain himself on this topic, and he's sounds like a guy who's covering his azz and is not being truthful.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
What did Patrick do to "throw the book" at white defendants?
Deval Patrick very aggressively pursued convictions in the south of (white) arsonists accused of burning black churches - and I fully and 100% support throwing any scumbag that lights a church on fire in jail for a long, long period of time. But then, for some inexplicable reason, he wants to let rapists and cop killers out of jail and get their sentences reduces.
With Deval Patrick, criminal justice depends on the color of your skin. Although I will give Patrick some credit: He has defended some white scumbags in the past.
Its actually judges and juries who decide who goes to jail and for how long, not lawyers. Some in this thread seem a bit confused about that.
Since some of you don't approve of how Patrick selected his clients, how should he have done it? Alphabetically? Should he have looked at the dockett and started with A Aaron Anderson and kept defending until he reached Zanzibar Zulu?
Its actually judges and juries who decide who goes to jail and for how long, not lawyers. Some in this thread seem a bit confused about that.
Since some of you don't approve of how Patrick selected his clients, how should he have done it?
Sure it's judges and juries, but it's lawyers who try the case. He, and no one else, decided to defend convicted scumbags. He chose to defend the admitted cop killer, and to support that scumbag rapist. Of course, when his actions come to light, and he's afraid to admit his actions, he lies about how far his support truly was. The guy scares me. If he had such piss poor judgement, then why would I want him in charge of my state?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
...He, and no one else, decided to defend convicted scumbags...
Well then its a good thing he stepped up. You make it sound like the criminals wouldn't of had any defense at all if he hadn't. You do know that no defense means no trial and that the judge has to let the guy go altogether?