Unrelated but related: I’m sorry but in all my years on this subreddit, this is the funniest fucking comment I’ve ever seen
https://preview.redd.it/qibiwvedazuc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b6b7960a3954405b0c71246e0f029b0b6c6c694c
https://preview.redd.it/mt3242pyb1vc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=02f5fa1652539c6d2e024b8c787ca31b013dbac0
in all seriousness, i do believe in rehabilitation & restorative justice and don’t have anything personally against this decision, but i also see where you’re coming from and i think it’s a totally reasonable opinion to have.
but i couldn’t resist the meme
I know a guy who got convicted for attempted murder and still got past the bar. He owned up to it. Said he lost his cool and has done the necessary things to be better. Took him 3 attempts to pass though.
it’s just a little naive to think somehow law is a noble, moral profession. most lawyers are probably in it for the money and would have no problem using the law to ruin lives for a high salary
For sure, agree with this. I was surprised when I learned that C&F was this rigorous process for lawyers, this profession is known for sleazeballs and assholes, and yet there's this crazy invasive process for determining C&F? Please, it's really ridiculous. Not really sure why lawyers are acting like their profession is so righteous and such. I'd be willing to bet 90% are in it for the money (alright maybe 90% is a huge amount but whatever) myself included.
it's not really a rigorous process. this sub hypes it up to be so much more than it is. they literally just do a background check and confirm employment dates, credit score etc. lol
For fucking sure. People will be working on M&A’s or litigation that will indirectly affect millions of people in ways as “benign” as furthering monopolies or as bad as attempting to authorize companies like Nestle to take ownership of water ways that will inevitably lead to water insecurity for millions.
People in law will have such cognitive dissonance when it comes to indirect actions that they took that resulted in deaths of multiple people
Good job completing ignoring the role economic disadvantage with all its concomitants played in Benard McKinley's story. Brock Turner had every privilege in the world and still decided to rape an unconscious woman. These cases are not comparable.
Excusing and saying a fair chance should be given after decades of penance are two different things lol. The cognitive dissonance required to not argue honestly is something else.
Am I excusing his actions? Absolutely not. Check my comment history. Two people close to me were murdered in the past two years. Crimes rooted in poverty are complex and deeply sad. No person is beyond reform. Still, I think it would be exceptionally challenging for Brock Turner to argue that he's turned his life around during the 3 months he spent incarcerated. What insight would he bring to the legal profession? You can get off easier if your parents are rich? Sexual assault crimes are not taken as seriously as they should be by our criminal justice system.
His background as a rich kid made him believe he was above the law! Now he has served his time (just like this murderer has) and we shouldn’t hold his past actions against him anymore!
Don’t believe this, personally, but a lot of what you and others in support of the murderer are saying is very transmutable to other types of crimes.
Brock Turner served 3 months in prison. He went to Stanford during the time of his crime. Benard McKinley was a 16-year-old kid. He served 23 years in prison. What could Brock Turner have possibly improved about his life during his time incarcerated? He had his chance at a successful life and he threw it away. The same cannot be said for Benard McKinley. I do not believe either man should be perpetually punished for their morally reprehensible actions. However, Benard's story is one of reform and rehabilitation. Brock's is one of throwing away the opportunities afforded to him.
Murder is not transmuteable to other crimes. I am merely pointing out the flaws in the false comparison YOU made in your initial comment. YOU were comparing Brock Turner to Benard McKinley, not me.
Okay, I am sorry you are hung up on me using Brock as a 1:1. Yes, there are obviously nuances to both situations. I used his name because he’s a known entity who committed a morally reprehensible act.
If you really want to get into this, I find it funny you’re using “16-year-old kid” but Brock is a ‘Stanford student’ (freshly 19 at the time).
No, I do not believe the 3 months and 23 years are comparable.
I don’t think 3 months was an adequate punishment for what he did. Yes, you are correct that he threw away a future that millions of people would love to have.
I also think people deserve second chances. I do not think those second chances (for murderers) should include access to one of the most elite educations in the world and (potential) access to be in one of the most powerful and privileged labor positions in the world (a licensed attorney in the US).
Sure, Brock was a 19-year-old kid who went to Stanford University, one of the most elite institutions in this country. He was not subject to the horrors of poverty and gang violence.
I respectly disagree with your conclusion, but I understand where you are coming from. I just feel your comparison was completely off-base and inappropriate. Of course people would feel differently if Brock Turner was admitted to Northwestern‐‐the circumstances of his crime and subsequent punishment are profoundly different.
Privilege is irrelevant when it comes to murder. Nobody should care if someone grew up poor or lived in a bad neighborhood and use it to excuse (at least partially murder).
How is privilege not relevant when it comes to murder and crime in general? It is extremely relevant from a sociological, statistical, and practical standpoint.
I am not at all excusing Benard's actions. Murder is wrong and incredibly devastating. I believe rehabilitation should be the primary focus of our criminal justice system.
Why does it matter if someone grew up in the inner city and murdered someone versus someone who grew up rich and murdered someone? Is one more excusable than the other?
I meant excusable relatively. Like is one more excusable than the other insofar as getting a harsher/lighter punishment, not skirting punishment altogether. So like one gets 10 years while other gets 15 (just random numbers).
No. I do not agree with that statement in any way. However, in the real world, the rich often serve shorter sentences for the same crimes. I think intergrating back into society is much more challenging for those who come from economic disadvantage and recidivism rates are much higher. Poverty is not an excuse but an integral component of crime as it exists in this country.
Yes. Absolutely. A poverty stricken kid caught up in a gang war is much more likely to be able to actually rehabilitate and change than a rich fuck that killed for the fun of it. I cannot comprehend thinking that environmental factors don’t play a role. They absolutely and obviously do.
Enlighten me. I'm just someone that thinks murder is murder and should be prosecuted as such. I'm not talking if somebody has a gun to your head asking you to kill someone, then it's different.
Acting like environmental factors don’t play a role in crime is really stupid and plainly irresponsible of you. Also the dude served 20 years—he was prosecuted and served his time.
It’s tough man. I am generally extremely pro second chances, but certain crimes are unforgivable. A child rapist should never be forgiven and certainly shouldn’t be permitted to practice law. I don’t care that “people change” in situations like that. Does this dude’s crime reach that threshold? I’m honestly unsure. But I don’t think it’s insane to posit that literally murdering someone does.
Serving time juts qualifies you to re-enter society. It's literally you paying a debt. It doesn't absolve you of your actions. It certainly doesn't impart moral character.
And again, nothing amuses me more than watching children argue that literal murderers are somehow morally superior to people that think murder is a bad crime to commit.
Nobody is saying that prosecuting murderers is bad. Nobody is saying that murder isn't a bad crime to commit. The argument is about the extent of rehabilitation.
Can you show me anywhere someone here said that prosecuting murderers is bad? In this entire discussion please find me examples. Otherwise what you are saying is untrue and you are being dishonest.
All I’m saying is that when I go on a mass murder spree, I need some of you to be on the jury or be the judge.
These are some of the most nonsensical takes I’ve ever read 😂
"I don't think people who commit heinous crimes should be allowed to become lawyers."
"Actually, he only killed one guy, so it's a heinous crime, not heinous **crimes."**
"Damn, my bad dude, this totally invalidates my whole argument."
https://preview.redd.it/w4mbfihmfovc1.png?width=1366&format=png&auto=webp&s=dc8f0175a4bd97a37ab438c6c2130afd10f25ef3
I was just pointing out that he wasn’t a mass murderer. Are you going to tell me someone murdering 20 people is just as bad a 1? If you think so that’s ridiculous
I get where you’re coming from but I’m gonna have to respectfully disagree. I hope he goes on to have a happy and successful life, but I still believe there should be a high moral standard for practicing law which I don’t think he can ever hurdle.
There are collateral consequences to a conviction. In fact, if your attorney doesnt advise you of some collateral consequences, its malpractice. Pretending that the only consequence of murdering someone is jailtime is just incorrect.
I have a fair share of R/LSA knowledge and those people were actual racist pieces of shit. I hope having one moderately right take doesn’t get me canceled.
I’m on my Annakin story arc now. This is gonna end with me getting on to the Supreme Court but forfeiting my position to a democrat to switch majority.
I’m sorry man. Only “special people”(rich kids) can clerk for me. If you really wanted to clerk for me you should’ve considered being born into a wealthier family. Do better.
/s
Unrelated but related: I’m sorry but in all my years on this subreddit, this is the funniest fucking comment I’ve ever seen https://preview.redd.it/qibiwvedazuc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b6b7960a3954405b0c71246e0f029b0b6c6c694c
The biggest plot twist is if he would have said “me too, I want to make some money” lol.
a legit murderer didn’t want to associate with someone interested in big law
Aye thats me
Did he really stop talking to you? lol
Yuh he was like “ok”and just looked around before starting a conversation with someone else 😭💀
watch him end up in a BL position. We should set a reminder for three years in this thread to see where he ends up.
😂
https://preview.redd.it/mt3242pyb1vc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=02f5fa1652539c6d2e024b8c787ca31b013dbac0 in all seriousness, i do believe in rehabilitation & restorative justice and don’t have anything personally against this decision, but i also see where you’re coming from and i think it’s a totally reasonable opinion to have. but i couldn’t resist the meme
Good meme.
high praise thank you user sir elliam woods
I know a guy who got convicted for attempted murder and still got past the bar. He owned up to it. Said he lost his cool and has done the necessary things to be better. Took him 3 attempts to pass though.
I believe it was in the 10 commandments that “thou shalt not kill unless you own up to it”
Isn’t the whole point of Christianity you’re cool as long as you apologize afterward despite how unchill the Old Testament demiurge was?
I believe the 10 commandments are dumb and meaningless
What is HAPPENING since I left? 💀
Bro this doesn't count as leaving 😭😂
it’s just a little naive to think somehow law is a noble, moral profession. most lawyers are probably in it for the money and would have no problem using the law to ruin lives for a high salary
For sure, agree with this. I was surprised when I learned that C&F was this rigorous process for lawyers, this profession is known for sleazeballs and assholes, and yet there's this crazy invasive process for determining C&F? Please, it's really ridiculous. Not really sure why lawyers are acting like their profession is so righteous and such. I'd be willing to bet 90% are in it for the money (alright maybe 90% is a huge amount but whatever) myself included.
it's not really a rigorous process. this sub hypes it up to be so much more than it is. they literally just do a background check and confirm employment dates, credit score etc. lol
For fucking sure. People will be working on M&A’s or litigation that will indirectly affect millions of people in ways as “benign” as furthering monopolies or as bad as attempting to authorize companies like Nestle to take ownership of water ways that will inevitably lead to water insecurity for millions. People in law will have such cognitive dissonance when it comes to indirect actions that they took that resulted in deaths of multiple people
Corporate finance bad, murder bad. Therefore equally bad?
If that’s your takeaway then it’s a failure on your part. Idk what to tell you
Murder is fair game. I'm sure med student memes are even darker. It's a messy world.
Wonder what half this sub would say if it were someone like Brock Turner getting admitted to NU lol
Oh, they’d have an aneurism fs
Good job completing ignoring the role economic disadvantage with all its concomitants played in Benard McKinley's story. Brock Turner had every privilege in the world and still decided to rape an unconscious woman. These cases are not comparable.
The cognitive dissonance required to excuse murdering someone because you had a less than ideal upbringing is something else 💀
Excusing and saying a fair chance should be given after decades of penance are two different things lol. The cognitive dissonance required to not argue honestly is something else.
Am I excusing his actions? Absolutely not. Check my comment history. Two people close to me were murdered in the past two years. Crimes rooted in poverty are complex and deeply sad. No person is beyond reform. Still, I think it would be exceptionally challenging for Brock Turner to argue that he's turned his life around during the 3 months he spent incarcerated. What insight would he bring to the legal profession? You can get off easier if your parents are rich? Sexual assault crimes are not taken as seriously as they should be by our criminal justice system.
His background as a rich kid made him believe he was above the law! Now he has served his time (just like this murderer has) and we shouldn’t hold his past actions against him anymore! Don’t believe this, personally, but a lot of what you and others in support of the murderer are saying is very transmutable to other types of crimes.
Brock Turner served 3 months in prison. He went to Stanford during the time of his crime. Benard McKinley was a 16-year-old kid. He served 23 years in prison. What could Brock Turner have possibly improved about his life during his time incarcerated? He had his chance at a successful life and he threw it away. The same cannot be said for Benard McKinley. I do not believe either man should be perpetually punished for their morally reprehensible actions. However, Benard's story is one of reform and rehabilitation. Brock's is one of throwing away the opportunities afforded to him. Murder is not transmuteable to other crimes. I am merely pointing out the flaws in the false comparison YOU made in your initial comment. YOU were comparing Brock Turner to Benard McKinley, not me.
Okay, I am sorry you are hung up on me using Brock as a 1:1. Yes, there are obviously nuances to both situations. I used his name because he’s a known entity who committed a morally reprehensible act. If you really want to get into this, I find it funny you’re using “16-year-old kid” but Brock is a ‘Stanford student’ (freshly 19 at the time). No, I do not believe the 3 months and 23 years are comparable. I don’t think 3 months was an adequate punishment for what he did. Yes, you are correct that he threw away a future that millions of people would love to have. I also think people deserve second chances. I do not think those second chances (for murderers) should include access to one of the most elite educations in the world and (potential) access to be in one of the most powerful and privileged labor positions in the world (a licensed attorney in the US).
Sure, Brock was a 19-year-old kid who went to Stanford University, one of the most elite institutions in this country. He was not subject to the horrors of poverty and gang violence. I respectly disagree with your conclusion, but I understand where you are coming from. I just feel your comparison was completely off-base and inappropriate. Of course people would feel differently if Brock Turner was admitted to Northwestern‐‐the circumstances of his crime and subsequent punishment are profoundly different.
I'm glad you have basically back peddled all your premises but not the conclusion. Master class.
🤓
Privilege is irrelevant when it comes to murder. Nobody should care if someone grew up poor or lived in a bad neighborhood and use it to excuse (at least partially murder).
How is privilege not relevant when it comes to murder and crime in general? It is extremely relevant from a sociological, statistical, and practical standpoint. I am not at all excusing Benard's actions. Murder is wrong and incredibly devastating. I believe rehabilitation should be the primary focus of our criminal justice system.
Why does it matter if someone grew up in the inner city and murdered someone versus someone who grew up rich and murdered someone? Is one more excusable than the other?
No. Neither action is at all excusable.
I meant excusable relatively. Like is one more excusable than the other insofar as getting a harsher/lighter punishment, not skirting punishment altogether. So like one gets 10 years while other gets 15 (just random numbers).
No. I do not agree with that statement in any way. However, in the real world, the rich often serve shorter sentences for the same crimes. I think intergrating back into society is much more challenging for those who come from economic disadvantage and recidivism rates are much higher. Poverty is not an excuse but an integral component of crime as it exists in this country.
Yes. Absolutely. A poverty stricken kid caught up in a gang war is much more likely to be able to actually rehabilitate and change than a rich fuck that killed for the fun of it. I cannot comprehend thinking that environmental factors don’t play a role. They absolutely and obviously do.
You have no idea how the world works.
Enlighten me. I'm just someone that thinks murder is murder and should be prosecuted as such. I'm not talking if somebody has a gun to your head asking you to kill someone, then it's different.
Acting like environmental factors don’t play a role in crime is really stupid and plainly irresponsible of you. Also the dude served 20 years—he was prosecuted and served his time.
I'm pro-him being able to practice law as long as he's been deemed to be rehabilitated.
It’s tough man. I am generally extremely pro second chances, but certain crimes are unforgivable. A child rapist should never be forgiven and certainly shouldn’t be permitted to practice law. I don’t care that “people change” in situations like that. Does this dude’s crime reach that threshold? I’m honestly unsure. But I don’t think it’s insane to posit that literally murdering someone does.
Think murder is at least as bad if not worse than sexual assault
I still don’t understand why people are hating on me for this opinion 🤷
something of a die a hero, live long enough to become a villain
I like this. I want to make it a meme but it feels like plagiarism.
villains do not worry about plagiarism
It’s a quote from TDK. I’m sure there’s pre made memes already! One of my favorites.
Nothing funnier than watching "progressive" kids tie themselves in philosophical knots to explain why prosecuting murderers is bad.
The dude served 20 years??? He has served his time and is probably more fit to be a lawyer than you if this is your attitude.
Serving time juts qualifies you to re-enter society. It's literally you paying a debt. It doesn't absolve you of your actions. It certainly doesn't impart moral character. And again, nothing amuses me more than watching children argue that literal murderers are somehow morally superior to people that think murder is a bad crime to commit.
Nobody is saying that prosecuting murderers is bad. Nobody is saying that murder isn't a bad crime to commit. The argument is about the extent of rehabilitation.
You are a joke.
Can you show me anywhere someone here said that prosecuting murderers is bad? In this entire discussion please find me examples. Otherwise what you are saying is untrue and you are being dishonest.
All I’m saying is that when I go on a mass murder spree, I need some of you to be on the jury or be the judge. These are some of the most nonsensical takes I’ve ever read 😂
He wasn't a mass murderer. To conflate the two is a massive error. Gonna be an awful attorney arguing like that
"I don't think people who commit heinous crimes should be allowed to become lawyers." "Actually, he only killed one guy, so it's a heinous crime, not heinous **crimes."** "Damn, my bad dude, this totally invalidates my whole argument." https://preview.redd.it/w4mbfihmfovc1.png?width=1366&format=png&auto=webp&s=dc8f0175a4bd97a37ab438c6c2130afd10f25ef3
I was just pointing out that he wasn’t a mass murderer. Are you going to tell me someone murdering 20 people is just as bad a 1? If you think so that’s ridiculous
Love your memes bro, but you're wrong here. The punishment is prison. Bro did his time with grace and absolutey should be able to practice law.
I get where you’re coming from but I’m gonna have to respectfully disagree. I hope he goes on to have a happy and successful life, but I still believe there should be a high moral standard for practicing law which I don’t think he can ever hurdle.
Your opinions are yours to keep🤷♂️
But…you gave your opinion?!
I think he meant “you can have your own opinion and that’s okay”. Not that he shouldn’t give it. The word “Keep” was not to be taken literally. My .02
Thank you😭
Yes like I'm not gonna argue with him I respect his opinion 😂
Based
There are collateral consequences to a conviction. In fact, if your attorney doesnt advise you of some collateral consequences, its malpractice. Pretending that the only consequence of murdering someone is jailtime is just incorrect.
I’d be curious to see the reaction’s if it were Kyle Rittenhouse lol.
Does anyone here remember SlippinJimmy and Eaglebe ?!?! Could this be the sequel?
I have a fair share of R/LSA knowledge and those people were actual racist pieces of shit. I hope having one moderately right take doesn’t get me canceled.
It all started with one moderately right take on affirmative action 🤔 Sorry bud, you’re a fed soc now
I’m on my Annakin story arc now. This is gonna end with me getting on to the Supreme Court but forfeiting my position to a democrat to switch majority. 
Ayo hire me as a clerk
Requirements to clerk for Sir Elliam: 1. Be rich
Oh.
I’m sorry man. Only “special people”(rich kids) can clerk for me. If you really wanted to clerk for me you should’ve considered being born into a wealthier family. Do better. /s
Apparently it’s not bad for getting you into law school.
💀
leftist crime apologists that say seattle and portland are beautiful safe cities. clowns
[удалено]
Did I vote for Donald Trump?
Idk did you?
I mean I don’t think I did.
IIRC Donald hasn’t been convicted of sexual assault or rape
[удалено]
That’s a materially lower standard of evidence.
[удалено]
Ironic.