My time on the Farms and real life experience with lawyers has done nothing but black pill me on the legal system. I don't hold the courts in any high regard, and I don't hold lawyers in any high regard either. Honestly after everything we've seen here, I fail to understand why any Farmer has any sort of expectations of professionalism out of lawyers or the court system in general.
And yet, what's notable and consistently criticized about Nick (and others) is their lack of professionalism - bc they deviate from the norm.
Most lawyers are highly conscientious*, and the same goes for judges/ magistrates/ adjudicators in general. - And if not, can face various forms of sanction, whether formally (the Bar, the legal system) or informally (loss of job, passed over, unable to make a living).
*and by conscientious, I mean both with respect to rules/work product [don't miss court dates idiot] and thoughtfully: some skew to "minimum necessary not to get in trouble," but MOST weigh both technical ethics and their own comfort-level, and you have no idea how many lawyers refused to be a shit before one said they don't mind].
Further, what you see here are a) absurd situations to begin with, and b) situations in which usually everyone but one is performing appropriately.
The legal system and its participants are human-created and therefore fallible. "It is important to recognize the limited ability of the legal system to prescribe and enforce the quality of social arrangements."
That's not to say there aren't losers, incompetents, sleazes, etc., running around (after all, what thread is this?). But blackpilling, as ever, throws the baby out with the bathwater and insists that either
a purity that is available only in fantasy must exist or the whole thing is
just the worst ever, and of no value at all and should therefore be disregarded
in toto. Reductive silliness.
enough circumstantial evidence for me to assume that his law firm either can't tard wrangle Nick
No one puts Baby Rekieta in a corner!
That's not how it works. In things like this they use the least amount of force necessary. In this case, it's likely that they hit the door near the lock just hard enough to pop the door open. This isn't a movie and it's not a no knock tactical entry, they didn't "ram the door off the hinges."
Sigh, as usual, someone said it more concisely and without the 5 million examples I was compelled to include.
But then...
So it's low on a scale of violence which means it isn't violent? This is a pretty fine point that a lawyer would try to make.
Somebody could get slapped in the face and there not even be a mark. Is that not violent as well?
Goalposts, keep on movin'.
And no, I don't find it "violent" in any negative or blameworthy or wrongdoing sense. Words have many definitions, both objective and subjective. And as for fine/lawyerly points, when engaging, I allow for retard definitions like, "well, if it didn't involve the code or a key, it is "violent," and the implication that "violent" = "bad." That's the reason for my fine lines.
But OK, lemme stop accepting your vagueness:
1) It's been shown that using a battering ram =/= busting a door "off its hinges," which was part of your original concept. So do you still consider that "violent"?
2) If yes, is all "violence" bad?
3) Whom do you find at fault for the use of a battering ram?
.
