Which rights would you give up?

[Joe Bobcat]

I assume there's a logical reason for it, but does anyone know why a person can't hire their own prosecutor. Grizlaw? I know why they wouldn't, the state provided prosecution is free. But if you have the means could you do this or does the government take ownership of the case. I guess when you're a plaintiff you do just that.

For the same reason a person can't go out and hire their own police: law enforcement is a government function, not one performed by private citizens (or people they pay).

A lot of people think of the prosecutor as representing the alleged victim in a criminal case, but that's not actually his role. His job is to represent "The People," not any particular person.

A person can always hire a private investigator, body guard and security force to perform many of the functions that they feel the police are not doing well enough. If you have been the victim in a criminal case you can also hire a lawyer anytime you want. I don't believe they would be welcome or allowed to sit with the prosecution team in court though.

On a far darker and more extreme side there are people rich and powerful enough to hire the police and court system.

[[cat_bracket]]

So you don't think it was Paoli's idea to only talk football and school? I would say that's controlling the interview, wouldn't you?

No. I've seen lawyers do that on TV when their clients are being interviewed on TV. And then I saw JJ's interview. It wasn't conducted in Paoli's office. He didn't control it.

So your contention is that the TV crew met JJ at Paoli's office and Paoli wasn't there? Or he was there, but didn't advise JJ in any way or steer the questions from the TV? Or you're just saying that to entertain yourself?

[Grizlaw]

It seems I have a lot to learn. But as my teachers used to say, "don't be afraid to ask a stupid question, someone else is probably wondering the same thing."

I don't think it was a stupid question at all. Apologies if my answer made it seem like I did.

[Joe Bobcat]

So Paoli had no say and couldn't have been standing nearby and couldn't have asked to see a list of questions prior to the interview and selected the ones JJ would answer? You don't actually believe that do you? No one said it was conducted in Paoli's office. Why do you keep going back to that? Are you trying to divert attention away from the flaws in your argument?

He couldn't have. He wasn't there. The interview was conducted away from his office. Have you seen the list of questions Paoli signed off on? Where did you get that?

I've seen interviews with accused and their attorneys. They do them together. I didn't see that here.

This whole argument about if any of JJs lawyers were present at the interview is really quite trivial but I find myself intrigued as to why tampa is so adamant. Tampa, I have been involved in a television interview where the interviewee's lawyer was there but not on camera so it can happen even if you have not seen it. It also happened away from the lawyers office so that can happen too. Unlike you I won't take my experience to mean that all interviews have to be conducted this way.

You may want to up date your mind set. At the time of that interview JJ had been found not guilty. Above you seem to identify him as being the accused. I would think for most people and especially a Griz fan that after having endured the trial and been declared not guilty by the jury he transitioned from accused to not guilty.

It would seem very plausible that at the time of the interview that JJ would have been wary and cautious enough that he would have sought guidance from his lawyers and that his lawyer team was diligent in making sure their client was protected and put in the best light possible, so they very likely had a hand in directing parts of the interview. Having made the transition from accused to not guilty it was and is important that JJ be seen as just JJ and not JJ and his lawyers.

Its all part of moving on, you should give it a try tampa.

[tampa_griz]

So Paoli had no say and couldn't have been standing nearby and couldn't have asked to see a list of questions prior to the interview and selected the ones JJ would answer? You don't actually believe that do you? No one said it was conducted in Paoli's office. Why do you keep going back to that? Are you trying to divert attention away from the flaws in your argument?

He couldn't have. He wasn't there. The interview was conducted away from his office. Have you seen the list of questions Paoli signed off on? Where did you get that?

I've seen interviews with accused and their attorneys. They do them together. I didn't see that here.

This whole argument about if any of JJs lawyers were present at the interview is really quite trivial but I find myself intrigued as to why tampa is so adamant. Tampa, I have been involved in a television interview where the interviewee's lawyer was there but not on camera so it can happen even if you have not seen it. It also happened away from the lawyers office so that can happen too. Unlike you I won't take my experience to mean that all interviews have to be conducted this way.

You may want to up date your mind set. At the time of that interview JJ had been found not guilty. Above you seem to identify him as being the accused. I would think for most people and especially a Griz fan that after having endured the trial and been declared not guilty by the jury he transitioned from accused to not guilty.

It would seem very plausible that at the time of the interview that JJ would have been wary and cautious enough that he would have sought guidance from his lawyers and that his lawyer team was diligent in making sure their client was protected and put in the best light possible, so they very likely had a hand in directing parts of the interview. Having made the transition from accused to not guilty it was and is important that JJ be seen as just JJ and not JJ and his lawyers.

Its all part of moving on, you should give it a try tampa.

Define irony.

[Joe Bobcat]

So Paoli had no say and couldn't have been standing nearby and couldn't have asked to see a list of questions prior to the interview and selected the ones JJ would answer? You don't actually believe that do you? No one said it was conducted in Paoli's office. Why do you keep going back to that? Are you trying to divert attention away from the flaws in your argument?

He couldn't have. He wasn't there. The interview was conducted away from his office. Have you seen the list of questions Paoli signed off on? Where did you get that?

I've seen interviews with accused and their attorneys. They do them together. I didn't see that here.

This whole argument about if any of JJs lawyers were present at the interview is really quite trivial but I find myself intrigued as to why tampa is so adamant. Tampa, I have been involved in a television interview where the interviewee's lawyer was there but not on camera so it can happen even if you have not seen it. It also happened away from the lawyers office so that can happen too. Unlike you I won't take my experience to mean that all interviews have to be conducted this way.

You may want to up date your mind set. At the time of that interview JJ had been found not guilty. Above you seem to identify him as being the accused. I would think for most people and especially a Griz fan that after having endured the trial and been declared not guilty by the jury he transitioned from accused to not guilty.

It would seem very plausible that at the time of the interview that JJ would have been wary and cautious enough that he would have sought guidance from his lawyers and that his lawyer team was diligent in making sure their client was protected and put in the best light possible, so they very likely had a hand in directing parts of the interview. Having made the transition from accused to not guilty it was and is important that JJ be seen as just JJ and not JJ and his lawyers.

Its all part of moving on, you should give it a try tampa.

Define irony.

You asking anyone to define irony is the very definition of irony.
If you are still unclear take a look in your mirror, again you will see the very definition of irony.

[tampa_griz]

You asking anyone to define irony is the very definition of irony.
If you are still unclear take a look in your mirror, again you will see the very definition of irony.

You've got the rope wrapped around the axle again. I think you're confused as to the definition of irony.

[Joe Bobcat]

You asking anyone to define irony is the very definition of irony.
If you are still unclear take a look in your mirror, again you will see the very definition of irony.

You've got the rope wrapped around the axle again. I think you're confused as to the definition of irony.

Nah I'm just a casual observer having a laugh at your expense while watching you go nowhere faster and faster each time you push on the gas by posting about a trial that ended nearly a month ago.

Maybe you can celebrate the one month anniversary of the conclusion of the trial on April 1st with more of your moving posts. Now that would be appropriate, foolish tampa foolishly yammering on and on... oblivious to the fact that it is he that has wrapped the rope around his own axle. You need a new vehicle tampa the one you're in isn't going anywhere ever.

[tampa_griz]

Nah I'm just a casual observer having a laugh at your expense while watching you go nowhere faster and faster each time you push on the gas by posting about a trial that ended nearly a month ago.

Maybe you can celebrate the one month anniversary of the conclusion of the trial on April 1st with more of your moving posts. Now that would be appropriate, foolish tampa foolishly yammering on and on... oblivious to the fact that it is he that has wrapped the rope around his own axle. You need a new vehicle tampa the one you're in isn't going anywhere ever.

Is that why you pontificate endlessly about a subject you don't care about? Because you're over it?

[Joe Bobcat]

Nah I'm just a casual observer having a laugh at your expense while watching you go nowhere faster and faster each time you push on the gas by posting about a trial that ended nearly a month ago.

Maybe you can celebrate the one month anniversary of the conclusion of the trial on April 1st with more of your moving posts. Now that would be appropriate, foolish tampa foolishly yammering on and on... oblivious to the fact that it is he that has wrapped the rope around his own axle. You need a new vehicle tampa the one you're in isn't going anywhere ever.

Is that why you pontificate endlessly about a subject you don't care about? Because you're over it?

No. Count my posts on the subject if you need and imagine what you will about what I care about but my posts on this thread are really only motivated by how entertaining you can be at times. I didn't see a lawyer on the tv screen therefor no lawyer had any involvement and wasn't present. I'll grant that you are a knowledgeable guy on many subjects, its just that sometimes you bless us with your special kind of ?wisdom? and it can get pretty entertaining as you dig in and end up in a hole.

[tampa_griz]

No. Count my posts on the subject if you need and imagine what you will about what I care about but my posts on this thread are really only motivated by how entertaining you can be at times. I didn't see a lawyer on the tv screen therefor no lawyer had any involvement and wasn't present. I'll grant that you are a knowledgeable guy on many subjects, its just that sometimes you bless us with your special kind of ?wisdom? and it can get pretty entertaining as you dig in and end up in a hole.

Is this your way of being over something?

[Joe Bobcat]

No. Count my posts on the subject if you need and imagine what you will about what I care about but my posts on this thread are really only motivated by how entertaining you can be at times. I didn't see a lawyer on the tv screen therefor no lawyer had any involvement and wasn't present. I'll grant that you are a knowledgeable guy on many subjects, its just that sometimes you bless us with your special kind of ?wisdom? and it can get pretty entertaining as you dig in and end up in a hole.

Is this your way of being over something?

You just don't get it. My interest here has nothing to do with getting over something or with the subjects of which rights would you give up, who was or wasn't at an interview, trial results or any of that kind of thing. Its just about the entertainment value when you say some of the things you do. Sorry if you can't understand that or if it hurts your feelings. The more you "pontificate endlessly" the more curious I get as to why you can't get over it and why are you here?

[tampa_griz]

You just don't get it. My interest here has nothing to do with getting over something or with the subjects of which rights would you give up, who was or wasn't at an interview, trial results or any of that kind of thing. Its just about the entertainment value when you say some of the things you do. Sorry if you can't understand that or if it hurts your feelings. The more you "pontificate endlessly" the more curious I get as to why you can't get over it and why are you here?

You keep saying we need to get over it. If that's the case, why do you keep talking and posting about it? It doesn't make sense. For instance, I don't care about gardens. So I don't visit nor do I participate in Internet discussions about gardens. Make sense?

[catatac]

This might be the most boring thread I've ever read.

[[cat_bracket]]

I don't know how anyone can really be totally over it. The verdict doesn't ensure that either sides story is the truth. Until then no one knows what happened and can't be totally over it. Maybe put it aside, but not over it. There's just way too much intrigue and scandal to turn it off. High profile people involved. Her story is strong, but so is his.

[Joe Bobcat]

You just don't get it. My interest here has nothing to do with getting over something or with the subjects of which rights would you give up, who was or wasn't at an interview, trial results or any of that kind of thing. Its just about the entertainment value when you say some of the things you do. Sorry if you can't understand that or if it hurts your feelings. The more you "pontificate endlessly" the more curious I get as to why you can't get over it and why are you here?

You keep saying we need to get over it. If that's the case, why do you keep talking and posting about it? It doesn't make sense. For instance, I don't care about gardens. So I don't visit nor do I participate in Internet discussions about gardens. Make sense?

I said I was curious as to why you can't get over it and I do think it would be healthy for you to get over it. To get over it you will have to want to get over it and you don't seem to be there yet. I feel sorry for you.

I don't follow all sports very closely but that doesn't stop me from watching any sport once in a while and I love watching a compilation of bloopers from any given sport. My posting here has been about the bloopers you so nicely provide not about the other subjects, you know that now just accept it.

I think you would be very good at gardening and would find that you have a very green thumb, it could be very therapeutic and help you get over things that you may be obsessed with.

Tampa its been fun chatting with you but I think we should let this thread get back to its subjects, besides it is time for me to go to work.

[tampa_griz]

You keep saying we need to get over it. If that's the case, why do you keep talking and posting about it? It doesn't make sense. For instance, I don't care about gardens. So I don't visit nor do I participate in Internet discussions about gardens. Make sense?

I said I was curious as to why you can't get over it and I do think it would be healthy for you to get over it.

Why do you expect someone to get over something that you yourself are very engaged in? That doesn't make sense.

[LongTimeCatFan]

You just don't get it. My interest here has nothing to do with getting over something or with the subjects of which rights would you give up, who was or wasn't at an interview, trial results or any of that kind of thing. Its just about the entertainment value when you say some of the things you do. Sorry if you can't understand that or if it hurts your feelings. The more you "pontificate endlessly" the more curious I get as to why you can't get over it and why are you here?

You keep saying we need to get over it. If that's the case, why do you keep talking and posting about it? It doesn't make sense. For instance, I don't care about gardens. So I don't visit nor do I participate in Internet discussions about gardens. Make sense?

I wish you did care about gardens. That's a subject I love to talk about. I wish more people cared about gardens. Perhaps when you finally meet Mrs Tampa Griz

[tampa_griz]

I wish you did care about gardens. That's a subject I love to talk about. I wish more people cared about gardens. Perhaps when you finally meet Mrs Tampa Griz

Ha! You'll get an invite to the wedding if that ever happens LTCF. Hell, all of you will.

[PapaG]

I'm trying to figure out how it benefits Johnson for his legal team to continue spiking the football after the game has already been won.

You'd think Johnson would want this to go away quickly, rather than have his lawyers continue to argue the case after the verdict.

Then again, my opinion of defense lawyers is rather low, so I'm guessing Johnson probably isn't thrilled about the articles and boasting, but how can you stop a lawyer trying to drum up interest and potential clients?

Hell, Paioli may end up with a CNN guest legal expert gig when the next athlete/rape accusation case comes up. Even better for him, perhaps another client.