The Manhood Trap

[Loren Pechtel]

Besides, if the school had a good basis for expelling them a lawyer wouldn't take the case.

Wut?
You think guilty scumbags can’t get lawyers?

Civil. Such cases are usually taken on contingency, lawyers care very much about whether they expect to win when taking a case.

 

[Elixir]

Such cases are usually taken on contingency, lawyers care very much about whether they expect to win when taking a case.

I don’t know that either of those things are true. There’s a reason that lawyers’ collective reputations are virtually the same as that of… uh … lawyers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing it's very hard to find a neutral voice. Are you saying what they said was false??

If is incomplete and self-serving. Universities and colleges are restricted by law what they can reveal. So all the public sees is the accused’s version and maybe the victim’s side of the story.

The "victims" could present their side. They generally don't.

Besides, if the school had a good basis for expelling them a lawyer wouldn't take the case.

Victims may be reluctant to come forward because misogynist assholes refer to them as ‘victims’. And much, much worse.

Their ‘side’ would never be presented by the accused’s lawyers. Hell, we do not even know the accused’s side. We only know his attorney’s well crafted for public consumption storyline.

Lawyers for defense clients take cases of their clients or their clients’ parents can pay.

What is with everyone not getting it about contingency fees? This isn't about defense, this is about suing the school over what happened.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing it's very hard to find a neutral voice. Are you saying what they said was false??

If is incomplete and self-serving. Universities and colleges are restricted by law what they can reveal. So all the public sees is the accused’s version and maybe the victim’s side of the story.

The "victims" could present their side. They generally don't.

The victims do present their side to the school. They are not required to go public.

But the lawyers would get the records in such a lawsuit.

And the problem is that the accused is generally not allowed to present their side. Kangaroo court.

Besides, if the school had a good basis for expelling them a lawyer wouldn't take the case.

Lawyers in these cases tend to get paid by the billable hour, so I think you are naive.

No, we are talking about suing the school. That's normally contingency.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If a school is informed of a student who may be a hazard in the future, the standard of "reasonable doubt" does not apply. Whether they expel him to protect other students from harm, or to protect their financial interests, doesn't really matter. If they allow a known hazard to continue, they are now complicit and will have to shoulder the blame for whatever happens.

Yeah, but so what?

This amounts to accusation = punishment. You find that acceptable?

 

[laughing dog]

Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing it's very hard to find a neutral voice. Are you saying what they said was false??

If is incomplete and self-serving. Universities and colleges are restricted by law what they can reveal. So all the public sees is the accused’s version and maybe the victim’s side of the story.

The "victims" could present their side. They generally don't.

The victims do present their side to the school. They are not required to go public.

But the lawyers would get the records in such a lawsuit.

And the problem is that the accused is generally not allowed to present their side. Kangaroo court.

Besides, if the school had a good basis for expelling them a lawyer wouldn't take the case.

Lawyers in these cases tend to get paid by the billable hour, so I think you are naive.

No, we are talking about suing the school. That's normally contingency.

So the expulsion is not ruining anyone’s life.