7/24/23 Trial of Usman Shahid -- driver who killed two Oakton teens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't poop on Greenspun. He's doing his job. I'm mad that Usman took this to trial. He didn't take responsibility for his actions. I'm sure he was only willing to plea to "no jail time" and the prosecution wasn't willing to give that deal given two teen girls died. A defense atty can't make a client plead guilty. The defense atty has to work with what their client allows.

It's a tough job psychologically (to be a crimal defenseatty). I thought about doing it, but wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I helped guilty people go free. Too much catholic guilt in me. Lots of catholic prosecutors because they grew up with clear black and white thinking.

thus.

Don't attorney's have rights on which clients to take and which not to? I don't understand why I am supposed to be impressed by some guy just because he's willing to throw darts at a wall blindly and hope they hit.

He's not blindly throwing darts. Every person has the RIGHT to a defense. While Oakton's speed is a huge factor in this case, it's not the only factor.

Let's think. What are the odds that if you drive 80+ mph in an area that has crosswalks and intersections you might kill or injure someone? Oh well, so innocent some people died. Let's try to get the killer off.

There's a lot of gray between those two goal posts.

Like, 60mph would have been absolutely fine

It is an interesting question - at what speed would the physics be different to the extent that the impacts would not have been fatal?

The speed limit is there for a reason.

Roads are designed to be reasonably safe. If people stray out of the norms, that's when problems arise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are very few who know the conversation that occurred between Greenspun and his client (and parents who I assume are paying the bill)

But we can have a pretty good idea, if he's a high end defense atty whose main concern is not for the victims and their families...

The parents would not be privy to the conversations.

And, ethically, the defense attorney’s job is to be concerned with his client’s best interests and constitutional rights. That’s a foundational part of our country. The defendant has the right to counsel.

Ethics? Sure.

Yes. Ethics. Our system is set up so that each party has a lawyer representing their own interest. The jury considers all the information and decides. If one party has a lawyer concerned with the interest of more than just his party, then the system doesn't work correctly. The jury will get skewed information and will have difficulty deciding fairly.

I understand well about the need for a fair, robust defense. I completely disagree that defense lawyers should try to pin blame on others and/or get a light sentence for the client who has obviously committed a crime. Feel free to rationalize helping to get lighter sentences for those who commit crimes.

No, you don’t.

Hello, anonymous poster! Think what you wish!

DP. (That means different anonymous poster.). You don't understand. That's okay, you don't have to understand, and many people don't.

Exactly. She can’t, “understand well about the need for a fair, robust defense” and also “completely disagree that defense lawyers should try to pin blame on others and/or get a light sentence for the client who has obviously committed a crime.”

Defense lawyers HAVE to try and get the least punishment possible for their clients- which often means pinning the blame on others.

+1

That’s how our legal system works.

The threshold for criminal “beyond a reasonable doubt” is much, much higher than civil cases (“most likely”).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sheriff took paperwork to the jury room.

So was it just a question from the jury? Or something preceding a verdict?

[Anonymous]

Why wasn’t the other driver charged?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sheriff took paperwork to the jury room.

So was it just a question from the jury? Or something preceding a verdict?

Still waiting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn’t the other driver charged?

because their actions weren't criminal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn’t the other driver charged?

because their actions weren't criminal

It could be argued that he was turning on a yellow and at that speed, should have stopped and not been in the intersection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn’t the other driver charged?

because their actions weren't criminal

It could be argued that he was turning on a yellow and at that speed, should have stopped and not been in the intersection.

Still not criminal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn’t the other driver charged?

because their actions weren't criminal

It could be argued that he was turning on a yellow and at that speed, should have stopped and not been in the intersection.

At whose speed?

[Anonymous]

Both of them had a yellow right? Five Oaks traffic was about to turn Green?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn’t the other driver charged?

because their actions weren't criminal

It could be argued that he was turning on a yellow and at that speed, should have stopped and not been in the intersection.

Still not criminal.

+1

He was working to safely clear the intersection. Not criminal.

[Anonymous]

At most the 4 Runner driver committed a traffic infraction. That's not something the CA ever would prosecute. Good luck finding a jury to convict him for having the misfortune of being hit by an unlicensed driver going 81.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

He was underage and inexperienced. We let cold blooded killers off because their frontal lobe isn't developed, this is just an unfortunate accident. However, he should see consequences for his mistake of speeding and to be an example for other drivers.

That being said, if he was a different race and religion or just had a different name, people won't be so aggressive about this case. Just look at the title of this thread, his name specifically mentioned. I hope jury is fair and neutral and follows facts. He should face consequences of his actions for sure but not of his existence.

[Anonymous]