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:

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.

Which is why so many lawyers are not viewed as honest and ethical.

At least until you need one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

A traffic infraction that contributed towards fatalities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it wasn’t clear when he started turning. He should have waited until the pedestrians crossed before pulling into the lane of oncoming traffic. So dangerous.

It was an imperfect left turn, yes, but not that dangerous. He judged, not incorrectly, that he would have plenty of time, if the BMW were moving at 35-45 mph. Would have been fine, at any other time.

[Anonymous]

If nothing else, he was speeding in a school zone and didn't have permission to drive by himself without a licensed adult in car with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

A traffic infraction that contributed towards fatalities.

Are you unable to understand the difference between negligence and gross negligence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

In the civil case they just need to prove that it’s more likely than not that his actions contributed towards the deaths/injuries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which is why so many lawyers are not viewed as honest and ethical.

You give ignorance of the law a new meaning…anyone who finds a defense lawyer unethical for doing his job correctly is ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it wasn’t clear when he started turning. He should have waited until the pedestrians crossed before pulling into the lane of oncoming traffic. So dangerous.

It was an imperfect left turn, yes, but not that dangerous. He judged, not incorrectly, that he would have plenty of time, if the BMW were moving at 35-45 mph. Would have been fine, at any other time.

Huh? Just sitting in the lane of oncoming traffic? It was very dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Something is happening! The lawyer just walked in and everyone is getting seated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which is why so many lawyers are not viewed as honest and ethical.

At least until you need one.

Not all are dishonest and shady ethically. Trying to get murderers, rapists, and child abusers off lightly is reprehensible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+19287373929299292.

People are just salivating at putting a POC away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

In the civil case they just need to prove that it’s more likely than not that his actions contributed towards the deaths/injuries.

I agree he has exposure in the civil case, and I'm not against that--when I'm crossing the street I hate it when a left turning driver blocks the oncoming lane and waits for me to finish. Though given how many drivers turn like that, I think there's good odds a jury won't find him at fault, especially given the egregious driving by Shahid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Something is happening! The lawyer just walked in and everyone is getting seated.

Better be a verdict, I have work to focus on. (And it better be a guilty verdict or I'll be sick to my stomach).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which is why so many lawyers are not viewed as honest and ethical.

At least until you need one.

Not all are dishonest and shady ethically. Trying to get murderers, rapists, and child abusers off lightly is reprehensible.

Maybe. I wouldn’t put a reckless kid in the same category as a child abuser, but then again my emotions about this aren’t clouding my judgement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

In the civil case they just need to prove that it’s more likely than not that his actions contributed towards the deaths/injuries.

I agree he has exposure in the civil case, and I'm not against that--when I'm crossing the street I hate it when a left turning driver blocks the oncoming lane and waits for me to finish. Though given how many drivers turn like that, I think there's good odds a jury won't find him at fault, especially given the egregious driving by Shahid.

There aren’t that many drivers who turn like that - sitting in the lane of oncoming traffic on a busy road?

Anyway, he won’t face criminal charges because he made an immunity deal.