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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Putting his name in the title is brilliant. It memorializes his horrible behavior and will pull this up anytime someone Googles him for the rest of his miserable life.

[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:

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.

A "reckless kid" who killed people. Why omit that part?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Happens all the time to me. More common in DC when traffic is heavier and drivers need to be aggressive to make a turn; it's stupid and dangerous to do it on a less crowded suburban road when cars are going 35, since so many drivers are texting or otherwise not paying attention. But I still experience it way more than I should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Happens all the time to me. More common in DC when traffic is heavier and drivers need to be aggressive to make a turn; it's stupid and dangerous to do it on a less crowded suburban road when cars are going 35, since so many drivers are texting or otherwise not paying attention. But I still experience it way more than I should.

Yes, obviously city driving is much different than this type of road.

[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:

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.

A "reckless kid" who killed people. Why omit that part?

I also omitted the crimes of child abusers.

Anyway, he didn’t intentionally kill them. Not murder.

[Anonymous]

We need a fair trial for sake of all parties involved, running anyone's life for an accident they did as a teen shouldn't be the goal.

[Anonymous]

What's taking the jury so long? This case should be a slam dunk "Guilty".

[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.

There is no universe in which one could reasonably conclude that the turning driver committed an infraction, or even drove in a hazardous way. That's just a hare-brained scheme cooked up by a dumb defense attorney who's apparently gotten rich finding common ground with dumb juries.

What amazes me is how the defense's closing argument basically boiled down to "My client isn't just guilty, he's effing guilty. My hopes are that you will be so impressed by his audacity that you, like him, will become underwhelmed by the value of the womens' lives that he prematurely ended."

[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:

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.

A "reckless kid" who killed people. Why omit that part?

I also omitted the crimes of child abusers.

Anyway, he didn’t intentionally kill them. Not murder.

Okay. Unless s person is intellectually deficient, he or she should be aware that driving 80 mph in a 35mph zone is very likely going to result in someone's injury or death. Same for DUI drivers.

[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:

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.

A "reckless kid" who killed people. Why omit that part?

I also omitted the crimes of child abusers.

Anyway, he didn’t intentionally kill them. Not murder.

Dead is dead.

[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:

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.

A "reckless kid" who killed people. Why omit that part?

I also omitted the crimes of child abusers.

Anyway, he didn’t intentionally kill them. Not murder.

He's not charged with murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's taking the jury so long? This case should be a slam dunk "Guilty".

Depends on the judge’s instructions.

And any good jury should review all of the testimony and evidence.

[Anonymous]

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

It was regarding a questions they wanted to know what a word meant.

[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:

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.

A "reckless kid" who killed people. Why omit that part?

I also omitted the crimes of child abusers.

Anyway, he didn’t intentionally kill them. Not murder.

He's not charged with murder.

Tell that to the hysterical PP.

[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:

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.

A "reckless kid" who killed people. Why omit that part?

I also omitted the crimes of child abusers.

Anyway, he didn’t intentionally kill them. Not murder.

Okay. Unless s person is intellectually deficient, he or she should be aware that driving 80 mph in a 35mph zone is very likely going to result in someone's injury or death. Same for DUI drivers.

1) it’s not “very likely to result in injury/death”
2) that doesn’t mean it’s intentional