PVG's Dad: It's OK when it's someone else's daughter

It’s OK when it’s someone else’s daughter

To shoot down the straw men before they’re set up:

  1. This in no way justifies harassment of PVG.
  2. The men deserve a good defense in a court of law.

What’s significant is how he did it, by going on the offensive against the victims with the incredibly demeaning “she had it comin’” defense.

So you’re saying that good defense attorneys should not have daughters? Fatherhood should only be rewarded to prosecutors?

If I hire a defense attorney, I want him to present the strongest argument he can that’s legal. If I’m concerned about the morality of whether or not he’s blaming the victim, maybe I shouldn’t have jacked off on the stripper’s face during the traffic stop in the first place, eh?

(If you have issues, they’re with either a) The reporting of this story; b) The shitty job done by the prosecutor if the story is as “clear cut” as it’s being made out to be in the reporting; c) The lunacy of 12 people on a jury thinking “She deserved it” is adequate defense; or d) All of the above.)

I’m a big fan of the right to a good defense and all, but if the guy’s arguments as presented in that article aren’t taken out of context (like, if he really claimed a girl who was gangraped wasn’t harmed too bad because they knocked her unconscious before they raped her), then uh yeah fuck him, he’s forfeited any sympathy he may have ever had from me for anything that ever happens to him, which of course doesn’t make stalking his daughter ok, but it does make him a huge douchebag.

That’s all fine and dandy but just because the guy is just “doing his job” isn’t an adequate defense for being such a horrible piece of human filth. Don’t make me Godwin this thread.

Both you and Rimbo are missing the point. If this guy weren’t a successful, conniving, defense attorney, he wouldn’t have attracted PVG’s mom, AND THERE WOULD BE NO PICTURES OF PVG FOR RIMBO.

Roger has defeated me… this time!

Rimbo is correct, and should feel no more shame. This attorney crosses the line of good taste by treating his daughter differently than other women of ill repute.

It’s amazing how much we’re willing to justify in the name of doing our jobs. The guy doesn’t get a pass for holding double standards, just because it’s part of his job.

I’m not saying he should be locked up, but it’s still that, if it’s legal, it’s ok defense and thus no one should call him out on it. That’s bullshit.

I wonder though, could a lawyer be prosecuted for slander for using such tactics?

I know it was a joke Roger, but I could deal with less PVGs if it meant less dickwads like her dad.

Where do you get that he has double standards? If he was defending himself with that argument, then I’d buy your position. He’s defending someone else with that argument. Last time I looked lawyers weren’t required to believe that the arguments they present are true. They’re simply required to not present arguments that they know to be false.

If you can suggest a defense that you think would be as effective given the apparently incontravertible nature of the evidence against the accused, I’m sure lawyers all over the country would love to hear it.

Tom, can we get a sub-forum just for PVG?

Then we can get Chet to nuke the motherfucker from orbit, because it’s the only way to be sure.

Seriously Rimbo, what possessed you to post this here instead of P&R?

I highly encourage everyone to read more about that OC sheriff gangrape thing, it’s a pretty fascinating look into how much is wrong with America. Stokke was just doing his job and may have felt that changing to a new strategy so late in the trial process was a mistake, but Christ that story makes me so angry. Some people just need an asskicking, and Don Haidl is one of them.

In addition to every juror who was on the “acquit” side of the deadlock on the first trial.

sigh I really don’t know how to respond to this, other than to say, this is exactly what I’m talking about. My point isn’t about what’s required and it doesn’t matter if that is the most effective defense within the law.

I wish I could express myself better, but her father is a morally repugnant asshole who doesn’t mind defending the lewd behavior of his clients by overly-sexualizing women. I guess the internet should just be his client, then he can sleep at night because he’s getting paid for people fapping to his daughter. There are some things you can’t defend without leaving your morals behind. Hiding behind a job is a coward’s way out.

Yeah, this is full on P&R stuff now. Let’s just say I’d just as soon keep your, my, and everyone else’s morals out of whether or not I can get a vigorous defense legally, whether or not I’m point-blank guilty. I think it’s a pretty important thing that the legal system works for me, even if I’m reprehensible scum.

So, basically, nobody should defend the scum of our country because they’re scum. Great system you’re proposing there!

Interestingly, as pointed out in the comments section, Al actually said even if what the internet people are doing isn’t illegal, it’s still demeaning. The suggestion is that it is still morally wrong and shouldn’t be done…interesting claim coming from this guy.

Is this guy claiming that the internet people should go to jail? Does he hold up his clients as moral role models?

If not, I don’t see any hypocrisy. He’s simply reminding us that that scummy and criminal behavior are not synonymous.

Well, just because we can envision a legal construct as being necessary doesn’t mean we can’t judge it as being immoral.

Wait… wait… wait… hang on here… I was just skimming.

But gang rape is wrong? Since when?