Harley Breite - Appreciation thread

[Simple Simon]

5)  Given that my grandfather was shot through the head with a rifle by a 19 year old SS Officer (Josef Wurst- later hanged at trial) and survived and my Dad went through the camps as well and saw Hitler live 2 times, I could not defend someone at Nuremburg.  
 

But Harley, those soldiers were just doing their job, they are entitled to the best representation to ensure their rights dont get trampled on.

The job does not necessarily make the man, neither does the suit or flannel shirt or car he drives.  

[OB1]

But Harley, those soldiers were just doing their job, they are entitled to the best representation to ensure their rights dont get trampled on.

Well played.

[SuperTed]

I think the obvious point with lawyers and solicitors is that it is a job. They are in it for the money and will equally prosecute someone they know is innocent as defend someone they know is guilty.

x2

I'm not sure why people are questioning Harley's character +120 pages into the thread. Surely people are aware that in order to be a successful lawyer, you cannot be someone who has strong moral values and integrity. No disrespect to Harley, but simply put - an virtuous and honorable man would not be able to do the job he does.

[njflex]

Harley..
craig is def one of the nicest guys you could meet and I only met him few times,remember him back in 90's and his old trainer maz a local promoter,judge ,trainer to some great bbers then ..he was awesome as a teen and early 20's looked like a pro .he has a great build and what you said about him in regards to what needs to be done to be a competitive pro.he never put weight on easily ,he still came out on the good end of things stage wise with hime going for detail'look'than blowing out his body ugly..

[Sokolsky]

I'm not sure why people are questioning Harley's character +120 pages into the thread. Surely people are aware that in order to be a successful lawyer, you cannot be someone who has strong moral values and integrity. No disrespect to Harley, but simply put - an virtuous and honorable man would not be able to do the job he does.

Bullshit, it's called acting profesionally. You are not your job. Nor is a job necessarily a reflection of a person.

I once had a talk with a former-Commisioner of the EU, and he took pride in the fact that noone, during his time of being active, was able to pin-point his exact political affiliation. In doing so, he was able to cooperate with anyone and anyone, rather than being faced with obstructions due to personal views.

You could mistake that for lack of strong moral values and integrity, but it's not. If you're thinking in such black&white terms, then it's obvious you either 1. don't work in an environment where you're required to ensure proper protocol (checks-and-balances), or 2. you wouldn't succeed in such an environment.

In the case of the former-Commisioner, I'm certain he had his own political views and beliefs. But he kept this to himself and private circles as to not interfere with the job at hand. Harley is very much the same, and to attack his person simply because of the job he does, and indeed is an integral part of the justice system, is just outright ridiculous.

[OB1]

I'm not sure why people are questioning Harley's character +120 pages into the thread. Surely people are aware that in order to be a successful lawyer, you cannot be someone who has strong moral values and integrity. No disrespect to Harley, but simply put - an virtuous and honorable man would not be able to do the job he does.

x2

[SuperTed]

Bullshit, it's called acting profesionally. You are not your job. Nor is a job necessarily a reflection of a person.

I once had a talk with a former-Commisioner of the EU, and he took pride in the fact that noone, during his time of being active, was able to pin-point his exact political affiliation. In doing so, he was able to cooperate with anyone and anyone, rather than being faced with obstructions due to personal views.

You could mistake that for lack of strong moral values and integrity, but it's not. If you're thinking in such black&white terms, then it's obvious you either 1. don't work in an environment where you're required to ensure proper protocol (checks-and-balances), or 2. you wouldn't succeed in such an environment.

In the case of the former-Commisioner, I'm certain he had his own political views and beliefs. But he kept this to himself and private circles as to not interfere with the job at hand. Harley is very much the same, and to attack his person simply because of the job he does, and indeed is an integral part of the justice system, is just outright ridiculous.

You are missing the point which is that in order to do a job like that in the first place, you would need to be someone who is happy to manipulate the truth and potentially put others at risk -  while still sleeping soundly at night and having a clear conscience. That isn't something some people (including myself) could do. I fully understand that it is all part of the system though.

[/youtube]

[Simple Simon]

Bullshit, it's called acting profesionally. You are not your job. Nor is a job necessarily a reflection of a person.

I once had a talk with a former-Commisioner of the EU, and he took pride in the fact that noone, during his time of being active, was able to pin-point his exact political affiliation. In doing so, he was able to cooperate with anyone and anyone, rather than being faced with obstructions due to personal views.

You could mistake that for lack of strong moral values and integrity, but it's not. If you're thinking in such black&white terms, then it's obvious you either 1. don't work in an environment where you're required to ensure proper protocol (checks-and-balances), or 2. you wouldn't succeed in such an environment.

In the case of the former-Commisioner, I'm certain he had his own political views and beliefs. But he kept this to himself and private circles as to not interfere with the job at hand. Harley is very much the same, and to attack his person simply because of the job he does, and indeed is an integral part of the justice system, is just outright ridiculous.

the SS officers and soldiers who tortured and killed thousands during the war were just doing their job, are you saying that after the war all repercussions are off?

and you have to remember Harley relishes in his victories when he gets a scumbag off the hook, for him its getting one over on the system.
Go read his posts.

[Disgusted]

the SS officers and soldiers who tortured and killed thousands during the war were just doing their job, are you saying that after the war all repercussions are off?

and you have to remember Harley relishes in his victories when he gets a scumbag off the hook, for him its getting one over on the system.
Go read his posts.

 

[chaos]

No need to beat around the bush. Just make your point clearly and plainly.

I'm not sure how much clearer I could make my point

[Simple Simon]

Precisely. I'm not meaning to attack Harley for the sake of it but in light of the recent cases he has shared with us, i feel it does raise some interesting points and i find his stance questionable. I know Harley has previously articulated the need to remain impartial in order to ensure that the state is functioning in an unbiased manner in accordance to the laws that it has set, and he has already freely admitted that he removes himself from the cases which he feels personally affected by, such as animal cruelty or hypothetically defending a Nazi. I understand this but it negates any argument that he remains impartial, as he chooses the cases he takes on, based upon his ability to remain neutral or not. I mentioned previously that i could not understand the distinction he is able to make regarding defending a paedophile or an animal abuser; both are deplorable and he noted that he can’t quite explain why he is able to do so. If Harley isn't willing to hypothetically defend a 19 year old who killed his grandfather upon orders- in a time of war, then i also fail to see how he is able to defend a teenager who knocked somebody’s grandfather unconscious in an unprovoked attack which could well have resulted in death, and was done as part of a "game".

It means that he doesn't remain impartial, and he doesn't defend people based upon the need to ensure a fair trial. It seems disingenuous to advise your client to plead not guilty in a case which has concrete video evidence to prove otherwise and it would indicate to me that he is more concerned with winning a game of one-upmanship against the “bureaucrats” of the state, rather than ensuring justice is served. Surely in a case such as this, where it is arguable that the accused allegedly suffers from mental health issues, the only tenable position to take would be to advise him to plead guilty and seek leniency in sentencing due to diminished responsibility; ensuring that the accused is at least locked up in a secure hospital, rather than free to roam the streets again, risking the lives of innocent members of society?

The other example he gave regarding the alleged rape of a 5 year old was shocking to read. Granted, it may have been down to his poor wording, but to describe a child of that age as a “habitual liar” seems to be egregiously inappropriate, as is claiming that the alleged rapist did not receive a fair trial in his opinion, therefore he was happy in the not guilty verdict, and enjoyed being able to shove the verdict down the government’s necks. He said it himself: "I were to get "someone off on a technicality" I would view that as a win. I found the technicality, I told the State and they still couldn't stop me. The role of a Defense Attorney is not to "seek justice" but rather, ensure that an INJUSTICE in terms of the legality of the investigation"

That’s why i asked Harley how he would argue against the Nazi’s defence of "just doing my job" if he was prosecutor. I am sure he would be able to argue against this brilliantly, but i believe he would be making a rod for his own back in doing so.
Again, i don’t wish to attack Harley unnecessarily, and appreciate that he does a lot for people on here. I just think the recent cases discussed here are worthy of debate, and it would be interesting to hear any opposing views from Harley or Khan, perhaps.

Great post.
I suppose if Harleys dad had been a victim of a knockout game the shitbag he is now defending would have been without a lawyer.

Harley picks clients not on what he can do for his client, its what his client can do for him.

[pellius]

I'm not sure how much clearer I could make my point

Sarcasm gone bad.

[pellius]

Great post.
I suppose if Harleys dad had been a victim of a knockout game the shitbag he is now defending would have been without a lawyer.

Harley picks clients not on what he can do for his client, its what his client can do for him.

Well, I don't see anything wrong for getting in a business deal or any situation asking what's in it for you.

The issue is the moral trade off. Obviously there is something in it for me if I steal that vast stock pile of HGH you have hidden in the back of your fridge but at what cost to my soul?

If Harley gets a pedophile off on a technicality of course there will be moral outrage on my part. Other than writing him death threats what am I going to do about it? Now, if the pedo got off and it was my child, then it might be worth it to me to murder the offender and take my chances. Maybe have Harley defend me to rebalance the scale of justice.

But there are cases where it would be worth it for one to sacrifice their life to see that justice is done.

[pellius]

You are missing the point which is that in order to do a job like that in the first place, you would need to be someone who is happy to manipulate the truth and potentially put others at risk -  while still sleeping soundly at night and having a clear conscience. That isn't something some people (including myself) could do. I fully understand that it is all part of the system though.

[/youtube]

Exactly. You are what you do. You're not just your job but your job is a part of you. What you choose as a job says what kind of person you are. It takes a certain type of person to want to be a Priest, an MMA fighter, an actor, a mob hitman...

And what you do can change the type of person you become. I remember how nervous and scared I was when I shop lifted. If I kept doing it, it would have gotten easier and easier. Soon there would be no fear or nervousness. Stealing would be just another day at the office. So though it wasn't in my nature at the time to be a thief, simply by acting and behaving like a thief I transformed myself into a thief.

What you choose to do, as well as what you actually do, says a lot about what kind of person you are.

[SF1900]

Of course your job, to a certain extent, is a reflection of who you are. However, it does depend on the job. If someone takes a job as a sanitation worker just for a paycheck and a pension, then I could totally understand why it may not be a reflection of their personality.

On the other hand, people who go to school for a LONG time to become a specific profession (PhD, MD, Law), do often see themselves in their job, i.e., their job is a reflection of who they are. Of course someone who is a doctor is going to have a constellation of personality traits that may be different than someone else. CEOs and business people also have a constellation of personality traits.

Now, what job we have is only ONE aspect of our self. People have multiple selves and often identify with different social identities. Often, a profession is one thing that many people strongly identify with.

[pellius]

Of course your job, to a certain extent, is a reflection of who you are. However, it does depend on the job. If someone takes a job as a sanitation worker just for a paycheck and a pension, then I could totally understand why it may not be a reflection of their personality.

On the other hand, people who go to school for a LONG time to become a specific profession (PhD, MD, Law), do often see themselves in their job, i.e., their job is a reflection of who they are. Of course someone who is a doctor is going to have a constellation of personality traits that may be different than someone else. CEOs and business people also have a constellation of personality traits.

Now, what job we have is only ONE aspect of our self. People have multiple selves and often identify with different social identities. Often, a profession is one thing that many people strongly identify with.

True, that's why I wanted to be sure to say that you are not JUST your job. But it does say something about a person if they take a less intrinsically satisfying job than a challenging one. This is not a comment on their character as that depends on the job. Being satisfied in life working as a cashier at McDonald's and being satisfied being a prostitute may show a lack of ambition on both but I would imagine there would be a difference in ones level of personal honor and dignity.

And of course there are life situations that limit one's choices. If you are raised in a family of 15 where you are a third generation welfare recipient and graduating high school is not assured, let alone even thinking about going to college, then just holding a job is exceptional.

And there are instances where jobs are so demanding and so important to you that it does define who you are. Remember, it was Harley himself who said on this thread, "What would I be if I didn't talk about my job?" Unaware of the fact that I can't think of anybody here that talks about his job. If they do it's usually not about the job per se but something that happened on the job.  So surely Harley considers his job part of who he is whether or not he admits it.

I think a lot, if not most, of Trump's sense of self worth and who he is, is because he's a billionaire businessman. Same with Kobe the basketball player, Madonna the singer, or even, tragically, Ronnie the bodybuilder.

But yes, no one thing defines you, but some things define you more than others, but what you are is a conglomeration of what you do.

Maybe with Harley, with his charities and civil and respectful demeanor; versus his occupation, we are trying to determine what washes out in the end.  

[Simple Simon]

the issue with Harley is that he claims to be doing the job he does is because he believes that EVERYONE is entitled to a fair trial and not be railroaded by the system, then in the same breath picks and chooses his clients based on his so called principles, I would have more respect for him if he took every client regardless of their crime, at least then he would be sticking to his original premise.

Now we can only assume that the clients he chooses are ones that he has sympathy with and thinks they deserve his help, and with this in mind Harleys choices reflect on him as a person.

[pellius]

the issue with Harley is that he claims to be doing the job he does is because he believes that EVERYONE is entitled to a fair trial and not be railroaded by the system, then in the same breath picks and chooses his clients based on his so called principles, I would have more respect for him if he took every client regardless of their crime, at least then he would be sticking to his original premise.

Now we can only assume that the clients he chooses are ones that he has sympathy with and thinks they deserve his help, and with this in mind Harleys choices reflect on him as a person.

Nobody can take everyone.

Now your second paragraph, adding in your previous comment that a client is also chosen that will benefit him (nothing wrong with that in and of itself), is something to seriously consider.

[Sokolsky]

the issue with Harley is that he claims to be doing the job he does is because he believes that EVERYONE is entitled to a fair trial and not be railroaded by the system, then in the same breath picks and chooses his clients based on his so called principles, I would have more respect for him if he took every client regardless of their crime, at least then he would be sticking to his original premise.

Now we can only assume that the clients he chooses are ones that he has sympathy with and thinks they deserve his help, and with this in mind Harleys choices reflect on him as a person.

Perhaps he does so because otherwise he can't guarantee a fair unbiased service? There is absolutely no point in taking on clients when you can't guarantee remaining impartial. As far as principles go, some things are simply harder to swallow than others. There doesn't need to be a clear-cut underlying reason, it could be simply so. I could watch ISIS/Mexican chainsaw beheadings/etc all day and not so much as flinch. But when I see an animal get hurt, I get enraged. Just as an example.

Whether someone deserves help or not is out of the question, as it is an integral part of the system to defend the innocent from wrongly accused, or otherwise ensure the right outcome. Regardless, you do not have to agree or condone what a client has done. So long as you atleast towards the outside can maintain an image of impartialness and perform your job.

Getting a rapist off with minimal sentencing does not mean you're going to have dinner with him that evening, and invite him for a game of golf later on in the week.

[Coffeed]

If I ever get committed of a crime I didn't commit I sure as hell would want my lawyer "all in" and it boggles my mind how some are basically saying "guilty" people don't deserve their basic rights. I suggest you go read about "purges" that run rampant throughout countries where people, even important people cannot defend themselves properly.

It still happens today outside our wonderful dystopia of America,  so you'll find plenty to read.

[pellius]

If I ever get committed of a crime I didn't commit I sure as hell would want my lawyer "all in" and it boggles my mind how some are basically saying "guilty" people don't deserve their basic rights. I suggest you go read about "purges" that run rampant throughout countries where people, even important people cannot defend themselves properly.

It still happens today outside our wonderful dystopia of America,  so you'll find plenty to read.

Who said guilty people don't deserve basic rights?

The overwhelming consensus is that everyone deserves a fair trial and that justice is done. The issue is that a guilty or not guilty person not get justice due to technicalities and slick "lawyering".

[Sokolsky]

Who said guilty people don't deserve basic rights?

The overwhelming consensus is that everyone deserves a fair trial and that justice is done. The issue is that a guilty or not guilty person not get justice due to technicalities and slick "lawyering".

The real issue is that such technicalities and 'slick lawyering' are able to influence outcomes. Which indicates there are major flaws in the system, since they are apparently readily available to be exploited. As such, people like Harley are doing a service in bringing such technicalities and loopholes to the forefront, allowing for future; - better prosecution, - better sentencing. This, in the long-run, will ensure proper functioning of the system.

You guys are way too hung up on single cases, and don't focus enough on the bigger picture. Harley is but a gear in an immense adminstrative machine, which has the power to dramatically change the lives of those being prosecuted, whether innocent or not. The technicalities on which a gun-point robber gets off today, may drive the prosecutor to not make any mistakes in the next case involving a serial-killer, and so on. Harley is providing a service, not only to his clients but the system as a whole.

Does this mean that Harley will be happy if lets say a child-molester gets off on a technicality (who otherwise would be found guilty), to then go on to molest? No. Ofcourse not. Harley is responsible for the proper functioning of the system, himself included. And only that. His task ends after a verdict is made. He is not responsible for the behaviour of his clients after that, however putrid it may be.

Once again, this does not mean Harley is devoid of opinion or bias. Simply that to perform his job well, such feelings should not influence outcomes.
If the above example of the hypothetical child molester does indeed go on to molest children and is later found guilty, I'm sure Harley will reflect.

However, he cannot be held accountable for the actions of others. Look at convicted criminals who are repeat offenders?
When a sentence is served they are re-introduced into society on the premise they have 'paid for their crime'. Yet if they then go on to commit another crime, how will you argue then? The sentence wasn't high enough? The prosecutors didn't push hard enough? Ofcourse not, because you assume people are responsible for their own actions, and that they learn from their mistakes and won't repeat them. Yet, some still do.

Unless we go back to less civil ways where people are hung or flung into a river whilst bagged, such permanent solutions do not exist. And we are to belief in the better nature of man. Maximizing the efficiency of the justice system, in an attempt to deter future violations and crimes. Harley, and others, are doing just that.

[NelsonMuntz]

what about prosecutors and cops trying to use every so called loophole etc to convict someone who may not be guilty? They use the system in the same way a defence lawyer does.

what I have noticed even in my own life is we always jump the gun and want blood when someone has allegedly wronged society or allegedly wrong us before facts are in, UNTIL it is us on the other side of the table...that would go for legal stuff as much as everyday nonsense at home, work, with friends, enemies, online etc

if guilty people get off via defence, then the opposite is true as well

re the 5 year old, well my argument is 5 year olds don't just walk up and say that an adult is trying to hurt/fuck them in any way unless it is actually happening because 99.99999% of normal society including parents would not touch a child there in that way so something fucked up was going on there

[Simple Simon]

Nobody can take everyone.

Now your second paragraph, adding in your previous comment that a client is also chosen that will benefit him (nothing wrong with that in and of itself), is something to seriously consider.

Thats not what I meant, and you know it,. he shouldn't pick and choose if he expects people to believe his "I believe everyone is entitled to..." mantra.

[Simple Simon]

what about prosecutors and cops trying to use every so called loophole etc to convict someone who may not be guilty? They use the system in the same way a defence lawyer does.

what I have noticed even in my own life is we always jump the gun and want blood when someone has allegedly wronged society or allegedly wrong us before facts are in, UNTIL it is us on the other side of the table...that would go for legal stuff as much as everyday nonsense at home, work, with friends, enemies, online etc

if guilty people get off via defence, then the opposite is true as well

re the 5 year old, well my argument is 5 year olds don't just walk up and say that an adult is trying to hurt/fuck them in any way unless it is actually happening because 99.99999% of normal society including parents would not touch a child there in that way so something fucked up was going on there

Start a thread on it, it has nothing to do with Harley.