@@TopGunCrewsorry, but anything over 40 hours of crashing a weeks HAS to be paid overtime or some other additional compensation. Might want to up vacation/medical leave time?
New sport idea: Competitive Crashing Description: a series of crashes that gets worse after every round Prizes: 1st -> Gold medal 2nd -> Coffin dance funeral 3rd -> Coffin for the funeral
@@SgtVenomI forget the exact wording but that reminds me of one I heard a while back new sport air on your legs until they’re asleep then race down the stairs first prize gold medal all other medals handed out the the funeral Same idea you got a chuckle
10% is an exaggeration. You have to think about the fact that the applicant would be paying medical bills/physical rehabilitation and other associated costs out of pocket using the ‘salary’
@@Time2Warp yeah, I'd do 10% for like, a *simulation* of the pain and stress etc. but the medical bills and not being able to work gotta be paid for if it's real life, and medical bills alone would almost certainly be more than 100,000
If you aren’t entertaining the jury (and yourself in the process) … you’re doing it wrong. I’ll have to tell the story of when I laid down on the floor and pretended to get an mri while cross examining a doctor.
To be fair to my cranky colleague up above, the original comment was patently backwards. Mike is everything Saul isn’t, truly the polar opposite in my eyes.
I was a "victim" of a car accident in high school. Broken femur (titanium post, 4 pins) and buldged disc in my lower back (no surgery, too invasive for my age). This was in 1999. I've been in pain since 24/7. The last couple years it got ro the point i ended up having surgery. They botched the surgery and ive basically been unable to work since. Now, i need fused from L4 to S1. That $100,000 seemed like a ton of money back then. 25 years later I'm unable to work. That was the worst $100,000 ive ever made. Im in my early 40's and cant work. Im one of "those guys" that loves to work. Like... Work a 50+ hour blue collar job, wait tables on the weekend and have side hustles/ pick up side jobs. Getting dressed and foing out to grab a few days worth of groceries is exhausting now. Milk every penny you can from the insurance companies. Those grimy bstrds dont give a single fuhk about anyone.
I used to lift 1000s of pounds of paint. I'm still working with a lawyer to get as much as I can out of the person who hit me insurance. I still have tendonitis no one can do anything for me cept proscribe a $150 arthritis medicine. I couldn't even grab onto a anything for the first 6 months I Suffered
Future medicals is something people forget about when they go for a lawsuit. A good PI lawyer will always remember future medicals and really push for them.
I mean, he isnt lying. Woth a crash lile that, you will be out of a job. You wont be able to work. When someone crashes into you, they literally take your ability to work.
Only in America. Suffering from a crash in other countries with universal health care, you would only be paying in time spent recovering. Jobs can't fire you for recovering in a fair market, and you're looking at a loss of income which could be covered both by health insurance from your company and paid time off/sick days, both of which are usually generous.
This guy's a freaking genius in my mind. I love his videos, ideologies, tactics and attitude. Sooo down to earth and relatable but soooo freaking intelligent. Not all heros wear capes...just some in great suits n ties 😊
OMG!!!!!!!!! I am IMPRESSED!!!!!!! What a Creative way to to get the jury to connect a concept they are all very familiar with to something we all hope to never have to experience! This reminds me of the time the lawyer went into the courtroom with a Disney character costume to defend his client against a sexual assault case! This is Genius lawyering !!!! 💯💯💯💯💯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯
As a German law student this just seems crazy to me in a courtroom. I still don't get juries and I'm thankful we got rid of them (not lay judges but juries!)
I am European (with a law degree) - I still think the US system of juries in civil cases is absolutely nuts! But then so is the medical/health insurance system that increases costs for everybody involved.
We talked about the us med system in my sociology class today. Even my prof had difficulty naming upsides. The only one anyone could think of is the amount of stuff that gets researched. Everything else was like a 0/10 do not recommend for a functional system type stuff. The reason it’s a sociology class is because it focuses on how society and its structure impacts health. Right now we are focusing on different health systems and how that impacts citizens
In BC, Canada there needs to be a criminal charge before sueing for damages if you're hit by a car. Meaning the person who hit you needs to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than on a balance of probabilities. Meaning you need to prove who was driving the car that hit you, getting the license plate is insufficient because they can say they lent the car to someone else.
I don't think you can get awarded money for a criminal conviction, but if it's a hit and run (which would be necessary for the issue you hope to solve) there is a criminal conviction that would likely need to conclude before a civil case. I think you're trying to solve a non-issue here
Theatrics aside this is an insanely good way to get the jury into the correct mindset. Suddenly it's not some guy wanting to benefit off of something that happened to him, but an assessment of what THEY would feel as a fair compensation for going through that.
@@marcusborderlands6177 it is a perspective thing, which is why I’d imagine there’s some complaints that could be raised or at the very least a violation of best evidence rule.
I'm still fighting for the other persons insurance ot pay out with my lawyer for giving me permanent tendonitis's in my shoulder for my crash from 1.5 years ago.. Chick rear ended me and made it hard to work and lift. I'm still not at a 100%
So if this is your way around the golden rule, is this called the golden loophole? :P Very clever. You do not illegally ask them to put themselves in the client's shoes but they damn well will if it's a job application with his life story on it.
Actually it is a good method. The system is broken because it doesn't hold truth as it highest standard. It allows, rules, procedures, and options equal or higher measure. Justice starts with the truth. Lawyers generally aren't interested. It's about the money. And using the "law" to benefit my money source. If Justice happens that is a happy accident. Oh and if there are future negative consequences for society , at least you got paid.
@@Locutus [Premise: I'm European, from a country where juries don't exist, and I don't have a degree in law, much less US law, so I'm looking at this from an outside perspective based on what I've read/heard in these videos, watched in movies and tv shows and seen in major real life trials that have made the news here as well.] I can't really see the point of having a jury at all. It's a group of random people with little to no experience in a courtroom and no law degree who are called to judge on sometimes very complex cases that seriously affect the real life of people. Here in my country we don't have juries, but it's instead the job of the judge to... you know... judge on the case based on the law and the arguments presented by both sides, by applying their own expertise on the matter. I personally don't know how I would feel if I had to be judged by random people from the street who might have their own biases and opinion on the matter. Laws exist for a reason, to make the playing field equal for everyone, and all decisions should be based on that as much as possible. Plus, given how random people generally behave on the internet alone, with how easy they are to fall for fake news and cancel people without first verifying all the facts, I would be extremely careful in giving them any decisional power whatsoever 😅 And, to me, videos like this one that basically tell you how to psychologically "manipulate" or "trick" a jury to get the result that you want just goes to show that this isn't really what I picture when I think about what true justice looks like.
@@Merione That's a fair critique of the jury system. However, if you look at why it was introduced and why it's still around is that it forces the population to participate into the legal system and also acts as a check on government power. Before the jury system, the Kings of England would/could just imprison anyone they disagreed with, and could "lean" on the judge to come to a verdict the king would like. Have you ever heard of the Star Chamber in England in the 1600s? That's what happened then. There are some short videos about it on YT. By forcing participation by the population, requiring unanimity the king's power is put into check. Under Trump, we're now seeing cracks in the judicial system with judges now being openly partisan, now wanting to stack the system in favour of Trump. The judges in the lower courts are looking at the SCOTUS, and saying "hey, if these guys are openly corrupt and openly partial, then why should I be bother being whiter than white?".
@@Locutus Thank you for your reply! I'll definitely check out the Star Chamber videos. As for the rest, I totally understand the issue, but I still don't see how having juries would fix this. In fact, it would probably keep perpetuating it. As a general principle, systems are always just as good as the people who make them. Politicians are elected by people, and judges are people themselves who live immersed in a culture that tells them which behaviors are socially acceptable and which aren't. My own country right now is under a right wing government that I personally didn't vote for, but it was still elected by people, and the shift in the general culture is palpable compared to just a few years ago. Statistically speaking, if we had randomly selected juries, they'd also be made up by a majority of right wing voters, meaning that they still would favor certain rulings over others. And I imagine that the same happens in the US as well: Trump was also elected by a majority of people and to this day there seem to be a lot of his supporters still around. So, just by random sampling of the population, I would also expect that the average jury would have a majority of Trump supporters in it. I can see how this system would have worked in the 1600s, when kings and lords weren't directly elected by the people. They would have definitely acted as a counterweight to a power that was coming from above and that they really had no other way of influencing. But nowadays, when power generally comes from the bottom through democratic elections, what's the point?
@@Merione Some good points. I do think that we should have "professional" jurors. Where people volunteer to be professional jurors for up to 3 years, and are called up to be a juror more regularly. Someone pointed out some flaws in this, which I can't remember, but it's not perfect. Let me put it this way, say everything is 100% true what you've said, say most of the jury is in favour of Donald Trump, that's only the majority, not the unanimity. And even if people are in favour of the government and someone called the government rude names and the government responded by locking them up, I still think the jury would be thinking "so what if he said that about you". Another thing with a jury is jury nullification. The jury are allowed to disregard the law if they think it's necessary (it's rare that happens, and it's not something they are told). This *doesn't* require unanimity. Here is an example of jury nullification: In England, a couple of years ago, during the height of BLM, there was a statue of Edward Colston in Bristol, he was involved in the slave trade 100s of years ago. Anyway, this statue was pulled down from its plinth and dragged into the canal/river. This went to a jury trial. There was no doubt this was criminal damage. However, at jury deliberations, the jury decided on nullification, because they were in favour of BLM. The people that did the damage were let go, scott free. I think pretty much all legal experts and commentators were pretty dumbfounded by this, but the jury made its decision. Having 12 people unanimously agree is difficult, especially the more serious crime. If someone was on trial for low level offences, then the jury is typically going to be more willing to convict, but the more serious, juries are less likely to convict.
I am disabled and I constantly advocate for myself by telling people that being disabled is my full time job. People tend to scoff at this or be annoyed. Thank you for genuinely believing in us because this is the first time I've seen a (seemingly) able bodied person use the same words I use to describe my experiences. It shows you believe us.
that is a really great way to put it. i had an accident at work and needed back surgery, specifically a spine fusion. that was more than a year ago, i still cant work, i still cant do most of the things i used to do, and dont get me started on the suffering of the 6+ months of recovery. id rather be working my shitty retail job still, not feeling sorry for myself, still recovering mentally.
This is an absolutely ingenious psychological trick. Getting compensated pre or post event is functionally the same, but somehow it seems easier to decide what would be fair in a pre event compensation.
Right you are. Some states like Virginia do not allow it. When I do it, I am very, very careful. I made a video about how certain times you have to use notes to make sure you say something perfectly, this is one of those times.
![Lebanon Hanover -- Gallowdance [official]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WPw7nlluRdc/mqdefault.jpg)
Must have 10+ years experience getting in car crashes.
I was in 2 car crashes 10 years apart, does that count?
@@AquaticMessiahnope, you have to be crashing cars 24/7 for 10 years straight
@@TopGunCrewsorry, but anything over 40 hours of crashing a weeks HAS to be paid overtime or some other additional compensation. Might want to up vacation/medical leave time?
New sport idea: Competitive Crashing
Description: a series of crashes that gets worse after every round
Prizes:
1st -> Gold medal
2nd -> Coffin dance funeral
3rd -> Coffin for the funeral
@@SgtVenomI forget the exact wording but that reminds me of one I heard a while back new sport air on your legs until they’re asleep then race down the stairs first prize gold medal all other medals handed out the the funeral
Same idea you got a chuckle
Jury be like: he does have a good resume
E
Geico be like: Minimum wage, tops. No medical or dental.
Requirements:
Bachelor's or better.
10 Years experience, Entry level.
No older than 25 years. Need them prime young bones for an "accurate" test.
Must have minimum 1 year experience crashing in model year 2026 luxury sedans 🤨
With 10 years of experience @@empirevsrebles3078
Oh good I majored in college for exactly this everything is a crash course when you only study the night before
A great way to frame it. "How much would you have to pay to get someone to consensually agree to what my client has been through?"
A hell of a lot less than $1.3 mill. People would be lining up around the corner for 10% of that
@@zanido9073that is crazy 130k doesn't get you anywhere with lasting problems from a crash
10% is an exaggeration. You have to think about the fact that the applicant would be paying medical bills/physical rehabilitation and other associated costs out of pocket using the ‘salary’
@@Time2Warp yeah, I'd do 10% for like, a *simulation* of the pain and stress etc. but the medical bills and not being able to work gotta be paid for if it's real life, and medical bills alone would almost certainly be more than 100,000
You forgot: for free, at the end.
Lawyers: Court doesn’t have any of those silly stunts like what you see on TV.
Mike Rafi:
If you aren’t entertaining the jury (and yourself in the process) … you’re doing it wrong.
I’ll have to tell the story of when I laid down on the floor and pretended to get an mri while cross examining a doctor.
@@MikeRafiLawyeryes, please! 🙏
@@MikeRafiLawyer that might require a slightly different camera angle
@Taolan8472 nah, just have him lie down on the table.
@@MikeRafiLawyer you know i would have called cap on this like 3 years ago but after befriending a couple of law students at college i believe it
This some Saul Goodman type shit 😂😂
Bro watched saul Goodman and think he knows jack shit about the legal world
@@TMANM breathe
@@TMANM bro read 6 words and his blood pressure started rising
To be fair to my cranky colleague up above, the original comment was patently backwards. Mike is everything Saul isn’t, truly the polar opposite in my eyes.
@@johnd1047
Get your eyes checked then.
The judge: its an entry level position so you're paid in exposure
lol yeah you're right
*one of your viewers applies to the job*
Best part is you dont even need to come in for interview. He’ll drive (in)to you 😂
The graphic in the video isn’t actually the ad. But when we took it down, we did have 2 applicants haha
@@MikeRafiLawyerThis is so creative... Amazing. Definitely thinking outside the box.
@@MikeRafiLawyer I suppose 1.3mil would be pretty competitive
I would apply in a heartbeat
I was a "victim" of a car accident in high school. Broken femur (titanium post, 4 pins) and buldged disc in my lower back (no surgery, too invasive for my age). This was in 1999. I've been in pain since 24/7. The last couple years it got ro the point i ended up having surgery. They botched the surgery and ive basically been unable to work since. Now, i need fused from L4 to S1. That $100,000 seemed like a ton of money back then. 25 years later I'm unable to work. That was the worst $100,000 ive ever made. Im in my early 40's and cant work. Im one of "those guys" that loves to work. Like... Work a 50+ hour blue collar job, wait tables on the weekend and have side hustles/ pick up side jobs. Getting dressed and foing out to grab a few days worth of groceries is exhausting now. Milk every penny you can from the insurance companies. Those grimy bstrds dont give a single fuhk about anyone.
I used to lift 1000s of pounds of paint. I'm still working with a lawyer to get as much as I can out of the person who hit me insurance. I still have tendonitis no one can do anything for me cept proscribe a $150 arthritis medicine. I couldn't even grab onto a anything for the first 6 months I Suffered
Future medicals is something people forget about when they go for a lawsuit. A good PI lawyer will always remember future medicals and really push for them.
Thank you for sharing!
I like how this was more like a shift in perspective. A perspective which most, if not all, know very well.
E
@@EEEEEEEEA Sports
"Competative" is crazy when you think about him being a lawyer.
You think lawyars don’t make speling mistaxes?
Sometimes CPA’s mistaxes
I thought it was intentional 😂
It was the paralegal
@@MikeRafiLawyeryou ain’t need to right gud to tawk gud 😂😂
I mean, he isnt lying. Woth a crash lile that, you will be out of a job. You wont be able to work. When someone crashes into you, they literally take your ability to work.
Out of that 1.3 mil, I wonder how much the client ended up getting?
66%
@@MikeRafiLawyer That's about the median income for 25 years. Great work.
@@MikeRafiLawyer Solid
*laughs in NHS*
In fairness, it's sad that lawyers are the only way you're paying for medical bills
Never heard of anything like this I don’t even think a TV show could come up with something like this. Good job man.
This man is IRL Saul Goodman
The jury's going to make you do 5 rounds of interviews, only to give the job to the CEOs son.
Need to interview people on the outside just to check the legal box
That is actually super smart, well done sir
It's absolutely dumb and never happened
That doesn't make any sense.
This lawyer is ret****d.
Offical
Yeah it’s so smart to fabricate a piece of evidence you’re using in testimony
@SaltSpirits Do you know what the word “evidence” means? This is not evidence.
this is such a good way to frame it, we expect people to pay so much to recover from terrible things when doing so is a huge amount of Labor
Only in America. Suffering from a crash in other countries with universal health care, you would only be paying in time spent recovering. Jobs can't fire you for recovering in a fair market, and you're looking at a loss of income which could be covered both by health insurance from your company and paid time off/sick days, both of which are usually generous.
I imagine that scene in better call Saul where the judge is perplexed by Saul, and she just says, "Mr. Goodman!!"
I was really confused on where this was going for a second.
I'm still confused
That’s low key genius.
Love this guy, super clever! He also does amazing work! Getting good people the money they deserve from these abhorrent insurance companies
This guy's a freaking genius in my mind. I love his videos, ideologies, tactics and attitude. Sooo down to earth and relatable but soooo freaking intelligent. Not all heros wear capes...just some in great suits n ties 😊
That's very creative. Good job.
😒
@@pudicus2?
That doesn't make any sense.
This lawyer is ret****d.
"Ace Attorney is wholly unrealistic. Court is never that interesting nor ludicrous!"
*Actual IRL court cases:*
OMG!!!!!!!!! I am IMPRESSED!!!!!!! What a Creative way to to get the jury to connect a concept they are all very familiar with to something we all hope to never have to experience! This reminds me of the time the lawyer went into the courtroom with a Disney character costume to defend his client against a sexual assault case! This is Genius lawyering !!!! 💯💯💯💯💯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯
Dang that why I never heard back from the job I applied for
Fascinating , thanks for educating us all
When you’ve watched every episode of Suits
As a German law student this just seems crazy to me in a courtroom. I still don't get juries and I'm thankful we got rid of them (not lay judges but juries!)
I am European (with a law degree) - I still think the US system of juries in civil cases is absolutely nuts!
But then so is the medical/health insurance system that increases costs for everybody involved.
Too right. America is fine on the TV - but keep it there.
Ah yes, the system of absolutely zero transparency you have is soooooooo much better 🙄
We talked about the us med system in my sociology class today.
Even my prof had difficulty naming upsides. The only one anyone could think of is the amount of stuff that gets researched. Everything else was like a 0/10 do not recommend for a functional system type stuff.
The reason it’s a sociology class is because it focuses on how society and its structure impacts health. Right now we are focusing on different health systems and how that impacts citizens
Creative man, doing the right thing. Well done, Mike.
This feels like a scene out of Better Call Saul.
Jury: No experience with Excel? I don't think we can offer you this position.
That is a fantastic way to put it into perspective
Literally this is all I was asking my lawyer to do.
In BC, Canada there needs to be a criminal charge before sueing for damages if you're hit by a car.
Meaning the person who hit you needs to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than on a balance of probabilities.
Meaning you need to prove who was driving the car that hit you, getting the license plate is insufficient because they can say they lent the car to someone else.
I don't think you can get awarded money for a criminal conviction, but if it's a hit and run (which would be necessary for the issue you hope to solve) there is a criminal conviction that would likely need to conclude before a civil case. I think you're trying to solve a non-issue here
Well, we also have free healthcare.
"It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off"
That is brilliance in action.
If this is in fact true , imo it is nothing short of pure genius …
I saw the title and for a split second I thought Mr Rafi engaged in the Ghost Job phenomenon for his firm. Thankfully it's just some clever lawyering.
Theatrics aside this is an insanely good way to get the jury into the correct mindset. Suddenly it's not some guy wanting to benefit off of something that happened to him, but an assessment of what THEY would feel as a fair compensation for going through that.
Not just interesting, it's a fascinating idea. I never thought of it this way.
That doesn't make any sense.
This lawyer is ret****d.
Thats definitely a Saul Goodman move. I love it dude!
Crazy ideas like that are what makes great lawyers that’s awesome
that is one hell of an angle to play.. I'm surprised you gave this one away
Very informative. Different laws here in Aotearoa-New Zealand
I think about that place a lot
American justice system is a freaking circus
Saul goodman ahh strategy
This is some real Saul goodman level shit
If my defense attorney wasn’t objecting to that the whole time I’d be so mad
Wanted ad arguments aren’t improper in GA
You watch too much law and order.
@@randywright7627 writing a fake ad to sway a jury seems like something out of BCS
@@Expectvacancieshe told them it was a fake ad. It's a perspective thing...
@@marcusborderlands6177 it is a perspective thing, which is why I’d imagine there’s some complaints that could be raised or at the very least a violation of best evidence rule.
All fun and games until the jury awards an internship.
I'm still fighting for the other persons insurance ot pay out with my lawyer for giving me permanent tendonitis's in my shoulder for my crash from 1.5 years ago.. Chick rear ended me and made it hard to work and lift. I'm still not at a 100%
That’s actually a brilliant argument.
So if this is your way around the golden rule, is this called the golden loophole? :P Very clever. You do not illegally ask them to put themselves in the client's shoes but they damn well will if it's a job application with his life story on it.
This isn’t allowed in some states for that reason (VA for example) and we have to be careful about how to present it to be safe.
That is an excellent way of communicating unfamiliar information in a manner familiar to most people.
Actually it is a good method.
The system is broken because it doesn't hold truth as it highest standard. It allows, rules, procedures, and options equal or higher measure.
Justice starts with the truth. Lawyers generally aren't interested. It's about the money. And using the "law" to benefit my money source. If Justice happens that is a happy accident. Oh and if there are future negative consequences for society , at least you got paid.
Brilliant shift of perspective... turns into a personal reflection for the choice...
And then the award was capped at $100k 😢
No caps on compensatory damages.
That’s low-key genius.
how does that work, did people try to get that as a job?
I would like to see his review of Saul Goodman's shenanigans
This is brilliant! Maybe this is why so few people get back with me from applications: they’re fake lol.
Things like this make me question the whole point of a jury system even more than I usually do... 😅
Why do you say that?
@@Locutus [Premise: I'm European, from a country where juries don't exist, and I don't have a degree in law, much less US law, so I'm looking at this from an outside perspective based on what I've read/heard in these videos, watched in movies and tv shows and seen in major real life trials that have made the news here as well.]
I can't really see the point of having a jury at all. It's a group of random people with little to no experience in a courtroom and no law degree who are called to judge on sometimes very complex cases that seriously affect the real life of people. Here in my country we don't have juries, but it's instead the job of the judge to... you know... judge on the case based on the law and the arguments presented by both sides, by applying their own expertise on the matter.
I personally don't know how I would feel if I had to be judged by random people from the street who might have their own biases and opinion on the matter. Laws exist for a reason, to make the playing field equal for everyone, and all decisions should be based on that as much as possible. Plus, given how random people generally behave on the internet alone, with how easy they are to fall for fake news and cancel people without first verifying all the facts, I would be extremely careful in giving them any decisional power whatsoever 😅
And, to me, videos like this one that basically tell you how to psychologically "manipulate" or "trick" a jury to get the result that you want just goes to show that this isn't really what I picture when I think about what true justice looks like.
@@Merione That's a fair critique of the jury system. However, if you look at why it was introduced and why it's still around is that it forces the population to participate into the legal system and also acts as a check on government power.
Before the jury system, the Kings of England would/could just imprison anyone they disagreed with, and could "lean" on the judge to come to a verdict the king would like. Have you ever heard of the Star Chamber in England in the 1600s? That's what happened then. There are some short videos about it on YT.
By forcing participation by the population, requiring unanimity the king's power is put into check.
Under Trump, we're now seeing cracks in the judicial system with judges now being openly partisan, now wanting to stack the system in favour of Trump. The judges in the lower courts are looking at the SCOTUS, and saying "hey, if these guys are openly corrupt and openly partial, then why should I be bother being whiter than white?".
@@Locutus Thank you for your reply! I'll definitely check out the Star Chamber videos.
As for the rest, I totally understand the issue, but I still don't see how having juries would fix this. In fact, it would probably keep perpetuating it.
As a general principle, systems are always just as good as the people who make them. Politicians are elected by people, and judges are people themselves who live immersed in a culture that tells them which behaviors are socially acceptable and which aren't. My own country right now is under a right wing government that I personally didn't vote for, but it was still elected by people, and the shift in the general culture is palpable compared to just a few years ago. Statistically speaking, if we had randomly selected juries, they'd also be made up by a majority of right wing voters, meaning that they still would favor certain rulings over others. And I imagine that the same happens in the US as well: Trump was also elected by a majority of people and to this day there seem to be a lot of his supporters still around. So, just by random sampling of the population, I would also expect that the average jury would have a majority of Trump supporters in it.
I can see how this system would have worked in the 1600s, when kings and lords weren't directly elected by the people. They would have definitely acted as a counterweight to a power that was coming from above and that they really had no other way of influencing. But nowadays, when power generally comes from the bottom through democratic elections, what's the point?
@@Merione Some good points.
I do think that we should have "professional" jurors. Where people volunteer to be professional jurors for up to 3 years, and are called up to be a juror more regularly. Someone pointed out some flaws in this, which I can't remember, but it's not perfect.
Let me put it this way, say everything is 100% true what you've said, say most of the jury is in favour of Donald Trump, that's only the majority, not the unanimity. And even if people are in favour of the government and someone called the government rude names and the government responded by locking them up, I still think the jury would be thinking "so what if he said that about you". Another thing with a jury is jury nullification. The jury are allowed to disregard the law if they think it's necessary (it's rare that happens, and it's not something they are told). This *doesn't* require unanimity.
Here is an example of jury nullification: In England, a couple of years ago, during the height of BLM, there was a statue of Edward Colston in Bristol, he was involved in the slave trade 100s of years ago. Anyway, this statue was pulled down from its plinth and dragged into the canal/river. This went to a jury trial. There was no doubt this was criminal damage. However, at jury deliberations, the jury decided on nullification, because they were in favour of BLM. The people that did the damage were let go, scott free. I think pretty much all legal experts and commentators were pretty dumbfounded by this, but the jury made its decision.
Having 12 people unanimously agree is difficult, especially the more serious crime. If someone was on trial for low level offences, then the jury is typically going to be more willing to convict, but the more serious, juries are less likely to convict.
I am disabled and I constantly advocate for myself by telling people that being disabled is my full time job. People tend to scoff at this or be annoyed. Thank you for genuinely believing in us because this is the first time I've seen a (seemingly) able bodied person use the same words I use to describe my experiences. It shows you believe us.
Very nice job informing their perspective!
That's a really interesting and unique way to break it down IMO. I never thought of it that way before.
I'd have awarded you one dollar for that stunt.
This is brilliant. I’d love to be in the court room during your cases
Thats actually a really good idea. Really drives home in the jury's mind what kind of compensation they would want if they were going to go through it
That's actually pretty genius
Dude, way to think outside the box. Well done!
that is a really great way to put it. i had an accident at work and needed back surgery, specifically a spine fusion. that was more than a year ago, i still cant work, i still cant do most of the things i used to do, and dont get me started on the suffering of the 6+ months of recovery. id rather be working my shitty retail job still, not feeling sorry for myself, still recovering mentally.
This was so brilliant that I had to watch it twice to understand.
you sir are incredible. whatever your fee is that ingenuity is worth every penny. f*n genius.
If i saw that up id be applying in a heartbeat 🤣
Based on my limited understanding of the American health care system through memes, 1.3 million sounds a bit low 😅
Jury: "ohhh theres a gap in their experience, unfortunately we're proceeding with more qualified candidates"
Ahhh the Barney Rubble defense genius!
Theatrics in the courtroom. Nice
Wow. That’s seems like a very smart way to present your argument effectively in a way the jurors can relate to
That's actually really smart
I wish my lawyer did anything other than see me as a paycheck
You’re so awesome. I wish I had you when I had a slip and fall in a major retail store
This is an absolutely ingenious psychological trick. Getting compensated pre or post event is functionally the same, but somehow it seems easier to decide what would be fair in a pre event compensation.
Amazing strategy. Putting the jury in the plaintiff’s shoes. Brilliant
I WISH. I've been in 2 already in my short life and it's really messed up my health and life. I wish you had been my attorney. Sheesh
Interesting how a different perspective can help us better understand a situation.
When thinking outside the box goes very well. Nice!
Man’s got dedication to the bit
That was clever and a great way to shift their perspective, nice one!
I absolutely wish you were my attorney for my accident. I truly felt improperly represented.
Dangerously close to golden rule, but very creative props to you counsel
Right you are. Some states like Virginia do not allow it. When I do it, I am very, very careful. I made a video about how certain times you have to use notes to make sure you say something perfectly, this is one of those times.
Morally correct Saul Goodman be like:
Woah, weird but smart to think of it this way
A roundabout way to ask "What's the least _you_ would want if you were in the victim's place?"
Ahh court rooms, where justice is given a price tag by those that have more money than sense
I think there's ambulance chasing lawyers that have potential victims on retainer.
Nice! Very creative problem-solving.
I need this job.