Saraah!

Real trial action in Court:

Lawyer: Were you there when your picture was taken?
Witness on stand: lololololololol wth?! Are you serious? Your honor I think I need another defense lawyer. Mine has stupidity written all over his face.

IF you find this funny, read on.

Law students are trained to master the law. No other profession demand more effort to memorize than the practice of law. Unlike other disciplines, law students, teachers and lawyers have to contend with the fact that the doctrines and provisions that are in force today will most likely change in a few years. The profession is a shifting dune that imperceptibly walks, so speaking, inch by inch to different directions.

Yet those who study law have the tendency to think that the compact substances that make up/undergird the present jurisprudence and laws will hopefully retain their permanence. It is this impetus that drives us to memorize each word of each line in the exact order as written.

Of course this is never the case—pun intended. For while law students get busy with reading and learning the day’s assignments, someone somewhere or something outside of the classroom begins or ripens to fruition that will shake things up and consequently shuffle the black letter/words in the syllabus.

This is distressful for the students and the teachers because if nothing ever stays the same then there is nothing that needs remembering. In the extreme sense the students face only a blank paper, a magic etch-a-sketch, or an unsaved word document. The words just do not seem to stay put, prepositions, articles, qualifiers, nouns prancing about before eventually disappearing completely.

To go back to the primary proposition, if you find the lawyer joke funny then you need to, alas, read some more.

You and I are in reality face the same danger of disappearance, of non-permanence. Recall an event from any of your happiest childhood memories, something strong and vivid. If you were then asked whether you were actually there in that particular moment, then you would have probably said you were.

Surprisingly, that is not entirely accurate. You were not there. Truth to tell, not one atom that is in your body today was there. Matter flows from place to place and momentarily comes together to make up you. Whatever you were then before you are not the stuff you are now made (Richard Dawkins – Queerer than we can suppose).

Wherefore, it follows that the lawyer asked a valid question about the photo to which the proper answer would have been that the witness was not actually there at that time, which would have probably and ultimately exonerated him from/of his criminal charges.

Who said lawyers were stupid? That is all.

I must memorize labor standards provisions now!

Kkthxbye

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 13th, 2008 at 9:19 am and is filed under Law School. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.