Cady was right.
I met an entertainment lawyer (young guy, guest speaker) when I was at Georgetown who wasn't even in the top-50% of his law class at Howard. He made $1.5M in 2004! No need to be partner at your firm or sports/talent agency, just be a hustler and build a good client base that will depend on you. Know your industries well and SAG, the NFL, the NBA, and all the rest will pay top-dollar for your consulting services or negotiating skills. Or if you want to go to Disney, well...have you heard about the salaries they pay? It's ridiculous.
F*cking bi+ch drinks a 1 oz bottle of goose and thinks she's French
1. There's a difference between having a defense and "getting [someone] off the hook." I never said that he wasn't entitled to representation. 2. Crazy female dog or no, there is never any excuse for the kinds of injuries inflicted on Rihanna. None whatsoever. It doesn't matter if anyone was there to witness it, I can tell you right now that there is no justification, and I can't believe that you would suggest that whether she's a crazy female dog has any relevance to the matter. Being an apologist for that kind of behavior is one of the things that perpetuates the problem. The only thing that would exonerate him would be if there was someone else there who beat her, and no one is suggesting that is the case.3. You know, I'm a little sick of people pulling out the "innocent until proven guilty" bull. This is, of course, absolutely vital in the courts, but I don't need a jury to tell me that he's a miserable human being who did something that is, to me, unforgivable. I may not want our justice system to pass judgment on him, or anyone else, without legally sufficient evidence, but that doesn't mean that I can't exercise my own judgment.
LawDog, I totally get what you're saying. The thing is though, Chris Brown never denied doing it. He never said he's innocent. In fact, he issued a public apology, basically stating that he did it and he's sorry. I understand that you're just trying to be fair and follow the law. That's great and all, but Chris Brown IS guilty. He never denied being guilty, Rihanna never denied he did it, and the picture, above all, speaks for itself.Anyway, I kinda feel bad for you, LawDog. I'm sure you didn't expect to have all these women riled up after defending Chris Brown, hehehehe.
Nope, I'm not thinking like a lawyer. Maybe when I start law school in the fall, I'll start thinking like a lawyer. For right now, though, I'm going to think like a person that has been involved with eradicating violence against women and girls for many years. I've raised over $16,000 for domestic abuse and rape victim services within my city over the last couple of years, and I am thoroughly educated on domestic abuse. Everything I've heard about the case has led me to believe that Mr. Brown is the picture perfect example of a "woman beater" and Rihanna sounds like the typical "victim" of domestic abuse. When I hear people defending Chris, I can't help thinking that they know very little about the intricacies of the typical "domestic abuse" case, because the whole Rihanna/Chris Brown situation fits the mold perfectly. No, I don't know the whole story, but I know enough to have an opinion on it, and I have a right to an opinion. And because I really do believe in my heart that he's guilty, and because I'm not yet a lawyer, I refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt and play along with the whole, "aww, but we don't know the facts yet!" Sorry, but in domestic abuse situations, we rarely learn all the facts. Maybe if he denied doing it, maybe if he didn't issue a public apology saying that he was sorry for what he did, maybe if Rihanna issued a statement saying that Chris wasn't the man that hurt her, maybe then I would give him the benefit of the doubt. And I don't care that Rihanna "is no angel". It still does not make beating the crap out of her okay, at least not in my book, and I won't ever defend a man that beats a woman that severely.