Law School Discussion

Gunners....

Momo09

  • ****
  • 334
    • View Profile
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #30 on: May 12, 2007, 12:41:55 AM »
I didn't mean for a post to be an abortion issue.  Just a silly illustration of what a typcial conversation in a classroom would sound like.  The substance of what I wrote isn't that important, or the spelling of a case.....

But I think there is a fundmental difference between an intellectual discussion about the validity of reasoning used by the courts and whether they stepped out of bounds or just follows a "evolutionary" approach versus imposing one's ignorance on the whole class.  I think ever since Marshall's days the SCOTUS has made up a bunch of bull just to get to the results they needed.  But early on I realized what I think isn't important at all, but my job is to figure out why you think the way you do and how I can convince 12 other people why I should have the better argument at the end of the day and have enough knowledge in the judicial reasoning process to forecast how I'm going to win....

You plan to be a trial lawyer, eh?

hopefully not, but the best defense is a strong offense.  If the other side knows you are not afraid of a trial, they are more likely to settle quickly.

Nimmy

  • ****
  • 201
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #31 on: May 14, 2007, 04:12:28 AM »
The person who always raises hands and said: "I just don't see how the Supreme Court can get it sooooo wrong.  It's obvious Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and we should all stone women to death who wants an abortion because that's what (insert your source) says."  The professor will reply "well the courts have found women have a right to privacy as interpreted thru the Constitution, as evolved from Douglass's opinon in Grieswald and his penumbra of fundamental rights derived from the Bill of Rights."  The annoying/stupid: "Douglass was soooo worng in his penumbra crap,  I don't see how he can just make that stuff uo.  Blackmun was wrong in his 75 pages of analysis in Row v Wade,......  I just don't understand.....  I still don't see how or why people should have this right.....  I don't get why is is even a privacy issue....."

"Grieswald?"     ;)

I'm anything but a gunner, but I actually have to agree with the (probably not) hypothetical gunner in this example.  Let me preface all of this by saying I don't want to get into an abortion battle here - and for that reason, I will leave my personal opinion on that subject out of this.  That said... 

First of all, he did indeed "just make stuff up" with the whole penumbra thing.  Research it further, that's precisely what he did.

The question is whether it was 'proper' to make stuff up in the fashion he did.  There is little debate in the academic community, however, that this was basically pulled out of thin air.  The questions are - 1) Was this legal?  and 2) Are the theoretical underpinnings solid?

The answer to #1, as anyone first year con law student knows, is almost always yes, regardless of the circumstance (see  bush v. gore).  The SCOTUS is the final word, period.

This leaves question #2 - are the theoretical underpinnings of the griswold-esque "penumbras" 'solid?'  After an A in con law 1 and a probable A in con law 2, I still am not sure about this.  But what I am sure about is that it is certainly a debatable point - as is almost every point in con law. 

Unfortunately, con law does tend to bring out the inner-gunner in everyone.  But I think this is the one class where this is okay, as all of this stuff is very debatable, and in the case of the exact point of law you referenced - I think that the gunner is definitely more on point in his perspective than you are.

Okay, I'm done now  :)

And yes, I swear I'm not a gunner.  I'm actually an anti-gunner, however you wouldn't guess that from reading this post. 

I didn't read anything past your first paragraph because you are undoubtedly an annoying/stupid and I pray to God you aren't in any of my classes.  Thank you for your brief 0L rhetorical assessment of abortion rights in the United States.  You are obviously well qualified to give an opinion and to challenge the reasoning of numerous Supreme Court Justices.  Would you like to explain to me why people taken into custody should not be read their Miranda Rights next?

Booyakasha2

  • ****
  • 1109
  • Dig to get jiggy wiv mr. biggy
    • View Profile
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #32 on: May 14, 2007, 04:39:19 AM »
I'd never heard of the term until I got on this board... and yeah, it just clicks. How do you spot a gunner in a class?

what a gunner

Captain

  • ****
  • 3316
    • View Profile
    • http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/5526/thumbid5.jpg
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #33 on: May 14, 2007, 05:58:22 AM »
I hope I'm not a gunner.  I'm the type who gets sick of the professor asking a question, followed by three minutes of silence.  I raise my hand a lot, but only if no one else is...  :-\

The first step to breaking that habit, is to remember that Professors are not people.

There, now you don't feel bad for them.

tacojohn

  • ****
  • 984
  • "I voted. P. Diddy told us to vote"
    • ICQ Messenger - 176834534
    • MSN Messenger - tacojohniu@msn.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - TacoJohnIU
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - tacojohniu@yahoo.com
    • View Profile
    • Fearfully Optimistic
    • Email
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #34 on: May 14, 2007, 06:18:18 AM »
The "study all the time/never share an ounce of knowledge with anyone else" uber-competitive person is not a gunner.  They're just pricks, and karma has a way of getting back at them because at some point during the three years, they'll need help from someone else in the class, and won't get it.

There's basically two main types of gunners in class: know-it-alls and people who have to give their opinions.  The difference between participating and being a know-it-all gunner is that you either don't give anyone else a chance to participate, you attempt to prove the professor wrong, or you belittle another student's incorrect attempt.  You know you're giving your opinion too much when more than have your comments start with "I feel."

One of the biggest hints you're dealing with a gunner is an inability to deal with a professor's hypotheticals.  The gunner thinks he has it all figured out, then the professor introduces a situation he hadn't thought of.  Rather than taking a stab at something he isn't sure about, or admitting he doesn't have that strong of a grasp on the material, he changes the hypothetical and gives the professor an answer based on that, to prove to everyone how much he does know.

Re: Gunners....
« Reply #35 on: May 14, 2007, 07:50:11 AM »
I still like the line from Rounders: if you're playing poker and can't figure out who the sucker is, it's you. Same goes for gunners.

Seriously though, you can still volunteer in class and not be a gunner. It's all about attitude (and how often you volunteer). You get brownie points if you volunteer after a gunner and destroy everything they just said  ;)
I probably volunteered twice a week (for all my classes combined, not per class) when I thought I knew the answer or had something relevant to say. It's all about the delivery- you make it seem like you know it al land you're "enlightening" the rest of us with your comments, your law school classmates will hate, but hey, so will anyone else you come in contact with. Just be a decent human being. And don't forget karma and the golden rule.

Re: Gunners....
« Reply #36 on: May 14, 2007, 08:13:10 AM »
...offers notes to anyone, even the guy/girl that missed class because of bar review.

Is this really the norm?  I don't mean to sound like a jerk but if someone missed class because they were drunk in UG that is one thing, but in law school I would find it hard to take that person seriously.  I would willingly give notes to anyone who had a decent reason for missing a class, but I think missing class in law school for being hungover is extremeley irresponsible. 

Anyone want to give a reason why peers should bail out a fellow student for their irresponsibility?

By the way I am just a OL, so what do I know

beeker

  • ****
  • 469
    • View Profile
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #37 on: May 14, 2007, 08:23:47 AM »
...offers notes to anyone, even the guy/girl that missed class because of bar review.

Is this really the norm?  I don't mean to sound like a jerk but if someone missed class because they were drunk in UG that is one thing, but in law school I would find it hard to take that person seriously.  I would willingly give notes to anyone who had a decent reason for missing a class, but I think missing class in law school for being hungover is extremeley irresponsible. 

Anyone want to give a reason why peers should bail out a fellow student for their irresponsibility?

By the way I am just a OL, so what do I know

Well, because you would hope they would return the favor for you.

I mean, if it's someone who never ever goes, then don't share, fine.  But if the person who sits next to you has one or two rough mornings and they miss...you really wouldn't share?

You'll probably need it at some point, too.

aerynn

  • ****
  • 1182
  • Wait, what?
    • View Profile
    • http://lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=aerynn
    • Email
Re: Gunners....
« Reply #38 on: May 14, 2007, 08:36:35 AM »
The person who always raises hands and said: "I just don't see how the Supreme Court can get it sooooo wrong.  It's obvious Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and we should all stone women to death who wants an abortion because that's what (insert your source) says."  The professor will reply "well the courts have found women have a right to privacy as interpreted thru the Constitution, as evolved from Douglass's opinon in Grieswald and his penumbra of fundamental rights derived from the Bill of Rights."  The annoying/stupid: "Douglass was soooo worng in his penumbra crap,  I don't see how he can just make that stuff uo.  Blackmun was wrong in his 75 pages of analysis in Row v Wade,......  I just don't understand.....  I still don't see how or why people should have this right.....  I don't get why is is even a privacy issue....."

"Grieswald?"     ;)

I'm anything but a gunner, but I actually have to agree with the (probably not) hypothetical gunner in this example.  Let me preface all of this by saying I don't want to get into an abortion battle here - and for that reason, I will leave my personal opinion on that subject out of this.  That said... 

First of all, he did indeed "just make stuff up" with the whole penumbra thing.  Research it further, that's precisely what he did.

The question is whether it was 'proper' to make stuff up in the fashion he did.  There is little debate in the academic community, however, that this was basically pulled out of thin air.  The questions are - 1) Was this legal?  and 2) Are the theoretical underpinnings solid?

The answer to #1, as anyone first year con law student knows, is almost always yes, regardless of the circumstance (see  bush v. gore).  The SCOTUS is the final word, period.

This leaves question #2 - are the theoretical underpinnings of the griswold-esque "penumbras" 'solid?'  After an A in con law 1 and a probable A in con law 2, I still am not sure about this.  But what I am sure about is that it is certainly a debatable point - as is almost every point in con law. 

Unfortunately, con law does tend to bring out the inner-gunner in everyone.  But I think this is the one class where this is okay, as all of this stuff is very debatable, and in the case of the exact point of law you referenced - I think that the gunner is definitely more on point in his perspective than you are.

Okay, I'm done now  :)

And yes, I swear I'm not a gunner.  I'm actually an anti-gunner, however you wouldn't guess that from reading this post. 

I didn't read anything past your first paragraph because you are undoubtedly an annoying/stupid and I pray to God you aren't in any of my classes.  Thank you for your brief 0L rhetorical assessment of abortion rights in the United States.  You are obviously well qualified to give an opinion and to challenge the reasoning of numerous Supreme Court Justices.  Would you like to explain to me why people taken into custody should not be read their Miranda Rights next?

If you'd read the whole thing, you would know he is a current law student.

And I agree with Momo and what others have said . . . it is more than volunteering in class, at least in my opinion, but what you say after you volunteer.  There are several people in my class that usually have something to say, but they seem to consistently move the ball forward when they do, instead of ask stupid questions based on what they read in USA Today, not the casebook. 

I also have a tougher time with the person who doesn't volunteer much in class, but who instead has little anxiety-provoking conversations outside of class.
"How long is your outline?"
"Oh, I haven't really counted."
"Mine's 56 pages, but I am working on a 2 page power outline and a tabbed index, so I think it will be a great resource on the exam."
"The exam is 2 months away!"
"I know, I've also been making flashcards.  I'd show them to you, but they only make sense to me"
"Oh."
"Man, did you get the that case about the spring gun?  Crazy!"
"Huh?  No.  That wasn't in the reading."
"Oh, it must be in the assignments for next week.  I'm read ahead about 50 pages in all my classes!  Well, enough chit chat, I've gotta go!  See you later!"

That person is far worse than the one who merely talks in class.

Re: Gunners....
« Reply #39 on: May 14, 2007, 08:40:43 AM »
...offers notes to anyone, even the guy/girl that missed class because of bar review.

Is this really the norm?  I don't mean to sound like a jerk but if someone missed class because they were drunk in UG that is one thing, but in law school I would find it hard to take that person seriously.  I would willingly give notes to anyone who had a decent reason for missing a class, but I think missing class in law school for being hungover is extremeley irresponsible. 

Anyone want to give a reason why peers should bail out a fellow student for their irresponsibility?

By the way I am just a OL, so what do I know

Well, because you would hope they would return the favor for you.

I mean, if it's someone who never ever goes, then don't share, fine.  But if the person who sits next to you has one or two rough mornings and they miss...you really wouldn't share?

You'll probably need it at some point, too.

I understand what you are saying, I have just always been the kid in undergrad that even after a night of partying has been prepared for class, and thus been asked a lot for notes from people who missed or were incoherent in class.  I think I will have a tough time getting myself through LS, let along babying someone else through.  

I get it though...karma...help someone else out, and then in the future they may help you when you need it.  I just know how some people are and once you give them and inch they take a mile. I am not saying that I will never share my notes, but I guess I just don't understand this "share your notes with anyone who asks for them" mentality.