![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Oktober | Nov 2014 | OP |
msanthrope | Nov 2014 | #1 | |
Logical | Nov 2014 | #65 | |
MattBaggins | Nov 2014 | #77 | |
Logical | Nov 2014 | #78 | |
msanthrope | Nov 2014 | #114 | |
rug | Nov 2014 | #119 | |
Xipe Totec | Nov 2014 | #2 | |
Nye Bevan | Nov 2014 | #3 | |
Lurks Often | Nov 2014 | #4 | |
La Lioness Priyanka | Nov 2014 | #5 | |
Oktober | Nov 2014 | #7 | |
dilby | Nov 2014 | #9 | |
TorchTheWitch | Nov 2014 | #33 | |
La Lioness Priyanka | Nov 2014 | #35 | |
Nye Bevan | Nov 2014 | #39 | |
Logical | Nov 2014 | #66 | |
Nye Bevan | Nov 2014 | #71 | |
Logical | Nov 2014 | #74 | |
Nye Bevan | Nov 2014 | #79 | |
BlueJazz | Nov 2014 | #63 | |
DrDan | Nov 2014 | #45 | |
Renew Deal | Nov 2014 | #55 | |
KinMd | Nov 2014 | #76 | |
dilby | Nov 2014 | #6 | |
ZombieHorde | Nov 2014 | #8 | |
La Lioness Priyanka | Nov 2014 | #10 | |
badtoworse | Nov 2014 | #11 | |
ZombieHorde | Nov 2014 | #16 | |
badtoworse | Nov 2014 | #30 | |
ZombieHorde | Nov 2014 | #85 | |
badtoworse | Nov 2014 | #89 | |
NCTraveler | Nov 2014 | #96 | |
badtoworse | Nov 2014 | #97 | |
NCTraveler | Nov 2014 | #98 | |
badtoworse | Nov 2014 | #99 | |
ZombieHorde | Nov 2014 | #105 | |
NCTraveler | Nov 2014 | #116 | |
ZombieHorde | Nov 2014 | #121 | |
ZombieHorde | Nov 2014 | #101 | |
badtoworse | Nov 2014 | #117 | |
ZombieHorde | Nov 2014 | #120 | |
LanternWaste | Nov 2014 | #34 | |
ZombieHorde | Nov 2014 | #83 | |
pipi_k | Nov 2014 | #47 | |
ZombieHorde | Nov 2014 | #84 | |
Logical | Nov 2014 | #68 | |
badtoworse | Nov 2014 | #90 | |
dilby | Nov 2014 | #12 | |
ZombieHorde | Nov 2014 | #17 | |
dilby | Nov 2014 | #25 | |
ZombieHorde | Nov 2014 | #80 | |
Oktober | Nov 2014 | #13 | |
ZombieHorde | Nov 2014 | #82 | |
NCTraveler | Nov 2014 | #21 | |
pipi_k | Nov 2014 | #48 | |
Hippo_Tron | Nov 2014 | #62 | |
Nye Bevan | Nov 2014 | #111 | |
alphafemale | Nov 2014 | #118 | |
NCTraveler | Nov 2014 | #95 | |
Nye Bevan | Nov 2014 | #40 | |
ZombieHorde | Nov 2014 | #81 | |
Nye Bevan | Nov 2014 | #86 | |
ZombieHorde | Nov 2014 | #87 | |
Nye Bevan | Nov 2014 | #92 | |
ZombieHorde | Nov 2014 | #100 | |
leftynyc | Nov 2014 | #14 | |
NobodyHere | Nov 2014 | #15 | |
Nye Bevan | Nov 2014 | #41 | |
DrDan | Nov 2014 | #44 | |
jberryhill | Nov 2014 | #51 | |
OriginalGeek | Nov 2014 | #18 | |
Old Nick | Nov 2014 | #20 | |
Ykcutnek | Nov 2014 | #19 | |
NCTraveler | Nov 2014 | #26 | |
Logical | Nov 2014 | #67 | |
wandy | Nov 2014 | #22 | |
former9thward | Nov 2014 | #107 | |
wandy | Nov 2014 | #112 | |
former9thward | Nov 2014 | #113 | |
DebJ | Nov 2014 | #23 | |
NobodyHere | Nov 2014 | #57 | |
DebJ | Nov 2014 | #60 | |
NobodyHere | Nov 2014 | #73 | |
Iggo | Nov 2014 | #24 | |
Oktober | Nov 2014 | #27 | |
OriginalGeek | Nov 2014 | #31 | |
dilby | Nov 2014 | #28 | |
Boom Sound 416 | Nov 2014 | #29 | |
lpbk2713 | Nov 2014 | #32 | |
Hassin Bin Sober | Nov 2014 | #42 | |
chrisa | Nov 2014 | #36 | |
Oktober | Nov 2014 | #37 | |
IADEMO2004 | Nov 2014 | #38 | |
DrDan | Nov 2014 | #43 | |
bigwillq | Nov 2014 | #46 | |
pipi_k | Nov 2014 | #49 | |
bigwillq | Nov 2014 | #52 | |
WillowTree | Nov 2014 | #50 | |
Louisiana1976 | Nov 2014 | #58 | |
Nye Bevan | Nov 2014 | #59 | |
Logical | Nov 2014 | #69 | |
WillowTree | Nov 2014 | #72 | |
Logical | Nov 2014 | #75 | |
Nye Bevan | Nov 2014 | #93 | |
Throd | Nov 2014 | #53 | |
Renew Deal | Nov 2014 | #54 | |
Recursion | Nov 2014 | #56 | |
Hippo_Tron | Nov 2014 | #61 | |
Logical | Nov 2014 | #64 | |
Egnever | Nov 2014 | #70 | |
JonLP24 | Nov 2014 | #88 | |
WhiteAndNerdy | Nov 2014 | #91 | |
RedCappedBandit | Nov 2014 | #94 | |
Recursion | Nov 2014 | #103 | |
RedCappedBandit | Nov 2014 | #104 | |
Recursion | Nov 2014 | #106 | |
RedCappedBandit | Nov 2014 | #108 | |
Recursion | Nov 2014 | #109 | |
RedCappedBandit | Nov 2014 | #115 | |
Nye Bevan | Nov 2014 | #110 | |
Recursion | Nov 2014 | #102 |
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:04 PM
msanthrope (37,549 posts)
1. Absolutely. As a criminal defense attorney, I will note to you that the judge did not respond at
all to the first use of profanity.
But the gay slur used against the judge was deserving of time. And the judge was extremely patient. The continued misbehavior? Yeah....120 days, served concurrently with the no bond, is about right. He could probably get it cut if he sobers up and writes a letter of apology to the judge. |
Response to msanthrope (Reply #1)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 11:50 PM
Logical (22,457 posts)
65. LOL, of course you would support 4 months in jail for cussing. You are part of the problem. nt
Response to Logical (Reply #65)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 01:08 AM
MattBaggins (7,872 posts)
77. Judges must maintain order
Response to MattBaggins (Reply #77)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 01:14 AM
Logical (22,457 posts)
78. Well shit, let's make it three years, that will teach him. Nt
Response to Logical (Reply #65)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:46 PM
msanthrope (37,549 posts)
114. As I noted, the sentence was running concurrent with a revoke. Further,
as I noted, most judges will cut a contempt sentence with a sincere apology.
A defendant she will not show the court respect will probably not show the public defender respect.... as an attorney who has been frightened by clients, even assaulted by clients, and yet still maintains faith in the justice system, it is not I who is part of the problem. Who are you to judge me? I have stoid at the bar of the court advocating for the rights of those who are dispossessed. What do you do? |
Response to msanthrope (Reply #1)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:30 PM
rug (82,333 posts)
119. He didn't run it concurrently with his no bond status on the open case.
There is no sentence to run in concurrent with.
Assuming, which you did, that he will be convicted on the open charge, it will be the decision of the judge who imposes that sentence whether that will run concurrent with these contempt sentences. I highly doubt the judge punished him because it was a homophobic slur. He punished him because he dissed him. These video arraignments are bad enough without some jackass in a black robe thumping his chest. |
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:07 PM
Xipe Totec (43,706 posts)
2. Reespect mah athorithay! nt
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:10 PM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
3. Reminded me of "The Breakfast Club" where Bender kept getting more detentions.
And yes, it was fair.
|
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:10 PM
Lurks Often (5,455 posts)
4. Getting into a pissing contest with a judge usually isn't a good idea.
The rocket scientist should have kept his mouth shut and let his attorney do the talking.
|
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:11 PM
La Lioness Priyanka (53,866 posts)
5. no, not fair. way too long a sentence especially for people who are not familiar with courts etc
Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #5)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:13 PM
Oktober (1,488 posts)
7. Probably could have figured it out after the first one...
Impulse control problems it seems...
|
Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #5)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:14 PM
dilby (2,273 posts)
9. Guy was about to get just 60 days but then he had to push it even further.
He deserved it.
|
Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #5)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:57 PM
TorchTheWitch (11,065 posts)
33. not familiar with courts???
People actually need to be TOLD not to curse at the judge???
![]() |
Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #33)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 05:10 PM
La Lioness Priyanka (53,866 posts)
35. putting aways omeone for 4 months because they cursed at a judge is beyond stupid
Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #35)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 06:33 PM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
39. I have a feeling he won't do it again.
So it kind of had the desired effect.
|
Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #39)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 11:51 PM
Logical (22,457 posts)
66. Well shit, then make it 6 months. What a stupid argument. nt
Response to Logical (Reply #66)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 12:05 AM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
71. Deterrence is stupid?
The judge did exactly what is needed to maintain decorum in his courtroom.
|
Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #71)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 01:02 AM
Logical (22,457 posts)
74. LOL, Exactly? so somehow you know two weeks wouldnt of worked?? Nt
Response to Logical (Reply #74)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 01:14 AM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
79. Well he got 60 days for saying it the first time, then he promptly did it again.
So I strongly suspect that 2 weeks would indeed not have worked.
|
Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #35)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 11:47 PM
BlueJazz (25,348 posts)
63. Nearly everybody here thinks the extra 60 days is fair. I'm not sure about it but...
..I do know this: Why in the hell do the taxpayers have to pay for this guys room and board because he's drunk and had a thinking problem, while in court. He was gonna' get 60 days anyway..I don't want to pay for his "Manners".
If he was homeless, I'd be in a more caring mood. ![]() |
Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #5)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 07:16 PM
DrDan (20,411 posts)
45. the guy had his opportunity to keep it at 60 days . . . he decided to push it
the length of the sentence was based on TWO infractions - he should have figured that out after the first
no sympathy from me - that judge gets my vote |
Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #5)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 08:12 PM
Renew Deal (81,067 posts)
55. What kind of familiarity do you need to know not to call the judge a cock?
Twice?
|
Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #5)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 01:04 AM
KinMd (966 posts)
76. I have a hunch it's not his first time in court
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:13 PM
dilby (2,273 posts)
6. Guy deserved it.
Maybe next time he will show a little respect or at a minimum keep his stupid mouth shut when he is standing in front of the Judge. Most of the Judges I have had interaction with were pretty fair and even helped explain the law to people, they are not cops, they don't take sides.
|
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:14 PM
ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)
8. No, that's absurd.
Locking people in cages should only be done to protect the public, and calling the judge names is not harmful to the public.
|
Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #8)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:20 PM
La Lioness Priyanka (53,866 posts)
10. agreed.
Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #8)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:25 PM
badtoworse (5,957 posts)
11. Strongly disagree. Respect for the law is very much in the public interest.
This moron's conduct would undermine that respect if the judge did not respond appropriately.
|
Response to badtoworse (Reply #11)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:37 PM
ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)
16. The law is often against public interest.
Law is violence and paperwork, and this violence and paperwork isn't always being used to protect us. In fact, this violence and paperwork is often used against us. Institutional racism, homelessness, hunger, and the highest incarceration rates in the world is what our laws have given us, amongst some beneficial things as well.
We should have absolutely no respect for the law, and instead lay our respect on humanity. People above law. People above tradition. Law is a fantastic servant, but a terrible master. |
Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #16)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:52 PM
badtoworse (5,957 posts)
30. Thanks, but I'll stick with the law. - nt
Response to badtoworse (Reply #30)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 02:30 AM
ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)
85. Why is that? nt
Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #85)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:36 AM
badtoworse (5,957 posts)
89. I'm not a big fan of anarchy.
|
Response to badtoworse (Reply #89)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:33 AM
NCTraveler (30,481 posts)
96. Nothing the poster said would bring about anarchy in any way. nt.
Response to NCTraveler (Reply #96)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:38 AM
badtoworse (5,957 posts)
97. "We should have absolutely no respect for the law, ...
... and instead lay our respect on humanity. People above law. People above tradition." Sounds great, but it's a recipe for anarchy
|
Response to badtoworse (Reply #97)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:41 AM
NCTraveler (30,481 posts)
98. No, its not.
If you read what they have written in this thread, it is clear they are not advocating a position that is consistent with anarchy in any way. It is pretty clear. It is just easier for you to throw out "anarchy" and not actually debate. It is an attempt to label them with a label that doesn't fit. Pretty bad technique.
|
Response to NCTraveler (Reply #98)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:50 AM
badtoworse (5,957 posts)
99. Anarchy was in response to ZombieHorde's post that talked about no respect for the law.
Sorry, but where there is no respect for the law, you have anarchy.
As for the thread as a whole, calling a judge a "cocksucker" is very disrespectful of the law (and pretty stupid). I have no sympathy for him. |
Response to NCTraveler (Reply #98)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:21 PM
ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)
105. Thank you.
I would like to think most people understand moderation. I want a strong, socialist government, but I also want it to be as nonviolent as possible. The US locks up far too many people, in my opinion.
|
Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #105)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:50 PM
NCTraveler (30,481 posts)
116. From your few, yet succint words here, I think we take a similar stance.
I do think you bring it a little further than I would but overall our thoughts are in the same direction. The changes we would like to see are huge. Far too many people are in jail who pose no threat to anyone. It is awful and takes away opportunity because of mistakes.<- Not the best wording but it gets my point across. Mistake is such a relevant term.
I didn't understand the anarchist label being put on you by the other poster. A couple of things you wrote were not in line with anarchy so I felt it was just a way to label you in order to shut down debate. It happens all too often and I have been guilty of it myself. It is easier than thinking. "The US locks up far too many people, in my opinion." I would like to think a majority agree with your opinion. I do question that when I read some of the things here. I often see people very gleeful over long sentences of non-violent offenders. The cheering of a four month sentence for mouthing off to a judge kind of let me know where my thoughts stand in reference to progressives around me on this topic. |
Response to NCTraveler (Reply #116)
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 03:03 AM
ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)
121. I suspect
some people have a hard time viewing law as a tool, rather than an absolute.
|
Response to badtoworse (Reply #89)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:13 PM
ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)
101. I was advocating nonviolent solutions to nonviolent problems.
This doesn't require anarchy, but it may require a moderate view of law. When asked, most people on DU admit to being criminals, and I don't believe they need to be subjected to violence and neither do they. So many people, at least here and at least for themselves, want a moderate view of law, as opposed to the two extremes of anarchy and law as highest ideal.
The situation in the video was even tamer than the crimes of many DUers (drugs and piracy), and I don't think being peaceful when someone mutters an insult as they walk away from a judge will lead to the downfall of the US government. If that is all it takes, then the US is doomed anyway, and we might as well be peaceful in our final days. |
Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #101)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:54 PM
badtoworse (5,957 posts)
117. You've moderated your position
"We should have absolutely no respect for the law..." were your words. That is the essence of anarchy.
We have a very different view as to the proper place for the law in our society. You're OK with calling a judge a cocksucker and I'm not. I don't think we are going to find any common ground. |
Response to badtoworse (Reply #117)
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 02:48 AM
ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)
120. I don't think calling anyone a cocksucker is cool.
I just don't think the behavior requires violence. I believe words should be used against words.
|
Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #16)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:58 PM
LanternWaste (37,748 posts)
34. Was the law against the public interest in the hearing when this particular case took place?
Was the law against the public interest in the hearing when this particular case took place? If not, what's the precise relevance of that sentiment?
|
Response to LanternWaste (Reply #34)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 02:27 AM
ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)
83. My statement was about how we treat people.
Should we use violence against those who call people names? I don't think so, but I am definitely in the minority on that.
|
Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #16)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 07:24 PM
pipi_k (21,020 posts)
47. OK, let's forget
respect for the law.
How about respect for one's self. Respect for other people. Unless the guy has Tourette's or something, he's got no excuse for acting like an asshole in a place that other people respect. I would say the same thing about anyone acting like an asshole in church, even though I'm an atheist. |
Response to pipi_k (Reply #47)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 02:28 AM
ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)
84. Would you sentence someone to 120 days in jail for calling
the minister a bad name while he or she walked out of the church?
|
Response to badtoworse (Reply #11)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 11:54 PM
Logical (22,457 posts)
68. LOL, do you really pay attention to the legal system......
need some examples of rulings that really make the legal system look bad?
You make me laugh. |
Response to Logical (Reply #68)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:39 AM
badtoworse (5,957 posts)
90. So how would what this jerk did improve things?
Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #8)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:28 PM
dilby (2,273 posts)
12. To be fair the guy was in front of the judge for assault with a knife.
In my opinion that did make him a danger to the public.
|
Response to dilby (Reply #12)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:38 PM
ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)
17. I agree, but that is not why he was sentenced for 120 days. nt
Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #17)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:49 PM
dilby (2,273 posts)
25. What would our court system look like if you could just address the judge anyway you like?
There is a reason we allow Judges to put people in contempt of court and it's to keep our court systems from looking like complete Anarchy.
|
Response to dilby (Reply #25)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 02:17 AM
ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)
80. The guy made a rude remark as he walked away.
He wasn't interfering with our punishment system in anyway.
|
Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #8)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:29 PM
Oktober (1,488 posts)
13. It degrades the authority of the justice system...
... and some would consider that harm.
|
Response to Oktober (Reply #13)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 02:20 AM
ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)
82. The justice system is corrupt, and should be degraded. nt
Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #8)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:46 PM
NCTraveler (30,481 posts)
21. While I don't agree with what he did....
and think there should be some form of repercussion, locking him in a cage for 120 days is more of a reflection of society than what he did. We need to stop this lust for locking people up. It really is disturbing. I don't get the lust some have for this form of punishment. This 120 days was only for his courtroom behavior, which was bad, but it doesn't justify a jail cell for four months. How about using one brain cell and coming up with a different solution for him, jail won't make him a better person.
|
Response to NCTraveler (Reply #21)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 07:26 PM
pipi_k (21,020 posts)
48. What would you suggest
as an alternative to jail?
|
Response to pipi_k (Reply #48)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 11:46 PM
Hippo_Tron (25,453 posts)
62. How about a night in jail to see if he gets the message...
He can then come back the next day and try again. Repeat as needed. 120 days off the bat is fucking ridiculous.
|
Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #62)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:40 PM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
111. Well, he got 60 days off the bat the first time he did it, then he promptly did it again.
So obviously 60 days was too short. And since he didn't do it a third time, I guess 120 days was long enough.
|
Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #62)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:16 PM
alphafemale (18,497 posts)
118. Just guessing he's a little late for a "Scared Straight" approach.
Also a safe bet that he's been incarcerated before.
He's a hothead. I can easily see this guy pulling a knife on someone. |
Response to pipi_k (Reply #48)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:32 AM
NCTraveler (30,481 posts)
95. Literally hundreds of suggestions over removing him from society and taking away his rights.
Not that difficult of a thought exercise.
|
Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #8)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 06:34 PM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
40. Should Bernie Madoff have gone to prison?
After all, he is no longer a threat to the public.
|
Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #40)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 02:19 AM
ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)
81. I am not benefited in any way by him being incarcerated.
I think his assets should have been confiscated and used to help repay his victims.
|
Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #81)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 02:42 AM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
86. The way that people benefit is that others may see the severe sentence he got,
and decide not to attempt to perpetrate similar scams, which would cause new victims to suffer losses.
|
Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #86)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 02:46 AM
ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)
87. Loss of assets would scare most wealthy people. nt
Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #87)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 08:24 AM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
92. Easy for them to stash millions beyond reach, even if they are caught.
It takes prison terms to really concentrate these people's minds.
|
Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #92)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 02:54 PM
ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)
100. I would rather we change that than continue our violence. nt
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:33 PM
leftynyc (26,060 posts)
14. The judge was more than patient
with the antics. Freak got what he deserved. Unless the judge addresses you, keep quiet and let your lawyer do the talking.
|
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:36 PM
NobodyHere (2,810 posts)
15. The guy should sue
His 1st amendment rights were violated...
But in all serious he shouldn't get jail time for insulting a judge. |
Response to NobodyHere (Reply #15)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 06:37 PM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
41. He has a First Amendment right to call a judge a "cocksucker" during court proceedings? (nt)
Response to NobodyHere (Reply #15)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 07:10 PM
DrDan (20,411 posts)
44. good luck with that . . . bet he would have a hard time finding someone to take that case
120 days seems appropriate
|
Response to NobodyHere (Reply #15)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 07:46 PM
jberryhill (62,444 posts)
51. and who is going to decide his suit? a judge. dismissed.
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:41 PM
OriginalGeek (12,132 posts)
18. Fuck no
Judges aren't god or even my mom. Ad I swore in front of my mom all the time and don;t give a fuck what god thinks...
Not my grandma though. The knife thing though, yeah that needs locking up. But nobody should be locked up for name-calling. Fuck you, judge. |
Response to OriginalGeek (Reply #18)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:45 PM
Old Nick (468 posts)
20. YOU BEAT ME TO IT!
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:41 PM
Ykcutnek (1,305 posts)
19. It's the law. Fair has nothing to do with it.
Contempt of court generally refers to conduct that defies, disrespects or insults the authority or dignity of a court. Often, contempt takes the form of actions that are seen as detrimental to the court's ability to administer justice.
Judges typically have much discretion in deciding whom to hold in contempt and the type of contempt. Those held in contempt can include parties to a proceeding, attorneys, witnesses, jurors, people in or around a proceeding, and officers or staff of the court itself. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/criminal-contempt-of-court.html#sthash.lE5UDGH9.dpuf |
Response to Ykcutnek (Reply #19)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:49 PM
NCTraveler (30,481 posts)
26. I don't think a cell was the only option with respect to punishment under the law. nt.
Response to Ykcutnek (Reply #19)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 11:53 PM
Logical (22,457 posts)
67. Wrong, the judge is not forced to use 120 days. WTF? nt
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:46 PM
wandy (3,539 posts)
22. I would say a judge deserves an amount of respect. Then...........
I would have to wonder what company runs that counties for profit prison.
Sad, isn't it. |
Response to wandy (Reply #22)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:26 PM
former9thward (29,025 posts)
107. Companies don't run county jails.
Response to former9thward (Reply #107)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:40 PM
wandy (3,539 posts)
112. Oh. Does that mean they are allowed to or.........
does it mean that companies like Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) do not see enough profit in it. Yet.
|
Response to wandy (Reply #112)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:44 PM
former9thward (29,025 posts)
113. It probably means counties have not found anybody willing to do it.
County jails have a very transient population. Prisons have a pretty stable population. Jails, on a per-person basis, are probably very costly to operate. I don't have any figures, just a guess.
|
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:47 PM
DebJ (7,699 posts)
23. He deserved it and needs some serious attitude adjustments.
Response to DebJ (Reply #23)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 09:12 PM
NobodyHere (2,810 posts)
57. You're right
The judge needs to change his ways and grow a thicker skin.
|
Response to NobodyHere (Reply #57)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 11:28 PM
DebJ (7,699 posts)
60. LOL nope. The dangerous brat with the attitude of a 2 year old.
Response to DebJ (Reply #60)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 12:28 AM
NobodyHere (2,810 posts)
73. So.....
the Judge?
|
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:48 PM
Iggo (46,624 posts)
24. So was that 60 days for the knife and 120 days for being rude?
Or 60 days for the knife and another 60 days for being rude?
Or something else? (I'm at work and I didn't watch the video.) |
Response to Iggo (Reply #24)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:49 PM
Oktober (1,488 posts)
27. 60 days for one insult... and then another 60 for a second when he wasn't happy about it...
Response to Oktober (Reply #27)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:53 PM
OriginalGeek (12,132 posts)
31. YEah that's ridiculous
and makes me respect the court less when I see dumb shit like that.
A couple hours I could see. Maybe even a day to cool off if the guy was belligerent and drunk and a danger and needed cooling off time but 120 days for an insult is abusing power in my opinion. |
Response to Iggo (Reply #24)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:52 PM
dilby (2,273 posts)
28. He had his bond revoked so he swore
which the Judge ignored, then he called the Judge a cock sucker and got 60 days, then he proceeded to call more names and got another 60 days. Finally he listened to his lawyer and shut the fuck up.
|
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:52 PM
Boom Sound 416 (4,185 posts)
29. No. Calling a judge a cock does though
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 04:53 PM
lpbk2713 (42,068 posts)
32. Strange as it may seem a courtroom is not a democracy.
It's the judge's own little domain. And as long as he stays within certain guidelines and doesn't get too extreme he can do whatever he wants whenever he wants. |
Response to lpbk2713 (Reply #32)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 06:51 PM
Hassin Bin Sober (25,622 posts)
42. A criminal defense attorney friend calls it "robe fever" when judges act like that..
I think the sentence is a bit extreme.
I've seen assaults and battery get less time. But I'm not going to hold a candle light vigil for this dbag either. |
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 05:19 PM
chrisa (4,524 posts)
36. Rule 1 in court: Shut the fuck up
It's not hard. Just shut the fuck up, and nothing bad will happen. Only an idiot would mouth off to a judge.
|
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 06:05 PM
IADEMO2004 (5,137 posts)
38. If dumb ass had said that to the judge in a grocery store he walks.
Dumb ass said it in a court room, our court room, our laws, our judge. You can't go after someone with a knife and piss and moan when you called on it. We have decided going after people with a knife is unacceptable and have laws to prohibit that behavior and dumb ass needs a time-out.
|
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 07:08 PM
DrDan (20,411 posts)
43. 100% appropriate
I appreciate a judge acting like an adult - he would get my vote
|
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 07:19 PM
bigwillq (72,790 posts)
46. Good for the judge.
I don't think any jail time should be served for cursing, but some folks need to learn about respect and how to behave.
I wouldn't mind some serious volunteer hours, at a hospice, or hospital or the VA for this dude. |
Response to bigwillq (Reply #46)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 07:33 PM
pipi_k (21,020 posts)
49. Not sure
I wouldn't mind some serious volunteer hours, at a hospice, or hospital or the VA for this dude.
Not sure I would consider anything that would put him in the presence of vulnerable people, seeing as he has a bit of difficulty controlling himself. ![]() |
Response to pipi_k (Reply #49)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 07:53 PM
bigwillq (72,790 posts)
52. Maybe--maybe--it would get him to appreciate
his life and his freedom by being surrounded by folks in a less fortunate situation.
|
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 07:36 PM
WillowTree (5,325 posts)
50. In the judge's sandbox, ya gotta play by the judge's rules. Absolutely fair.
The kid's a punk. Even 120 days probably won't sink in that his language and behavior were inappropriate.
|
Response to WillowTree (Reply #50)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 09:46 PM
Louisiana1976 (3,962 posts)
58. He'll probably learn even worse behavior from other inmates.
Response to Louisiana1976 (Reply #58)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 10:56 PM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
59. I have a feeling he won't be mouthing off to judges again, though (nt)
Response to WillowTree (Reply #50)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 11:55 PM
Logical (22,457 posts)
69. Not fair. 2 weeks is fair. nt
Response to Logical (Reply #69)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 12:23 AM
WillowTree (5,325 posts)
72. Only if it takes place in a venue that you control.
In the courtroom, the judge gets to have the final say about what is and isn't fair. And this guy was certainly old enough to know that. And c'mon! If this idiot didn't get the message when Hizhonner gave him the first 60 days, he deserves the additional 60 just for his monumental stupidity and/or arrogance.
|
Response to WillowTree (Reply #72)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 01:03 AM
Logical (22,457 posts)
75. Hey I get it tough sentences just like the GOP loves! nt
Response to Logical (Reply #69)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 08:25 AM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
93. He got 60 days the first time he did it, then promptly did it again.
So I don't know why you keep claiming that 2 weeks would have been appropriate.
|
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 08:03 PM
Throd (7,208 posts)
53. What did he think was going to happen? Not too bright, that one is. n/t
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 08:10 PM
Renew Deal (81,067 posts)
54. In this case yes.
He earned it. He's also accused of using a knife in a crime.
|
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 08:13 PM
Recursion (56,558 posts)
56. The inability to shut the hell up in court shows a lack of impulse control that is dangerous
Then again I've seen a kid manage to get his 90 day suspended jail sentence for DUI sentence un-suspended because he could not shut up for the 10 minutes it took to process him into the alcohol harm reduction program. Not sitting through the program, mind you, just having the social worker (or whoever that was) sign him up for it.
|
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 11:43 PM
Hippo_Tron (25,453 posts)
61. Please explain to me what good this does for society to have him in jail for 4 months
It's a ludicrous overreaction and it would only be acceptable in the incarceration capital of the world.
A more appropriate response by the judge would be to ask him to leave the courtroom until he can behave. At maximum a NIGHT in jail to let him think it over. |
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 11:50 PM
Logical (22,457 posts)
64. No, but judges get to do what they want. Immunity and all. nt
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 11:55 PM
Egnever (21,506 posts)
70. Yup totally fair.
The guy practically asked for it.
|
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 02:48 AM
JonLP24 (29,322 posts)
88. How many worse things can you do
and not receive any jail time and/or less time?
|
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:40 AM
WhiteAndNerdy (365 posts)
91. A person shouldn't behave that way.
But I don't think we should be locking *anyone* up unless they're a danger to society. We need to find better ways to deal with non-violent offenses than to put people in jail.
|
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 08:27 AM
RedCappedBandit (5,514 posts)
94. Absolutely absurd.
Creating criminals from people who made a simple, relatively harmless mistake.
|
Response to RedCappedBandit (Reply #94)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:18 PM
Recursion (56,558 posts)
103. How hard is it not to call a judge a cock?
Seriously. Don't call the judge you are facing a cock. I didn't realize that was obscure doctrine.
|
Response to Recursion (Reply #103)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:20 PM
RedCappedBandit (5,514 posts)
104. The issue is the fairness of the punishment.
"Don't break the law" isn't a response to the problem of mass incarceration, nor does it accomplish much here.
|
Response to RedCappedBandit (Reply #104)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:23 PM
Recursion (56,558 posts)
106. Contempt of court is not a question of law but of demeanor
The fact that he can't avoid calling the judge he is facing a cock indicates to me he has some serious impulse control problems, and also makes me more likely to believe the initial charge against him.
|
Response to Recursion (Reply #106)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:31 PM
RedCappedBandit (5,514 posts)
108. None of that has anything to do
with the absurdity of the jail time he was given for such an offense.
|
Response to RedCappedBandit (Reply #108)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:35 PM
Recursion (56,558 posts)
109. I don't see it as absurd.
When a defendant is brought before the Court, he is guaranteed due process and a lot of rights. Notice, for example, that throughout the entire exchange the judge referred to him only as "sir", except one time when he called him "dude" after the first (unpunished) cursing.
In return, we ask those who have stabbed their fellow man not to call the judge representing our legal system a cock, at least not so the judge can hear them. It's a strenuous burden, I know. |
Response to Recursion (Reply #109)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:50 PM
RedCappedBandit (5,514 posts)
115. Your sarcasm aside, we disagree.
Am I saying we shouldn't expect a modicum of respect in a court room? No. But sentences in this country are out of control, and this is an example of that.
"Guaranteed due process and a lot of rights." Yeah. Cool. Calling the guy "sir" is a farce that belies the truth of our poor justice system. The fact that the judge represents our legal system, as you put it, doesn't really mean much to the people victimized by that system. And don't extrapolate from that statement that I believe he shouldn't be there in the first place for stabbing someone, because that's not my position. I'm speaking from a macro level perspective; this individual case isn't really the point. Months in jail for words is absurd. Yep. |
Response to RedCappedBandit (Reply #108)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:38 PM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
110. Well he got 60 days for the first time he did it, then he promptly did it again.
So clearly 60 days was not enough. I guess 120 days was long enough because he did not then do it for a third time.
|
Response to Oktober (Original post)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:15 PM
Recursion (56,558 posts)
102. The judge was actually pretty cool for the first two times
"Yeah, man, I'm serious, you're not going anywhere. Next!" after the first time the dude cussed him out.
|