Swift justice especially when justice itself is the victim.
-
Again, seems reasonable to me. You deliberately poke something with the power to cause you pain in someway then you are going to have to accept the consequences. Be it a teacher, your boss, a tiger, a judge...
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
Remember that girl who was arrested many years ago for wearing some kind of anti-Blair T-shirt? She was arrested for it and possibly evicted from the rally or whatever it was she was attending. I'm not sure if it went much further. In the last really hot spells we had a couple of year ago, a driver was stuck in heavy traffic with a cop car behind her. She took a swig of water. Yup, Plod & Companion pulled her over and slapped a ticket on her for not being in control of her car. True, we have to accept the consequences of our actions but they too should exercise good stewardship over their authority over us. Mind you, I did like the recent case in the US where a judge fined himself for contempt of court because his cell phone rang during the critical phase when a defence attorney was summing up to the jury. He could of dismissed the case and sent himself to jail to 60 days. If it had been anybody elses phone but his it would probably have been dealt with more seriously.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
-
Remember that girl who was arrested many years ago for wearing some kind of anti-Blair T-shirt? She was arrested for it and possibly evicted from the rally or whatever it was she was attending. I'm not sure if it went much further. In the last really hot spells we had a couple of year ago, a driver was stuck in heavy traffic with a cop car behind her. She took a swig of water. Yup, Plod & Companion pulled her over and slapped a ticket on her for not being in control of her car. True, we have to accept the consequences of our actions but they too should exercise good stewardship over their authority over us. Mind you, I did like the recent case in the US where a judge fined himself for contempt of court because his cell phone rang during the critical phase when a defence attorney was summing up to the jury. He could of dismissed the case and sent himself to jail to 60 days. If it had been anybody elses phone but his it would probably have been dealt with more seriously.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
Bollocks to Blair[^] - total over-reaction by police. Drinking at lights[^] - total over-reaction by police. I don't think anyone ever claimed that quite a few coppers aren't massive cunts. :-D Drinking at lights appeal[^] - she lost cos she started drinking when at lights, but then drove off with the bottle still in her hand when the lights changed.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
-
If you do anything the judge doesn't like in a courtroom he can send you to prison for contempt. Punching him is probably going to annoy him a lot. I do like his defense that if he really wanted to hurt the judge he could have done. It's a bit like the Chris Huhne affair, he didn't go to prison for the driving offence but for not respecting the justice system. The justice system, however flawed, needs to be protected. I don't know the full details of the other case you mentioned or of the community service order given to him, and it looks like you don't either, but 18 months for attacking a judge in court seems reasonable to me.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
ChrisElston wrote:
18 months for attacking a judge in court seems reasonable to me.
Depends on the judge.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Anyone care to explain why they felt it necessary to hammer away on the abuse button for asking 'Why'?
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
I think it is a fierce insult in Swaziland. At least you can console yourself with the probable fact that you've just gained the record for the shortest comment to have received an abuse vote! Added 5-vote in the hope of it cancelling out.
“Education is not the piling on of learning, information, data, facts, skills, or abilities - that's training or instruction - but is rather making visible what is hidden as a seed”
“One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated”Sir Thomas More (1478 – 1535)
-
I think it is a fierce insult in Swaziland. At least you can console yourself with the probable fact that you've just gained the record for the shortest comment to have received an abuse vote! Added 5-vote in the hope of it cancelling out.
“Education is not the piling on of learning, information, data, facts, skills, or abilities - that's training or instruction - but is rather making visible what is hidden as a seed”
“One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated”Sir Thomas More (1478 – 1535)
-
You don't lose anything anymore (not that you really did before), just a bit bemused by it all.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
'tis curious, seemed a reasonable question to me. Depending on your standpoint, it is perfectly possible to believe the 18-months was either too lenient or excessive. As it stands I wouldn't hazard a guess which Richard thought.
“Education is not the piling on of learning, information, data, facts, skills, or abilities - that's training or instruction - but is rather making visible what is hidden as a seed”
“One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated”Sir Thomas More (1478 – 1535)
-
'tis curious, seemed a reasonable question to me. Depending on your standpoint, it is perfectly possible to believe the 18-months was either too lenient or excessive. As it stands I wouldn't hazard a guess which Richard thought.
“Education is not the piling on of learning, information, data, facts, skills, or abilities - that's training or instruction - but is rather making visible what is hidden as a seed”
“One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated”Sir Thomas More (1478 – 1535)
The maximum is 2 years. That was once given out to someone who punched a number of officers of a court, but reduced to 12 months on appeal because the judge made an instant decision rather than allowing time for things to calm down and an apology to be made.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
-
Once in a while, stories emerge from South American countries where referees are attacked violently by players and supporters because they ruled against them. I believe some referees have been shot and hanged in their soccer leagues. As for protecting the police, I remember an anti-crime poster from the '70s where the title read "Help The Police" to which someone added "Beat Yourself Up". I question whether the system of authority needs more protection. I'd like to think we are all entitled to the same degree of protection. It might cost more to protect some more than others but fundamentally my blood is the same colour as theirs and my farts stink just as good as theirs. At least we're partly equal.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
PHS241 wrote:
I question whether the system of authority needs more protection. I'd like to think we are all entitled to the same degree of protection.
Except the general public is not dealing with potentially violent criminals every day. Police, judges and prosecutors are hired to do our bidding against some pretty scummy people day after day. The least we can do is try to give them a little protection with a threat of greater punishment to those that attack them for doing their jobs.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
-
Too arbitrary and too much power in the judges hands. If I recall correctly, the US Supreme Court ruled that a judge cannot be held criminally liable for the decisions (sentences, for example) he hands down from the bench - even if he knew he was acting illegally. I can understand the first part, to an extent, to keep the judge's mind clear during sentencing, but the latter, that the law can be broken with impunity, is an outrage. So judges decided that judges aren't to be held accountable. Like senators doing insider trading without penalty. Or a rich b!tch, like Lindsay Lohan actually in contempt of court, repeatedly, and never spending more than a few hours in jail. Recalling a little jewel from Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote:
If I recall correctly, the US Supreme Court ruled that a judge cannot be held criminally liable for the decisions (sentences, for example) he hands down from the bench - even if he knew he was acting illegally.[citation needed]
Judges go to jail for doing other illegal things in court... not sure why this would be any different. Although googling it returns an alarming number of judges who were put away for receiving kickbacks from prisons in return for sentencing people there. That's just messed up.
Look at me still talking when there's science to do When I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you
-
W∴ Balboos wrote:
If I recall correctly, the US Supreme Court ruled that a judge cannot be held criminally liable for the decisions (sentences, for example) he hands down from the bench - even if he knew he was acting illegally.[citation needed]
Judges go to jail for doing other illegal things in court... not sure why this would be any different. Although googling it returns an alarming number of judges who were put away for receiving kickbacks from prisons in return for sentencing people there. That's just messed up.
Look at me still talking when there's science to do When I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you
The difference is that taking bribes, etc., is actually not an on-the-bench criminal act. The case that (if I recall correctly) that got the supreme court ruling had to do with a judge ordering the sterilization of a girl against her will. Even though he had no authority to do so, he was not held liable for willful criminal abuse of his powers. It was long ago. Protecting the judges from an error in judgement (pun intended) is one thing - but a blank check is absurd. But, it was, after all, judges writing other judges the check.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
A judge was attacked in court (read it here[^]). The perpetrator was arrested and slammed with a prison sentence within 24 hours for, apparently, "contempt of court". :-D One of our neighbours kids friend was beaten up in the town centre last year. The perpetrator was arrested a few days later and was charged. He got slapped on the wrist with a community service order while the victim suffered quite serious facial injuries by all accounts. It seems that if you punch a judge you go to jail, pronto like. Kick a kid in the face until he's nearly dead and you get a community order.:mad: That's justice for you; protecting itself first.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
A friend of mine several years back was attacked by three men, all of whom he put in the hospital. At their trial, the judge demanded that the DA charge him, instead, on the grounds that he was "too dangerous." Now there's a judge who deserves to be beaten. Happily, the case was heard before a different judge who wasn't a moron, and the charges were dropped. We definitely need a better system for selecting judges around here...:suss:
Will Rogers never met me.
-
A friend of mine several years back was attacked by three men, all of whom he put in the hospital. At their trial, the judge demanded that the DA charge him, instead, on the grounds that he was "too dangerous." Now there's a judge who deserves to be beaten. Happily, the case was heard before a different judge who wasn't a moron, and the charges were dropped. We definitely need a better system for selecting judges around here...:suss:
Will Rogers never met me.
Roger, it's a universal malaise which occasionally flares up when a homeowner confronts someone in their home. How much force is reasonable? I don't think using bad language scares them away. There have been some well aired incidents in the UK where the homeowner has been subject to intense police attention. When one burglar was knifed to death in someones home you'd swear it was the homeowner who was the criminal and not the criminal himself. A bit like saying that the criminal has more right under law than his victim. It's the parliamentarians who make the law but getting those bone-idle bastards to make a difference isn't easy. A former colleague I worked with met one of our distributor agents in the US who once confronted two law-abiding gentlemen in his drive who wanted to take his car for a test drive before putting in an offer to buy it. :rolleyes: They fled when he surprised them and fortunately for both parties no firearms were involved. My support is for the homeowner. I hope I never have to confront a burglar in my own home. I don't know how I'd respond and in the heat of the moment would I really care? A difficult call to make at the time.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
-
I understand where you are coming from. It is hard to understand most court decisions. That last time I read about a contempt of court case was when a young man went to court to defend himself over some parking fines. He unfortunately wore a T-shirt which had the words, "If bullshit could fly... Then this place would be an airport." He got 1 month imprisonment for contempt of court for the T-shirt. Can't remember what happened about the parking fine but I bet he copped that as well.
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
I've got spittle all over my phone, thanks to that t-shirt slogan you mentioned.
Cheers, विक्रम "We have already been through this, I am not going to repeat myself." - fat_boy, in a global warming thread :doh:
-
A judge was attacked in court (read it here[^]). The perpetrator was arrested and slammed with a prison sentence within 24 hours for, apparently, "contempt of court". :-D One of our neighbours kids friend was beaten up in the town centre last year. The perpetrator was arrested a few days later and was charged. He got slapped on the wrist with a community service order while the victim suffered quite serious facial injuries by all accounts. It seems that if you punch a judge you go to jail, pronto like. Kick a kid in the face until he's nearly dead and you get a community order.:mad: That's justice for you; protecting itself first.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
-
Roger, it's a universal malaise which occasionally flares up when a homeowner confronts someone in their home. How much force is reasonable? I don't think using bad language scares them away. There have been some well aired incidents in the UK where the homeowner has been subject to intense police attention. When one burglar was knifed to death in someones home you'd swear it was the homeowner who was the criminal and not the criminal himself. A bit like saying that the criminal has more right under law than his victim. It's the parliamentarians who make the law but getting those bone-idle bastards to make a difference isn't easy. A former colleague I worked with met one of our distributor agents in the US who once confronted two law-abiding gentlemen in his drive who wanted to take his car for a test drive before putting in an offer to buy it. :rolleyes: They fled when he surprised them and fortunately for both parties no firearms were involved. My support is for the homeowner. I hope I never have to confront a burglar in my own home. I don't know how I'd respond and in the heat of the moment would I really care? A difficult call to make at the time.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
Fortunately, Arizona is one of the few places remaining in the US where the Constitution is considered a legally binding agreement, and we have the right here to defend life and property. But judges are elected without any public airing of their qualifications, so we never know what idiot we just hired until he opens his mouth in court. I suspect that's a holdover from the Old West, when they grabbed the first sober guy they could find and made him judge just long enough to hang a horse thief. Simpler times called for simpler methods, but I think we can do better now if we try a bit. :)
Will Rogers never met me.
-
The difference is that taking bribes, etc., is actually not an on-the-bench criminal act. The case that (if I recall correctly) that got the supreme court ruling had to do with a judge ordering the sterilization of a girl against her will. Even though he had no authority to do so, he was not held liable for willful criminal abuse of his powers. It was long ago. Protecting the judges from an error in judgement (pun intended) is one thing - but a blank check is absurd. But, it was, after all, judges writing other judges the check.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote:
The difference is that taking bribes, etc., is actually not an on-the-bench criminal act.
So they likely went to jail for taking the money, rather than wrongfully sentencing people; interesting.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
The case that (if I recall correctly) that got the supreme court ruling had to do with a judge ordering the sterilization of a girl against her will. Even though he had no authority to do so, he was not held liable for willful criminal abuse of his powers. It was long ago.
That particular case does ring a bell. I can understand a degree of protection against lawsuits (or civil suits) brought against judges; but to protect them even when they clearly break the law in their judgements is just alarming. I guess if a judge does it (on the bench (that's what she said!)), it's by definition not illegal? Yikes.
Look at me still talking when there's science to do When I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you