Here is a prime example of how lawyers are held to a certain standard.
Are you mockin’ me?
He has his own (fairly extensive) Wikipedia page!
Personally, I love watching those videos of Sovereign Citizens getting the wind knocked out of their sails.
Oh dear god. Nobody, not even his local sheriff has anything to do with the law or authority and he isn’t running away, he’s changing the narrative. :rolleyes:
“I reject your reality and insert my own!”
That’s now how reality works, that’s not how life works.
Well, it can be, if enough of us all agree.
At the end of the day we have to accept that we as individuals don’t have any final right of approval for rules or laws. Or to put it another way, a rule or law doesn’t have to have a reason that meets my or your satisfaction before it can be enacted.
Just like you don’t have to prove to my satisfaction that your candidate is the right pick to be allowed to vote for him or her.
Kind of my point thanks for laying it out more smoothly.
My main concern is that we’ve given people the power to criminalize people for things that are not affecting the reason why they’re in court to begin with.
Here’s another example.
The ending is the part I have concern with. What that judge did is the same thing cops do that make people dislike law enforcement.You hurt my feelings, not I will abuse my power on you. I don’t like you, I will abuse you. I loathe these kind of actions and behaviors much more than I dislike the actions of the women in this example. Because she isn’t the one with power, if she flicks him off big whoop, even if she had to be dragged out kicking and screaming, why would you throw extra fines on her? I know why, because his feelings were triggered. So as a judge with all the power in the world, he chooses to flex his authority and crack down on any behavior he disapproves of.
I don’t feel a judge is there to judge peoples demeanor in court, he’s there to judge the case… Getting caught up in his feelings and using his power to hurt someone is wrong.
He didn’t throw extra fines, he raised her bail. I thought that was unnecessary (and improper) for the “adios” comment. Her attitude was bad, but not contemptuous. She didn’t become more of a flight risk, and bail shouldn’t be raised because she’s being a bit casual about the whole thing.
On the other hand, when she flipped him off and said “fuck you” (or whatever it was) she’s a textbook example of contempt of court. If the judge doesn’t crack down hard on that kind of behavior, he’s going to see it all day long from everyone. The system will break down if we don’t show respect for the courts. (even when we’re not feeling it).
The problem with lots of court issues come down to opinion. it’s not scientific. From judge to judge you can get fairly different results, then you have to consider some of the scandals you hear judges getting caught up in that makes you lose confidence in their fairness. You have to remember they are human too and make mistakes like everyone else.
This has moved beyond a simple question to a debate, so let’s move this to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
On the great list of things wrong with the American Justice System, for me this one falls into the category of “Really, your biggest problem is tone policing judges? Not inequitable sentencing, rules of evidence, jury selection, etc, ad nauseum? And this is your one hill to die on with the courts? Yeah, ok, don’t expect me to support that, you do you.”
I am unable to find a copy of the story, but a few years ago one of our more peculiar criminal defence lawyers showed up for court in a sports jacket and jeanson an otherwise day off for an appearance that would only be a couple of minutes long. As soon as he crossed the bar the judge demanded to know why he was wearing jeans, that it was utterly inappropriate for court and said he was ready to find the lawyer in contempt for the way he was dressed. The lawyer argued that he had on a tie and his pants didn’t matter but he was swiftly told to go home and change and come back properly dressed. And there was not even a tiny bit of humour in this. It was low-level Canadian provincial court where lawyers are usually suited and booted; in Superior court and higher, lawyers are required to be gowned. There’s no dress code for defendents but a good lawyer has a good assortment of thrft store suits in his office.
Lawyers are different. They are actually agents of the court, and have agreed to follow certain rules in order to keep that privileged status.
Defendants or other civilians that have contact with the court do not have to hold as high a standard. They are given far more leeway when it comes to dress and conduct.
They should still be respectful of the proceedings though, or at least, allow them to continue.
Professionalism on the part of an attorney involves, among other things, dress. How you look, what you say, how you act: these are all part of what it means to be professional. I find it amazing that there are really people who don’t understand this (though, I suppose, after the '60s and '70s, I shouldn’t).
When I was teaching in high school, I almost always wore a shirt and tie, and dress pants and dress shoes. The only days I didn’t were the days the school was wearing spirit dress for one reason or another (Spirit Week, before Homecoming, for example, when we might have to spend the day dressed in costume, or wearing our school spirit shirts). It was my opinion, bolstered by my observations over the years, that the simple fact of my dress made me look more professional, and, thus, more competent. I obtained more respect from the students as a result. And this was true of my compatriots who also wore such clothing, including the older teacher who taught science, but arrived every day in a full suit. By comparison, the teachers who had the most trouble retaining respect were often the ones who had the most casual approach to what they wore.
The same is true in the courtroom. You can look around any courtroom and tell right away who most of the attorneys are; they are the ones who dress and look the part. The judges wear robes to this day for exactly the same reason: it commands respect and displays professionalism on their part. Failure to adhere to that standard in a courtroom has a significant affect on the decorum of the court. We didn’t worry about it so much at the Appeals Board, because the atmosphere there was much more informal (intentionally so). But rest assured that, even in that milieu, when a real trial was ongoing, the attorneys and the judge (and the court reporter!) tightened up and acted accordingly, because decorum matters.
Whenever anyone attacks school dress codes, I always bring this point up. People need to learn that what you wear says something about you, whether you like that fact or not. The last thing we need is for the courtroom to turn into some sort of semi-controlled chaos. That’s why judges are so strict.
I can’t remember the last time I wore any type of suit–well over 20 years, though. I no longer even own one, or even a tie.
What that says about me is that I don’t give a fuck about playing dress-up.
Which would be a mistake to demonstrate if you are in a vulnerable position before people who do care and who’s very job it is to judge you.
Looking at the last video, I’m still not seeing any abuse of the judges authority. The girl is very obviously not taking his questions seriously, makes an inviting but vague statement about how much money she may have, and then several times avoids answering a question that actually matters in his decision about the amount of bail to set. So he raises bail above what was proposed by the lawyer.
She then flips him the bird and apparently swears at him (that part is muted). He then calls her back and asks if she actually did so (even though he knows she did already). She says yes and then he finds her in contempt. Seems like what should happen.
He gave her multiple chances to avoid having bail raised, and then even after she clearly did a no-no out of frustration, he gave her a chance to get out of it which she then blew. Some would say he may have been too lenient
This is very dangerous philosophy to uphold in society. Ask your self to what degree should we be complicit in another humans opinion or actions? Every authority figure is ultimately on the same level as you and me.
I forget the specifics of who came up with this concept, but from what I recall basically you have knowledge from logic and senses. Your knowledge is directly relative to your experience in this world, and the reasoning you use to understand things. No matter what everyone ultimately knows how to think not just what to think. Humans in this world understand that there is a difference between someone who intentionally murdered his wife, and accidentally murdered his wife. People try to argue the in between every time a legal case occurs, but ultimately the charge will be dependent on opinion and feeling. If we cannot objectively say for certain, hey this mf needs to be locked in a cage hes unreasonable, then why tf should we lock them up? The most serious of crimes aren’t committed through basic rulesets of society such as not deceiving or murdering, they’re done through the bias opinions of human beings over generations in a society or government. To a certain degree individual opinion is a good thing, but too much of it leads to chaos. Especially when people have more power than others. People will just flex their powers to get across their feelings and opinions.
Completely wrong. Authority figures exist because some people simply cannot behave in an appropriate/legal manner. We may have all been created equal but we take drastically different paths and frankly some of those paths are not so good.
You’re basically arguing that violent crime is to be accepted with a shrug, but God forbid we hurt someone’s feelings.
There’s a subset of these “Sovereign Citizen” types, ideologically anarchists and libertarians*, that view getting arrested as their opportunity to throw monkey wrenches into the system. Wasting the courts time is their purpose while in court. That others are forced to wait in holding cells while their cases are rescheduled because of the SC nonsense is, of course, just more evidence of how corrupt the system is, that this doesn’t happen on the days the SC isn’t in court is coincidence.
*See, if you’ve a love for this nonsense, the trials of Free Keeners (Et al.) on YouTube.
Cue 70’s pr0n music?
CMC fnord!