2 ms·

Sorry, but I still don’t see how it’s relevant. What’s the problem with having a decorative penis pin on your jacket? If that’s the way you like to dress, enjoy

by tobr 5y ago

Sorry, but I still don’t see how it’s relevant. What’s the problem with having a decorative penis pin on your jacket? If that’s the way you like to dress, enjoy yourself! Why should we accept that a judge is letting themselves be so provoked by these insignificant things? That doesn’t sound to me like a person who is able to impartially evaluate the case based on the law.

jjulius 5y ago
Five responses to your question have all said it shows a lack of respect for the judicial system and the situation one is in, and you are essentially spitting in the face of the judge. I truly don't know how to make it any clearer to you than that. But I must ask again; would you show up to any kind of disciplinary hearing for yourself with "Buttfucker 3000" showing on your name badge?
- clipradiowallet 5y ago
  Perhaps for the exact reason you are implying - lack of respect for the judge and/or process. People don't go to court because they "respect" the judicial process or the judge - they go because they are compelled by force or threats of force/imprisonment. That said... it seems foolish to disrespect the judge, not because he/she deserves respect, but because they can abuse their power and punish you over slights to their ego. It's the same reason you don't run your mouth at a cop during a traffic stop - they would likely wield their small authority over you in a way that you found unpleasant.
- tobr 5y ago
  You really don’t have to ask, because what I personally would it wouldn’t do in various situations has nothing to do with what’s an appropriate response for someone who’s job it is to impartially evaluate evidence. Even if the defendant literally did spit in the face of the judge, a good judge should not react in a way that would give anyone reason to think they let that affect their ruling.
  - tester756 5y ago
    >Even if the defendant literally did spit in the face of the judge, a good judge should not react in a way that would give anyone reason to think they let that affect their ruling. uhh, depends on the case?
  - kempbellt 5y ago
    Can't help but agree. There is no way to know that the defendant's Zoom screen-name was set intentionally, or even with his knowledge. Prior to showing up on the screen the judge was already leaking bias - "Then we'll bring this...fool in". While I am inclined to "assume" that it was done intentionally, assumptions is not what the judicial system is about. "Your name isn't Buttfucker 3000, you yol-hole" along with the initial remark are both incredibly unprofessional (and worrying) things to hear from a person who's literal job is to pass unbiased judgement. Name calling from a judge, really? Yes, the dude was probably being an ass, but it doesn't matter. The judge judged the guy without concrete evidence and displayed a ton of personal distaste and bias against the defendant over the following minutes. He should asked the defendant to fix his screen name and moved on. This is not the kind of behavior you want to see in a judge who presides over cases of any real meaning.
  - DFHippie 5y ago
    You are focusing too much on the immediate context. Yes, the judge must remain impartial and resist being provoked, but the judicial system depends on people's respect. This being this case, their behavior isn't the only thing they must take into consideration. They must consider how this behavior will be interpreted by others. If they are the platonic ideal of impartiality but they are perceived as fools, this weakens the influence of their decisions. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not omniscient, so I'm not sure how accurate their assessment of things is, but this is certainly the reasoning. They need the court to be treated with respect, and to be perceived as respected and worthy of respect, so they don't brook people appearing before the court behaving in a way that they believe will be perceived as making fools of them. The trial before them is not their only concern.
    - kempbellt 5y ago

by tobr 5y ago

jjulius 5y ago

Five responses to your question have all said it shows a lack of respect for the judicial system and the situation one is in, and you are essentially spitting in the face of the judge. I truly don't know how to make it any clearer to you than that. But I must ask again; would you show up to any kind of disciplinary hearing for yourself with "Buttfucker 3000" showing on your name badge?

clipradiowallet 5y ago
Perhaps for the exact reason you are implying - lack of respect for the judge and/or process. People don't go to court because they "respect" the judicial process or the judge - they go because they are compelled by force or threats of force/imprisonment. That said... it seems foolish to disrespect the judge, not because he/she deserves respect, but because they can abuse their power and punish you over slights to their ego. It's the same reason you don't run your mouth at a cop during a traffic stop - they would likely wield their small authority over you in a way that you found unpleasant.
tobr 5y ago
You really don’t have to ask, because what I personally would it wouldn’t do in various situations has nothing to do with what’s an appropriate response for someone who’s job it is to impartially evaluate evidence. Even if the defendant literally did spit in the face of the judge, a good judge should not react in a way that would give anyone reason to think they let that affect their ruling.
- tester756 5y ago
  >Even if the defendant literally did spit in the face of the judge, a good judge should not react in a way that would give anyone reason to think they let that affect their ruling. uhh, depends on the case?
- kempbellt 5y ago
  Can't help but agree. There is no way to know that the defendant's Zoom screen-name was set intentionally, or even with his knowledge. Prior to showing up on the screen the judge was already leaking bias - "Then we'll bring this...fool in". While I am inclined to "assume" that it was done intentionally, assumptions is not what the judicial system is about. "Your name isn't Buttfucker 3000, you yol-hole" along with the initial remark are both incredibly unprofessional (and worrying) things to hear from a person who's literal job is to pass unbiased judgement. Name calling from a judge, really? Yes, the dude was probably being an ass, but it doesn't matter. The judge judged the guy without concrete evidence and displayed a ton of personal distaste and bias against the defendant over the following minutes. He should asked the defendant to fix his screen name and moved on. This is not the kind of behavior you want to see in a judge who presides over cases of any real meaning.
- DFHippie 5y ago
  You are focusing too much on the immediate context. Yes, the judge must remain impartial and resist being provoked, but the judicial system depends on people's respect. This being this case, their behavior isn't the only thing they must take into consideration. They must consider how this behavior will be interpreted by others. If they are the platonic ideal of impartiality but they are perceived as fools, this weakens the influence of their decisions. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not omniscient, so I'm not sure how accurate their assessment of things is, but this is certainly the reasoning. They need the court to be treated with respect, and to be perceived as respected and worthy of respect, so they don't brook people appearing before the court behaving in a way that they believe will be perceived as making fools of them. The trial before them is not their only concern.
  - kempbellt 5y ago