7 ms·

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 som

by 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
  You're making the judge sound like an abusive spouse. Must be treated with respect! Respect is earned, regardless of statute. The judge could have simply asked the defendant to fix his screen name and moved on, and he would have had my respect for the professionalism. Instead, respect has been lost.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  >If they are the platonic ideal of impartiality but they are perceived as fools, this weakens the influence of their decisions. The charge is for a syringe found by some cop rifling around this guy's person/vehicle during a traffic stop. They are not only perceived as fools but they are fools, for facilitating the trying of this individual for such an unjust law for which there is no victim. The only lesson this man could possible learn from this judge sentencing him is to toss the syringe in a playground or something before driving off in his vehicle, since apparently having it in your car instead of wherever you used it is a big problem. These tyrants deserve no respect, and I hope the entire system of trying people for the crime of owning an inanimate syringe collapses. The sooner we lose respect for all judges sentencing people for these crimes the better.

by tobr 5y ago

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
You're making the judge sound like an abusive spouse. Must be treated with respect! Respect is earned, regardless of statute. The judge could have simply asked the defendant to fix his screen name and moved on, and he would have had my respect for the professionalism. Instead, respect has been lost.
quantumBerry 5y ago
>If they are the platonic ideal of impartiality but they are perceived as fools, this weakens the influence of their decisions. The charge is for a syringe found by some cop rifling around this guy's person/vehicle during a traffic stop. They are not only perceived as fools but they are fools, for facilitating the trying of this individual for such an unjust law for which there is no victim. The only lesson this man could possible learn from this judge sentencing him is to toss the syringe in a playground or something before driving off in his vehicle, since apparently having it in your car instead of wherever you used it is a big problem. These tyrants deserve no respect, and I hope the entire system of trying people for the crime of owning an inanimate syringe collapses. The sooner we lose respect for all judges sentencing people for these crimes the better.