Girl, 17, jailed for ringing phone

Newsday ^ | Rick Brand

[beezdotcom]

She shouldn't be coerced to make a plea deal by trumping up a false crime. This judge needs to be removed.

Ah, so you're assuming that's what happened. You're going with a sideways accusation by Richard Barbuto and running with it, without actually knowing it to be true. But hey, nobody could ever actually be guilty, right? Amazing.

Perhaps you'd better check who you're getting in bed with before you defend his turf. If you really want to join with Barbuto, good for you. Go wreak all the havoc you want; he'll get you off.

[orangelobster]

"Perhaps you'd better check who you're getting in bed with before you defend his turf."

I get the picture. As long as the judge is in your party, he can do no wrong. Such sycophantic reasoning may have it's short term advantages, but is ultimately corrosive.

I'm not really concerned about it as I'm confident the judge will be admonished by his peers in both parties and his idiotic ruling overturned.

[SerpentDove]

Being a jerk is not a crime. Contempt of court is.

[orangelobster]

Accidents are not contemptuous. The judges actions were clearly contemptuous however and he will pay a price for that.

[beezdotcom]

I get the picture. As long as the judge is in your party, he can do no wrong.

Uhhhh, no. I have no party.

I get the picture...the defendant can do no wrong. Talk about corrosive reasoning.

What will you do when the judge's ruling ISN'T overturned? Blame the "vast right-wing conspiracy"?

[orangelobster]

"I get the picture...the defendant can do no wrong. Talk about corrosive reasoning."

A judge starts handing out prison sentences for innocuous accidents and you think that's fine. good little doggy.

[battousai]

the judge should be thrown in jail for being a jerk

Why? Because the poor little angel finally understood that sometimes rules actually mean something, sounds like she never understood that before from her parents and/or school (in court on drug charges...)

[beezdotcom]

A judge starts handing out prison sentences for innocuous accidents

Oh, you were there? So you can confirm it was innocuous? Is anybody convicted of contempt ever actually guilty of contempt?

Besides, my guess is that if she hadn't been convicted of the other charge, she would have spent a night in a cell and it would have been reduced. We really have no way of knowing.

I'm guessing you've had some problem with authority figures in your past, and that's why you so slavishly side with the defendant, not knowing anything about the current situation. You may accuse me of the same with the judge - but you see, I didn't jump in to attack the defendent, I just saw a lot of people ignorant of all of the details (as are we ALL), attacking the judge.

You know, I could take the other side, if anybody actually offered up some FACTS. All I've seen is a lot of speculation about a case that could go either way depending on how the details get filled in.

[orangelobster]

"I'm guessing you've had some problem with authority figures in your past, and that's why you so slavishly side with the defendant, "

this is about the fourth time on this thread that someone has argued that I must have problems with authority figures or must be a criminal of some kind. Quite the contrary, I don't see this judge as an authority figure, but as a punk imposter of a judge. I don't need to know any other facts other than he sentenced a kid to jail for a cellphone. He needs to be removed and I assume some authentic 'authority figures' will remove him, if not for this, then for some other outrageous miscarriage of justice. If the guy is not admonished for this he will only hurt the process and hurt his own future.

[beezdotcom]

I don't need to know any other facts other than he sentenced a kid to jail for a cellphone.

Nice open mind. I can argue about a hundred scenarios where this would be justified. I can argue about a hundred scenarios where this would be unjustified. All are feasible, given the dearth of facts in this case. If you're sincerely interested, I could lay some out for you - but they're all notional at this point, and I doubt you'd acknowledge them.

You, on the other hand, are a one-trick pony. You have no knowledge of the sentencing history of this judge, you have no knowledge of the comportment of the defendant, you have the thinnest veneer of an allegation of impropriety by a Geragos-caliber defense attorney, and yet you dance, and dance, and dance.

[orangelobster]

"You, on the other hand, are a one-trick pony. You have no knowledge of the sentencing history of this judge, you have no knowledge of the comportment of the defendant, you have the thinnest veneer of an allegation of impropriety by a Geragos-caliber defense attorney, and yet you dance, and dance, and dance."

no thanks. it's simple. jail time for a cellphone. out of control judge. wake up.

[beezdotcom]

no thanks. it's simple. jail time for a cellphone. out of control judge. wake up

Okay, I'll play. What's the minimum infraction of contempt that should result in any jail time? I'd like to try to understand your weltanschauung.

[orangelobster]

Contempt should result in removal from the bench. Here's the definition of contempt:

The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn.

Clearly your precious judge exhibits contempt for the girl with a cellphone by treating her like dirt. If you don't get it by now I don't know how to make it more clear.

[beezdotcom]

I see. You apparently don't believe that "contempt of court" is even a valid charge, much less EVER worthy of jail time.

Otherwise, you'd answer my question: what actions merit a charge of "contempt of court", and what is the least of these that would merit jail time? It's a simple question, really. Careful: your answer will speak volumes.

[Stultis]

he's a jerk.

Hmmmm. And here I was thinking posting a sniper in the balcony to deal with cell phone offenders might be a good idea...

[MEGoody]

I'd like to give this judge a pat on the back for having some guts.

[orangelobster]

"Otherwise, you'd answer my question: what actions merit a charge of "contempt of court","

that's not the point. The issue is whether a ringing cellphone constitutes contempt. The answer is no.

[MEGoody]

"jail time for a cellphone"

No, jail time for contempt. The girl refused to turn off her cellphone after the judge had warned everyone to do so. She was in contempt, she goes to jail. Simple.

[MEGoody]

"The issue is whether a ringing cellphone constitutes contempt. The answer is no."

The answer is a resounding YES, since the judge had warned everyone to turn them off. This girl refused. She deserved what she got.

[iconoclast]

It was effectively a ONE-NIGHT-IN-THE-COOLER lesson for a teenager.

I'm amazed to see you still ranting over it.