Skip to comments.
Girl, 17, jailed for ringing phone
Newsday ^
| Rick Brand
Posted on 11/20/2004 10:02:03 AM PST by 4.1O dana super trac pak
A ringing cell phone landed a 17-year-old Patchogue girl facing drug charges in a jail cell this week after an angry district court judge sentenced her to 21 days for contempt.
Mariela Acevedo of 21 Hammond St. incurred the wrath of District Court Judge Salvatore Alamia on Tuesday. As she awaited her hearing, an electronic device went off in Alamia's Central Islip courtroom and he warned everyone to shut off all cell phones and pagers or face contempt charges.
"If you don't know how to shut it off, go outside and introduce it to the heel of your shoe, he said according to a transcript.
When Acevedo's phone subsequently sounded, Alamia called the teenager forward and asked, "Did you think I was playing with you?"
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: cellphones; courts; flamewar; judge; longisland
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 501-503 next last
To: orangelobster
that's not the point. The issue is whether a ringing cellphone constitutes contempt. The answer is no.
No, that's EXACTLY the point. If I'm going to argue with someone over what does or doesn't constitute "contempt of court", I want to know if they consider ANYTHING "contempt of court".
Your reluctance to answer speaks VOLUMES about an attitude of permissiveness that you've done nothing to dispel. If you can't even bring yourself to admit there IS such an actionable offense as "contempt of court", then why should anyone use your arguments as a discriminator of what is, and what isn't?
361
posted on
11/23/2004 9:03:01 AM PST
by
beezdotcom
(I'm usually either right or wrong...)
To: beezdotcom
"Your reluctance to answer speaks VOLUMES about an attitude of permissiveness that you've done nothing to dispel."
I've already supplied you with a definition of contempt above. I agree with the definition. You exhibit a lot of contempt for the kid with a cellphone as does the judge. If anything it will be interesting to see how the judge is dealt with.
To: 4.1O dana super trac pak
The fact is, in the court room, the judge is King. This is how the courts have always been. I think that the fact he warned everyone to turn off their cell phones and the girl ignored him places the blame for her situation squarely on her own shoulders.
When you're in court, do whatever legal and moral things the judge tells you to do, especially if it's to turn off your stupid cell phone!
363
posted on
11/23/2004 9:09:13 AM PST
by
TChris
(You keep using that word. I don't think it means what yHello, I'm a TAGLINE vir)
To: beezdotcom
tell me how the ringing cellphone fits into the above dictionary definition of 'contempt' without any verbose diversion.
To: orangelobster; All
I've already supplied you with a definition of contempt above.
No, Dodgey, you're trying to deflect my question in the most Clintonesque manner. You're still trying to take advantage of my lack of precision in how I phrased the question the first time; I have since clarified the question to mean "contempt of court".
I'll keep posing it, and feel free to keep refusing to answer it; you're just exposing your true colors.
Thus, let me ask it again, in two parts:
1) Do you believe that "contempt of court" is EVER a valid charge in ANY case?
2) Assuming that you do (and I don't think that we can make that assumption at this point), what is the weakest infraction of "contempt of court" that SHOULD receive jail time - if any?
Speak loudly, everyone is listening.
365
posted on
11/23/2004 9:15:52 AM PST
by
beezdotcom
(I'm usually either right or wrong...)
To: beezdotcom
Here's the definition again. I have no problem with saying that defendents, plaintiffs, judges or anyone else is capable of exhibiting contempt.
"The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn. "
There is no way this definition fits a ringing cellphone.
To: orangelobster
tell me how the ringing cellphone fits into the above dictionary definition of 'contempt' without any verbose diversion.
Simple. It COULD be this.
You treat the judge with scorn if you egregiously ignore his instructions, despite being warned.
You treat everyone else in the courtroom as worthless if you deliverately disrupt the proceedings by continuing to fiddle with your phone, thereby leaving it on to ring.
But I really don't know. I wasn't there. She could be as pure as the driven snow. Then again, she was more likely IM'ing her homies instead of shutting the damn phone off like she was told.
367
posted on
11/23/2004 9:22:28 AM PST
by
beezdotcom
(I'm usually either right or wrong...)
To: orangelobster
a jail sentence for a cell phone ringing is an abuse of power. the judge is clearly a jerk. If he doesn't do this he will shortly have a courtroom with 50 defendants and a cell phone ringing every minute or so. She was not the only defendant in there that day.
If she didn't know how to turn it off, she should have set it to vibrate only, which would have been acceptable.
To: beezdotcom
what about passing wind in the courtroom. is that good for 21 days too?
To: orangelobster
what about passing wind in the courtroom. is that good for 21 days too?
Only if it's from you.
370
posted on
11/23/2004 9:34:47 AM PST
by
beezdotcom
(I'm usually either right or wrong...)
To: beezdotcom
What's the difference. Let's say the judge announces that he won't tolerate the passing of wind in his courtroom. a guy is sitting in the front row observing the trial and has just had a healthy breakfast of bran cereal... then from out of nowhere he emits a thunderous one.
The judge pulls him out of the audience and sentences him to 21 days. There is no difference.
Judge Almia should get the chair.
To: Joe Hadenuf
How much money is it going to cost the tax payers to jail this teenager for 21 days, for her cell phone ringing?Zero. Her sentence runs concurrently with her drug charge sentence (45 days).
372
posted on
11/23/2004 10:03:46 AM PST
by
houeto
To: Joe Hadenuf
but this arrogant tax paid judge sentences a citizens to 21 days in jail because they didn't turn off a cell phone?Nope. She was sent to jail for not following explicit orders from the court. Same thing if she decided to chew gum, talk, make noises, not remove a ball cap, or any other thing the court orders.
As a person that goes to court all the time, you already know all this.
373
posted on
11/23/2004 10:07:21 AM PST
by
houeto
To: CurlyDave
She sounds like a teenage drug using idiot. Turning a cell phone off is easy. If she couldn't figure out how to turn it off, how would she ever be able to change the setting to vibrate.
374
posted on
11/23/2004 10:09:03 AM PST
by
Ditter
To: Ditter
This judge needs to get a grip!That's what he was doing. It's called "order in the court".
375
posted on
11/23/2004 10:09:19 AM PST
by
houeto
To: orangelobster
If I was convicted for everytime I forgot to turn off the cell ringerShe didn't forget. She was instructed by the court to turn it off, stomp to pieces or face contempt. Same as if she had kept chewing gum or any other myriad court orders.
376
posted on
11/23/2004 10:13:53 AM PST
by
houeto
To: Joe Hadenuf
Are there some laws I can break, that will be completely ignored? Could you please list them?You can go pee in the woods. :-)
377
posted on
11/23/2004 10:15:45 AM PST
by
houeto
To: houeto
judge almia should get the chair.
To: Utmost Certainty
But then he slapped on 21 days that was fueled by his own own arrogance, letting his personal peeves and general anal-retentiveness play a role in his decision-making.He didn't 'slap on' anything. Her time is concurrent.
379
posted on
11/23/2004 10:19:44 AM PST
by
houeto
To: Asphalt
I would like to send some of you to jail for three weeks,If you were judge and I ignored your explicit orders in your court, I would expect to go to jail.
380
posted on
11/23/2004 10:23:21 AM PST
by
houeto
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 501-503 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson