Skip to comments.
Thanking Jesus in Court Lands Man in Jail
ap ^
| July 14, 2006
Posted on 07/14/2006 8:18:56 PM PDT by Mount Athos
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
To: streetpreacher
If the judge is a born again Christian, no chance of that happening. He may or may not be, but you can't tell from this story.
To: dayglored
I infer that there had been warnings about previous "non-verbal gestures and outbursts" throughout the trial. I'll bet the judge was very tired of disruptions. But at the point where he was aquitted the trial was effectively over and then there's the no small matter of the judge not letting him simply apologise and leave. Instead he locks him up in jail after there is no more trial to disrupt.
42
posted on
07/14/2006 10:23:31 PM PDT
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: TheCrusader
while judging himself into hell And you know he's not saved, how? Certainly not from the story. Or have you elevated yourself to ultimate Judge?
Not saying the judge was right, mind you, but, sheesh!
To: Izzy Dunne
44
posted on
07/14/2006 10:25:38 PM PDT
by
torchthemummy
(Darwinists: Evolution is a theory that is proven fact.)
To: FreedomCalls
You make a cogent point. Much better than "The judge obviously hates God, but would have okayed praising Allah."
To: Mount Athos
Saying God in front of liberals can be hazardous to your liberty.
(Go Israel, Go! Slap Down Em Hezbullies!)
46
posted on
07/14/2006 10:28:12 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Rodney King
How is that possibly legitimate? Since when were judges dictators? Can they tell you not to blink during a hearing? I've heard more than one lawyer complain about the arrogance of judges.
47
posted on
07/14/2006 10:42:14 PM PDT
by
Dianna
To: Larry Lucido
It may have been because the judge disagreed with the verdict the jury returned and this was the judge's way to punish him a little instead of just letting him walk away scot free.
48
posted on
07/14/2006 11:04:25 PM PDT
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: FreedomCalls
I tried to google up more background on the case, but can't find anything except this story. It would be interesting to see what it was really about. While I generally respect jury verdicts, juries have been known to acquit a person against overwhelming evidence (O.J. Simpson) just because they didn't like the law/cops/judge etc. Of course, many folks have been bad-rapped by false witnesses and overzealous prosecutors on "child abuse" charges.
Be curious to know if the victim was actually abused by someone, or if this is just a case of a parent spanking a kid and being charged.
To: Dianna
Count me among those. Doesn't mean I would relegate them to the seventh circle of hell for it, but I've entertained the thought. :-)
To: DJ MacWoW
It wasn't the mans fault. He can't comply with what he isn't told. That's right, and when the judge found out he wasn't told, he had the guy released.
To: metmom
Why on earth would a judge order someone not to show emotion when the verdict was read? Power trip.
52
posted on
07/14/2006 11:38:03 PM PDT
by
Polybius
To: Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Allosaurs_r_us; Americanwolf; Americanwolfsbrother; Annie03; ...
![](http://www.triplettschool.org/pages/images/a_statlib.gif)
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
53
posted on
07/14/2006 11:59:25 PM PDT
by
freepatriot32
(Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
To: Izzy Dunne
The judge gave an order, the defendant did not comply, the judge decided the order had not been relayed properly and dropped the matter.
Simple, isn't it?
Sorry, but the defendant was not briefed by his lawyer as to the Judge's order, hence how could he comply?
54
posted on
07/15/2006 12:14:43 AM PDT
by
garylmoore
(Faith is the assurance of things unseen.)
To: angelanddevil2
"the judge had ordered both sides not to show emotion when the verdict was announced"
I have heard that judges do this often to keep control in the court room. I guess in the past there has been screaming of curse words on whichever side won. I guess this guy could not control himself.
To: garylmoore
Are you sure the defendant was not in the courtroom when the judge issued his order that there should be no celebrations, demonstrations, or outbreaks when the verdict was read? I saw nothing in the article that indicates the defendant was not in the courtroom when the judge's instructions were issued. If you all know more about that than I do, never-mind.
Have you never attended a trial, especially one with highly charged emotional publicity, testimony, etc.?
Have you never watched on TV a trial where a judge cautioned against outbursts of emotion when a verdict was read?
If not, I can see why you would think this is strange. In my experience, it is not uncommon for a judge to order that no demonstrations occur. If you have ever been there, you should know that it is not unusual.
Sorry, but I thought this audience would more fully support the power of our courts.
56
posted on
07/15/2006 1:35:53 AM PDT
by
tdscpa
To: garylmoore
What is so complicated about that?
Everybody says he didn't comply because he didn't get the order (for whatever reason).
The judge finally figured that out, or was told.
57
posted on
07/15/2006 3:09:01 AM PDT
by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: tdscpa
Sorry, but I thought this audience would more fully support the power of our courts. I think it's likely they would be more supportive if many judges didn't have such a history of abusing their authority for what uaually appears to be arbitrary reasons. It seems like they are more interested in setting up their little kingdoms and set their personal agendas using the power they've been entrusted with, than doing their jobs. Problem is, the good judges never make the news so it's hard to know that they're out there.
58
posted on
07/15/2006 4:22:14 AM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: Mount Athos
Another thing is, this guy may not have thought thanking Jesus was a display of emotion as much as an act of thanksgiving or praise. I guess it would be a matter of what you considered displaying emotion and that sounds pretty vague and subjective. Wide open to interpretation by the judge. Another might have let it go.
59
posted on
07/15/2006 4:25:06 AM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: trickyricky
I remember that joke.
Unfortunately I can't laugh at the moment. I'm kinda in an overwhelme mode. Seems we are on a 'liberal legal' theater and it has me a bit nervous.
60
posted on
07/15/2006 5:34:15 AM PDT
by
Calpernia
(Breederville.com)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 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