[The Red Zone]

You fix what? HTRN had it right and you added nothing that would change that. Had the judge confiscated the phone when it was being fiddled with by an obviously jittery and distracted juvenile, there would have been no occasion for the contempt.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Thank you very much, Zone. Beezdotcom and your ilk take careful note: What goes around comes around honey.

[beezdotcom]

it was being fiddled with by an obviously jittery and distracted juvenile

I really love you guys. I guess we all read into this story what we want. Somehow, you guys are completely convinced that this is just some "poor widdle victim gurl" and could NEVER be at fault - OBVIOUSLY, the judge must be a tyrant, it could NEVER be that this girl is a familiar face in his courtroom or anything like that.

The problem with disputes on FR is that 90 percent of the disputes wouldn't exist if the same initial conditions were assumed. SURE, nobody wants tyrant judges. SURE, nobody is particularly sympathetic to recalcitrant defendants. There's just enough information in this story, and no more, (provided by a reporter with unknown biases), that people can assume what they want.

I just find it interesting how the assumptions have gone on this thread. "What goes around, comes around" is right - and from my perspective, what's going around this thread WOULDN'T be going around if more information were available. However, the information I posted previously on this thread (MONTHS ago, how strange) digging into this judge's history seemed to show a genuine concern for the youth in his courtroom, even if expressed in unconventional ways. You can ignore it if you wish - but in the absence of more concrete information about this specific case, I'm inclined to consider that something about THIS defendant, in particular, created this outcome.