Stumble This | You should also watch “What's the hardest part about being you?” |
Milian,court tv,television,trial,kid Judge Rips Law Student a New Poo-hole
Comments 
playlists with this video
Wow, That Kicks Ass! by lucky760
who voted for this video
tedbater
- mkone
- Sketch
- Razor
- dbalsdon
- Abducted
- wazant
- kwaran
- BillOreilly
- honkeytonk73
- rottenseed
- jwray
- lavoll
- DavidRaine
- gorgonheap
- Xenonoga
- shuac
- thegrimsleeper
- gorillaman
- RedSky
- slafleur
- ObsidianStorm
- K0MMIE
- moodonia
- Tymbrwulf
- dbot2006
- zomgunicorns
- Lendl
- Kreegath
- MrFisk
- ant
- LittleRed
- thehelix
- Thylan
- White
- lucky760
- Plonq
- Sarzy
- cdominus
- daxgaz
- Bidouleroux
- rubadub
- xxovercastxx
- MarineGunrock
- pho3n1x
- radx
- pierrekrahn
- HoRnO
- blahpook
- Spoon_Gouge
- BoneyD
- Zor
- GeeSussFreeK
- Krupo
- JustusShaft
- NetRunner
- TheSofaKing
- poolcleaner
- Mi1ler
- silvercord
- lighthouse
- oohahh
- Zonbie
- bluephoenix
- Pushkill
- dpedro
- guessandcheck
- MrConrads
- Jordass
- tmcdermid
- moonsammy
- karkarlee
- Majortomyorke
- Baera
- Names
- HaricotVert
- omnistegan
- furrycloud
- nibiyabi
- JackKetch
- Issykitty
- joemawlma
- dag
- deathcow
- Kerotan
- Ghostly
- aaronfr
- dotdude
- EDD
- MycroftHomlz
- punk225
- JAPR
- vermonter
- MSeven
- cybrbeast
- rbar
- LightningOfGods
- southblvd
- Violator99
- spoco2
- AnimalsForCrackers
- atara
- tagomi77
- jvenezia
- Mixaster
- blutruth
- evil_disco_man
- Duckhunter75
- Zifnab
- ZuroS
- gourmetemu
- schma
- dw1117
- robbersdog49
- dgandhi
- Kevlar
- aspartam
- Duckman33
- twiddles
- neuralnoise
- oblio70
- crotchflame
- Xax
- Ickster
- derdin
- Selektaa
-
Needless to say she got burnt out and was on sick leave for a year.
Some people need to chill.
Is it appropriate to be shrill and emotional and evidently on your rag? Power trip...
True that. The funniest thing is though, it was all for a mere 450$ (USD at that). It kind of made the whole speech sound silly. Guess that's what you get in "real life".
Yeah, because the bar has been set so high.
Did you see her leave that courtroom? She freaking RAN AWAY from the boy. Probably cried afterwards too. Can you say, "Appeal"?
Hrm, I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about that didn't quite seem fair and impartial.
Did you see her leave that courtroom? She freaking RAN AWAY from the boy. Probably cried afterwards too. Can you say, "Appeal"?
She made her ruling, what else did she need to stick around for? Tea and crumpets? What about it seems unfair? That she was setting straght some young dude who was trying to take advantage of a person and play the judge for a fool? Dunno where all the negativity for the judge is coming from? I would like that explained a little more clearly.
Hrm, I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about that didn't quite seem fair and impartial.
Did you see her leave that courtroom? She freaking RAN AWAY from the boy. Probably cried afterwards too. Can you say, "Appeal"?
Like I find happening to myself a lot, she was probably getting more and more pissed off because she couldn't swear at the conceited little prick and say what she WANTED to say because it was public TV.
God that was good. Is she single?
The biblical approach in a courtroom nearly always goes wrong...
I think he is about to cry just as theclip finishes!
"That's Your Opinion" is now cleared to be used as a catchphrase!
I don't know if I would have felt as strongly about it if the judge had been a dude, but I believe so. The judge is supposed to not fly off the deep end like she did; she should not go off on ad hominem attacks, even if he does. She can chastise him all she wants (and he definitely deserved it, from what I could see), but when she demeans herself and thereby the court to the level of personal attacks and "teacher knows best (and I hate you)" she humanizes the court to the level of the rest of us, who can get mad, irrational and angry. She's not allowed to when she's on the bench.
I think it's a bit of a show she puts on for the viewers, which I dislike. If this was behind closed doors, she would probably not have flown off the handle like this. That being said, if you answer back to a judge in the way he did, you can be sure to catch a bit of flak.
We're all a little misogynistic...
I don't know if I would have felt as strongly about it if the judge had been a dude, but I believe so. The judge is supposed to not fly off the deep end like she did; she should not go off on ad hominem attacks, even if he does. She can chastise him all she wants (and he definitely deserved it, from what I could see), but when she demeans herself and thereby the court to the level of personal attacks and "teacher knows best (and I hate you)" she humanizes the court to the level of the rest of us, who can get mad, irrational and angry. She's not allowed to when she's on the bench.
I think it's a bit of a show she puts on for the viewers, which I dislike. If this was behind closed doors, she would probably not have flown off the handle like this. That being said, if you answer back to a judge in the way he did, you can be sure to catch a bit of flak.
I just watched it again. I just can't see your ad hominem argument. She opens up on him for being such a poor example of what the Univercity of miam's standards are for someone so far in his education not as a reason for his argument being flawed, but as a reaction to him being so disrespecful of her position as judge presiding. He didn't offer a motion or anything legal when he offered his final assertion...he utterd, "well thats your opinion". Who is their right mind would say that to a judge, like ever? He was being contemptable and if that was a criminal hearing, he most likely would of been fined a hundred or so dollars for contempt of court if he got the right kinda judge.
A judges job is to uphold the rules and regulations of the land. And he just pissed all over that idea when he said "well thats your opinion" like he was in some water cooler argument with a co-worker. I think that point is encapsilated perfectly when she gets to the part when she says you my not like me, but you have to respect the process. It would be the same if you told a trafic officer to go find a real crime when he pulls you over for a traffic ticket...your liable for a verbal counter assault. If he didn't want to get into a heated argument over the futility of his flawed argument, he should of kept his dumb mouth closed.
Anyway, those shows are mainly for ratings anyway, I think if you agree to go on they cover some of the costs even if you lose...its still a show mainly, just with certain legal ramifications as I do still think it is a real municiple proceding...I could be wrong on that, any lawyers out there in the sift?
edit: And I don't think putting him in his place is irrational, and the attacks weren't against him in a bigoted nature, just over the manor of his behavior in a court of law, I think she was in her rights as a judge to put the defendant in his proper place...I would expect no less from a civil servent doing any of their varius roles and duities.
Meh, it could be that I'm just overreacting because I don't like proceedings like these dramatized, which they definitely are here.
It's her court and he shat in it. She presides, she controls the process, and she has the soapbox. Disrespecting that is just begging for a lashing or as others have pointed out often worse.
He thinks because he's a law student and she plays a judge on TV that he knows more than she does, and acts accordingly.
edit: And I don't think putting him in his place is irrational, and the attacks weren't against him in a bigoted nature, just over the manor of his behavior in a court of law, I think she was in her rights as a judge to put the defendant in his proper place...I would expect no less from a civil servent doing any of their varius roles and duities.
It's her court and he shat in it. She presides, she controls the process, and she has the soapbox. Disrespecting that is just begging for a lashing or as others have pointed out often worse.
He thinks because he's a law student and she plays a judge on TV that he knows more than she does, and acts accordingly.
Bingo, but I guess people have in their minds a more somber setting for legistation what a judge should be like, and a vision on a way a judge should carry themselves. I look at it the other way around, that judges are doing a job, and have their own personalities. As a result, you get different judges that play by a different set of personality rules; none being right or wrong persay, just different. My 2 cents.
Someone mentioned that they aren't real municipalities at all, just private arbitrators, thats neat actually, wonder how true that is...anyone else second this claim? I also wonder how legaly binding their final desisions are...do you have to sign a contract before going on stating you will be held liable to the fake judges ruling? More info on that would be interesting.
There was another case that just made me cheer. After the opening arguments, she'd already had her mind made up and tore into the defendant about some personal things. When she asked him why he was getting so upset about her lecturing, he told her, "I'd have hoped you would show some me some more respect than this". Her immediate response was an over-the-top, "Where I'm from, respect has to be earned!". The man was quiet for a moment, and replies, "Well, where I'm from, respect is something you're born with."
Truer words have never been spoken. She immediately ruled against him, and left the room. Total time was only minutes.
also, for the ad hominem doubters.. i'd argue that personal attacks are just a special case of red herring argument - information that may be correct, but that doesn't help us move any further towards a logical conclusion for the argument at hand..
so, for example, while it may be true that the judge's reaction to the arrogant young man is an indulgent display of immature emotionalism, and her behavior probably would have been different if there was no audience, this information offers us nothing in the way of determining whether or not a judge's behavior in a court room should be impartial and unemotional.
Some people need to chill.
No, some people just deserve to have their ass handed to them. I thought she did a great job of it.
Yet another glaring example that we need stricter and more concise rules on choosing more appropiate video titles. Honestly, I'm sick of saying this for like the tenth time; tedbater should have points retracted or something for cunningly luring me here in promise of hardcore judge-on-law-student goatse.
heheheh thats disturbingly amusing.