Heavy handed judge reacts to cell phone in court

[boomdaddy]

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/15359747.htm



How is punishing other people for not incriminating another, justified? Especially in a case as trivial as this? I would think those people would have a right to seek some kind of disciplinary action against such an egomaniacal judge?

[Caveman Catfan]

I have no problem with that.

[ukfanman]

I say BRAVO!! My only problem with that judge is that some jailtime should have been served up also. The world needs more people like that who are less tolerant of those idiots who do not have enough damnsense to turn off their phones.

I cannot count the times I have heard those damn phones going off during church. I have heard of them ringing during a funeral and last year at a friends wedding, one rang during the ceremony.

Manners has gone out the door witha great manyfoolswho are slaves to their almighty cellphone.

[boomdaddy]

Do you guys really believe that the bystanders should be punished for not telling on someone else?

My whole point of the heavy handed judge is the fact that he kept five people, to fish out the guilty and then punished those who weren't the guilty party.

?????????

[Will Lavender]

I hate cell phones with the bloodiest passion imaginable.

You want to know what it is? ADD. A collective attention deficit disorder. We always have to be playing with something. We can't just sit, introspectively, and watch the birds tweet or something. No, we have to be fiddling with some bloody device all the time.

Good for the judge.

Now, next week maybe my priest will detain a whole pew of people when the inevitable chirp explodes and taunt them with the stained glass etchings of Satan.

[Coldstream]

I don't have a problem with it. Someone would not own up to their actions and it made things WORSE. Own up and things wouldn't be so bad in the first place. Some people don't think they should be held accountable for anything it seems. Road rage, use of cell phones in all the wrong places, impatient people at the grocery store checkout line.. I could go on forever how people have forgotten their manners.

[boomdaddy]

I see that everyone, so far, has said "off with his head" for the cell phone culprit.

But, I don't see anyones opinion about the the ones who were punished by the judge, for sitting in the same general area and not telling on the guilty party.

Do you guys really think that those people got fair treatment?

[Will Lavender]

boomdaddy wrote: I see that everyone, so far, has said "off with his head" for the cell phone culprit.

But, I don't see anyones opinion about the the ones who were punished by the judge, for sitting in the same general area and not telling on the guilty party.

Do you guys really think that those people got fair treatment?

There were five people in the row. One of them admitted that her cell phone rang. Another admitted that his made a noise as it was "powering down."

That leaves three people. These three people were not punished in any way. They were simply asked to stay after court had ended. All they had to do was tell the judge whose cell phone had rung.

This is third grade stuff. If a judge asks me a question in her courtroom, I'm going to try my best to answer it honestly. It is, after all, her court.

[boomdaddy]

The three innocent ones were detained for an hour, until the judge could find out the guilty party.

If this were an accident, assault, robbery or some other notable crime, I can see the 'witnesses" being detained. But, holding a group of people over a cell phone, to me, is over kill. I don't disagree with punishing the guilty.I do disagree with the method for finding out who those parties were.

[Will Lavender]

boomdaddy wrote: The three innocent ones were detained for an hour, until the judge could find out the guilty party.

If this were an accident, assault, robbery or some other notable crime, I can see the 'witnesses" being detained. But, holding a group of people over a cell phone, to me, is over kill. I don't disagree with punishing the guilty.I do disagree with the method for finding out who those parties were.

What other method could she have used? Have a bailiff threaten them with his baton? Frisk them? I don't see how she could have done it any other way if they refused to tell the truth.

[Caveman Catfan]

boomdaddy wrote: Do you guys really believe that the bystanders should be punished for not telling on someone else?

My whole point of the heavy handed judge is the fact that he kept five people, to fish out the guilty and then punished those who weren't the guilty party.

?????????

If you are in the court room and the judge has ordered cell phones be turned off and a phone rings (for a third time), when the judge asks whose phone it is, you answer. I think she punished those who were guilty of contempt.

[boomdaddy]

Will Lavender wrote: boomdaddy wrote: The three innocent ones were detained for an hour, until the judge could find out the guilty party.

If this were an accident, assault, robbery or some other notable crime, I can see the 'witnesses" being detained. But, holding a group of people over a cell phone, to me, is over kill. I don't disagree with punishing the guilty.I do disagree with the method for finding out who those parties were.

What other method could she have used? Have a bailiff threaten them with his baton? Frisk them? I don't see how she could have done it any other way if they refused to tell the truth.

It seems that, suprisingly to me, that I am all alone on this issue. I feel that the rights of the innocent in this case, outweigh the importance of catching the guilty parties. To state it another way, "Is finding out the guilty party for such a petty infraction, worth infringing on the rights of the innocent?"

[Caveman Catfan]

boomdaddy wrote: It seems that, suprisingly to me, that I am all alone on this issue. I feel that the rights of the innocent in this case, outweigh the importance of catching the guilty parties. To state it another way, "Is finding out the guilty party for such a petty infraction, worth infringing on the rights of the innocent?"
I see your point. I do not feel the article gives us enough info to make a determination as to the two that were forced to sit, but not otherwise punished. I am not sure why neitherof those two were interviewed for the story.

[Wildcat Larry]

I concur with the majority ruling on this thread, and it has nothing to do with cell phones. When a judge asks you a question in their courtroom, you answer and answer truthfully or you are, indeed, in contempt of court. If you're not willing to abide that, then you shouldn't be in the courtroom .... otherwise you would be called a defendant. ;)

[johnkyblue]

Doesn't it amount to self-incrimination?

[SWFLACAT]

johnkyblue wrote: Doesn't it amount to self-incrimination?


Which is far better than self-insemenation!:blush:



As to the topic, It is my opinion that the Judge asked a question and should have gotten a QUICK and honest answer. I do not think the Fifth applies here. Boomdaddy do not sit beside me in a court rooom and let your cell phone ring, I will point to you before the judge even asks!

[kybuc]

Oh I could create a huge prank with this subject. Strategically place cell phones in the court room under chairs and then stand outside the courtroom in the hall way and call each phone one after the other.

I would love to see this judge's face baring she never caught the culprit who created the prank .

Do we have any volunteers?

:P

[Spanish Moss]

I don't have a problem with the judge.

Where I work if a cell phone goes off during a meeting, you buy pizza on Friday for the whole office. Our office consists of six floors. That is a lot of pizza.

We have pizza about every Friday. We consider it a perk.

[capcat]

Will Lavender wrote: boomdaddy wrote: The three innocent ones were detained for an hour, until the judge could find out the guilty party.

If this were an accident, assault, robbery or some other notable crime, I can see the 'witnesses" being detained. But, holding a group of people over a cell phone, to me, is over kill. I don't disagree with punishing the guilty.I do disagree with the method for finding out who those parties were.

What other method could she have used? Have a bailiff threaten them with his baton? Frisk them? I don't see how she could have done it any other way if they refused to tell the truth.

Couldn't she have had someone check the call log for the timeof recent missed/received calls on their phones? Maybe she considered it too much trouble.

[WildcatGirl]

I think they deserved it...and I think they would get it in a hurry in Madison Co. AL. Trust me the baliffs in the courts here come in and tell you that you'd better turn them off. (anyone represented by a local atty will have already been told because they ALL know) I worked for several years in the local court system as a caseworker for the Department of Human Resources and believe me I KNEW to not go into a hearing with my cell on. Especially in certain courtrooms...one particular judges baliff would come out before her and warn that they were in danger of contempt charges if they came into court with a cell turned on and while I never witnessed one going off I feel extremely confident that she would have found someone in contempt and given them their 5 days if one had rung!!!

[WildcatGirl]

boomdaddy wrote: The three innocent ones were detained for an hour, until the judge could find out the guilty party.

If this were an accident, assault, robbery or some other notable crime, I can see the 'witnesses" being detained. But, holding a group of people over a cell phone, to me, is over kill. I don't disagree with punishing the guilty.I do disagree with the method for finding out who those parties were.
If they were sitting in court for a hearing certainly they hadn't made plans for the remainder of the day...if they had then they were idiots! She asked and no one answered. What would you suggest she do? Ignore it and have her courtroom turned into a circus? Also, rarely in my experience, is there a 100% innocent party sitting in court that isn't a part of someone's paid staff...shoot when I was working in the court I'd have been happy to be detained for an extra hour...and if I was in there as a defendant then I would have been happy to ONLY be detained for an hour!

[WildcatGirl]

kybuc wrote: Oh I could create a huge prank with this subject. Strategically place cell phones in the court room under chairs and then stand outside the courtroom in the hall way and call each phone one after the other.

I would love to see this judge's face baring she never caught the culprit who created the prank .

Do we have any volunteers?

:P
Might I suggest you NOT try this in Municipal Court Judge Sybil Cleveland's courtroom I'm not saying this as an insult to her...she is my dearest friend, whom I love but you would see her bad side come out...probably one of the things we have in common(at least according to someone else who used to work with us...lol)

[Mr. Peanut]

Self-important jerk. Nothing like a king/queen and her banana republic. I've rarely been treated as inappropriately as when I've had to go for speeding tickets and the like.

Court is one of the few places (post junior high anyway) where you can't tell the jerks in charge that they are being jerks, despite how much they deserve the comment. They get to subpeona you, herd you like cattle for a few hours, talk to you in a way most of us wouldn't talk to a child molester... and then ground you if you don't grovel.