It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Only in Florida! Judge punches public defender

page: 3
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: HanzHenry

I will not admit to being wrong when I am not.




posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TorqueyThePig
keep telling yourself you aren't wrong, eventually you will believe your own delusion on this topic. BUT, anyone with more than three brain cells will be able to read and comprehend what you are unable to admit and/or comprehend about the duties you are sworn to uphold.
you are a cop, you are never wrong


even when I pull up the ACTUAL STATUTE which says the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim.

Incredible. The point is, according to the LAW in FLORIDA, if a CRIME happen IN THE PRESENCE of an officer that is ENOUGH to ARREST.

the bailiff witnessed the assault and should have arrested the judge for assault.
edit on 3-6-2014 by HanzHenry because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: HanzHenry

A crime of that nature requires a victim. In this case the victim is the defense attorney and the suspect is the judge. Ultimately a determination of charges is contingent upon the victim actually wanting to prosecute. If the victim declines, then that is the end of it.

There are very few laws on the books that allows the state to initiate a prosecution without the cooperation / consent of the victim.

in my experience the only laws im aware of concerns domestic violence and homicide. For the longest time the Prosecuting attorneys had their hands tied when it came to people intimidating the victim of domestic violence in order for the charges to be dropped. The laws were changed that allows the PA to initiate prosecution even with an non cooperating victim.

For homicide the state essentially takes on the roll of the deceased. More or less it implies the victim would want the person who killed them to stand trial for the action.

The crime of assault is not against the state its against another individual.

The bailiff's could have broken up the fight, which I think they did. Once the defense attorney declined to prosecute the incident ended right then and there. The bailiff is a witness and not a victim. Since the bailiff was not assaulted he cannot file charges.

The legal term is standing. Since the deputy was not assaulted he has no legal standing to arrest the judge.


What should, and most likely will, occur is the public defender and the judge having their actions investigated by the governing agency that has oversight regarding law license / ethics breaches involving officers of the court (Officer of the court are lawyers / judges etc).

To add my own opinion, based on my state, its possible Florida has something called a mutual affray. Its when an altercation occurs because both parties involved forced it. In those cases both individuals are suspects and victims at the same time. Generally if one party wants to press charges both individuals are charged and when they don't want to press charges its over with.

Going for overly simplistic here -
There are 2 types of crimes -
* - Crimes against a person
* - Crimea's against the state.

2 people fighting is a crime against a person. It requires the victim to prosecute.

If a person is intoxicated and gets pulled over, his crime is against the state. In this example the law enforcement officer is a witness / victim to the crime against the state.


In this situation TorqueyThePig is absolutely 100% correct.
edit on 4-6-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I agree with you 100%. As do my supervisors and detective coworkers.

In the state of Florida the only crimes involving human victims that can be prosecuted without the victim signing an affidavit are any kind of domestic violence charge, child/edlerly abuse/neglect and murder.

As for a battery (non domestic violence) charge, if the victim chooses to sign a decline to prosecute the police cannot make an arrest for the charge of battery.

The affidavit signed by the victim is the probable cause needed to make the arrest.

That being said, witnessing the fight provided the deputy enough reasonable suspicion/probable cause to detain the two. However, once a decline to prosecute was signed that was the end of it.
edit on 4-6-2014 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2014 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Very unprofessional for someone with a high social ranking to resort to violence in such a fashion. However, perhaps making the man redundant is unnecessary. Just the repercussions from social media will shock him enough to never do something like this again.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
For what it's worth, I did just get off the phone with assistant state attorney Jason Arthur in Florida district 18. He is our go to guy for cases that we work at my department.

He stated that even though the deputy witnessed the incident he still needs to establish all elements of the crime to make the arrest.

The most important element to build sufficient probable cause in this specific case of battery is the victim signing an affidavit and writing a statement saying that the battery was intentional and done against his will.

Without that affidavit and statement sufficient probable cause does not exist to make a legit arrest.

He further stated that this case was more of a mutual combatant situation where both parties technically consented to hitting each other by engaging in a mutual fight.

If you listen to the video the judge says "If you want to fight, let's go out back and I'll just beat your ass,"

The attorney replies, "Let's go." He then proceeds to follow the judge outside and engages in a fight. One which he lost.




edit on 4-6-2014 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2014 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TorqueyThePig

That sounds about right as far as the legalese is concerned…I too asked a contact of mine is the Commonwealth Attorneys office and got about the same answer. Thanks for showing your work as it were…it helps defuse these arguments and we can all benefit from the knowledge.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: loremipsum
Very unprofessional for someone with a high social ranking to resort to violence in such a fashion. However, perhaps making the man redundant is unnecessary. Just the repercussions from social media will shock him enough to never do something like this again.


To be honest I don't think it was a high social standing that caused this. Personally speaking I think some judges intentionally piss people off. I have been in court where the judge has acted like an arrogant ass.

The authority of a judge in his courtroom is considerable and just like any other profession that revolves around "authority" you will have those who serve the people and you will have those whose ethics would raise eyebrows in the Court of Caligula.

Even though the victim declined to press charges it does not mean there will be no punishment. I will be surprised if their actions are not reviewed by the group that has oversight on licensing / ethics complaints / etc. Loss / suspension of a law license is just as career ending as a loss / suspension of post certification (law enforcement licensing).

I think what occurred in the video was started by the judge who copped an arrogant attitude towards the attorney.

You guys know the jokes...

What's the difference between God and a Judge? (works with doctor also).
God doesn't think he is a Judge.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for being the first person to respond to me, mate
. I didn't say that a high social standing caused it, just that it's a pity that someone with such a high social standing resorted to this. However, I agree with you. A personal anecdote in support of your theory:

About two years ago a friend of my uncle carried a pocket knife, which he didn't use. I lived in the Netherlands, which is qua laws on par with California (and I admit wholeheartedly that it was a stupid decision on his part). He got in a bar fight with an ex-friend of his and had to go to court. As he was completely in his right to punch his attacker, the dude remembered that the friend of my uncle carried a pocket knife that day. When he brought that up, the judge called the friend of my uncle "The worst kind of scum", proceeded to call him names and would charge him with what in the US would be considered a felony. He had to sit for five years. Luckily, the judge got overruled.

So yeah, it's an international phenomenon as well.
edit on 201465 by loremipsum because: Used a synonym in order to prevent repetitive text.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: loremipsum

Some judges need to be reminded that lady justice is wearing a blindfold for a reason. The scale is balanced and the downward sword is punishment.

A judge, who is suppose to be impartial, should not make comments like those period. It kind of undermines the whole concept of a fair and unbiased trial.

There are some with a sense of humor though.
For instance when the defense attorney lips off to the officer on the stand about telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth only to be countered with the officer telling the defense "absolutely it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as opposed to the truth, the half truth and whatever helps your client out.

sometimes a chuckle and headshake form the judge is enough to calm everyone down.

What I meant about high society was more along the lines of a person who think they are better than those they come into contact with. Not so much a silver spoon in their mouth but the attitude that goes with it. Moral superiority maybe..



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: loremipsum
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for being the first person to respond to me, mate
.


My bad... You are welcome




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join