Now THIS Judge Don’t Play

Original case from February of 2017!
Video sponsor: CBD Ops, THC Free CBD Tincture

** (Disclaimer: This video content is intended for educational and informational purposes only) **

Author: rafael.nieves


24 thoughts on “Now THIS Judge Don’t Play

  1. I'm Australian so a lot of things are obviously very different but a lot of things are also quite the same.
    Bipartisan argument of punitive deterrence versus criminal rehabilitation. Either side doesn't give any scope to the fact some are habitually evil people for wont of a better term and are really subject to neither deterrence nor rehabilitation. It is not a nature versus nurture argument as some violent criminals are simply expressing an inseparable personality disorder, despite any psychologist demonstration of its cultivation or any argument of inherence to mitigate responsibilities of choice, such people will simply continue an affirming a pathology of victimising others whenever not removed from society, it elevates them among their circles and does the same for them in prison. They simply exist outside the celebrated scope of the criminal justice system and in a far more primordial realm of removing an insoluble threat from society. As anyone with merit based street cred knows they're entirely more common than either our officials or the general public is at all comfortable knowing about, for one thing that very thought will scare the children, nevertheless this area is one I think most criminal justice systems need reform in, how to pick them and what to do with them in the courts.

    There is a problem with lobbyists for example whom like to attribute reasoning to violent crimes for their own sense of closure, however it isn't applicable in the aforementioned cases. For example in recent culture the popular argument is some violent crimes are racially motivated. For the habitual abuser this is a wonderful argument, it mitigates their sentencing and provides grounds for early release by supporting this claim of overwhelming subjective conditioning to the crime and making subsequent bids of successful reform by playing the game during their time, then laughing about gaming the system after early release. They're revolving door violent personalities and I've met several of them, they are never safe for anyone to be around, you're in a fight for your life just sitting in the same room as them and don't know it. But they do game the system, have ignorant public support doing so and are part of the revolving door criminal community in all our societies.

    Meanwhile silly youths smoking dope and acting up with no genuine malice can wind up with harsher sentences than a wiry psychopath. That's a little left of centre. Also where the criminal justice systems become more ideological than functional.

    Yes telling them apart in a courtroom requires genuine wisdom. You can't afford to have intellectually incapable and inexperienced judges. They do need to be competent enough to reign in courtroom theatrics attorneys like to play and their personal agendas. A criminal court case can never be allowed to become about politics. And ruling guidelines do need to be in force to maintain a minimum standard of appropriate responsibility. You neither want judges dealing out 10yr sentences for misadventure types of criminality, nor do you want psychopaths getting off appropriate sentencing by presenting themselves as merely subject to misadventure, or either case in a different context of mitigating environments. Psychopaths will always try to misrepresent themselves as victims of a condition or environment, their attorneys previously seeking to barter for lesser charges, whilst prosecutors will often try to misrepresent incidental criminals as habitual and escalate charges.

    Then becomes the issue that more serious charges have higher standards in burden of proof, so that relatively minor offences often aren't contested so maybe subject to severe penalty quite easily, whilst more serious charges may involve enough hyperbole that even where proved may mitigate sentencing. Additionally there is the issue of laying appropriate charges to begin with, I believe in the US it often involves negotiation between prosecutors, police and defence attorneys, or may become more related to a prosecutor's personal career and agendas than the case itself, or maybe inappropriately laid by police in the first place. This can cause enough head desking by the judge to make the case essentially farcical. Crown prosecution tends to work a little differently here but has its own problems, as with anywhere of attempts to corrupt the justice system. Legal framework is fairly intuitive but officers definitely need the right frame of mind to lay correct charges for prosecution and in some cases the more intellectual types can do better here than the more emotional ones despite the same training, a clear and objective mind at these moments is always important although as mentioned it is for the most part fairly intuitive, you can pretty much guarantee there is a law for any act which is clearly, objectively wrongful so can sort the nomenclature back at the station and present the charge a little more ad hoc at the scene, if you know what you're doing.

    In any case one thing our criminal justice systems do is create a criminal subculture and that in itself is problematic, mainly in the revolving door and inappropriate sentencing contexts. We need to block the influence of reactionary activism, which brings another issue about uninformed members of the public going half cocked without being privy to or investigating evidentiary details of the case and having no commitment to adhering their opinions to jurisprudence, whilst demanding mob justice. And we need very high standards maintained within the courtrooms to reign in theatrics and face hard truths which maybe uncomfortable in more relaxed environments such as pathologies, associations and objective focus upon the acts in the case and implications of continued likelihoods. You don't let off a serial killer because you could only make a lesser charge stick, when you know he's a serial killer for example, invent a new law if you have to but no way should a serial killer go walking out of a court room no matter what pieces of paper say, that's just not a functional criminal justice system and in fact justifies lethal vigilanteism, for an extreme example. Technicality dismissals for pathological violent crimes are a legal travesty.

  2. 93 days? 3 months for smiling? yeah the only reason she changed that to 1 day was because thats a BULLSHIT abuse of her power

    i sympathise for the victims family but 3 montthes for smiling she even removed herself from the court room you went out your way to have your little speech to get those youtube instragram views and you disrupted the court room far more than she did

  3. I seen something similar to this once. I was in the courtroom and a girl decided to get pissy and the judge had her hauled away in cuffs. As she was taken out, she cussed the judge out and the judge gave her a year in jail. And it wasn't even her trial lol she was in jail for a whole year, the neighborhood was so peaceful when she was locked up๐Ÿ˜…

  4. Mike we need you and EVERYBODY to increase your level of being. Please educate yourself, starting with the book GOVERNMENT INDICTED by Marc Stevens and follow it up with Mark Passio's video THE ULTIMATE EVIL CULT- order followers police and military. If these don't blow you away it is simply because it went over your head and you need to do more preliminary work first.

  5. God bless LEOโ€™s. Why do police use the ER as the new drunk tank? Police donโ€™t hang around to press charges after the โ€œinsaneโ€ person is cleared. The aggressive disorderly vagrants know how to game the system & avoid misdemeanor/disorderly charges. Who makes the call to drop & go? Hope smart police donโ€™t have a mass exodus from 2020 adult temper tantrums.

  6. The judge was too forgiving in this case! If she was a good mother and brought up her children in Righteous ways! This would have never happened. By the way…. where's the father?! ๐Ÿ’€๐Ÿ‘Š๐Ÿ™„

  7. Actually, that woman got off very light with only one day sitting in the jail. I would have left her in there for 30 days to learn how to do the other ladies laundry. At the very least, three days what's a direction to wake up every morning and think about the dead fellow that this worthless piece of crap daughter of hers murdered by driving drunk.

  8. The lady who was smirking was probably thinking that her big boobs would probably give her a pass thru life, thus, she doesn't need to take anything seriously; m also betting that it was an atty who told her to apologize the next day, for she certainly doesn't strike me as having the good sense to do it on her own! Smart judge!

Leave a Reply