Whose phone rang? Judge jails 46 who didn't answer

[Letum]

A US judge has been removed from the bench
for jailing 46 people after none would admit to
having a mobile phone that began ringing during
his court session...


hehehe...
Manic abuse of power. Just what I would do if I had any.

[Prof]

Seems fair to me. There's no excuse for allowing your phone to ring in a court room, and even less excuse for not owning up to it.

Why not blame the one selfish individual for not being honest enough to confess rather than the judge?

[kiwi_2005]

well sending them all to jail over a ph is abit over the top, he could of ordered them all out of the court house. Seems like he was having a bad day.

[TteFAboB]

Or have them searched.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

well sending them all to jail over a ph is abit over the top, he could of ordered them all out of the court house. Seems like he was having a bad day.

No - I think he was having a normal day, but didn't like being lied to. I don't like being lied to. If he asks whos phone rang, and the perpetraitor lies in court, isn't that contempt of court? The problem with him is, he knowingly jailed 45 innocent people to get the one guilty person. You can't do that in America.

-S

[Letum]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

No - I think he was having a normal day, but didn't like being lied to. I don't like being lied to. If he asks whos phone rang, and the perpetraitor lies in court, isn't that contempt of court? The problem with him is, he knowingly jailed 45 innocent people to get the one guilty person. You can't do that in America.

-S

Nah, that kind of thing is done in a corner Cuba.

[Reaves]

Originally Posted by Letum

Nah, that kind of thing is done in a corner Cuba.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[bookworm_020]

I wonder if that counted as the phone call they were intitled to?:hmm:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Prof

Seems fair to me. There's no excuse for allowing your phone to ring in a court room, and even less excuse for not owning up to it.

Why not blame the one selfish individual for not being honest enough to confess rather than the judge?

The judge shows a poor conception of "Presumption of Innocence", one of the bigger principles of law. He was rightfully fired.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

I wonder if that counted as the phone call they were intitled to?:hmm:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

I wonder if that counted as the phone call they were intitled to?:hmm:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Someone has been watching too muchTV/movies. No such entitlement exists.

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

I wonder if that counted as the phone call they were intitled to?:hmm:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Someone has been watching too much TV/movies. No such entitlement exists.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Letum

Nah, that kind of thing is done in a corner Cuba.

Those are not Americans, nor are they of an ally either. They have no rights. Bring on the Geneva convention - it allows us to shoot them for being enemy combatants outside of uniform.

So my question is, are we not being humane? Quite the contrary given the facts in that we are being overly humane. They should be shot.

-S

[bookworm_020]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Someone has been watching too much TV/movies. No such entitlement exists.

Blame my wife, she makes me watch the crime channel on cable. Now I tend to go and play Silent hunter 3 / 4

[Letum]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Bring on the Geneva convention - it allows us to shoot them for being enemy combatants outside of uniform.

Only when you are at war and they are members of an opposeing army outside of uniform.
The war ended a long time ago and none of the people where members of the Iraqi army.

Not at war?
They are attacking you with out a uniform but not in a army?

That's a civil case.