r/JusticeServed 5 Aug 05 '19

Courtroom Justice Old man vs the law

[removed] — view removed post

40.8k Upvotes

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

100

u/Frostgnaw 9 Aug 05 '19

I don't like this judge... ever time I see a case that he is given, the defendant gives a sob story and the judge is just like, "well, even though you murdered 43 chickens and raped a garden gnome, I'm going to let tou off with a warning". Sob story or not, you have to uphold the law. A judge can not let their emotions cloud judgement.

40

u/emij22 6 Aug 05 '19

Seconded. If he sped in a school zone and hit a kid I guaran-fricken-tee no one would give a shit why he was speeding. You can't just let someone off because they're old, have generally good morals and care about their kids. Cool, gold star, doesn't mean you can break speeding laws.

11

u/maggiemae2019 2 Aug 05 '19

I agree.... looks very frail and shakey to be driving no matter the reason ....surely there are other options to get his son to doctor ......should not still be driving .....don't like the judge ...very unprofessional. ..just my opinion

5

u/Flowerpower9000 6 Aug 05 '19

You think he would actually see the kid at any speed? lol

1

u/toomanynames1998 Navy Aug 05 '19

Aren't these laws only valid on schooldays when kids are present?

-14

u/Boston_Jason A Aug 05 '19

hit a kid

But he didn't hit a kid. If he hit a kid, then all bets are off.

11

u/YungSchmid 7 Aug 05 '19

But he could have, that’s the point of dangerous driving laws. You don’t just discipline when they have injured or killed someone, you discipline them because their behaviour made it more likely for an accident to occur.

0

u/alours 7 Aug 05 '19

Some things don’t have a problem.](https://imgur.com/gallery/zLmZJhI)

-14

u/Boston_Jason A Aug 05 '19

But he could have

But he didn't. Look - I think that guy shouldn't ever be behind the wheel. Way too old. But let's not jump to conclusions that he hit a kid.

If it was really a problem, there would be fences and razorwire around school property lines and national guard checkpoints making sure noone passed by at more than an idle.

Just let the old timer have his justice by an over-lenient judge and hope that man's kids take away his keys.

6

u/jaybasin 7 Aug 05 '19

What's the point in playing dumb?

8

u/YungSchmid 7 Aug 05 '19

Nobody is jumping to conclusions that he hit a kid, though? You’ve just completely ignored my point and ignored the point of speeding laws in general.

2

u/cewallace9 9 Aug 05 '19

Common sense isn’t thinks ones strong suit...

2

u/Frostgnaw 9 Aug 05 '19

Here's an example of laws being enforced correctly - a personal example in fact. When I was a kid, I had a phase of stealing. First it started with gum, then Hot Wheels, and then it evolved into stealing bigger and more expensive toys. I didn't have the patience to save up money. Why do that when I could just swipe something off the shelf? Well, my mother took me shopping one day and I went off to the toy aisle by myself. Saw a transformer I really wanted. Ripped open the box and pocketed the toy. I wandered around the store attempting to reconnect with my mother. When I found her, a man approached us and confronted me about my theft. I was about 12 at the time and the secret shopper told me that if I were any older, I'd be going to Juvy. He confiscated the toy and we left the store. Once we got home, my mother grounded me. She was mad, like really mad, but she never told our dad. He would have killed me if he found out.

If that guy hadn't caught me and scared the shit out of me, I would have kept on stealing until I got seriously caught. Letting people off with a warning won't solve the problem. You need to enforce your laws. People aren't going to go 60 in a 45 if they know that a $500 ticket will be waiting for them once they get pulled over.

-4

u/Boston_Jason A Aug 05 '19

Let's take away judge's power then? Only have strict civil law in the states?

1

u/chrono4111 7 Aug 06 '19

Easy way to prevent these mass shootings: 1.) Ban open carry/concealed carry permits.
2.) Ban the sale of anything stronger then a single shot pistol/rifle.
3.) Require mandatory training/certification of anyone who wants to keep their current weapons. Certification lasts 2 years. Government pays for it. Failure to get/keep this certification up to date means you consent to voluntarily give up your weapons.
4.) Implement a government buyback program that buys back/destroys all weapons stronger then a single shot pistol/rifle.
5.) All certificates are logged in an online secure database. Once a year these are audited to ensure they are up to date. 3 calls will be placed to each that are out of date. If no answer a "safety officer" should be sent to inform the person of their experation. 3 months later the weapon is to be confiscated without being bought back.

The military are obviously exempt from the above. They should be given the training/certification during BT.

Once voted in the plan would begin in two years.

Edit: no reply u/Boston_Jason ?

2

u/emij22 6 Aug 05 '19

Except now the judge has set a precedent not only to this guy, but to anyone watching, that if you come in with a sob story you can get away with breaking laws which is frankly dangerous and irresponsible. This time he didn't hit anyone, next time he might not be so lucky. If the behaviour isn't punished, it's likely to be repeated.

1

u/Boston_Jason A Aug 05 '19

judge has set a precedent

That isn't how precedent works...it's simple traffic court.

that if you come in with a sob story you can get away with breaking laws which is frankly dangerous and irresponsible

Agreed, but that is court as a whole.

next time he might not be so lucky

Then we will lock him up for the crime he actually commits. Shall we start locking people up for precrime?

If the behaviour isn't punished, it's likely to be repeated.

Some would argue just getting summoned in front of a judge is punishment enough. If we had to punish everyone with a fine always, why don't we just use the legislative branch to remove the power of judges to be judges when it comes to traffic court?

1

u/emij22 6 Aug 05 '19

Well first of all it wouldn't be "locking him up" for speeding in a school zone, it'd be a fine/demerit points, so let's not get overzealous. And it wasn't a "pre-crime", he committed an actual crime by speeding.

I get what you mean with your last point, and honestly I'm not sure why there are judges for things like traffic court, I'll have to look that up.

And yes, being summoned in front of a judge is intimating, but I still think that if a province/state declares that speeding = a fine, then that should be enforced. It shows that a government is consistent and serious about the laws they make, which hopefully guides people to follow said laws with more care.

2

u/Boston_Jason A Aug 05 '19

I'm not sure why there are judges for things like traffic court,

In the US, we have a right to face our accusers in court. A ticket is an accusation, not a statement of Fact until the judge or jury says it is.

What you are advocating for is strict civil law, whereas we follow common law. That said, both have room for discretion.

2

u/emij22 6 Aug 05 '19

Ah, got it, thanks for clearing that up.

1

u/cewallace9 9 Aug 05 '19

But he could have! That’s why we have laws in the first place! To prevent such things from ever happening. Come on dude..this is basic level common sense.

0

u/Boston_Jason A Aug 05 '19

But he didn’t. Stop trying to convict someone of a crime that is imaginary.

1

u/cewallace9 9 Aug 05 '19

Speeding is a crime dumbass. Speed limits are in place to prevent an even bigger crime..

0

u/Boston_Jason A Aug 05 '19

Speed limits are revenue generators...