FSTDT Forums
Community => Society and History => Topic started by: Askold on August 29, 2014, 05:51:17 am
-
http://apublicdefender.com/2014/08/26/a-shocker-in-maryland/#more-5944
Basically what happened was:
Man was defending himself in court (bad idea generally) and the judge wasn't having any of that shit so he ordered an electrical shock administered to him.
Yeah, that is about it.
He wasn't threatening anyone, he wasn't resisting or even insulting the judge. They were just going through the jury selection and the judge didn't like him questioning his AUTHORITAH!
In the moments before Nalley ordered King to be shocked, the defendant did not threaten Nalley or anyone else, according to the court transcript. King did not make any threatening physical moves toward Nalley or anyone else, and did not attempt to flee, according to the defendant and his parents, Alexander and Doris King who were in the courtroom and witnessed the attack.
The transcript of the exchange between King and Nalley is five pages long; it appears that Nalley ordered King shocked within two or three minutes of encountering him. Early in their exchange, King asked Nalley for his “Superior Court GA 15 Certified Delegation of Authority Order.” King said he was trying to determine whether Nalley, in light of his tire deflating conviction, was allowed to serve as a judge. “I didn’t think he was in good standing to oversee my case,” King said.
-
What the hell is wrong with this guy?
-
Concidering that the judge also slashed someone tires over petty reasons he might have some impulse control problems.
-
Annnnd, yet, he remains in a position of power? Your tax dollars at work, folks.
-
Holy shit, the judge may be worse than some of the criminals!
-
not surprising...
-
So if judges are anything like the policemen, how long until we see an association of judges coming out in strong, staunch support of this guy?
...Do judges even have an association like that?
-
The real outrage here is that the blog post linked above uses the "shocker" pun no less than four times, including the title. I mean, surely there have to be some other electricity-based puns you could use? Maybe something with "charged"? I dunno.
But seriously though, the judge is an asshole. It sounds like the defendant was also an asshole, but as it turns out that's not a good reason to shock someone.
-
The real outrage here is that the blog post linked above uses the "shocker" pun no less than four times, including the title. I mean, surely there have to be some other electricity-based puns you could use? Maybe something with "charged"? I dunno.
But seriously though, the judge is an asshole. It sounds like the defendant was also an asshole, but as it turns out that's not a good reason to shock someone.
What was the judge supposed to do?
Oh yeah, cite him for contempt and let him cool his heels in the holding cell until he smartens up.
-
If you read the transcript, sounds to me like the defendant knew his stuff and was trying to get the judge to recuse himself on the basis of being a total psychopath.
Ironbite-and I really wish Queen was here to explain this better.
-
The real outrage here is that the blog post linked above uses the "shocker" pun no less than four times, including the title. I mean, surely there have to be some other electricity-based puns you could use? Maybe something with "charged"? I dunno.
I KNOW, WASN'T THAT SHOCKING?!!?!?!
But seriously though, the judge is an asshole. It sounds like the defendant was also an asshole, but as it turns out that's not a good reason to shock someone.
If he was getting out of the subject then the judge could have warned him or ordered him to stick to the subject or something. Except that it does sound like the defendant had a point. He was asking if the judge can be allowed to serve (rule? what's the term for this?) when he has been showing signs of unstable behaviour and has actually done criminal activity and the judge responded by revealing his unstable behaviour and doing illegal torture.
-
If he was getting out of the subject then the judge could have warned him or ordered him to stick to the subject or something. Except that it does sound like the defendant had a point. He was asking if the judge can be allowed to serve (rule? what's the term for this?) when he has been showing signs of unstable behaviour and has actually done criminal activity and the judge responded by revealing his unstable behaviour and doing illegal torture.
The term is to be able to 'rule impartially' on the defendant's case. Which, as is seen here, said judge isn't able to do so. Therefore, he should have recused himself due to personal issues, and another judge should have taken up the defendant's case.