Judges say the stupidest things...

A

azurefly

Moderator
"You planned this, sir, and this was a very brutal killing," she continued. "As she lay dying at your feet, you proceeded to stab her. That was unnecessary. You added to her pain, Mr. Dyleksi."
Click to expand...


This is from a CNN.com article about the killing of a prominent t.v. attorney's wife by some teenager.

Someone should ask this Judge, Barbara Zuniga, whether she thinks the initial beating was necessary, to counterpoint her statement that the STABBING was not. :rolleyes:

I hate it when judges think they have to ORATE -- especially when they SUCK at it. :mad:

Here's the story

The way it reads, you'd think they're arguing that every kid who had a crappy upbringing is entitled to MURDER PEOPLE. :barf: :mad:



-azurefly
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nonsense!

I hate it when judges think they have to ORATE -- especially when they SUCK at it.
Click to expand...

The "oration" you complain about was acknowledging the uncontroverted evidence of the aggravated nature of the crime, which was a component in determining the "no parole" sentence. In short, what you whine about was not only needed, but beneficial. :rolleyes:

The way it reads, you'd think they're arguing that every kid who had a crappy upbringing is entitled to MURDER PEOPLE.
Click to expand...

You really don't have a clue what was really going on, do you? Those of us who actually read and comprehended the story noted THIS:

"They blame your mother. They blame your father. They blame your lifestyle," the judge said. "People do not want to understand and to accept that someone who looks like you, who is the young man living next door, could be so evil."

"People have also commented on your lack of affect," the judge told Dyleski.

She said she recalled catching him expressing emotion once in court when autopsy photos were shown as a pathologist described Vitale's wounds.

"I saw you, sir, lean forward and your mouth fell open," the judge said. "You were absolutely fascinated by your handiwork."
Click to expand...

The judge clearly found the killer - and ONLY the killer - was responsible, notwithstanding your rant .
 
I don't think that this is a characteristic specific to judges. A pet-peeve of mine is when people fail to write like they talk, or talk like they write. Narration should have a logical flow, and folks who cannot form a coherent thought should not attempt to do so.

Notwithstanding the above, I feel that the judge's comments, however scattered they may seem in the vaccum of quotation, could be properly construed to have a coherent and rational meaning if read in context of the larger transaction, i.e. explaining why these crimes are deserving of an aggravation elevation.

Feel free to Google any particularly long words...
 
Why don't you use the search function, enter "azurefly," and satisfy yourself that I don't have any problem comprehending and using "long words."


-azurefly
 
So, the murderer is sentenced to life without parole, and you're complaining about the sentencing speech?

OK then ... thanks for sharing. :rolleyes:
 
I didn't say I liked the life-without-parole judgment. There are probably a hundred aspects of the case that I could complain about, but because I chose one, and not the other 99, you are going to jump on that?

He got life because he was 16 when he committed the crime, and for some reason our system does not think that 16-year-old cold-blooded murderers deserve to be executed. (I disagree, but I'm "bloodthirsty.")

My beef is that the judge, in her effort to sound fancy, said some pretty dumb-sounding things, like specifying that stabbing the victim "wasn't necessary." Well DUH, judge. Neither was BLUDGEONING HER.

And to answer another criticism, I wasn't saying necessarily that the judge was excusing the kid because of his tough life; I thought that the tone of the ARTICLE was doing that.

That's why I said "the way IT reads," "they" are making it sound like...


-azurefly
 
Regardless of what the search function ostensibly might reveal regarding azurefly's propensity or lack thereof of reading and comprehending sesquipedalian material, the original post in this thread tells me everything I need to know on the subject.
 
Good, I'm glad. Now make use of your "ignore" feature and you won't have to be bothered with my pedestrian observations, my paleolithic predisposition toward misinterpretation, or my penchant for pedantry henceforth.

You can also say goodbye to my disputatious demeanor, if you so desire.

-azurefly
 
I have no problem with people using long words if they are the best words to convey the author's meaning. I have no problem with people who write in a different manner than they speak; or even those who engage in gratuitous alliteration.

What I have a problem with is condescention and sniping at each other over trivial matters. Let's have it stop now... mmKay?

-Dave
 
The use of long words is no idicator of one's ability to "get it." The judge's statements were misinterpreted, regardless of the threadstarter's vocabulary.
 
The Judge just wanted to put it on the record so that if the case came up on appeal the next judge or judges wouldnt have to second guess her. This would serve to highlight the vicious nature of the crime and the reasoning that this guy needs to be off the street.
 
This particular case notwithstanding, one thing that all judges do that annoys me is to address criminals as "sir" and "Mister So-and-so". I suppose in light of the seriousness and professionalism of the courtroom setting and purpose, I could expect nothing else. but just once I would like to hear a judge call someone like this guy a "worthless, fetid, maggot-ridden POS".

Tim
 
Long ago I was in court as a witness waiting for my case to come up. I was only half paying attention to what was going on in another case, but I did notice that something pissed the judge off and he told the defendant "you just ****ed up", and directed the bailiff to handcuff him.

I think that when judges are lecturing some deserving person, the "sir" and "Mister so and so" are facetious displays of respect, which is intended to convey disrespect. And I think it works better than cussing them out.
 
I think that when judges are lecturing some deserving person, the "sir" and "Mister so and so" are facetious displays of respect, which is intended to convey disrespect. And I think it works better than cussing them out.
Click to expand...

Sometimes. But mostly, it's because showing respect isn't about the slimebag (who might as easily be sitting at one table as another). It's about showing the proper respect for the court and the proceedings, and the judge is to lead by example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top