Have you ever heard that you never fight cops in the street, you fight them in court? Same thing for cops and judges. If this had gone south, they could be suspended without pay or fired, and like it not, in law enforcement, if you're fired, even wrongly, your career is over. Forever. No one will touch you.
I don't understand your point on this. So cops will always let judges off the hook because they might get in trouble if they are wrong?
I'm just saying that you walk a very fine line when dealing with a judge and unless it's glaringly obvious (He's obviously driving drunk or you see him murder someone), it's best to let the head of your agency square it away with the DA first lest you and half your agency find their asses in a sling. It's not a beat cop or his supervisor's place to act unless a law has clearly, and I mean so clear that even Ray Charles could spot it, against the law. Edit: Did you know that the only time a cop is legally bound to act is when a judge issues an order? The law clearly says that if I see a guy running a red light. I don't have to stop him. But, if a judge sees someone run a red light and tells me to stop him, I don't have a choice. Now, if I do see someone do something stupid I'm gonna act lest everyone that saw it think they can get away with it to, but that's a different issue.
I understand your point better now. This is why I am tempted to support limiting judges to single terms in office. I don't like the idea of a "career" politician, let alone a career judge.
No he wasn't. Simply being rude is not enough grounds to have your property confiscated. Kick him out of class (by force if need be), but leave his shit alone.
This judge needs to realize that this is a classroom not a courtroom. In that classroom he is not a judge, he's a professor, who is there at the discretion of the students and the university. And a university doesn't have a right to deprive you of your property unless its possession is against the rules. The proper thing would have been for the professor/judge to give it to the student at the end of class and then make the student speak to the Dean or else drop the class. Not to mention, people need to remember that a cell phone is a form of communication, that kid might not have a landline telephone and that is his only method of communication.
A ringing phone is not equal to a blowing horn. Plus, I don't think the movie theater manager is going to take your horn away for blowing it in the theater. He's going to kick you out. And if you give him shit, he'll call the cops.
I still disagree. The kid ignored the instructors order to desist. I would have taken it, shut it off, then kicked him out of class, failed him for the course, then given it back. After class.
That's the proper course of action. However, this judge seemed to have no intention of giving the student the cell phone back, that's what we're disagreeing with. At least the kid got his phone back. However, he seemed to have some sort of emergency situation at home, so he could appeal if dropped from the course.
He could have also looked at the judge, requested to be excused due to an emergency and apologize for interrupting the class.
Show me one person here who would suggest otherwise. Point is, he didn't. The discussion is about what happens next.
But I do. I would have busted the fucker. But...the instructor, judge or no judge, was probably pretty pissed...I would have been. Anger doesn't make for clear thinking.
