Newest Threads

**Coyotenator** · 10-27-2012, 04:30 AM

Idaho law states that to have a camera in a courtroom requires prior permission from the judge.

I thought the bailiffs showed admirable restraint in dealing with this bonehead's antics ,and his failure to obey the lawful instructions of sworn police officers resulted in his tasing.

This moron got what he was asking for, and his original minor traffic infraction has now escalated into more serious charges.

**USEBOTHHANDS** · 10-27-2012, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikingdad

I don't agree with what this guy was doing or the way he went about it, but I do wonder why it is that in this day and age we don't have cameras installed in courtrooms and public access to all feeds? The feeds could be accessed by all of the media outlets and anyone who wanted to see what is going on in any given courtroom in the nation. In high profile cases all news media outlets would have equal access to the exact same footage and could use whatever camera angles they want to use. In really high profile cases where, say, the jury is sequestered then the feeds would be restricted, or access would be given after a certain period of time.

At the same time I do understand why they do restrict people from bringing cameras into the courtroom as they are a distraction. This guy just proved that.

judges don't wanna be second guessed by the morons of the masses. PLUS, if a judge, who is beyond reproach and basically above the law on their verdicts, DOES do something that is "off record," the camera will and can be a vital piece of evidence to have the case thrown out, overturned, and possibly the judge unseated.

**Vikingdad** · 10-27-2012, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USEBOTHHANDS

judges don't wanna be second guessed by the morons of the masses. PLUS, if a judge, who is beyond reproach and basically above the law on their verdicts, DOES do something that is "off record," the camera will and can be a vital piece of evidence to have the case thrown out, overturned, and possibly the judge unseated.

Yes, and this is exactly why we need to be able to see the inside of the courtrooms. How many voters will vote for a judge yet know absolutely nothing about them? How are we to know anything about them? The only point of reference we have is whatever their supporters say and they are almost always lawyers and prosecutors. Do you really think that is a good reference?

cutter11 · 10-28-2012, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWMIM

You see these alot, there's a fine line.

Youtube is full of open carry protests. Some guys do it right, must have been for some time, because the LEOs of whatever town they film in are up on the law, and that was the point. There's a stop, evryone is pleasant, and life is good.

Then there's always the guy who wants to get into a pissing contest with the LEO, get confrontational, and sets the movement back 50 years.

The guy in this video went beyond the call. He was an obnoxious ass, he refused to give his name while demanding everybody elses, and at the point where he got lit up, he was trying to push past dude in the door.

Don't know what he was trying to prove, other than what a whinging little turd he was.

DITTO:

You know I'm 68 yrs and I guess it's just that I was raised during a different time. I was taught to show respect for my elders and for LEO and others in authority who are just doing their job. I might not agree with a law, rule, policy or whatever but the people that are in charge of enforcing are not the enemy here. There are other means to press for changes.

I spent 11 years in the military at a time when you could see little maggots like this protesting anything and everything about this country on tv on a daily basis. Made me want yo puke then as well as now. He just needs someone to take him out behind the barn for some real attitude adjustment. If He keeps going at it, someone sooner or later will give it to him. He better hope he lives through it.

**Sonic82** · 10-28-2012, 04:17 AM

This guy was a little obnoxious twerp....but I believe we should have video in all courtrooms.

**JonM** · 10-28-2012, 04:29 AM

i feel ripped off. i thought they were going to tase some dipsht for ten straight minutes swapping batteries as needed!!

defendents have a right to a speedy trial with a jury of their peers. some clownshoe wanting to make a circus out of a serious event for a defendent and victim(s) and the relatives of both.

while citizens do have a right to observe trials it does not include filming or recording the events for future or instant entertaiment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonic82

This guy was a little obnoxious twerp....but I believe we should have video in all courtrooms.

video recordings should only be available if its allowed for the jury and/or appeals. it should NEVER be for public display

**axxe55** · 10-28-2012, 04:36 AM

it was traffic court? and he was acting like a general douchebag over a traffic citation? i'd have probably tazed his dumb azz too. "I'm not a person, I'm a man" "you may have authority over persons, but not me, I'm a man"

yeah, he actually deserved it IMO!

**Vikingdad** · 10-28-2012, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonM

video recordings should only be available if its allowed for the jury and/or appeals. it should NEVER be for public display

Why? I see nothing wrong, in this day and age, with having live video feeds from courtrooms all over the country. I think that exceptions should and could be made to this but the day of instant and total information is long upon us. Hell, most people can see their house or driveway on the Internet thanks to Google, so I say just bring it one step further. Either that or do away with all cameras in the public arena.