Judge forced to resign after putting hands on Woman

[Staph infection]

This was all started by her temper tantrum. When did people lose the ability to control themselves if things don’t go their way or how to act properly in public?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

He did not have authority to personally conduct an arrest, despite having the authority to order her arrested.

Gut vibe is that's stupid. What am I missing?

 

[Phelly2]

Not sure that a judge has authority to detain a person outside the court room(isn't that law enforcement's job?).

But to say that she was manhandled (before she resisted arrest) is a gross exaggeration.

Yes he detained her (she was not free to leave), but no, he did not abuse her or use force of any kind, really.

 

[Dirt Road Soldier]

After reading what happened, and watching the video, I think the judge was within his rights RIGHT UNTIL he guided her into the court room. Had he brought her to a independent room and then had deputies come talk to her and investigate the disturbance rather than bring her I to a (I assume) private case I thi he could have slides. Bit as is, he overstepped his authority and should have been severely reprimanded and censured. But forcing him to resign I think is a bit far, he never manhandled her or did anything out of his jurisdiction as judges usually have control of the building.

In other words, he fucked up bit not why people think.

 

[JamesRussler]

So you have no evidence that he either arrested or detained her, and are assuming both.

That right?

I'm telling you—instructing you—that he seized that girl based on the news story. Consider it a foundational fact.

 

[JamesRussler]

Gut vibe is that's stupid. What am I missing?

As a magistrate, he determines what the law is and makes legal rulings based on fact. He is part of the judiciary. Cops / bailiffs / sheriffs / courtroom deputies are law enforcers. They carry out court orders and bring people before the court. They part of executive branch. They are separate functions for a reason. If one person has authority to make legal rulings and personally enforce them, his power basically unchecked—he is basically a tyrant.

But aside from that, she wasn't even in his courtroom. She hadn't violated any specific order he made. He basically arrested her for violating a rule of decorum in the hallway. So how can she be in contempt? Perhaps that's why her contempt charge got tossed out a couple days later.

 

[Madmick]

I'm telling you—instructing you—that he seized that girl based on the news story. Consider it a foundational fact.

What are you talking about?

In the video, Bachman rushes from the bench to go after her and eventually catches up with her near the elevators. As the two are walking back to the courtroom together, Jackson tries running down a side hall.

That’s when Bachman grabs her neck and then her shoulder, leading her back to the courtroom before sitting her down in the jury box. Bachman insists that he was simply trying to calm the woman down.

I'm instructing you to find some evidence to support your assertion.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

As a magistrate, he determines what the law is and makes legal rulings based on fact. He is part of the judiciary. Cops / bailiffs / sheriffs / courtroom deputies are law enforcers. They carry out court orders and bring people before the court. They part of executive branch. They are separate functions for a reason. If one person has authority to make legal rulings and personally enforce them, his power basically unchecked—he is basically a tyrant.

I always viewed it more as a hierarchy. Not a separation of powers. And no, that wouldn't be "basically a tyrant". That claim would seem to ignore the structural framework of American jurisprudence.

Could the bailiffs have said "no" to his order of arrest?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

What are you talking about?

My read was he's flexing his professional knowledge on you.

 

[Madmick]

My read was he's flexing his professional knowledge on you.

I'm guessing he's fucking it up because he didn't confer with his boss-- like that time he tried insisting the burden of proof is on the accused (who aren't even accused).

 

[BEER]

Fuck 'em.

Seems like he overstepped his bounds. It isn't about whether or not he "deserves" to be fired or whatever. It has everything to do punishment for abuses of power.

We need more of this.

 

[Trotsky]

My read was he's flexing his professional knowledge on you.

Oh man, I haven't seen that clip in a very long time. I was rooting hard for the Kings in that series. I loved that Kings roster 2000-2004. I hated Cassel when he was in the league, but the dude did have sizable testicles on the court.

Anyways, of course the judge will/would never be charged with anything stemming from this. But being chased down and escorted by a judge to a courtroom to be transferred to jail is a constructive arrest if there ever was one. Even if it were litigated, you don't need proof of invocation of authority when the arresting person has actual AND apparent authority, and you can definitely infer apparent authority from that clip.

 

[jefferz]

Brutal. Absolutely disgusting, you know the only reason he thought he could assault her is because she is not only a woman but also African.

Did you just assume gender?
Fucking fascist.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'm guessing he's fucking it up because he didn't confer with his boss-- like that time he tried insisting the burden of proof is on the accused (who aren't even accused).

Maybe he's drunk. I am.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Even if it were litigated, you don't need proof of invocation of authority when the arresting person has actual AND apparent authority, and you can definitely infer apparent authority from that clip.

Come on man. There's children present.

 

[Madmick]

Where are you gents procuring the knowledge that she was made to understand she was under arrest? That she interpreted a threat of punishment if she didn't follow him back to the courtroom?

 

[JamesRussler]

What are you talking about?

U mad, Mick?

 

[Madmick]

U mad, Mick?

No, I read the statute you cited, but I'm confused what the "foundational fact" of this "seizure" is when the OP article didn't mention that. I couldn't tell from the video that she realized he was following her until she got to the lobby (as the standing reporter from the vid in OP article's news video coverage claimed). I figured there would be some witness account that said, "He was yelling at her when he was pointing in her direction that if she didn't return to the courtroom she would face criminal consequences."

I have no doubt he abused his authority in light of the fact he caved so easily, but he also said he would have fought it harder if he knew his name and reputation would get smeared in the press.

 

[Slick_36]

2 weeks unpaid leave and a note in file for termination should he do such a thing again seems reasonable

But see post above for more my actual thoughts on this

He done goofed, but it was far from egregious. Just a little inappropriate really. A small punishment would have been fair, firing him is beyond overkill but not surprising.

That said, he looked like Hulk Hogan when he walked out of that courtroom.

Maybe he can come back under a mask.

Spoiler

 

[JamesRussler]

I always viewed it more as a hierarchy. Not a separation of powers. And no, that wouldn't be "basically a tyrant". That claim would seem to ignore the structural framework of American jurisprudence.

Could the bailiffs have said "no" to his order of arrest?

Hierachy? No, it's just different functions of our government. It's separation of powers at the street level. In the bigger picture, the legislature makes the laws, the court interprets / applies the law, and the executive enforces the law. The primary function of the court is to make decrees and orders. Without the agents of the executive branch, those decrees / orders mean nothing.

A judge with power to enforce the law and arrest criminals is pretty much your worst nightmare. That's actually the basis for Judge Dredd. If you really think about it, it's an incredibly dystopian concept. One of the reasons we have separation of powers is to avoid that scenario (judge / jury / executioner).