Skip to comments.Judge orders Cleveland woman to wear an ‘idiot’ ...
Posted on 11/06/2012 9:53:33 AM PST by South40
Judge orders Cleveland woman to wear an idiot sign after she was caught driving on a sidewalk to avoid a school bus
(Title too long for FR so I was forced to shorten it)
A Cleveland woman must wear a sign labeling her as an idiot after she was caught driving on a sidewalk to avoid stopping for a school bus as it dropped children off, a judge ordered.
Shena Hardin, 32, pulled the off-road move twice to avoid stopping for the students, local WEWS-TV reported. The bus driver, Uriah Herron, shot video of Hardin pulling the maneuver in her silver Jeep in east Cleveland on the first day of school in September.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
She so stupid, she saw a sign that said “Detroit Left” so she turned around and went home.
What is the sense of having a Jeep if you can’t go off road?
“But I was wearin’ my seatbelt!” she countered.
/ end attempt at satire.
If every idiot in the world had to wear a similar sign, it sure would make it easier to see them coming and avoid them.
Until then, “Obama/Biden 2012” bumper stickers serve the purpose rather nicely.
Everybody knows you can’t pass a school bus on the left when the lights are flashing.
Maybe she was texting on her Obama-phone.
Maybe she was texting on her Obama-phone.
We live in a nation where it’s now a majority of adults who don’t have kids. (sorry, can’t quote the source, so it may or may not be a good statistic.) As this continues, expect more callous behavior.
Must have seen it in a movie.
The judge could have made her wear a sign saying: "Obama Voter."
But I repeat myself...
I never understand why judges are able to get away with this under the 8th amendment. Don’t get me wrong, it can be very useful to let the punishment fit the crime. But there it is in black and white, and unusual punishment is unconstitutional. I highly doubt wearing an idiot sign is usual.
"Here's your sign...."
Actually, her behavior perfectly illustrates the typical liberal/leftist/progressive mindset; she wants what she wants when she wants it and she’s going to do whatever it takes to get it.
They operate on the level of a three-year-old. If they can’t immediately have what they want, they will throw a tantrum or just try to grab it anyway.
My co-workers and I plan to drive by, point and laugh....
In my college days I used to type up old federal court cases for electronic scanning. One case I came across involved a man who, as part of a "creative" sentence was instructed by the judge to wear a sign that read "I am a thief" (or some such; I can't remember the exact offense). He successfully challenged the the sentence on the grounds that no government entity can force a person to admit guilt to a crime, even if he's been found guilty in a court of law. To allow such a thing would mean that an individual could be coerced into a confession, or denied the ability to appeal. I'm not surprised that there aren't more such challenges, though. Most people, given a choice between wearing such a sign or serving a jail sentence would swallow their scruples and choose the former.
She only got 30 days revocation of her driver’s license. The judge might have told her she was going to get 6 months revocation unless she agreed to wear that “i am an idiot” sign. I would definitely take such an offer even though you say it is not legal form of punishment.
it also violates the First amendment’s freedom of speech clause (freedom of speech includes the right not to be forced to speak)
but nevertheless it is a very fitting punishment
It has to be cruel AND unusual. Embarrassing, yes, but not cruel.
Judge should have made her wear a sign saying “Kick me, I’m an idiot!”. That would be punishment the rest of us could participate in.
Good for the judge.
“She only got 30 days revocation of her driver’s license. The judge might have told her she was going to get 6 months revocation unless she agreed”
I assumed something of the sort. But then that’s coercion. They can’t, or shouldn’t, induce you to give up constitutional protection by threatening something worse. Of course she’ll never sue, because she got off easy.
Can he do that? How come no judge has ordered Obama to wear one of those?
Hey! That wasn’t the woman’s fault. The SUV did it!
Just make her wear an Obama shirt.....same thing.
Being an idiot isn't a crime yet, though. ;-)
Interesting old job -- how long did you last typing those up?
Their having kids themselves is no guarantee of responsible behavior (in many cases these days, it’s proof of quite the opposite!) Some woman in Georgia hit a little girl, then backed up over her again in order to maneuver her car. She killed her of course. The woman who did this had kids of her own. IIRC, she got pretty much a slap on the wrist for doing it.
But I know what you meant. Back when kids implied a married (to each other) father and mother, it probably meant more.
Not sayin’ it’s right or wrong, but do the same thing to your rebellious kid and you’d probably be rung up by Children’s Services.
“It has to be cruel AND unusual”
I always wondered about that. Obviously an “or” would help my reading. But let me ask you, if the punishment had to be both to be unconstitutional couldn’t we legalize torture by making it usual? Does anybody read the amendment that way? I don’t see any reason why cruel alone should be outlawed but not unusual alone.
I’m not making this distinction up, by the way. It’s right there in case law. Punishment that is by its severity degrading to human dignity is forbidden, without reference to regularity. Unnecessary punishment is forbidden, without reference to regularity. We can have it your way, but then things are gonna get messy.
They should revoke her license, give her 1,000 community service cleaning sewage, make her watch as her jeep is crushed into a cube, a new coffee table, and THEN make her wear the sign
“if the punishment has to be both”
But it doesn’t, or not according to SCOTUS. They will rule punishments unconstitutional for cruelty alone, trust me. So why do we get the merely cruel but not the merely unusual?
With the brain reactions she has - the kid would surely be a dead one.
Pull her ability to drive.
In a previous life I was head of an IT Help Desk.
There was an “Explanation of problem?” field on the “Help Desk Request” form.
I noticed that sometime (really, “often” is more accurate) the technician would put “PEBKAC” in the field. When technicians were conversing with each other on the phone they would explain the problem by calling it an “I.D.- TEN - Tee error.”
I wondered about all that for a long time until I asked what these error codes meant.
Written out, the “ID10T” error code became obvious.
I hesitate to join the “shame on her” chorus.
I’m a law and order guy, but this bugs me a little bit.
I don’t even pretend to be a Constitutional scholar, but the 8th amendment prohibits cruel & unusual punishment.
The term “idiot” strikes ma as a degrading term about a person’s mental capacity.
Don’t get me wrong, I throw the term around a lot and personally LOVE the term. Particularly regarding libtards.
But I’m an individual. It bugs me that a Government official gets to brand an individual citizen with such a degrading term, in an official way.
How long until some liberal judge forces conservatives to stand on street corners with “idiot” signs, as political retribution?
What’s wrong with a fine or other conventional citation? Why the theatrics???
Judges these days strike me as power-mad egomaniacs who love to demonstrate the smallness of the individual (for example, overturning popular votes for their own biases), and the unfettered power of the state over individual Americans.
I don’t like it.
Even leaving the cruel and unusual argument aside, is this really necessary? Judges want to be celebrities nowadays.
Everybody also knows you don’t drive on the sidewalk, also.
Somehow I knew what race she was without having to see the picture.
In the few instances Ive read it seems the judge usually give an option. “A month in jail or a week in jail and 3 weeks wearing a sign around town that states youre a moron. Which is it?”
Not quite two years. OCR was a big thing back then (1976), and the government wanted those documents in a computerized format; lots of small companies were doing conversions. We typed from pages ripped out of the original books, on IBM Selectrics with a special OCR element, at a penny per line. I got very good as a typist doing it.
Look at her. Is a sign really necessary?