Posted on 02/05/2013 4:25:35 PM PST by SMGFan
A cranky Florida teenager, upset over getting arrested for drug possession, lashed out at a Miami judge during her bond hearing Monday, flipping him the bird and earning a 30-day sentence for contempt in the process. Penelope Soto, who had been arrested for having Xanax and was charged with possession of a controlled substance without a prescription, was brought before Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Jorge Rodriguez-Chomat on Monday. The stern jurist asked the 18-year-old Soto, who was wearing an orange jail jumpsuit, about her assets, probing into how much her jewelry was worth, according to NBCMiami.com. Soto, who had been laughing and smiling through the hearing, chuckled at the question.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/insult-judge-earns-fla-teen-30-days-jail-article-1.1256106#ixzz2K4cqvbfO
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Dumbest non-sequitur I've read all month, but it's still young...
Yeah that’s one of the friendliest judges I’ve seen and her behavior was uncalled for.
This is exactly why we’ll never have the glorious revolution that some here seem to fantasize about. Too many have zero respect for authority and aren’t even smart enough to fake it. Their little revolution is doomed by a million little generals who are worried about being disrespected.
It is a matter of her lack of respect for our laws and the court, not about the judge.
Ya don’t have to respect everybody but ya gotta be smart enough to know when to fake it.
Bad memories about your own court experiences? Good luck if you can’t see the problem with stupid behavior by stupid, arrogant people in court.
1. When in court, it is not meant to be a humorous affair. It is quite serious.
2. Keep your opinions to yourself, whether verbal or gesticulated. Court is not interested in them nor in your wasting time with them. You want to waste your or anyone else's time, go find a soapbox and an alley to stand on to express them freely and expound upon whatever tickles your fancy. Not in court -that is not what they are there for. Just as you are a fool if you make unflattering comments or gestures to the man you are renting a room from and subsequently get tossed out of his house on your big fat keister for it, no one has any sympathy for your idiotic actions and the consequences thereby if you do.
3. Get caught and wind up in court because of it; time to pay the piper. Man up. Disparaging comments or flipping the bird is not going to cut it. Quite a few of the locales I came to know over the years you would be lucky to get away with just losing a finger over such an action, and anyone witnessing your stupidity would just shake their heads in disgust at you and walk away. Just in case such stupidity was contagious.
Yeah - bit of a red herring there, BUT many here on FR said much worse than this little twit concerning that ruling. The only difference was that it was in the court of public opinion and not in a courthouse.
As for respect, that is earned. I don't know the judge, but asking the defendant about her assets seems to be a bit overboard. Was he trying to take everything she owned to prove a point?
Maybe it will do her some good, she isn’t a bad looking kid, doesn’t sound stupid. She could probably have a decent future if she wants to.
Like a previous poster so eloquently stated: "play stupid games, win stupid prizes."
Your analogy is ridiculous. I would have respectfully listened if Justice Roberts had chosen to read his opinion in his court and I was present. And, once no longer in a setting where decorum and circumspection are expected I would have proceeded to trash him with great gusto [Which I did.] Once she gets out, she'll be free to badmouth the judge however she pleases in the court of public opinion; his authority doesn't run there, so there will be no consequences.
There's a time and place for everything. In open court you're expected to respect the process and the people of your State or the US, even if you have no respect for the judge personally.
As for respect, that is earned.
Oh, Please. Respect for Due Process, the Rule of Law, and the State of Florida and the Country, have been paid for with the blood of thousands of great men and the treasure of millions of taxpayers. Even if you haven't learned that the Court represents a lot more than the man sitting on the bench, you need to have enough common sense to know that p!ssing into the wind is a dumb-ass thing to do.
I don't know the judge, but asking the defendant about her assets seems to be a bit overboard. Was he trying to take everything she owned to prove a point?
No, he's trying to determine if $5,000 or $10,000 or $25,000 or whatever is going to be sufficiently rich to deter a flight risk. She's indicated she's not going to treat the process seriously, so he's decided she might indeed not show up for arraignment or trial.
This is really not difficult. Adults realize when people have immediate power to damage you and you have no recourse, you suck it up until you can place yourself in a position to hit back. She should have shut her mouth and left it for her lawyer to make life difficult for the Court. Even if I concede that he shouldn't have doubled her bail, he's quite justified in citing her for criminal contempt once she flips him off and says "f**k you."
I’m less willing to defend the bail increase than the contempt ruling. However, I would say if you’ve watched the whole video it’s pretty clear he’s trying to humor her and she has no respect for the process. A result of that can be, after a flippant “adios,” he decided her lack of respect for the process might indicate she has no plans to show up for arraignment and trial. So she gets a bail increase. If she has no priors, her bondsman is now charging $1,000 instead of $500.
Perhaps you should read the exchange. You’ll discover the judge is a pompous petty AH who should not hold power over anyone.
Of course this type of arrogant behavior is common with those in government, like jurist.
Judges have to deal with all sorts of different people, pretty much like cops. If those appearing before them are “polite people” they are treated accordingly, hopefully; but if they are “rude people”, their behavior is apt to get them in trouble.
The original purpose of judges was to be a neutral authority more powerful than either of two families with a dispute. They existed to prevent blood feuds from such disagreements, which they could only do if both sides respected (feared) their authority.
Early judges had to be somewhat brutal, with the authority to issue death sentences for most serious crimes, which they did.
Today, to a much lesser extent, judges still face the same conditions. Those appearing before they *have* to respect their authority, or be *made* to do so, and be punished for disrespect. The alternative, if the courts are not respected, is vigilantism.
Not blood feud, per se, but if proper judgment and justice is given by the courts, there is no “satisfaction” of injured parties, and they have no recourse but to enact revenge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.