Skip to comments.Would You Wear a “Snitches Get Stitches” T-Shirt to Your Sentencing Hearing?
Posted on 10/31/2013 2:51:25 PM PDT by nickcarraway
When convicted arsonist Lawrence Ahrens Jr. began his sentencing hearing last week, he must have known that his best shot at avoiding a long prison stint was to make a good impression on the judge. So its hard to understand why, as Paul Nelson at the Albany Times Union reported, Ahrens strolled into court with a white short-sleeve T-shirt with Snitches Get Stitches splashed across the back in bold letters. The shirts obverse was just as inappropriate: It featured a big red stop sign above the word Snitching. Stop Snitchingget it? Nelson notes that Ahrens apparently wanted to make a statement with his daring attire, but, from where Im sitting, the only statement he made was I have bad judgment. The judge made Ahrens remove the shirt, and then sentenced him to 15 years in prison, where his shirts will be chosen for him.
Now, the First Amendment generally protects your right to express yourself through your apparel, and if I were a judge, Id like to think I wouldnt get upset about other peoples clothing choices. But some judges take courtroom decorum very, very seriously, and if youre coming to court for whatever reason, you need to realize that. The record is filled with tales of defendants, jurors, and spectators who have scandalized courtrooms with their provocative garb. Here are six notable stories.
Killers highly appropriate, highly inappropriate T-shirt. T.J. Lane, the Ohio teenager convicted of killing three students at Chardon High School in 2012, looked appropriately buttoned-down when he arrived at his sentencing hearing earlier this year. Halfway through, though, he removed his collared shirt to reveal a white T-shirt on which he had hand-lettered the word KILLER. The shirt wasnt even Lanes most antagonistic decision that daywhen given the chance to make a statement, he turned to
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
If you have a plea bargain, why not? lol. I would not obviously, but FREEPERS are on such a different level then the poor in the country. The poor have a completely different upbringing.
“Provocative garb?” The “Snitches” tee shirt was obviously meant as a threat to the witnesses, not a moment of sartorial self-expression.
Snitches get stiches and end up in ditches.
Thank you, Curtis Sliwa, you poet laureate of Canarsie.
What about Cousin Vinny?
On the subject of short shorts I had a custody trial once where I represented the dad. Mom showed up in shorts so short you could see (what is that part of the anatomy - I don’t even know). Judge didn’t kick her out of court but the look on her lawyer’s face was priceless. Needless to say, we prevailed.
“Now, the First Amendment generally protects your right to express yourself through your apparel”
Not when you are in a courtroom and the apparel you choose constitutes witness intimidation!
Witnesses can be called during sentencing hearings too.
Tis better to get stitches then to end up in prison being screwed by some burly bitches.....
The jurors, perhaps, as they sometimes decide on the sentencing and his ‘snitches’ threat was all he could come up with. . .just a thought.
His prison t shirt will probably say “Spinchters get Stitches”
The message I get from this is that the unrepentant defendant is already planning on "The next time" !
Intriguing assumption on your part. False, though. I can't speak for too many others on FR, but after my parents divorced (when I was 8), there were more than a few times that we had to spend some time in a Salvation Army shelter.
Those are very common in the hood. They keep anyone from talkin to police. You can have a shooting with fifty bystanders and no one saw a thing.
I once had a shirt that said Thugs get Slugs with a Glock symbol under it.
A judge is not obligated to abide by the DA's deal. The DA can make a plea bargain for 5 years, but the judge doesn't have to go along with the DA's sentencing suggestion. Its happened before.
This has nothing to do with “poor” it has to do with a brutal, mother fqqing pathological killer/torturer person and his friends. I hope he dies in prison .. but I doubt it. He needs to be executed.
The writer, presumably young and public school educated, doesn’t know a thing about T-shirt messages, esp. in court.
The Snitches shirt was a blatant warning to anyone who was a witness against him that they would be beaten up or killed. The wearer should have been sentenced for “witness intimidation” or a similar “threatening” charge.
The judge was absolutely right to bitchslap this punk.
Showing disrespect for the “court” was a longtime Communist Party USA tactic, starting with outbursts during congressional hearings (esp. the Operation Abolition progam of the Party to abolish the House Committee on Un-American Activities - using Party members and fools like Jerry Rubin and his Yippies).
It was finalized in the Chicago 7 trial where the purpose of disruptions both physical (shouting insults, gestures) and with clothing (old rags, etc), was to so disrupt the court process that it could hardly function. And they succeeded, even to the point of getting most “contempt of court” charges against them dismissed on appeal.
They also tried to humiliate Judge Hoffman who insisted on court decorum despite the concerted efforts of the Communist Party USA/supporter legal team to make fun of him.
To some extent they succeeded, and the stupid mainstream media never understood what was going on.
My source for some of this was one of the trial attorneys, comrade William Kunstler, who I heard speak on court tactics at a CPUSA anti-HCUA front in March 1969. He said that tactics learned and used at the Oakland 7 railroad train blocking trial, if successful, would be used at the Chicago 7 trial. And they were.
PS: Oakland 7 trial attorney, Charles R. Gary, (CPUSA, National Lawyers Guild, etc), was the attorney that Hillary Clinton worked with on the New Haven Ct. Black Panther torture-murder trial of BPP member Alex Rackley.
Hillary was interning in the CPUSA law firm of Treuhaft, Gary, Bernstein, and Fagan(?). Her choice of firms after graduating from Yale Law School where some of her teachers was CPUSA members (esp. Thomas I. Emerson).
Nothing is as it seems, so welcome to the wonderful world of subversion.
[Without my notes here, I’m writing from memory. Some of this appears in the California Senate’s report on internal security in their 1970 “Report”, i.e. the Red Book).