Posted on 03/13/2012 10:42:35 AM PDT by SmithL
If you remember the Charlie Manson case he stood up during the case and showed the jury a news paper that said “Nixon says Manson guilty”. They had to question each juror to see if this influenced them in any way or the case could have been thrown out.
The courtroom is no place for signs or protests. Take that out to the lawn of the courthouse.
When did you turn 26?
oops, meant that for someone else...cute bunny
The public audience is not, and should not be, a participant in the trial. They should absolutely be prevented from having signs, t-shirts, or anything that lobbies for one side or the other. The judge was exactly right that it is the job of the court, not the gallery.
Most court rooms have dress codes. Making a spectacle of yourself....won't go over well, in most court rooms.
You of course have your agenda....which is well known here on FR.
I suspect if I wore a "I LOVE OBAMA" t-shirt...at Obama's perjury trial...you wouldn't have a problem with it.
: )
Actually, the judge was correct.
AND he wanted justice for the puppy.
Had this dude been found guilty then his lawyer said that there was influence on the jury, the slime may have walked free.
This judge may not have stated it correctly but he was right to disallow the t-shirts.
You would think that court judge would simply have COMMON SENSE.I think he showed extraordinary common sense. What would you have done differently?
They were all hunting threads... And nope you lost every one because you argue from the viewpoint of an animal rights wacko.
They were all hunting threads... And nope you lost every one because you argue from the viewpoint of an animal rights wacko.
They were all hunting threads... And nope you lost every one because you argue from the viewpoint of an animal rights wacko.
give me a couple of minutes with that fat-assed pathetic load of an excuse for a tough guy punk.
torturing animals?
Yea, you’ll get short time but i hope it hurts....
I simply take what I had said back. Your honor, you fell down on your job and did not do what NEEDED to be done.You do understand that the sole purpose of this hearing was to set a trial date, don't you? If you had read the article, you would have known that is exactly what the Judge did.
And the protestors are lucky they weren't thrown in jail for contempt.
Save your outrage for the animal-abuser.
This judge should have focused MORE on the perp who killed that poor dog.
Just to do a gentle correcting, EVERYONE makes honest mistakes, including this poster. NO ONE is perfect.
“During each of Harrell’s court hearings, animal cruelty activists have attended and worn T-shirts that say “Stop Animal Abuse” and “Justice for Honey.”
During the hearing, Cupp asked three women wearing the “Justice for Honey” shirts to stand.
“That offends me,” Cupp said. “You don’t need to tell me” to get justice.
“That’s what this courtroom is for,” he said.
Cupp told the women they cannot wear the T-shirts to any more court hearings.”
This should not come as a surprise, because the practice is that the courtroom is the judge’s domain.
Blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah....blah.
Yes ma’am, you are correct. And I think we all agree that once he comes to trial, if the abuser isn’t severely punished for his crime, we will be entitled to be outraged at the judge.
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.