7
   

Breastfeeding in court: judge says "I object!"

 
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 12:33 pm
@sozobe,
Well..., a hat wearing baby just might have been so cute, the judge just might have ruled in favor of the defendant and through out the ticket and any legal fees subsequent to said ticket and missed hearing all together.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 12:36 pm
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:


sozobe wrote:
She probably could have and should have contacted the court staff and explained the situation. Did she know she had that option? (I'm not sure it would spring to mind, for me, not having been in a courtroom situation.)

What is that judicial cliche? Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse for the law.


That doesn't apply here, though. What Joe is talking about is for her to say, "Yes, I understand I was told to show up and follow regular procedure and wait my turn, but I don't want to, yes I'm the same person who didn't show up for my last hearing, but I'd like special treatment now and make it nice and quick for me, 'Kay?"

Ha re: the hat-wearing baby. Smile
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 12:41 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:
And from the judge's evident grumpiness, can you know that he wouldn't in fact be annoyed by the request for special dispensation?

Annoyed or not, that's the risk this woman ran when she brought her baby into the courtroom. I can assure you that everyone would have been annoyed if it had started crying, or if she had changed the kid's diaper while waiting for her case to be called. She was pretty much asking for annoyance when she decided to haul the kid with her into court, so I don't see much of a downside to asking the court for some special dispensation. As it is, the only thing the judge did was make her feel bad.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 12:45 pm
@joefromchicago,
Yes, we know that with hindsight and with your knowledge of how courts work.

She waited 2.5 hours before anything in particular happened, though. Looks like if she'd waited only one hour, for example, there would not have been any problems. Two even.

So ahead of time, (which is what we're talking about), she wouldn't necessarily have had a "piss him off this way or this other way" equation going on.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2011 01:20 am

If I had been that judge, I 'd simply have had her case
marked for the 2nd call of the calendar. If that WAS
the 2nd call, then we 'd invent a 3rd call, to abide the event. Ez.

Another choice is to adjourn the case; its not rocket science.





David
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2011 01:41 am
I get where the judge is coming from...when a woman does this your first thought has to be that she is pulling a variation of the victim power play, that the baby on the tit is intended to relay the message " go easy on me, this baby depends upon me". Women and their lawyers have tried that move in court for as long as women have been showing up as defendants. In this case allegedly the judge was wrong, but you have to wonder when you see this woman making a big stink about his rather gentle words, she certainly seems guilty of at least having a chip on her shoulder.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2011 01:46 am
@hawkeye10,
Now I know you're ******* nuts for sure! Oh, okay - did she make up the 104 degree fever and the emergency room visit too? Did she get all the doctors to collude with her and create the illness and falsify the records so it'd look like she'd have an excuse for this manipulative power play - bringing her sick, hungry baby to court so the judge would go easy on her?

You're such an idiot. Guess what? A breastfeeding child DOES depend upon his or her mother. Let's see you pull out a tit and feed your hungry baby.
Can't even give a woman that much? She can't be useful for anything other than playing the submissive in your dreams?

I repeat my question. What is wrong with a woman breastfeeding a baby? How is that indecent or distracting or inappropriate?
I truly do NOT get that. I'd have asked the judge what his issue was too.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2011 01:48 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
I get where the judge is coming from...when a woman does this your first thought has to be that she is pulling a variation of
the victim power play, that the baby on the tit is intended to relay the message " go easy on me, this baby depends upon me".
The judge is perfectly free to ignore it
and to process the case paradigmatically.





David
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2011 01:55 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
The judge is perfectly free to ignore it
and to process the case paradigmatically
If the judge thinks that the court is being subjected to an subversive Emotional appeal he has a duty to discourage the practice, for the good of morale as well as the integrity of the system . Skilled use of words in an emotional appeal are with- in the rules, using kids as props for the emotional appeal is not.

The claim that she had no choice but to risk infecting the court with this kid's bug is suspect as well.....how many people really have no one they can leave their kids with as they face the state in court? Not many, in most cases when a parent brings their kid to court it is because they WANT to bring their kids to court, it is not a "have to"
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2011 02:06 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:
The judge is perfectly free to ignore it
and to process the case paradigmatically
If the judge thinks that the court is being subjected to an subversive Emotional appeal he has a duty to discourage the practice, for the good of morale as well as the integrity of the system . Skilled use of words in an emotional appeal are with- in the rules, using kids as props for the emotional appeal is not.
I get the impression that this was a bench trial;
maybe just an arraignment?? I dunno. No jury involved, so far as I 've heard

Anyway, that 's an interesting notion that u have there, Hawkeye,
qua judicial duties. Thank u for that information. Where did u find it?

Will u exemplify it for us, for our analysis ?
Just cite to the relevant section or subsection,
showing that Paw Paw lies within the jurisdiction of that law.

As dear old Prof. Ellegaard used to say:
"The first step in statutory interpretation is: read the statute!"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/16/2021 at 09:51:53