Judge Speaks Frankly

[kcchiefs6465]

"I have to assume the charges are true."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9xkk5URBUk

Regardless of what happened or didn't, or the criminal record of the accused, or the feelings towards the man in general, the judge's words are very telling.

[presence]

video of incident is here

http://www.tmz.com/2014/11/02/suge-knight-fight-paparazzi-video-robbery-arrest/


The short of it:


Paparazzi woman was trying to take pictures of Suge's (Death Row Records, Dr Dre, etc) kids, he asked her to stop... she wouldn't. He flipped and strong armed her camera. Then he said something to the effect of he wouldn't hit her but he'd get his woman to beat her ass if she didn't knock it off.


Bail set at $500k

[kcchiefs6465]

video of incident is here

http://www.tmz.com/2014/11/02/suge-knight-fight-paparazzi-video-robbery-arrest/


The short of it:


Paparazzi woman was trying to take pictures of Suge's (Death Row Records, Dr Dre, etc) kids, he asked her to stop... she wouldn't. He flipped and strong armed her camera. Then he said something to the effect of he wouldn't hit her but he'd get his woman to beat her ass if she didn't knock it off.


Bail set at $500k
And of the judge admitting in open court that he must assume the charges are true?

We are a republic, right?

Lmao.

[presence]

And of the judge admitting in open court that he must assume the charges are true?

We are a republic, right?

Lmao.

well... charges being true doesn't mean the accused is necessarily culpable... which seems to be the slant the judge was taking. Most of the media are calling him a "sympathetic judge".


A person is culpable if they cause a negative event and

(1) the act was intentional;
(2) the act and its consequences could have been controlled (i.e., the agent knew the likely consequences, the agent was not coerced, and the agent overcame hurdles to make the event happen); and
(3) the person provided no excuse or justification for the actions.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability#cite_note-1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability



Its true... he snatched her camera. Was it intentional, avoidable, and unnecessary?

[kcchiefs6465]

well... charges being true doesn't mean the accused is necessarily culpable... which seems to be the slant the judge was taking. Most of the media are calling him a "sympathetic judge".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability
Presumed innocence and an impartial judge are essential to a fair trial. While a judge being familiar with the case is not unheard of, any bias should be detested (and the judge removed). Not only does he say that he has to assume the charges are true (and I did consider that this was a matter of semantics regarding simply that the accusations brought forth were in manner [that is, that the officers signing the affidavit were truthful]), the context is rather telling.

His hands are tied, he is not impartial, and he must rule a certain way with regards to (probably) Suge Knight's previous cases. There are a few problems with this, I'm sure you can see.

I don't particularly care about the case absent that some 30 years for taking and smashing a camera seems motivated by a desire to imprison the man and that the judge speaks so frankly. I don't even think it's a Freudian slip, just simply SOP. And the facts behind many cases lend credence to that theory.

[presence]

I doubt Suge is going to see time for this.

[kcchiefs6465]

I doubt Suge is going to see time for this.
That is hardly the point.

I would have posted this elsewhere if the discussion was to be whether or not he will do time.

The point is that a judge openly stated with confidence of his position that he must assume the charges are true. Not accurate to what allegedly happened, but true.

That is not how judges ought operate.

Look at the charges, look at things pertinent to the ensuring that the accused will show back up to a trial. Assign a bond if necessary.

[Acala]

He didn't say the charges against the defendant are true. The video pulls his comments out of context. It could be that he is referring to the charges the defendant just made against the alleged victim. In other words, the defendant just explained all the evil crap the "vicitm" did. The judge then responds and refers to those allegations as "charges" and goes on to explain why he is sympathetic to those charges against the "victim". You cannot tell from this clip.

[specsaregood]

All impartiality and such aside; 500k bail for theft of a camera?

[Spikender]

All impartiality and such aside; 500k bail for theft of a camera?

He's black, rich, and has been involved in crimes in the past.

It's justified to them.