Once again the issue at hand is judicial restraint, as another unfortunate individual incurred judge’s anger with inappropriate courtroom conduct and paid a heavy price. The question is, was it too heavy?
The object of robed wrath this time was the former NFL star Chad Johnson, better known as Chad Ochocinco, in court for violating his parole arising from a domestic abuse conviction (he head-butted his wife—nice), which also ended his NFL career. His lawyers had worked out a plea deal giving Johnson community service and requiring him to attend counseling sessions, and the judge had approved it. But then Broward County Circuit Judge Kathleen McHugh asked the athlete if he was satisfied with his lawyer’s performance, and in response, Ochocinco slapped his lawyer on the butt. The entire courtroom laughed.
Judges don’t usually like to hear laughter in their courtrooms, unless they’re telling the jokes.
Judge McHugh proved to be no exception. “‘I don’t know that you’re taking this whole thing seriously,” she said. “I just saw you slap your attorney on the backside. Is there something funny about this? ‘The whole courtroom was laughing. I’m not going to accept these plea negotiations. This isn’t a joke.’’ Johnson tried to pacify her, but it didn’t work. She ordered him jailed, and the deal cancelled.
Thus, your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz is:
Was Judge McHugh unfair?
I think so. This was the worst possible combination for Johnson: domestic abuse conviction, a female judge, physical contact, though obviously playful, and laughter from spectators. Remove any of those factors, and I think the ex-player gets his deal. The judge over-reacted.
I’m betting she lets him cool in the cooler while she cools off herself, and reinstates the deal.
Or do you think levity when domestic violence is involved is especially obnoxious, and deserves what Chad O got?
__________________________________
Facts: The Inquisitor
Graphic: Adriatique
Ethics Alarms 
I think anyone who decides to horse around in the courtroom is asking for whatever the annoyed judge can give them. Wait till you are outside to slap his ass as a congratulations, not before the crap is even finalized.
The man was not, I think, taking things seriously.
I bet you money he will next time, though…
Ditto. This is my analysis as well.
Obvious relief and congratulations by the ‘winning’ side of a case can be expected, but making irreverent gestures and obvious antics such as that betray the following possibilities (not exclusively):
1) “I’m chad ochocinco and I’m rich and what I just got off with wont teach me a damn thing”
2) “hahaha, we pulled one over on that judge! She thinks she gave us a fair deal”
3) “hahaha! Damn my victim!”
4) “screw the solemnity of the justice system. Hell I don’t believe in it anyway.”
Amongst others.
Actually, no, scratch my comment on ‘the winning side’ showing happiness in this case.
They weren’t the winning side.
He didn’t plead ‘not guilty’. He admitted guilt. Why the hell should he e happy at all when acknowledging a violation of society’s standards?
No. He’s not contrite in anyway. He doesn’t acknowledge the seriousness of what he did or the of the process that protects our fragile republic.
The judge is in the right.
Being contrite is not a requirement of the law.
No, but it’s flagrant opposite in court implies disrespect and scorn for the process.
Your point?
He gets 30 days…..and Lindsay Lohan gets…….? I am amazed at what is called equal justice in our world! Especially ,when it comes to black or white…. I will remember when election time comes around again.
Not sure the relevance to my comment.
But:
So you’ll base your vote on skin color?
Or do you have direct influence on this selection of this particular judge as well as the one in the Lohan case?
Any man ,that hits a woman ,should be placed under the jail. Johnson was dead wrong for that. But, because the spectators laughed when he hit his lawyer on the butt? Something is wrong with this scenario! I do think it may have to do with gaining fame. She has it. Now, she has to run with it. Whatever the consequences, so be it!
It worked for the judge in Miami, when the woman told him off, and gave him the finger. She was beyond disrespectful. That judge was famous for a short time. She deserved the sentence she got.
Now, it’s this judge’s turn for the spotlight.
Now I’m really confused about your objective.
Really? ANY man?
Even if the woman hit him first, or swung first, or brandished a weapon at him?
Well isn’t that… Special…
Way over the top. She should have said “I’ll take that as a ‘yes'”.
I agree.
I agree as well! Talk about an over zealous judge. She asked for a response & got what anyone knows to be a normal pro football players response. I surely doubt he would have done it a) if she hadn’t told him to thank his lawyer & b.) if he thought the courtroom would laugh at it. Where was her admonishment to the bailiff who was laughing & acting in a most unprofessional way?
Domestic violence charges have nothing to do with it.
I’m not at all sure of that. When you are seeking parole for unconsented physical contact with another, there is no such thing as playful slapping. Would you say the same thing if he playfully head-butted the lawyer? Gave him a titty-twister?
So you are comparing a HEADBUTT to a slap on the butt? You must have NEVER watched sports in your lifetime, and considering…. Oh, u was one of those who never had the talent to huh? Got it
Nobody could fairly read my comment that way. The point was that the fact that the conduct was playful wasn’t what the judge may have reacted to from the domestic abuse angle, but the fact that it was physical.
On another topic, you don’t get to barge into MY court with snark. I take that from regulars here who have proved themselves, not fly-overs. Show some respect before you start giving me attitude, or take a hike.
The irony is amazing. I’m not sure someone could watch a game of football without see a congratulatory headbutt.
I’m also not sure how a non-blind person couldn’t have the talent to watch sports. (The talent to play sports is obviously unrelated; you aren’t bringing up non sequiturs, are you?)
Actually, a potential candidate for an actual ad hominem.
[In this context, T]here is no such thing as playful slapping
Didn’t you previously claim the conduct was playful? I’d say that if a socially acceptable butt pat isn’t okay, then a handshake also wouldn’t be okay.
It was playful, and I don’t agree with the judge, but I am stating what I think her perspective was.
I think oldetooles “Domestic violence charges have nothing to do with it.” meant “The charges are irrelevant to determining what response would be appropriate from the Judge.”
Your statement also doesn’t say anything about being from the judge’s perspective.
1. But my point was that the domestic charges may have been what made the judge hypersensitive to this conduct from this individual.
2. I know. But that was my intent, as I assumed would be clear since I ended the post by stating that she over-reacted.
It looked to me like you were attacking a particular point. I can see someone thinking the charges matter to what was appropriate behavior, but that the judge still over-reacted.
Added to the fact that “playful” and “courtroom” really have no place being used together, there is the following I saw at LoweringTheBar
“The judge also said that it was not the first time Johnson had “behaved that way” in her courtroom, by which I assume she meant not appearing to take things seriously.”
So this was a continuation of behavior, not a one-off incident.
I guess the fact that I saw that posting on this before Jack’s has colored my view (though not by much). Were it a one-off incident, I’d be more inclined to listen to the people saying the judge was over-the-top (but I would still agree with her), but that isn’t the case. Even if it was only the second such “playful” act, it would be time to throw the book…
Hmm, not taking the court seriously after domestic abuse? It might be, but I lean no. Athletes are held up as ‘heroes’ even if they have too often skated past charges they could not if they weren’t famous. This time the extra attention worked against one. Negative examples work too.
She should be removed from the bench for breach of impartiality. Furthermore all of her past cases should be reviewed by an actual impartial panel. This so called judge personifies the problems within the justice system.
This judge is the problem with the entire system. She should be removed from the bench. Women are to emotional. All of her emotional conclusions should be reviewed and to be honest this woman may not like black men. There is a serious issue here that will most likely not even get attention. I would spit in her food and smile if she ever came to my restaraunt.
Nice. You’re more of a menace than she is.
At first I was like “satire”. Then in the second half I was like “oh….”
I’m not sure about more of a menace…but more blatantly unethical, yes.
I feel.she saw the opportunity to get her name on tv and took it. She should lose her job since she is obviously one of these stuck up fem Nazism who can’t separate business from making decisions based on her pathetic emotions. She is no better than the people she convicts when pulls a stunt like this. She could has just verbally expressed her dislike of what she did, but no, she decided to make herself look like a joke for someone who already made himself look bad. Guy already lost millions of dollars cause of his actions and now she is also a joke to boot. Final thought. What do you call a failed lawyer, answer: you honor
I think she was having a bad day. Judge’s put up with a lot of crap,and she had just had enough. She was wrong, but you’re reading a lot more into it than is there.
I’m not sure how many millions Johnson lost due to his actions. He was already washed up. That also doesn’t matter. You don’t think rich people should be able to pay to beat up their wives, do you?
From a strictly legal standpoint, the judge was within her discretion to refuse to accept the deal, however, I don’t know that an appellate panel would agree with that. You know something like this is going right to the appellate court, and the judge, if she’s practical, will reinstate the deal, having made her point, rather than have to defend behavior that’s right on the borderline of taking a case personally.
Agreed, with the exception that her discretion was clearly not impartial. Once a deal is reached with a prosecutor the judges opinions, preferences and personal feelings about the case should never enter the equation. If the deal is reasonable and equitable to those relative of the time , then the judge has no further right to impose clearly personal attacks. It’s this free hand with interpretation of the law that has caused such imbalances in our justice system. Quite simply it’s not the judges job to prosecute, simply interpret what is legal within the bounds of our agreed upon laws. By imposing detrimental action she overstepped the prosecutor and his/her authority. The real question to me is, does this particular judge have a history of inserting her own sense of justice where it clearly does not belong. If I had the misfortune to have had crossed her path I would hurriedly be hiring a investigator to sift thru her judgements in search of her pattern. I have no doubt she has one. Of course we are just throwing spitballs. Those that should be overseeing this sort of thing and have the power to implement change have to much to lose if they challenge existing authority. Around and around we go…
Judges have discretion over determining contempt of court. And rightly so.
Yes. It wouldn’t have been a question If she’d cited him for being in contempt and approved the deal.
By the way, why 3 different alias’s in one discussion thread?
Ah, but I know who it is!
I’d hate to be too quick to accuse TGT of hiding, although his style matches.
But whatever.
It wasn’t me.
I dont think she was unfair. By his actions he thought the whole thing was joke so she let him know it wasn’t.
Also anyone who goes into a court room and isnt on their best behavior should know that they are risking the wrath of the judge. He should have known better.
Ugh! You’re the exact kind of person that thinks impartiality is a sliding scale, and probably got this idiot elected. A judge should have no wrath, it’s not their job to be outraged in the face of injustice, only to interpret what is legal.
And interpret what is contempt of court.
Bingo! Thank you.
How did his actions make it known the plea was a joke? She asked him to congratulate his lawyer, and he did it in his own benign way, and he was happy. That’s not a joke, that’s relief, and it’s his personality. Someone shouldn’t be judged for their personality.
Don’t know about the rest of the country but this is SOP for South Florida judges.. A young white/Hispanic women was disrespectful to a Hispanic male judge during a routine bond hearing… First she said adios, which prompted doubling her bail, then she went profane, which prompted a 30 day sentence for contempt… She later apologized and sentence was reduced.
Protocol in courtrooms is taken seriously, and someone who has been to court as many times as LoserCinco should know that.
I’m sure his sentence will be reduced after a tearful apology.
I don’t think it’s right that a judge allows his or her personal irritation with you to affect a ruling in a case. Sure, if some evidence or indication exists that he’s not safe outside of incarceration, then by all means lock him up- but if she came in prepared to accept a routine deal and then decided the defendant was too annoying for it, then I think her decision was totally without justification.
Of course, I’m well aware that the judge’s personal opinion of you DOES matter, completely independent of the legal aspects of the case. But the idea of having to play extra nice to preserve the delicate feelings of an educated professional, to keep them from throwing the book at you out of pique, doesn’t sit right with me.
I don’t disagree that male and female judges may bring different perspectives to the judge, but this same result could have happened regardless of gender. You shouldn’t laugh or make jokes during a sentencing hearing. The defendant’s lawyer should have prepped him better. Reminds me of stupid Lindsay Lohan courtroom antics
The defendant’s parents should have prepped him better.
He didn’t laugh or make a joke. He smiled and congratulated his lawyer (as requested) in the way he knew how.
What, he hasn’t heard of “the handshake”??
Could she have accepted the deal and then had him jailed for a few days for contempt of court? Could she have had him held in custody while she reviewed the deal for a few days and he spent some time contemplating proper behavior in the courtroom? I think those would be much more reasonable actions (if allowable) than cancelling such a plea deal, which is more likely to get her more criticism than him.
I hope her presiding judge gives her a talking to. Isn’t there anything about this in the judicial ethics? Couldn’t she have just taken 85 and his lawyer into chambers, lashed away to her heart’s content, and then returned to the court room and finished the hearing? I thought judges were supposed to pride themselves on having a “judicial temperment.” Sure it’s a crappy job, but no one’s making her take the fairly okay money and the not very bad hours and a doubtless not too bad retirement package.
But thanks for posting this and not letting this judge off, Jack. The CNN article on this was calling your name.
Give her a talking to about what?
Other Judges: “Hey man, don’t you know better? We live in a post-serious society, man! Quit draggin us down, live and let live! No one really cares about the system anymore anyway dude, quit being a wet blanket. Just lay off with them negative waves man. He’s a celebrity, his behavior is by definition a model of virtue. Chill out with this whole desire for solemnity in the judicial process, life is a party!”
More along the order of “there are bigger things to spend court time on than proving who is bigger to a stupid celeb. Don’t make work for the appellate judges, you made your point. It’s not about your wounded pride.”
It’s not about the judge’s wounded pride at all.
It’s about contempt and mockery of the judicial system.
Do you really believe that it had nothing to do with the Judge’s pride, that she was so high-minded and professional that, while it didn’t PERSONALLY annoy her, she just was so bothered by the principle of the thing that she had to punish him?
Whether to accept the plea should be a question of law, not of how annoying the defendant is.
I don’t believe she was personally affronted.
Her courtroom (vicariously OUR courtroom) was made a circus. She cannot standby.
If she WAS personally affronted, it would be irrelevant. Lets say she was personally affronted and recognized this an then chose not to add punishment to his contemptuous behavior because she recognized her own wounded pride, her action would have been inappropriate. Because it would have allowed mockery of the system to slide.
And no she wasn’t just “so bothered by the principle of the thing that she had to punish him”. You’re trying to make this trivial. She MUST do everything to uphold the solemnity of the courtroom.
TGT/Why We Hate Government made the point better than I have- if she felt his actions merited punishment, she has the option to hold him in contempt. A contempt charge is the appropriate response to having contempt for the proceedings. Instead, she grabbed the nearest [metaphorical] heavy object at hand and chucked it at his head to teach him a lesson. It comes across looking like a tantrum rather than a measured response.
Nothing about this demonstrated contempt and mockery. He was happy and she asked him to congratulate his lawyer. It was a very simple gesture made out of happiness and relief. there is no evidence it was done to mock the court.
Thanks, Steve. If the presiding judge had been my mother, she might have added, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
I might have added, “And we don’t need to be on CNN.”
It’s wrong to punish someone for holding a court in contempt?
Additionally, she’s not proving who is bigger to a stupid celeb.
She’s reasserting the solemnity of a court of law to ALL of society.
First impression, on reading this post and comments, was “What a tangle of personal fouls!” After more contemplation, I am supportive, if not fully supportive, of the judge. What do We, The People, really want to happen, in the locations and events where the justice We hold dear is at stake, and where that justice is intended for most diligent and conscientious regard? I know I don’t want any courtroom I am in, no matter my role there, to be some kind of stage for made-for-sitcom antics or Three Stooges slapstick. That’s what the theater, not the courtroom, is for. Number 85 made mockery, and reflected an attitude of contempt. It’s really that simple. Case closed.
Bingo.
The judge was definitely unfair. An isolated moment of levity, especially in this context, does not harm the court. Throwing this man in jail for vastly exaggerated offense is an abuse of the proper exercise of power.
What bothered me was that it was the spectators’laughter that seemed to upset her. If nobody had laughed and Chad O had done exactly the same thing, I suspect that she might have let the deal stand. That’s Moral Luck, and really unfair. He wasn’t trying to get laughs.
I rather suspect that he was – he was clearly trying for a light-hearted moment…
I’m the most snarky, sarcastic, cynical person you could care to meet, but when I’m in front of a judge? I become the most serious person you have met. I don’t even SMILE, I just lock my face in a stoney “this is very serious” look.
You do NOT take chances when it comes to a judge and what they consider Contempt.
It’s not even about “takin chances” though!
It’s about solemnity and seriousness of the process.
The problem is that so many people have no idea how to behave in court. I go to court and am shocked how people dress when their welfare is on the line. Flip-flops, unshaved…inherently disrespectful. Also dumb.
You know what? I think most reasonable people would, upon being asked “do you think it would be OK to slap your lawyer’s ass in open court?” would answer with a puzzled “no”, not quite understanding how it is even a question.
I think that “reasonable” is rather questionable. Most reasonable people should know to dress up for court, but it seems like half the docket doesn’t know that.
Also, a football player is likely to be used to a slap on the butt meaning “good job”. I suspect that’s used even in serious contract negotiations.
That’s my feeling. I doubt that Chad knew that the gesture would be taken as disrespectful—it’s the athlete’s way of saying, “Good job.” This is a culture clash, as much as anything else.
Jack,
He wasn’t born into and raised by a football team. His manners and decorum can’t be written off as though football teams, insular as they may be, are some foreign tribe with forgiveably rude mores.
Football players may as well have been raised by football teams…
As insular as they may be, I don’t see that as absolving them of making a circus of the judicial system through his actions. Especially an action that clearly indicates he feels he’s pulled one over on the system and gotten away, for all intents and purposes, with a wrist slap.
The action indicates he was happy with his lawyers performance. Being happy with your lawyer does not mean thinking you got away with something.
Making a circus of the courtroom is not appropriate. Are you claiming that slapping his lawyer on the butt made a circus of the courtroom? Are you claiming there was an intent to make a circus of the proceedings? Are you claiming that intent doesn’t matter?
I think you are giving him way too much benefit of the doubt as well as ascribing to him an exceptional level of ignorance.
Yes, slapping his lawyer’s ass does make light of the situation. A situation owed much more gravitas than a casual idiomatic congratulatory swat of the derriere. Making light of the solemn process that protects our republic cannot be tolerated.
I don’t know if there was intent to be obviously disrespectful, and I doubt that outright disregard for our system was the intent. However, I will contend that Mr. Johnson does know better enough that he was being overly flippant about getting off easy.
Intent certainly matters. But I don’t think his intent was nearly as pure and innocent as you would likely contend. Also, I don’t think that even the most saintly intent is enough to counterbalance the specific actions taken in certain situations.
The lawyer, appealing the move, argues that Johnson is being penalized for the laughter of 3rd parties, whom he didn’t control. I think that’a part of the argument. The other part is that the judge goaded him to show some appreciation to his lawyer for successfully getting him a deal. Johnson thanked his lawyer as he would thank a colleague on the field—cut, maybe, but disrespectful? I don’t see it. What if he had used a fist bump? Kissed him? Bowed to him? Given him a noogie? If the only thing she would accept was a handshake, she should have said so. What if Johnson had previously expressed his satisfaction that way with the lawyer?
tex,
Yes, slapping his lawyer’s ass does make light of the situation
You switched from “making a circus of the judicial system” to “making light of the situation”, but your language pretends that you’re being consistent. You know I’m not going to let you get away with that.
However, I will contend that Mr. Johnson does know better enough that he was being overly flippant about getting off easy.
Looks like an editing error, but your assumptions are clear: he thinks he got off easy. You gave a reason for it before. I disputed that reason. You don’t provide a new reason, or a problem with my dispute.
But I don’t think his intent was nearly as pure and innocent as you would likely contend.
Are you still saying he was intending to create a circus, or are you, again, attempting to sneakily retreat from that position…this time by going on the offensive?
I’d submit that Ochocinco is not stupid like a fox.
Jack,
I do find her goading to be problematic. Yet, she did not goad him to pop his lawyer on the hindquarters. I still don’t accept that he was behaving like a program and was limited only to some instinctive on the field congratulations. I still assert he knew better and was making light of what should be a solemn proceeding.
Her goading now has me concerned that she felt she gave in to easily to the conditions of the plea bargain and was being sassy herself.
That still does not change my opinion of his misconduct.
Certainly the laughter of the audience is out of his control, and if the laughter is what caused her to take action, then she managed to reach the right action (disapproving his behavior) for the wrong reasons.
I will clarify, I think the 30 days is excessive. But to do nothing only weakens any belief that court proceedings are serious business.
If the only thing she would accept was a handshake, she should have said so.
Why? Is she obligated to list her tolerances of what are already reasonably and commonly accepted gestures? I don’t see why. Is she obligated to list intolerances of every isolated and idiomatic gesture that is not a commonly accepted means of congratulation. And, no, ass-slapping is not widely accepted, even if it is well known — it is still situational.
TGT,
Yes, I changed my verbage, repetition is a low-brow form of prose. Be assured my opinion hasn’t changed. You can cease with that diversion, before it spirals out of control.
You didn’t ‘dispute’ my assertion one bit. You merely gave your opinion of his attitude after reading my opinion. I’m under no obligation to do anything after that other than say I think your wrong in your assessment, even though I did further clarify by indicating that I believed Mr. Johnson does know better what gestures to use and not use.
Yes, I changed my verbage, repetition is a low-brow form of prose. Be assured my opinion hasn’t changed. You can cease with that diversion, before it spirals out of control.
Your changed “verbage” is a completely different meaning. I argued against circus. It might have been unintentional, but you moved the goalposts. Either defend your circus language, or disavow it.
You didn’t ‘dispute’ my assertion one bit. You merely gave your opinion of his attitude after reading my opinion.
No, actually, I didn’t give my opinion of his attitude. I pointed out what the action actually means, and showed that you made an unsupported leap: “The action indicates he was happy with his lawyers performance. Being happy with your lawyer does not mean thinking you got away with something.”
Do you disagree with my statement that a butt pat doesn’t necessarily include suggesting that you pulled the wool over someone’s eyes?
If so, you’re an idiot. If not, then you were disputed. You were attempting to beg the question. You got called on it.
“Your changed “verbage” is a completely different meaning. I argued against circus. It might have been unintentional, but you moved the goalposts. Either defend your circus language, or disavow it.”
I understand your confusion now. It may be clearer to you if I let you know that on the continuum of irreverent levity to outright flaunting of one’s hatred of the judicial system in the courtroom, I have a very low standard for what makes a circus of things.
“No, actually, I didn’t give my opinion of his attitude. I pointed out what the action actually means, and showed that you made an unsupported leap: “The action indicates he was happy with his lawyers performance. Being happy with your lawyer does not mean thinking you got away with something.”
You gave an accurate description of what his action demonstrates within appropriate situations. Then you suppressed a premise that falsely generalizes it to make the gesture appropriate in all situations, based solely on an *assumed* purity of intent. So no, you didn’t point out what the action ‘actually means’. Had we been discussing behavior on a field of play your description would be accurate. Sorry, but again, his *assumed* (by you) purity of intent due to *assumed* (by you) ignorance of acceptable gestures doesn’t absolve him.
So again, you merely gave your interpretation of his attitude as a first principle from which to complete your analysis. I don’t think you are right on those assumptions, just as you don’t think I’m right on mine. However, if you bother to synthesize my points in all my posts, I’ve clearly indicated why I don’t think his gesture was pure. To add to it, it seems his behavior throughout the process has been one of less-than-serious in relation to the accusations. That would tend to support my assumptions. Not yours.
“Do you disagree with my statement that a butt pat doesn’t necessarily include suggesting that you pulled the wool over someone’s eyes?”</i"
Putting words in my mouth rounds out a nice solid strawman on your behalf.
"“you’re an idiot.”
True to form, you fail to analyze properly and it is the other person who is the idiot. You TGT are a creature of habit.
“You were attempting to beg the question.”
You really need to review your logical fallacies. I’m not confident you have any idea what “begging the question” is.
I’ve gotta find a way that I don’t get listed as the recipient of the crossfire between you guys—I feel like I’m losing my mind!
You need an algorithm that interprets more than 2 responses by the two of us when appended to the final post of a thread by you that is at the end of the reply line.
Jack,
Deeper comments would save you.
Tex,
what makes a circus
What I get from your comment, is that minorly off behavior is intolerable to you. I think our lines are just drawn in very different locations.
That said, my honor has been challenged, so I have to defend myself.
what the butt pat means
I stand by my statement here 100%.The butt pat has a clear meaning. I didn’t generalize that it was appropriate in all situations. It’s not appropriate in court. My point was that your assumption that the butt pat meant the butt patter thinks he got away with something is bunk. it doesn’t have that meaning, in, well, any situation. Pure intent is not necessary for my comment at this juncture.
Trying to pin you down
Me: “Do you disagree with my statement that a butt pat doesn’t necessarily include suggesting that you pulled the wool over someone’s eyes?”
You: Putting words in my mouth rounds out a nice solid strawman on your behalf.
I didn’t put any words in your mouth. I asked if you disagreed with a statement I made. I’m also not sure what else was part of this supposed strawman.
Pulling things out of context
The “you’re an idiot” only applied if you think that a butt pat means that you pulled a fast one. It was “If so, you’re an idiot”. You pulled my comment completely out of context. I think I caught you making a silly statement, You either have to own up to it, or deny one of your main premises. Instead, you’re dodging the issue.
Begging the question
Your comment that set this off, in full:
As insular as they may be, I don’t see that as absolving them of making a circus of the judicial system through his actions. Especially an action that clearly indicates he feels he’s pulled one over on the system and gotten away, for all intents and purposes, with a wrist slap.
I think your statement that the butt pat implies he thought he was getting away with something was question begging. If that was true, then your conclusion would follow immediately. The issue, though, was what the butt pat meant. You built the answer into one of your premises. That’s textbook begging the question.
“What I get from your comment, is that minorly off behavior is intolerable to you.”
Almost. You get the gist, but you are beginning to expand the topic for me.
“My point was that your assumption that the butt pat meant the butt patter thinks he got away with something is bunk. it doesn’t have that meaning, in, well, any situation. Pure intent is not necessary for my comment at this juncture.
“I didn’t put any words in your mouth. I asked if you disagreed with a statement I made. I’m also not sure what else was part of this supposed strawman.”
I didn’t say anything about pulling the wool over anyone’s eyes. As would imply that they tricked or blinded the judge. Which I don’t think is accurate, the judge doubtless knew that Mr. Johnson was getting off easy.
“You either have to own up to it, or deny one of your main premises. Instead, you’re dodging the issue.”
That’s a false dichotomy since you can’t even get what I was discussing right.
To try and clarify for you. I haven’t asserted the butt-pat specifically communicates “Ha, we got away scott free”. I HAVE asserted that it indicates a flippant and irreverent attitude toward the court proceedings, and it certainly would be linked to getting off easy. But again, you are attributing to me something I didn’t said, because you misread my comment.
Begging the question
“I think your statement that the butt pat implies he thought he was getting away with something was question begging. If that was true, then your conclusion would follow immediately. The issue, though, was what the butt pat meant. You built the answer into one of your premises. That’s textbook begging the question.”
You’ve falsely set up what I’ve asserted. Tsk Tsk.
I have asserted that a butt pat is completely out of place in a courtroom. That it occurred betrays a lack of seriousness over the proceedings and a general lack of respect towards the process. That lack of seriousness in turn betrays an attitude of flippancy and an attitude of having gotten away very lightly. This cannot be tolerated in a court.
I was wrong, you do know what Begging the Question is. However, your reading comprehension is sorely lacking.
Tex,
I didn’t say anything about pulling the wool over anyone’s eyes. As would imply that they tricked or blinded the judge. Which I don’t think is accurate, the judge doubtless knew that Mr. Johnson was getting off easy.
Your relevant comment:
“Especially an action that clearly indicates he feels he’s pulled one over on the system and gotten away, for all intents and purposes, with a wrist slap.”
Pulling the wool over one’s eyes vs pulling one over on the system. I stand by my comment.
To try and clarify for you. I haven’t asserted the butt-pat specifically communicates “Ha, we got away scott free”. I HAVE asserted that it indicates a flippant and irreverent attitude toward the court proceedings, and it certainly would be linked to getting off easy. But again, you are attributing to me something I didn’t said, because you misread my comment.
Again, your comment:
“Especially an action that clearly indicates he feels he’s pulled one over on the system and gotten away, for all intents and purposes, with a wrist slap.”
I’d also like to note that I never suggested you said scott free. You said wrist slap, and that’s what I’ve been arguing against.
begging the question.”
You’ve falsely set up what I’ve asserted. Tsk Tsk.
I have asserted that a butt pat is completely out of place in a courtroom. That it occurred betrays a lack of seriousness over the proceedings and a general lack of respect towards the process. That lack of seriousness in turn betrays an attitude of flippancy and an attitude of having gotten away very lightly. This cannot be tolerated in a court.
Again, your comment:
“Especially an action that clearly indicates he feels he’s pulled one over on the system and gotten away, for all intents and purposes, with a wrist slap.”
It was not a two step process. It was a one step process. I stand by my statement.
TGT,
Since you are now merely repeating my comment which you are claiming is the source of our discontent and following it up with the equally repetitive phrase, “I stand by my comment”, I assume you now are asserting that the meanings you have given my comment are self-evident.
My comment:
“As insular as they may be, I don’t see that as absolving them of making a circus of the judicial system through his actions. Especially an action that clearly indicates he feels he’s pulled one over on the system and gotten away, for all intents and purposes, with a wrist slap.”
Let’s review your hang-ups.
1) You generally assert that I claim his ass-slap directly means he disrespects the court and that the ass-slap means pulling the wool over the court’s eyes.
Refuted. My comment makes no such assertion of direct meaning. My comment clearly indicates, and is substantiated by my other commentary throughout this discussion, that his gesture shows his attitude as not taking seriously the crimes he has admitted to and therefore feels he is getting off easy.
You attempt to substantiate your claims by asserting that his gesture indicates he is happy with his lawyers performance.
Refuted. His general behavior through the whole process supports my assertion that he has not taken this proceedings seriously. Additionally, no direct dispute that that ass-slap is a gesture of congratulations. However, that is not behavior for a solemn proceeding. The THOROUGH inappropriateness for the situation and intent brings to question his attitude, which I asserted.
2) Your claim that I waffled on terminology has been explained and demonstrated to be an error, therefore no more expounding is necessary. Summary: any level of disrespect for the solemnity of the judicial process is intolerable in court.
3) You inserted additional meaning into the pharse “pulled one over…and gotten away…with a wrist slap” by implying I said “pulled the wool over the system’s eyes”.
This too was demonstrated to be an error.
4) Accusation of Begging the Question was also demonstrated to be an error.
The summary of your hang-ups and how they have been addressed and shown to be errors is clear.
Your final act is now to repeat my comment and imply that all the claims you made about it are self-evident in the comment.
Here’s the comment again:
“As insular as they may be, I don’t see that as absolving them of making a circus of the judicial system through his actions. Especially an action that clearly indicates he feels he’s pulled one over on the system and gotten away, for all intents and purposes, with a wrist slap.”
The only real point you made that may have any logical weight is where you and I disagreed on what level of disrespectful and inappropriate behavior should receive a censure. You are willing to tolerate more disregard for the solemnity of a court in court than I am.
We simply have different first principles on that topic. Although I don’t see why you would tolerate disrespectful behavior in the courtroom.
Sure, but the ENTIRE context is different – for one, he’s in a suit instead of a uniform with a mountain of pads on, and he is lacking a helmet.
So things should be easily deducible from context – that we no longer even EXPECT this should be a depressing notion.
I referenced serious contract negotiations, right?
I would submit that had the crowd not laughed, she would have still been in the right to punish him for holding the court in contempt.
Mr. Johnson can touch his lawyer in any manner he wants. And while head-butting his then wife was idiotic, she also has proven to be a calculating gold digger and likely incited the act to get more $$ and go on to flat back with someone else.
Yes, he should have been more mature in the court. But the bleached blonde bimbo in the robe and, apparently on the rag, misdirected her power-trip-induced-hissy-fit. She should have held those in the court who laughed in contempt, and not attacked Mr. Johnson. By the looks of her online photos, she is a Tea Party favorite who likely has little skill, plays the blondie flirt games to move up, and is not in a position she has no qualifications to hold.
Send her some Tampax.
Let’s have a show of hands…Misogynist Comment of the Year?
That or Chad Johnson.
Pardon me, that or this is Chad Johnson.
“Judge Roy,” who by his sexist, vulgar and generally woman-reviling comments managed to besmirch the reputation of not only that old vagabond Judge Roy Bean, but the great actors who played him, like Walter Brennan, Edgar Buchanan and Paul Newman, got himself banned for his response to this completely fair reply with this idiotic retort: “Let’s have a show of hands….Jackass Marshall unanimously wins the 2013 Eitist Liberal Who Tramples on the Black Man Award?”
“Trampling on the Black Man” clinched it, even though you know how it amuses me to be accused of being liberal.
I’ll cop to “Jackass,” though.
Feh, he was probably a college kid who just said let me see what kind of mischief I can stir up by being completely off the wall.
A troll, in other words. That’s likely.It’s also likely he’s a misogynist. There are a ton of them out there.
How is that better?
Hah. All you brilliant ethical analysts (excluding the trolls, naturally) have missed the turning point-of-information. Was the lawyer male or female?
He was male. I should have mentioned that. If he had whacked a female, the judge would have shot him.
How can you stick up for the Judge? The Judge was way overboard and must have been PMS’ing to have reacted so poorly. I wonder if all of her decisions are so emotionally knee-jerk. I sense racist as well.
So tell me, Nick, which part of my answer to the question, “Was the judge unfair?” reads as sticking up for the judge to you?
“I think so. This was the worst possible combination for Johnson: domestic abuse conviction, a female judge, physical contact, though obviously playful, and laughter from spectators. Remove any of those factors, and I think the ex-player gets his deal. The judge over-reacted.””
I’ve been before judges, male and female. They act like this sometimes. The PMS crack is sexist, that’s all. As is the race-baiting. Cheap shot and uncalled for.
After approving a deal involving counseling sessions, the judge was shown evidence that the perp wasn’t treating the issue seriously, and that the counseling would be useless.
So she reinstated something that *might* cause the issue to be treated seriously, and *might* reduce chance of re-offense.
If it was me or you that skipping out on 3 month of meetings with our probation officer and then battery on our wife, and probation violation do you think we would reached a deal with prosecutors for community service and counseling… FOR SURE NOT
Your point? Are you saying that Chad O got a deal that other, non-famous athletes wouldn’t? I think that’s a fair point, but it has nothing to do with the judge slamming him for a butt pat.
Is it wrong that I think her response would be appropriate if his lawyer was female?
As is, I think she took it way to far. In football, a slap on the butt between two male players is not intended to be humorous, it’s a genuine show of respect and appreciation. In the context of open court I can see why other might find it funny, but a high-five would have been funny as well and I doubt it would have brought the same punishment.
Further, and Mr. Johnson says as much, it’s a common response to stress/discomfort to try to lighten the mood, and it’s often not conscious behavior, things like nervous laughter or smiling at inappropriate times. There is a difference between not taking something seriously, and trying to lighten the mood.
No! A guy seeking a break for head-butting a woman slapping a female lawyer on her derriere in court? Yikes! The judge would be incompetent if she DIDN’T cancel the deal!