Judge throws teen in jail for 30 days for giving him the finger.

[Mr. Ambien]

Not wrong per se just uninformed and ignorant of the relevant and applicable law, legal principles and legal terminology as it related to the court appearances, citation for and purging of criminal contempt, the criminal charge process,referral to a drug rehab program in lieu of conviction and the differing roles and powers of the two judges involved in Ms. Soto's three appearances in criminal court.

[Wetcoaster]

oh good to hear! Maybe the judge could have sentenced her to that scared straight show... I don't think a lot of those kids will ever break the law again,.

[Wetcoaster]

lol. You just can't quit can you.

[Wetcoaster]

Some of us like discussing more than what banal, superficial elements of a topic than you've repeated ad nauseam.

Every self-backpatting post you continue to make, it's clear you still haven't a clue, which is why virtually no one wants to discuss with you now.

Your literalism, pedantic behaviour, and haughtiness following just about every person's subjective opinion is a detriment to discussion.

[inane]

As has been mentioned numerous times, there is more to this than law and legal definitions. They are part of the discussion, but they are not all of the discussion. You kill discussion by quoting and requoting and requoting law while belittling anyone who dares have an opinion.

You are allowed to have an opinion on this topic, even if you don't understand the legalities of it. That's ok. And if you can't personally deal with that, maybe you need to keep your mouth (fingers) shut and just be polite.

[Mr. Ambien]

Since this case was criminal case and involved criminal contempt of court - the law, legal principles and terminology is central to an assessment of what occurred during Ms. Soto's three court appearances.

In such a case knowledge of law, legal principles and legal terminology results in an informed opinion, while ignorance of such things results in an uninformed opinion.

Seems clear.

[Wetcoaster]

As has been mentioned numerous times, there is more to this than law and legal definitions. They are part of the discussion, but they are not all of the discussion. You kill discussion by quoting and requoting and requoting law while belittling anyone who dares have an opinion.

You are allowed to have an opinion on this topic, even if you don't understand the legalities of it. That's ok. And if you can't personally deal with that, maybe you need to keep your mouth (fingers) shut and just be polite.

[Wetcoaster]

You've seem to confuse opinions, which comprises of most of the posts here, as some assault upon "legal principles" necessitating such responses from you. I'm fairly sure people are both allowed to have "uninformed opinions" and have logical opinions of a case without regard for "legal principles" that you've been so attached to, that you find it necessary to inject upon just about every opinion posted here. What's the point? People obviously understand your beliefs on this subject, if it isn't any clue.. most don't care nor do they need your hand-holding of legalese to be able to form an opinion on a matter.

[inane]

There may be more in some cases but in this case it was all about the law and legal definitions.

I have never forbade anyone from expressing an opinion I simply commented upon the lack of foundation.

So it is you who thinks I should not express an opinion. Something I have not done.

[Wetcoaster]

No, this thread is not all about the law. If you can't / won't see that, fine.

No, I did not say you shouldn't express your opinion, strange interpretation.

[Aladeen]

As has been mentioned numerous times, there is more to this than law and legal definitions. They are part of the discussion, but they are not all of the discussion. You kill discussion by quoting and requoting and requoting law while belittling anyone who dares have an opinion.

You are allowed to have an opinion on this topic, even if you don't understand the legalities of it. That's ok. And if you can't personally deal with that, maybe you need to keep your mouth (fingers) shut and just be polite.

[canucks since 77]

Some of us like discussing more than what banal, superficial elements of a topic than you've repeated ad nauseam.

Every self-backpatting post you continue to make, it's clear you still haven't a clue, which is why virtually no one wants to discuss with you now.

Your literalism, pedantic behaviour, and haughtiness following just about every person's subjective opinion is a detriment to discussion.

[Buddhas Hand]

Well put. I just use the ignore function. The manic linking and puffed up self importance left a bad taste in my mouth.

I can only hope that not all lawyers are so devout in pursuit of the letter of the law. A little humanity would go a long way.

[inane]

Really. How else would you interpret this?

...maybe you need to keep your mouth (fingers) shut...

This thread is all about the law and how Ms. Soto came to be arrested, charged and cited for criminal contempt and jailed. Looks like the law to me.

Some posters have gone off course. I have stayed on-topic.

[Wetcoaster]

Way to ignore the context of that sentence. Feel better? If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.

You yourself have gone off-topic as I've pointed out so perhaps you need to get off that horse.

[inane]

Given the actual wording the context seems obvious.

Nope, I am invariably on topic.

[Wetcoaster]

This post does not deal with law, legal definitions or anything of the sort. Completely off-topic. Right?

[inane]

Nope. Wrong.

It deals with legal procedure. When people are in court, they are often accompanied by family members to demonstrate to a judge that their is a support network for an accused to rely upon.

[Wetcoaster]

But you're describing how you would feel if it were your child. That's got nothing to do with the law. That's your personal opinion on how you'd feel. According to you, that's off topic.

[inane]

And you are making your usual irrelevant and inane posts.