Zoom court hearing postponed after accused found in same location as witness

Post by jyrkesh » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 7:24 PM UTC

himinlomax wrote: post #57

ryandrake wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This young man appears to be able to go from 0 to 100 very quickly with little self control. Maybe this is Captain Obvious speaking, but poor impulse control seems like the single common denominator among a whole load of social ills that consistently land people in trouble (legal, financial, social, across lots of spectrums). From crimes of opportunity/passion, to short-tempers and "blowing up" on people in public…

Why do you assume it's the upbringing? It could be any kind of brain injury, in utero or post birth, heavy metal poisoning or simply genetic. This kind of behavior does not strike me as learned but rather as a deficiency. On top of that the defendant looks rather dumb.

Post by dheera » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 7:31 PM UTC

leephillips wrote: post #55

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You underestimate the amount of crazy living on the internet. There are a lot of misogynistic incels that think most women claiming to be abused are lying. I could easily see one of them being crazy enough to SWAT her in retaliation. Is it likely? Probably not. But considering we've had mass shooters who have cited their inceldom as their motive, it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility.

Your scenario had occurred to me, and it’s not wildly improbable. But I don’t think we should form public policy, especially if our adjustments might be disharmonious with the Constitution, on the basis of any scenarios that we can dream up. In this case the accused already knows where she lives, and any imagined affect on her security by publishing her address depends on supposition.

Post by isk517 » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 7:31 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #33

jedberg wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that only judges can share these recordings because it would be an ethical violation for the lawyers to do it, but I wonder, why isn't it an ethical issue for the Judge?

It varies from court to court, but in general the judge has the responsibility of evaluating whether public interest outweighs rights to privacy for any given piece of recorded court information. I'd imagine it is an ethical issue, but the judge has the authority to evaluate the ethics and reach a decision.

Post by dheera » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 7:34 PM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #49

Hackwar wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can censor live events for nuisances like strong language or nudity, but you can't protect the privacy of victims? You would be absolutely astonished, how many women are intimidated/assaulted each year. The infection rates of covid pale against that.

Roughly 300,000 people were assaulted in 2019 (last year of uniform crime stats from the FBI). The annualized amount of COVID-19 death is about 400,000.

Post by yomly » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 7:38 PM UTC

tclancy wrote: post #56

ryandrake wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This young man appears to be able to go from 0 to 100 very quickly with little self control. Maybe this is Captain Obvious speaking, but poor impulse control seems like the single common denominator among a whole load of social ills that consistently land people in trouble (legal, financial, social, across lots of spectrums). From crimes of opportunity/passion, to short-tempers and "blowing up" on people in public…

>Seems that some people just entirely miss that part of their upbringing I think it's worse than that: they get too much shock and awe beatings/ unpredictable rage from parents who were raised the same. It's a cycle/ disease. "My parents hit me and I turned out fine" is often a revealing statement. And a defense of parents who may not deserve it but coping with that is harder.