MovieChat Forums > Judge Judy (1996) Discussion > The bully who forced the 19 year old to ...

The bully who forced the 19 year old to let him drive his car


Wow, what a messy story! The 19 year old plaintiff claimed he was bullied by the 18 year old defendant into handing over his car keys and subsequently his car was wrecked; the defendant claimed the plaintiff wrecked the car and he agreed to lie and say he was driving, so the plaintiff's insurance wouldn't go up, even though the defendant didn't have a license (huh)?

I really couldn't decide who I believed, but like JJ said, the defendant told the police he had been driving, so he might as well have stuck to his original story! I was just surprised JJ didn't hold the plaintiff 50% responsible, though.

reply

A totally off-topic story follows, below. Mine is a useless rant-thingy.

Wow, what a messy story!

It gets pretty nuts, in that courthouse, kinda crazy & "who to believe" is, many times, (very) difficult (& young people do STUPID, reckless, things :)); BUT, wrecking someone's car: just, have to pay for it & that's that!..

It had happened, more than several times (to various people) when we were younger and (too) many times (almost) everyone had tried to get out of it - however, a vehicle is something that we NEED (& cannot do without) and "you", just, can't mess with that... If you borrow a car and damage it, GOTTA fess up to it - it's something that has to be done, no excuses, meh. ;-/

(Over the years, there were (at least) TWO people (which I can remember) who hadn't paid me for damage to my car(s). The first was a friend of a friend, drunk on the beach, who'd wanted to "try" the car and moved it around, a bit, on some sand - and struck a HUGE, concrete, flower pot with the front; no idea how, intoxicated and blind, in teh dark, blah. The second happened years later, with a different vehicle and this guy, SOMEHOW, managed to smash in both of my hoods - the front AND the back - and at that time I was curious as to how, the heck, can this happen... However, sometimes later, I found (figured) out that he is (clinically) insane, meh; but, for reals. :))

Not proud, though, at the damage(s) that I've done to other peoples' rides. SOMEHOW, did manage to rack up somewhat of a tally... Several, different, events - BUT, one time (20 years ago, maybe) I managed to skillfully, like a ninja (lolz), climb on top of the roof (rack) as a friend pulled up with his Honda Civic '92 - on the tips of my fingers and toes (!), without ANY problems - EXCEPT, he -then- decided to accelerate down the road, like at full speed and I had to squeeze down to hold on "for dear life" - and there weren't windows open, or anything, so that crumpled up his roof quite a bit (my goodness)

... And another time (OMG., Jesus Christ), I had been giving a ride to someone - home, from a club, at night and NO idea why (the HELL) we didn't let him walk, in the first place - using a friend's car (as it happens, another '92 Civic) & as we missed a turn and as I was gonna go back, pulled the hand-brake to spin it around, BUT (being drunk) didn't look up the (unfortunately, inclining) road to see a JEEP hurling towards us and he'd been flying so much that he barely slowed down when he'd plowed right into my door (I was nowhere close to completing the turn, messed it up big time, still in the middle of the road - but, sideways); all I saw was, as I flinched to turn my head away, glass flying around me and pelting that guy sitting next me all across his head and face (will never forget it, LOL).

So, as I shut off the car which had the horn stuck, blasting and bolted out, pushing him to get out from his side - as the driver's side got completely smashed in (NO clue how they were able to repair the vehicle - pretty sure that even the chassis got bent, heh), SOMEHOW another friend who happened to be walking by (no joke, fortune favors fools) ran to get the owner and as the 2 guys in the jeep were drunk /in shock (or, SOMETHING) themselves, nobody "noticed" that I was behind the wheel (without a driving license, or any insurance!), or told the police how I was stunting and directly caused the crash (well, except that they'd been speeding and, probably, drunk - as heck (?!) - so that, basically, saved us). Luckily, no Judge Judy, w00t!! :))

*Their jeep had some issues, can't really remember if they were driving with fake /expired license plates, or some such (un)fortunate thing (so, so, lucky 4 us and friend's dad didn't have to kill me, pftt.)

P.S. Btw., there's (much!) more (of me crashing - and, into - people's bikes and scooters, also - and others destroying my property, likewise), pretty sure that many other people would have (many?!), such, stories to tell... Looking back, it's a miracle how my mother (my folks) managed to pull through it, all! xD

EOF//

reply

It was so great to see Urkel from the 1990's sitcom 'Family Matters' on Judge Judy! He really hasn't changed a bit in 20 years.

JJ almost had him in tears when he realized he couldn't do things his way (tell her the rehearsed story) and instead it had to be done HER way ('Just answer my questions...'). Kid was scared - I sure hope his mom brought an extra pair of clean underwear for him to change into after the show.

I did believe Super Mario Bros. "Mario" for some reason. I think he was telling the truth that he lied to the police. Now he's responsible for the damages, poor chump.


"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16 







reply

Lol Urkel grew up to be a little cuter, but he did look like he was gonna pee his pants, poor guy. I kind of wondered if he might be a little developmentally challenged, as they say now.

As for the defendant being truthful, at first I thought he was lying, because since he didn't have a license, how would saying he was the one driving have helped the plaintiff keep his insurance rates down? But then, both guys were dumb, so maybe they really did think it would help if they lied. As usual, I think the truth was somewhere in between- the defendant probably pressured the plaintiff into letting him drive the car and he wrecked, and the plaintiff was probably afraid his mommy would be upset with him for letting someone else drive, so he lied.

reply

I kind of wondered if he might be a little developmentally challenged, as they say now.


I didn't get that. I just figured he was extremely nervous, and was concentrating too hard on hitting all the 'points' he wished to make. But JJ derailed his train, and he was ready to sh!t his pants.

Urkel grew up to be a little cuter,


Very true.

"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16 







reply

I'm the mom from this case. I can assure you my son is not developmentally challenged, he was just very nervous and did not want to be there. Once the cameras started rolling, things changed quickly and everyone's (staff, production, JJ) demeanors changed.
I can also assure you the defendant had been told many times by me and school officials to leave my son alone. He was disrespectful to me on numerous occiaisions and that was not the first time he took the car without permission.
During that tape is the very first time Mario ever told his story of André being the driver. I talked to police and the lady he hit (he was driving and texting). My son was in class and taken to the scene. Mario and his father lied and I'm of the thinking production told them to embellish their story because it was the 1st we heard of it. I have sworn and recorded statements from my insurance company. They weren't bought to court because I didn't think I'd need them because Mario had always admitted to being the driver.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion so I'll let the Urkel comments pass. I don't feel my son resembles Urkel in the least. But I do know it's easy for folks to be negative while under the cover of phones and computers. The name-calling and negativity is something my son has dealt with his entire acedemic years and is the reason we were in court...Mario may not have bullied André on the way we've seen but he was mean and intimidating all the same. Probably got lessons in that behavior from reading message boards like this!

reply

You are definitely right about how easy it is to be rude, especially under anonymity. Sometimes in our attempts to be funny, we go too far, so just know no harm was intended. As for the comments about Urkel, I doubt if it'll make you feel any better but I said the plaintiff was just as cute as Urkel, who grew up to be very cute.

I also appreciated your points about how things change once the cameras come on, and why you didn't bring certain key evidence. It never occurred to me that people change their story so blatantly once they're on the show. Regardless of our comments, congratulations on winning your lawsuit.

reply

Thank you!

reply

I don't for a minute believe any of this. If you are indeed "the mom from this case," you're demeaning yourself by writing here.

Really? Your son "did not want to be there?" Then why WAS he there? Nobody dragged you or your kid into court...you signed the papers, you agreed to come, and certainly if your "non-developmentally challenged" boy didn't do his homework about Judge Judy, that's on him. Everybody knows how she conducts her television show. Didn't YOU know? Come on.

I'm the mom from this case. I can assure you my son is not developmentally challenged, he was just very nervous and did not want to be there. Once the cameras started rolling, things changed quickly and everyone's (staff, production, JJ) demeanors changed.
I can also assure you the defendant had been told many times by me and school officials to leave my son alone. He was disrespectful to me on numerous occiaisions and that was not the first time he took the car without permission.
During that tape is the very first time Mario ever told his story of André being the driver. I talked to police and the lady he hit (he was driving and texting). My son was in class and taken to the scene. Mario and his father lied and I'm of the thinking production told them to embellish their story because it was the 1st we heard of it. I have sworn and recorded statements from my insurance company. They weren't bought to court because I didn't think I'd need them because Mario had always admitted to being the driver.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion so I'll let the Urkel comments pass. I don't feel my son resembles Urkel in the least. But I do know it's easy for folks to be negative while under the cover of phones and computers. The name-calling and negativity is something my son has dealt with his entire acedemic years and is the reason we were in court...Mario may not have bullied André on the way we've seen but he was mean and intimidating all the same. Probably got lessons in that behavior from reading message boards like this!

reply

How am I demeaning myself by defending my child and offering insight into the case? This was MY case, I sued Mario, not André. He's a typical teenager who was embarrassed that I even sued (in our local jurisdiction, then the show contacted me). He doesn't watch JJ and was nervous once we got there. Hell, I was nervous! Yes, I signed up to be on the show...so what! Maybe I am demeaning myself by responding to you because I don't owe you any explanations. I know the truth so whatever you think is irrelevant.

reply

It's nice to see someone on here who has been on the show. Glad you won the case.

<“Every man of courage is a man of his word.” - Pierre Corneille>

reply

Thanks!

reply

How am I demeaning myself by defending my child and offering insight into the case? This was MY case, I sued Mario, not André. He's a typical teenager who was embarrassed that I even sued (in our local jurisdiction, then the show contacted me). He doesn't watch JJ and was nervous once we got there. Hell, I was nervous! Yes, I signed up to be on the show...so what! Maybe I am demeaning myself by responding to you because I don't owe you any explanations. I know the truth so whatever you think is irrelevant.


Well, if your son never watched Judge Judy, then you hung him out to dry. Haven't you ever heard of a little thing called "preparation?" That's what you do before going on television in front of 10 million people. It would've been a good idea for you to sit your 19 year old down and say, "let's watch some Judge Judy, just so you won't be blindsided by her approach and attitude, dear." No, instead, you just let him wing it and threw him to the wolves.

And now, you're coming here to cry and moan about how mean everybody is to you and your boy. I feel no sympathy for either one of you. I'm sure you're aware that the Judge Judy show is entertainment and that people watch it just to see Judge Judy rip the litigants a new butthole. For some reason, you let that happen to your son, while you sat there squirming in your seat. Tsk-tsk, MOM.

reply

Let's all take it down a notch or two, it's just a show as we all know. I for one appreciate that someone who was on the show bothered to post here. She's not asking for pity or even sympathy, she's asking for less negativity and rudeness toward her son, and that is not an unreasonable request. And really shouldn't even have to be asked for.

reply

She should've thought about all that before going on the show. Once she's in front of the camera, all bets are off.

reply

I'm the mom from this case. I can assure you my son is not developmentally challenged, he was just very nervous and did not want to be there.


With all due respect then, if he did not want to be there, he should not have been there. This case should have been kept in your local jurisdiction, and not on a television show watched by "10 Million people" (as JJ announces every so often), and then plastered and commented about all over social media.

I'm sure you were well aware of how JJ conducts her 'courtroom', and most familiar with how she treats teenagers on her show - especially boys. When the show contacted you, all you had to say was 'No Thank You', but the offer was appealing to you (for whatever reason) and put your son in the spotlight in front of 10 million viewers, rather than a small civil courtroom in your area.



Everyone is entitled to their opinion so I'll let the Urkel comments pass. I don't feel my son resembles Urkel in the least. But I do know it's easy for folks to be negative while under the cover of phones and computers. The name-calling and negativity is something my son has dealt with his entire acedemic years and is the reason we were in court...Mario may not have bullied André on the way we've seen but he was mean and intimidating all the same. Probably got lessons in that behavior from reading message boards like this!


Welcome to social media in the 21st Century.

Again, as I'm sure you were familiar on how JJ conducts 'her courtroom', I'm sure you are very familiar with these forums on social media. Comments and discussions are encouraged, not discouraged, and being anonymous makes it much easier to be 'honest and open' (and some people see that as 'poor behavior' or 'negative', as you suggest). So be it.

But this is certainly not your first time here, as I've seen you post before on this forum (and others) as you've been a member of IMDb for as long as I have. You know what goes on at these forums, ESPECIALLY the JJ forum where we do dissect each case, the litigants, and JJ's decisions.

Perhaps, you should have taken all this into consideration when you agreed to bring your case to the show, and put your son in front of 10 M people?

"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16 







reply

This case bothered me. If I recall correctly the defendant claimed the plaintiff was driving to get donuts and asked him to cover for him. That sounded more realistic than he bullied him into giving the defendant the keys... Although the defendant also lost my sympathy when he claimed the brakes didn't work causing the accident. That sounded fake like something more was going on.
However, my real problem was when JJ said whatever the case, the defendant was reponsible because he told the police he was the one driving. But according to Judy's occasionally logic... The plaintiff gave him permission to drive the car and therefore the plaintiff shouldn't be responsible, because even in his own words the defendant bullied him into handing over the keys, he never stole them!

reply

You're forgetting, the defendant didn't have a license, which is probably why the plaintiff's insurance didn't cover the damage. And the defendant should never have been driving, whether he had permission or not.

reply

I did forget that! But I also don't think he was driving. Kids are stupid and when the defendant said his friend asked him to say he was driving because "his mom's insurance would go up" sounds like something not made up.

reply

I didn't believe the plaintiff I'd at all.

-----

Shooting has started on my latest movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/

reply

I think what did the defendant in was the fact that he gave a sworn statement to the police claiming that he was the one driving the car.

reply

what is this I am reading about Steve Urkel being on this episode????

I tried looking online and google came up with video bupkis.



Oh God. Fortune vomits on my eiderdown once more.

reply

People were saying he resembled Steve Urkel.

<“Every man of courage is a man of his word.” - Pierre Corneille>

reply

thank you!

Oh God. Fortune vomits on my eiderdown once more.

reply