MovieChat Forums > 10e chambre - Instants d'audience (2004) Discussion > The Sociologist and the Speedy Delivery ...

The Sociologist and the Speedy Delivery Guy


I didn't know if it was simply cut from my DVD or whether it was a malfunction of my system, but I didn't get to see the verdict and sentencing on the last two cases (the sociologist with the penknife and the guy who refused to lie about running red lights). And I thought those were two of the more interesting cases.
It was particularly fascinating to me how quickly the judge became incensed when the sociologist tried to argue back.

So: does anyone know what happened to those two?

TIA!

J.

reply

I just watched it on the Sundance Channel and there were no verdicts for these two on there either!

reply

I came here looking for insights into those two cases, as well.

I guess we are meant to feel the ambiguity -- both of those cases were interesting in that you could see the personality clashes were just as important in the courtroom as the actual infractions. And in the editing of the presentation of the sociologist's case, I felt I didn't have enough information to form an opinion of his "guilt" or "innocence" myself.

edit: There was no additional information in the dvd bonus features, either.


last 2 dvds: Deja Vu (2006) & The Thursday Club (2005)

reply

On the contrary, included among the DVD bonus features is a panel discussion in which the female judge participated. An audience member asks her about the resolution of the sociologist's case. She replies that the defendant was fined and his knife confiscated. She maintains a defensive posture about the case, claiming the man was "deliberately provocative."

Alas, the outcome of the delivery guy's case is not addressed.

reply

To be precise: she says she was under the impression he was deliberately being provocative, not only in the hearing we saw but also beforehand. Plus that the police officers in question offered to drop the case completely, but he insisted to take it to court.

So he was indeed fined and his knife was confiscated.

By the way: in the same debate it's mentioned Michèle Bernard-Requin is not "président" of the 10th district court anymore, but now "supervisor"? I'm not quite sure what that means exactly.

_____________________
Tally-ho, my fine saucy young trollop!

reply

Yes, I also wondered about the last cases. Especially the sociologist. I thought it was interesting because he was not stupid and did know some of the law about the legality of the knife size and so forth. The judge could not stand it. She is so kind and imperious when dealing with the dregs or eccentrics of society that she can patronize---but with a real person of intelligence her rugffled feathers reach the ceiling! She cannot for an instant entertain his calm suggestions---saying at one point as an educated man he should be able to endure being thrown up against a wall with "serenity"!

And then the prosecutor chimes in by listing his alleged crimes, including one for "being some kind of a rebellious person"---because he questioned whether a childhood family gift of a sort of Boy Scout or Swiss Army knife was a weapon, or potentially a "tool used as a weapon." He said, believably, it was neither--but the judged laughed at him. They did not like his attitude: it was not humble or ignorant, so they had to question his manhood, intelligence, and being a "rebel"! Insane.

And although most of the time the judge in fact seemed quite fair, it was her dime and she did not want to lose a second of control when seriously challenged. He was protesting possible police brutality, a misinterpretation of the laws, and a significant procedural error (the date). It is too bad she messed up so badly there, when she otherwise showed considerable grace and good judgment.

reply

I thought he made a very good case in pointing out the law, it sounds to me like the law over there specifies what kind of knife is illegal and the knife he carried did NOT meet the standard...so why was he found guilty? Was it simply because he questioned the law or because they found him "rebellious" and didn't like his attitude?

reply

That is exactly how I felt about it. He was reading exact specifications of what the law says defines a weapon. He was there representing himself, so what was the issue with that?

Her posturing in court was that he was provocative because he brought up the details of that very law, and she made jokes that he couldn't understand it because he was a sociologist not a lawyer; which begs the question: what kind of hypocrisy is it to expect the average person to live by a law that you firmly believe (or at least act as if you believe) that the average person cannot speak to or adequately understand?

reply