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
share