The man who lost control in the courtroom

[Anathema]

Well, that would be a normative basis for thinking a variety of things you may think about the matter under discussion. This thread, as I've multiply noted (once in the OP and a couple times, at least, afterwards) is about positive aspects of Margraves and Cunningham's actions, not normative ones.

It's legalistic psychobabble like that which makes average people hsve little to no faith in Sociology, Psychology, and, our legal system.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Based on the facts of the case.......no actual crime was committed during the court proceedings other than possible contempt.

The judge didn't pursue any charges probably due to the fact Margrave was under emotional distress and had been stopped before assaulting Nassar

And because he wasn't being contemptuous of the court or the proceedings. He just lost control of his emotions.

• A violent outburst in court is a common basis for a judge finding one in contempt of court. (Click on the first hyperlinked text in the OP.) Yes, determining whether to do anything about acts of contempt is up to the judge's discretion, but that doesn't make those acts be not contemptuous. Conceptually, the judge's discretion is a "pared down" variant of the law's acknowledgement that certain criminal code actus rei not being prosecuted because prosecutors could not find probative evidence of suspects possessing mentes reae when they did their deeds. I discussed toward the end of this post -- The man who lost control in the courtroom -- the question of Margraves having intent to act in contempt of court.
• Losing control of one's emotions is a mark of immaturity. Maintaining control of one's emotions is part and parcel of the responsibilities and expectations of being a mature adult. Much of our criminal code exists to punish adults who allow their emotions to get the best of them. For example:
  • Lust --> Sexual assault
  • Wrath --> Murder, assault, battery
  • Avarice and envy --> Theft, vandalism
    
  • Acedia and sloth --> Any form of criminally negligent behavior
    
    Aside:
    Societal disdain for acedia and sloth, perhaps most popularly immortalized in Chaucer's Troilus & Criseyde, likely derived from the Medieval tradition likened slothful men to cats who refuse to fish because they do not want to get their paws wet. Gower's character, Genius, expresses that notion in Confessio, albeit not in a criminal context yet no less construed as execrable.

For he ne wol no travail take
To ryde for his ladi sake,
Bot liveth al upon his wisshes;
And as a cat wolde ete fisshes
Withoute wetinge of his cles,
So wolde he do, bot natheles
He faileth ofte of that he wolde.
-- John Gower, Confessio Amantis, IV, 1105-11​

In general a judge rarely charges distrupters with contempt, preferring to restore order & focus on the trial at hand

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well, that would be a normative basis for thinking a variety of things you may think about the matter under discussion. This thread, as I've multiply noted (once in the OP and a couple times, at least, afterwards) is about positive aspects of Margraves and Cunningham's actions, not normative ones.

It's legalistic psychobabble like that which makes average people hsve little to no faith in Sociology, Psychology, and, our legal system.

????

 

[usmbguest5318]

Based on the facts of the case.......no actual crime was committed during the court proceedings other than possible contempt.

The judge didn't pursue any charges probably due to the fact Margrave was under emotional distress and had been stopped before assaulting Nassar

And because he wasn't being contemptuous of the court or the proceedings. He just lost control of his emotions.

• A violent outburst in court is a common basis for a judge finding one in contempt of court. (Click on the first hyperlinked text in the OP.) Yes, determining whether to do anything about acts of contempt is up to the judge's discretion, but that doesn't make those acts be not contemptuous. Conceptually, the judge's discretion is a "pared down" variant of the law's acknowledgement that certain criminal code actus rei not being prosecuted because prosecutors could not find probative evidence of suspects possessing mentes reae when they did their deeds. I discussed toward the end of this post -- The man who lost control in the courtroom -- the question of Margraves having intent to act in contempt of court.
• Losing control of one's emotions is a mark of immaturity. Maintaining control of one's emotions is part and parcel of the responsibilities and expectations of being a mature adult. Much of our criminal code exists to punish adults who allow their emotions to get the best of them. For example:
  • Lust --> Sexual assault
  • Wrath --> Murder, assault, battery
  • Avarice and envy --> Theft, vandalism
    
  • Acedia and sloth --> Any form of criminally negligent behavior
    
    Aside:
    Societal disdain for acedia and sloth, perhaps most popularly immortalized in Chaucer's Troilus & Criseyde, likely derived from the Medieval tradition likened slothful men to cats who refuse to fish because they do not want to get their paws wet. Gower's character, Genius, expresses that notion in Confessio, albeit not in a criminal context yet no less construed as execrable.

For he ne wol no travail take
To ryde for his ladi sake,
Bot liveth al upon his wisshes;
And as a cat wolde ete fisshes
Withoute wetinge of his cles,
So wolde he do, bot natheles
He faileth ofte of that he wolde.
-- John Gower, Confessio Amantis, IV, 1105-11​

In general a judge rarely charges distrupters with contempt, preferring to restore order & focus on the trial at hand

See the line of conversation that concludes at post 29.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Based on the facts of the case.......no actual crime was committed during the court proceedings other than possible contempt.

The judge didn't pursue any charges probably due to the fact Margrave was under emotional distress and had been stopped before assaulting Nassar

And because he wasn't being contemptuous of the court or the proceedings. He just lost control of his emotions.

• A violent outburst in court is a common basis for a judge finding one in contempt of court. (Click on the first hyperlinked text in the OP.) Yes, determining whether to do anything about acts of contempt is up to the judge's discretion, but that doesn't make those acts be not contemptuous. Conceptually, the judge's discretion is a "pared down" variant of the law's acknowledgement that certain criminal code actus rei not being prosecuted because prosecutors could not find probative evidence of suspects possessing mentes reae when they did their deeds. I discussed toward the end of this post -- The man who lost control in the courtroom -- the question of Margraves having intent to act in contempt of court.
• Losing control of one's emotions is a mark of immaturity. Maintaining control of one's emotions is part and parcel of the responsibilities and expectations of being a mature adult. Much of our criminal code exists to punish adults who allow their emotions to get the best of them. For example:
  • Lust --> Sexual assault
  • Wrath --> Murder, assault, battery
  • Avarice and envy --> Theft, vandalism
    
  • Acedia and sloth --> Any form of criminally negligent behavior
    
    Aside:
    Societal disdain for acedia and sloth, perhaps most popularly immortalized in Chaucer's Troilus & Criseyde, likely derived from the Medieval tradition likened slothful men to cats who refuse to fish because they do not want to get their paws wet. Gower's character, Genius, expresses that notion in Confessio, albeit not in a criminal context yet no less construed as execrable.

For he ne wol no travail take
To ryde for his ladi sake,
Bot liveth al upon his wisshes;
And as a cat wolde ete fisshes
Withoute wetinge of his cles,
So wolde he do, bot natheles
He faileth ofte of that he wolde.
-- John Gower, Confessio Amantis, IV, 1105-11​

One more time: the judge's court, the judge's discretion.

There is no point to any of your blather, because a judge cannot be compelled to hold someone in contempt if he/she does not want to.

 

[Unkotare]

How do you punish a Father in that situation? He had no weapon, and it was clearly a non premeditated emotional reaction. If he had reached Nassar and got in a couple good shots before being tackled, well maybe that's different. I believe the judge made a reasonable decision.

He knew what he wanted to do. He just made a strategic error in carrying it out.


The judge should have given him the five minutes.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Based on the facts of the case.......no actual crime was committed during the court proceedings other than possible contempt.

The judge didn't pursue any charges probably due to the fact Margrave was under emotional distress and had been stopped before assaulting Nassar

And because he wasn't being contemptuous of the court or the proceedings. He just lost control of his emotions.

• A violent outburst in court is a common basis for a judge finding one in contempt of court. (Click on the first hyperlinked text in the OP.) Yes, determining whether to do anything about acts of contempt is up to the judge's discretion, but that doesn't make those acts be not contemptuous. Conceptually, the judge's discretion is a "pared down" variant of the law's acknowledgement that certain criminal code actus rei not being prosecuted because prosecutors could not find probative evidence of suspects possessing mentes reae when they did their deeds. I discussed toward the end of this post -- The man who lost control in the courtroom -- the question of Margraves having intent to act in contempt of court.
• Losing control of one's emotions is a mark of immaturity. Maintaining control of one's emotions is part and parcel of the responsibilities and expectations of being a mature adult. Much of our criminal code exists to punish adults who allow their emotions to get the best of them. For example:
  • Lust --> Sexual assault
  • Wrath --> Murder, assault, battery
  • Avarice and envy --> Theft, vandalism
    
  • Acedia and sloth --> Any form of criminally negligent behavior
    
    Aside:
    Societal disdain for acedia and sloth, perhaps most popularly immortalized in Chaucer's Troilus & Criseyde, likely derived from the Medieval tradition likened slothful men to cats who refuse to fish because they do not want to get their paws wet. Gower's character, Genius, expresses that notion in Confessio, albeit not in a criminal context yet no less construed as execrable.

For he ne wol no travail take
To ryde for his ladi sake,
Bot liveth al upon his wisshes;
And as a cat wolde ete fisshes
Withoute wetinge of his cles,
So wolde he do, bot natheles
He faileth ofte of that he wolde.
-- John Gower, Confessio Amantis, IV, 1105-11​

One more time: the judge's court, the judge's discretion.

There is no point to any of your blather, because a judge cannot be compelled to hold someone in contempt if he/she does not want to.

One more time: the judge's court, the judge's discretion.

??? What part of or which of the following remarks did you not comprehend?

The judge, using her judicial discretion -- she has a lot of it in her courtroom -- opted not to levy any sanction(s)/penalty(s) for Margraves' outburst.

Conceptually, the judge's discretion is a "pared down" variant of the law's acknowledgement that certain criminal code actus rei not being prosecuted because prosecutors could not find probative evidence of suspects possessing mentes reae when they did their deeds.

A person may be held in contempt for many different reasons. Some of the most common reasons include...

• showing disrespect for the judge or others in the courtroom, including violent behavior,
• disrupting the court’s proceedings with noise or other “acting up”...(Source)

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Two hundred on a commissary and he is as good as dead. Problem solved.

 

[MikeK]

it is the judge's sole discretion to find contempt or not. she chose not to. I suspect everyone cheered a little when it happened. and no, it doesn't do anything to courtroom decorum.

It is the judge's discretion -- up to a point. If Margrave had killed or seriously injured Nassar that judge would become a witness and nothing more. As for her discretionary action in this example, it occurs only because it has not been challenged.

 

[MikeK]

I wish there had been 20 of the victim's fathers in the courtroom, and they all bum rushed the pervert and beat him senseless. ....

Sunni, unless some superior court is inclined to modify Nassar's sentence to include confinement in the special wing of some minimum security prison, where his medical skills would be substantially useful, there is no need to beat him senseless in a courtroom. Because that man is headed for a life of uninterrupted daily torment or the psychological torture available from permanent solitary confinement.

 

[Sunni Man]

Sunni, unless some superior court is inclined to modify Nassar's sentence to include confinement in the special wing of some minimum security prison, where his medical skills would be substantially useful, there is no need to beat him senseless in a courtroom. Because that man is headed for a life of uninterrupted daily torment or the psychological torture available from permanent solitary confinement.

True.....chomo's have a rough time in stir. ...