U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-18-2010, 06:30 AM
 
Location: Baltimore
1,802 posts, read 7,307,713 times
Reputation: 1920

Advertisements

Outrageous story.


Judge marries defendant to alleged victim - baltimoresun.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-18-2010, 06:36 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,201,184 times
Reputation: 3889
This basically proves that there are idiots everywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 07:05 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,367,851 times
Reputation: 36094
It looks to me like the two people voluntarily got married.

Last year, there was a thread here about a justice of the peace in Louisiana who refused to marry a couple because they were bi-racial. Now we have a judge who DOESN'T refuse to marry a couple. And people here are calling both cases outrageous.

If the judge in question had refused to marry the couple, they could have gone to another judge and gotten married, with the same judicial outcome. So what?

Don't you people have anything better to do with your lives than sit and watch Fox and Friends and scream 'outrageous' every time you see somebody doing something that doesn't fit into the peg-holes of your tiny world? Suppose you had heard about this on the Jerry Springer show instead of the Baltimore Sun, or if the judge had been Judge Judy. Wouldn't you feel kinda silly opening a thread about it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 07:17 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,201,184 times
Reputation: 3889
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
It looks to me like the two people voluntarily got married.

Last year, there was a thread here about a justice of the peace in Louisiana who refused to marry a couple because they were bi-racial. Now we have a judge who DOESN'T refuse to marry a couple. And people here are calling both cases outrageous.

If the judge in question had refused to marry the couple, they could have gone to another judge and gotten married, with the same judicial outcome. So what?

Don't you people have anything better to do with your lives than sit and watch Fox and Friends and scream 'outrageous' every time you see somebody doing something that doesn't fit into the peg-holes of your tiny world? Suppose you had heard about this on the Jerry Springer show instead of the Baltimore Sun, or if the judge had been Judge Judy. Wouldn't you feel kinda silly opening a thread about it?
Wow. Talk about an ironic statement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,367,851 times
Reputation: 36094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
This basically proves that there are idiots everywhere.
Sorry I couldn't come up with a reply as brilliant and profound and directed specifically to the point as this. You're the one who proved that there are idiots everywhere. You calling a judge an idiot seems pretty ironic in itself, but you lack the argumentative power to even leave us with a clue about whom you think are the idiots in this case, so we remain in the dark about what is going on in your deeply perceptive mind. I don't have time today to keep taking you off 'ignore', so any more of your gifts of wisdom will be sadly lost on me.

Last edited by jtur88; 03-18-2010 at 07:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 07:50 AM
 
Location: Baltimore
1,802 posts, read 7,307,713 times
Reputation: 1920
Some people don't get it. But aside from the fact that the judge ignored that in Maryland you do not need to have the victim's cooperation in order to proceed with a domestic violence case (there was circumstantial evidence that the attack took place by way of the police officers' observation of the victim's injuries at the scene), he then took it a step further and participated in the defense of the guy by marrying the two and thus enabling the victim to invoke spousal privilege.

Those who see nothing wrong with this must really not have a grasp of how the criminal justice system in this country is supposed to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 08:01 AM
 
Location: Penobscot Bay, the best place in Maine!
1,894 posts, read 5,269,728 times
Reputation: 2650
I don't see that the judge did anything wrong. 2 people who get off on an abusive situation wanted to get married, and they did. I do think they should have had to sign something saying they would never call the cops when they get to punching and kicking each other, or involve anyone else in their twisted relationship, but if they want to have that kind of relationship, more power to them! What right would the judge have to NOT marry the 2? The right of "because I think you shouldn't"? That didn't really work out for the LA judge, now did it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 08:08 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,201,184 times
Reputation: 3889
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Sorry I couldn't come up with a reply as brilliant and profound and directed specifically to the point as this. You're the one who proved that there are idiots everywhere. You calling a judge an idiot seems pretty ironic in itself, but you lack the argumentative power to even leave us with a clue about whom you think are the idiots in this case, so we remain in the dark about what is going on in your deeply perceptive mind. I don't have time today to keep taking you off 'ignore', so any more of your gifts of wisdom will be sadly lost on me.
Okay Einstein, here's a clue. Idiots, in order of their appearance:
1. The woman who wants to marry her abusive boyfriend. Does she really think that marrying the punk is going to bring an end to the abuse? She's an idiot.
2. Judge G. Darrell Russell, who served as both judge and principle defendant. He will be removed from the bench. He's an idiot.
3. Fredrick D. Wood, the guy who beat up his girlfriend. Any guy who will do this sort of thing to any girl is the scum of the earth. Any guy who is this reckless and wanton in his behavior will almost certainly find himself on the wrong end of a baseball bat and/or an angry father's fists. In addition, the punk thinks his life is going to get better by getting married? He's an idiot.


Happy now?

Last edited by Omaha Rocks; 03-18-2010 at 08:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 08:09 AM
 
48,516 posts, read 84,044,795 times
Reputation: 18050
Where i live the case would go on based on her satements to police. Butthis is not rurprising as many actaully go right back to the abuser ;who are married.The large per cantage try to drop charges. Then the pnality in most cases is domestic viloence education which is a joke really. he only rewal change in the law that eans anythig is that the police can arrest without a warrant.in many cases it is thought some wouldn't call and others report false claims.Dealing with humans isn't easy and never will be really.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Baltimore
1,802 posts, read 7,307,713 times
Reputation: 1920
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
Where i live the case would go on based on her satements to police. Butthis is not rurprising as many actaully go right back to the abuser ;who are married.The large per cantage try to drop charges. Then the pnality in most cases is domestic viloence education which is a joke really. he only rewal change in the law that eans anythig is that the police can arrest without a warrant.in many cases it is thought some wouldn't call and others report false claims.Dealing with humans isn't easy and never will be really.
Although it's not clear from the article it seems that's what happened - the trial was held but the judge found the defendent not guilty because the victim didn't testify, even though there was evidence presented that the police saw injuries on the victim when they arrived at the scene. If no trial was held there couldn't have been a not guilty verdict. The judge participated in providing a defense for the guy and therefore acted on behalf of the defense, and then acted as adjudicator and found him not guilty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:25 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top