The judge could have just stood his ground and shot the uppity PD.

By Carol H-something. I'll look it up if anyone wants to know. The reason why Brevard's problem is everyone's problem is that the most ethically fluid of their public personnel tend to be in high demand wherever there's a need for quick results to push public programs forward.

If you see their people getting hired to run your city, be prepared for the worst. They can bring in their own bond companies, and their methods also involve pulling the squeaky wheels into their inner circle where they are "induced" to jump on the city's or county's bandwagon. It's a Libertarian's dream come true because the city will even help them commit fraud against their neighbors. I think Martin county is just as bad.

The sad thing is that everybody thinks it's funny. Even journalist who buy into the old "it's for the good of the community," bullshit.

Go Team...

sixteen years ago,

and I don't think that it's funny in the least. I hope that you and your fellow Democrats can find the votes to get rid of the interlopers.

to help change the system.

The judge invited the advocate to step outside and fight. The advocate accepted the invitation.

Sometimes men agree to settle their differences with their fists. Right or wrong, that's just a fact. Based on his quickly this escalated to fisticuffs, I expect there was quite the history between these two!

"Sometimes assholes agree to settle their differences with their fists." Men, on the other hand, seldom resort to violence to "settle their differences."

So were duels in those days Bubba -- same mentality.

MIRT's radar, but the ruse is wearing thin.

It was for a relatively benign post, lol. I didn't alert, but would like to see the results. I think the board has just had enough.

It was about his changing your name to morningfrog again and i had warned him that only right wing trolls do that name changing thing to make fun of liberals. It's one of their tells. So i did alert when he did it again because i noticed that he likes to do that to you. I may be wrong about the troll thing but the zeal with which he goes after dems made me suspicious. I will send it to you now.

Tick tock.

Bubba...

Pro choice
Pro union
Pro gay rights
Pro equal pay for women
Pro marihuana legalization
Anti war
Anti 1%
Anti corporate politicians

And I hold many more traditionally Democratic viewpoints.

The main thing is I vote Democratic each and every election. But because I have a few positions that some here find controversial (I'm pro death penalty reform, not abolition, which is actually a solidly Democratic position, just not on DU... And because I am pro personal responsibility and pro law enforcement, I am labeled and belittled by certain posters who cannot subject themselves to actual debate).

But I am a Democrat and I'm damn proud to be one.

Enjoy your stay, too. I'm certainly enjoying mine. It will be a long one.

about Victorian area mores. And even then, there were plenty of people living in that era who thought it bullshit. Now, do we live in the Victorian age, jj? Why no, no we don't. Do we think it unseemly, jj, to utter the word breast instead of white meat in the dining salon? Why, no.

I encourage you, jj, to actually think instead of relying on a hoary old paragraph you found somewhere discussing Victorian etiquette.

Give it a try, jj.

You're defending a JUDGE resorting to FISTICUFFS in a courthouse. Judges, as their title suggests, sit in judgment of others in our nation of laws. If a judge cannot keep himself from physically assaulting those who irritate him at his place of work, he clearly has no business passing judgment on those who, among other offenses, couldn't control their violent urges. We have enough damned troglodytes in our society without you defending their actions. Rest easy; they're in no danger of going extinct.

Unless you think boxing is assault.

The Judge and the Advocate simply needed to settle their differences outside the courtroom.

But their "differences" happen to be over the fate of a defendant represented by the attorney, as determined by a judge who is to be impartial.

It is not a personal issue of some sort between them.

The judge was impartial and gave the defendant the speedy trial court date he requested.

You say that like it's some sort of yearning.

hand knowledge of. After working many years as a bouncer, I came to realize that the only language *some* people understand is violence. You can be nice, talk to them in calm tones so as to not escalate the situation, but certain people have a short somewhere and they aren't going to take no for an answer. They *WANT* to fight, and nothing is going to stop them except meeting them with violence. Violence should ALWAYS be a last resort, but it *is* a necessary evil at times.

Flame away if you feel you must, but I'm no pacifist and damn sure won't be anyones punching bag. I'll try to talk someone down and try to calm them down until I'm blue in the face, but if you make the mistake of putting your hands on me, I'll teach you real quick that you don't ever want to do that again. I was trained in self defense since I was big enough to walk, and it was just that: *self defense*! I was taught to NEVER START a fight, but if I HAD to fight, to end it quickly. I taught my kids the same thing when they were growing up. Defending yourself is one thing, being a bully is totally different and actually makes YOU the cowardly jackass, especially if you are trained to fight and *know* you can hurt someone who may not know how to defend themselves.

Ghost

remove the moron from the bench.

You can't be both a victim and a willing participant in fisticuffs.

that little gem in our rules for judicial behavior?

The moron should be removed from the bench, anyone with so little self control and such poor judgement, should be far, far removed from any position of power in our judicial system.

I'm calling it a day.

Then you would have a point. But the challenge was accepted and the two gentleman worked it out.

So.... now there's a pro duelling position here at DU?

Not likely. No victim? No crime.

It was mutual combat. A challenge was issued and accepted.

You said he can't be charged because the combat was allegedly agreed upon. That is not correct.

Now you are asserting that the attorney won't press charges, a totally different argument.

Gentlemen in the 21st century don't solve problems by hitting each other. That kind of anachronistic behavior is not considered gentlemanly in 2014.

You're right that fisticuffs is fading from our problem resolution toolkit, but we just ask ourselves, is that really a good thing? Fisticuffs are replaced by shootings and stabbings and beatings -- far more violent and far less sportsmanlike. If two adults, both of sound mind and body, consent to fisticuffs, who are we to stop them? Their bodies -- their choice.

Judge should be fired and debarred.

Are boxers guilty of assault?

The judge challenged and the advocate accepted. They fought. Fisticuffs, nothing more.

It was assault and battery. First, there was no agreement. Second, mutual combat has long fallen out of American law as a defense.

They weren't boxers. In sports, contact is consensual. It wasn't here. You are thinking of some antiquated law that is simply wrong.

The judge could and should be charged with assault and battery and should be debarred.

The judge challenged the advocate to fight out back and the advocate jumped at the opportunity. Hell, he practically ran out back to get his chance for fisticuffs with the judge. It's unfortunate that the advocate lost (he was doing a fine job for his client), but he was absolutely a willing participant. Fisticuffs isn't like modern day children's sports -- not everyone's a winner. It's unsportsmanlike for the advocate to cry foul because he lost, although in his defense if looks like be isn't the one turning this into an issue, but rather it's someone from his office.

I call it assault and battery. SO does the law. The law does not recognize a mutual combat defense in this scenario. And your ignorance can not make it so.

You are not wanting to understand. I get that. Good luck!

Hard to have a charge without a willing victim. I doubt this attorney presses charges because it was mutual combat and he would be charged himself. Any gentleman who agrees to fisticuffs would not likely file a police report upon losing.

Judge: "let's go out back and fight and I'll kick your ass"
Advocate: "let's go" (and immediately, well, goes)

If that isn't mutual combat then I don't know what is!

and start punching him?

Clearly, the judge was worked up, but I would not think that a judge asking to meet in the hallway would mean punches were to immediately fly. I would think the judge wanted to have a private, even if heated off-the-record conversation.

THe judge was way out of line, the initial aggressor, unprofessional and has exposed himself to criminal and professional liability.

I honestly don't care if he is legally charged, but I hope he does lose his judgeship. His behavior from start to finish was egregious and unprofessional and way too far over the line. He's got to go! Hotheaded assholes like that cannot be judges.

Weinstock should press charges.

Try telling that to Weinstock. He should press charges.

should call him out as a hypocrite.

Probably not going to help your case, but Murphy needs to hear it.

He willingly went out back to fight. Mutual combat.

Mutual combat applies to people agreeing to fight in sport. Mutual combat is not a legal defense as you are suggesting. Not anymore.

Regardless, there was no agreement to fight.

The judge challenged him to go fight out back. He went out back. If he didn't accept and the judge came and punched him in the court room that would be an assault.

They might make a disorderly conduct case against BOTH the judge and the advocate.

For many reasons. The attorney did not agree to be punched. He agreed to go in the hall. The contact was non-consensual, unwarranted touching. The judge threatened him and punched him. You are just wrong. I am trying to help you, but you are resisting my help.

The challenge wasn't to go back to the hall to hug and kiss. Based on the way the advocate ran to the hall, he was more than eager to get a piece of the judge.

If I invite you into the hall, and even tell you my purpose once you arrive is to assault you, and you meet me in the hallway, I am still committing a crime if I assault you in that hallway. That's the law. You really should try to get out of the 18th century. Hell even the Repubs are only stuck in the early 20th.

And is, in every state, a criminal offense.

But I doing that will happen. It's mutual combat.

defendant's right to a speedy trial. Constitutional issues there? Perhaps the next guy will think twice about maintaining his constitutional right. This is problematic. The judge needs to retire.

They can sanction the judge.

Judge: "let's go out back and fight and I'll kick your ass"
Advocate: "let's go" (and he immediately, well, goes)

Every case that judge ever presided over will be reviewed.

The Public Defender has won this case regardless.

The Judge will face disciplinary action.