Chad Johnson, aka Ochocinco, a wanted man

[Mr. WEO]

 

Of course the judge represents the government/people. That is obvious to everyone. She, acting within her authority, had signed the plea deal. That is how it is done. The paperwork is worked out prior to the court session. She either signed it at the proceeding or before it. What is indisputable is that the paperwork was already signed by her. She then rescinded the deal she already signed because she petulantly reacted to an innocuous backside tap She erroneously interpreted his discreet backslap as an act of disrespect toward her and the court when it wasn't meant to be that. This tempermental judge overreacted and demonstrated that she lacks good judgment and a judicial temperment.

 

It is not surprising that the prevailing view from the legal community is that this diva judge exhibited poor judgment in this case.

 

No, she does not. By definition, the judge doesn't favor or "represent" plaintiff ("the people of Florida", in this case) or the defendent. They are there to asssure a fair trial for both and allow (or direct) a final outcome based on all parties' best interests (which may not be the state).

[NoSaint]

 

 

No, she does not. By definition, the judge doesn't favor or "represent" plaintiff ("the people of Florida", in this case) or the defendent. They are there to asssure a fair trial for both and allow (or direct) a final outcome based on all parties' best interests (which may not be the state).

 

in some regard i think john is arguing that she is there to represent a fair outcome which serves the people of florida (chad included). her service to the people is by being impartial and clear headed and upholding justice which is certainly in the interest of everybody.

 

but beyond arguing the semantics, any thoughts on the florida AG weighing in?

[Bufcomments]

 

Of course the judge represents the government/people. That is obvious to everyone. She, acting within her authority, had signed the plea deal. That is how it is done. The paperwork is worked out prior to the court session. She either signed it at the proceeding or before it. What is indisputable is that the paperwork was already signed by her. She then rescinded the deal she already signed because she petulantly reacted to an innocuous backside tap She erroneously interpreted his discreet backslap as an act of disrespect toward her and the court when it wasn't meant to be that. This tempermental judge overreacted and demonstrated that she lacks good judgment and a judicial temperment.

 

It is not surprising that the prevailing view from the legal community is that this diva judge exhibited poor judgment in this case.

 

Ok ok maybe she overreacted a bit but what could be true also in Chad Ocho-dummy put her in a tough spot. Maybe a heavy fine would have been more fitting.

But Johnson needed a wakeup call in his life and maybe this is what she was trying to get done. No way a man who beat on his wife should get a slap on the wrist.

 

Don't think anybody brought this up but would a male judge acted differently??

[NoSaint]

 

 

Ok ok maybe she overreacted a bit but what could be true also in Chad Ocho-dummy put her in a tough spot. Maybe a heavy fine would have been more fitting.

But Johnson needed a wakeup call in his life and maybe this is what she was trying to get done. No way a man who beat on his wife should get a slap on the wrist.

 

Don't think anybody brought this up but would a male judge acted differently??

 

i think the prevailing opinion is most judges, male or female wouldve acted differently.

[Gugny]

i think the prevailing opinion is most judges, male or female wouldve acted differently.

Agreed. "Not taking this seriously," isn't against the law.

[Bufcomments]

i think the prevailing opinion is most judges, male or female wouldve acted differently.

So are you suggesting that this Judge be fined for her actions??

 

i think the prevailing opinion is most judges, male or female wouldve acted differently.

Interesting thought but do you think most judges would stand for grandstanding in their courtrooms? Which to me is what Chad did.

[JohnC]

No, she does not. By definition, the judge doesn't favor or "represent" plaintiff ("the people of Florida", in this case) or the defendent. They are there to asssure a fair trial for both and allow (or direct) a final outcome based on all parties' best interests (which may not be the state).

 

On this issue you are haphazardly driving all over the place. The judge is part of the judicial branch----a branch of government. Of course she shouldn't favor either the defendant/complaintant side of a dispute. When she is making a ruling whether to imprison or allow bail or any other type of appearance arrangement she is considering the interests of the public.

 

You previously stated that she represented the government/people. Now you are backtracking into the netherland of unpredictability. This judge had the authority to make any ruling she wanted within the confines of the law. That doesn't mean that she exhibited good judgment in this case. There is no doubt that the overwhelming sentiment coming from the legal and judicial community is that this judge acted imprudently.

 

I despise what Chad Johnson represents on and off the field. That doesn't mean that he should be treated unfairly in court. That is exactly what happened in court. That isn't right.

Edited June 13, 2013 by JohnC

[JohnC]

Ok ok maybe she overreacted a bit but what could be true also in Chad Ocho-dummy put her in a tough spot. Maybe a heavy fine would have been more fitting.

But Johnson needed a wakeup call in his life and maybe this is what she was trying to get done. No way a man who beat on his wife should get a slap on the wrist.

 

If she wanted to sentence him more severely for his domestic behavior she should have sentenced him accordingly in her original ruling. She agreed to a plea deal that included an extended period of probation. She changed the plea deal that she signed off on because she was irritated by his innocuous tap.

 

 

 

Don't think anybody brought this up but would a male judge acted differently??

 

The issue has little to do with a judge being a male or female. The issue is whether the judge, male or female, has good judgment and temperment for the job.

[Gugny]

Ok ok maybe she overreacted a bit but what could be true also in Chad Ocho-dummy put her in a tough spot. Maybe a heavy fine would have been more fitting.

But Johnson needed a wakeup call in his life and maybe this is what she was trying to get done. No way a man who beat on his wife should get a slap on the wrist.

 

Don't think anybody brought this up but would a male judge acted differently??

My opinion is that it's not the judge's place to burden the taxpayers, while making a mockery of an already flawed justice system, in order to provide a wakeup call.

[starrymessenger]

The judge overreacted IMO. A stern admonishment followed by an apology, both of which occurred, would have sufficed.

As for 85, for sure he is capable of behaving inappropriately relative to societal norms, and generally making poor decisions - for example having anything to do with that nutcase he married.

But in my book he was and remains a good person, a very funny guy (albeit lacking in taste sometimes) and a (formerly) great wideout.

If we can get 5 or 6 of his best years from any of our young receivers I'll take it - gladly.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Five days later, Johnson is still locked up.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/06/15/five-days-later-chad-johnson-is-still-in-jail/

[Nuncha]

Chad Johnson.. Future H.O.F.

 

http://www.nfl.com/n...stop-dawg-pound

He needs to change the yellow jacket to a striped one that says "future inmate 20??" The fool will never come close to the HOF.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Azucho98

[26CornerBlitz]

@usatoday_nfl

Chad Johnson released from South Florida jail http://usat.ly/13UtqzD

[Ralph W.]

Hooray?

[Mr. WEO]

On this issue you are haphazardly driving all over the place. The judge is part of the judicial branch----a branch of government. Of course she shouldn't favor either the defendant/complaintant side of a dispute. When she is making a ruling whether to imprison or allow bail or any other type of appearance arrangement she is considering the interests of the public.

 

You previously stated that she represented the government/people. Now you are backtracking into the netherland of unpredictability. This judge had the authority to make any ruling she wanted within the confines of the law. That doesn't mean that she exhibited good judgment in this case. There is no doubt that the overwhelming sentiment coming from the legal and judicial community is that this judge acted imprudently.

 

I despise what Chad Johnson represents on and off the field. That doesn't mean that he should be treated unfairly in court. That is exactly what happened in court. That isn't right.

 

Any judge represents the state only as the public's assurance that there will be a fair trial for all. She does not represent the interest of the state in any case.

 

Also, this may explain what you feel is "unfair" treatment:

 

McHugh noted that in a previous hearing Johnson had put his arm around a female prosecutor's shoulders, prompting the prosecutor to tell him twice not to touch her. The judge also pointed out that when Johnson head-butted his then-wife, Evelyn Lozada of the reality TV show "Basketball Wives," she suffered a 3-inch gash on her head that required eight stitches. The judge called those injuries horrific.

McHugh also said Johnson failed to appreciate "the gift of probation" after pleading no contest to battery in the altercation last August with Lozada, which prompted her to quickly file for divorce. Johnson, 35, was in court because he had failed to meet with his probation officer for three straight months.

"I find that's an arrogant disregard for a court order," the judge said.

 

Perhaps now you get what was on the judge's mind regarding Citizen Johnson.

[JohnC]

Any judge represents the state only as the public's assurance that there will be a fair trial for all. She does not represent the interest of the state in any case.

 

Also, this may explain what you feel is "unfair" treatment:

 

Little is accomplished in responding to the symantical issue you raise regarding who the judge represents. But I will continue to try to offer a reasonable response to the non-issue you are enamored with. Representing a fair opportunity to make a claim or respond to a claim is a bedrock principle of our judicial system and in the interest of the public. To be honest with you I don't understand your quibbling with me over what the justice's role is.

 

 

Perhaps now you get what was on the judge's mind regarding Citizen Johnson.

 

The mind-set you are ascribing to the Judge was in place when she made her initial ruling regarding CJ's sentence of extendng his parole and releasing him. If she wanted to be more severe with him by incarcerating him she should have done it with her initial sentencing. The fact of the matter is that she changed her ruling to a 30 day incarceration period because she overreacted to a a discreet and innocuous backside tap.

 

It is not surprising that the near universal response of the legal community and anyone who is knowledgeable with the judicial system believes that this judge exercised poor judgment in this matter. CJ is a dope and often acts in an immature way. But that doesn't mean that a dope and an immature fool shouldn't be treated fairly in a court of law. I strongly believe that this jackass wrongly had his liberty taken away by an intemperate judge.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Any judge represents the state only as the public's assurance that there will be a fair trial for all. She does not represent the interest of the state in any case.

 

She's an employee of the state isn't she?

 

Doesn't that basically define what her interests are?

[JohnC]

She's an employee of the state isn't she?

 

Doesn't that basically define what her interests are?

 

What WEO is doing is playing the distracting game. When your position is weak and difficult to defend introduce the "tangent" strategy of occupying the opposition with irrelevant sidebar issues that have little to do with the substance of the discussion i.e. judgment of a judge. It comes down to WEO being WEO. His approach is to concede nothing, and move forward.

[26CornerBlitz]

‏@nflnetwork

Was Chad Johnson treated fairly in court? http://on.nfl.com/14IipEg

[Mr. WEO]

Little is accomplished in responding to the symantical issue you raise regarding who the judge represents. But I will continue to try to offer a reasonable response to the non-issue you are enamored with. Representing a fair opportunity to make a claim or respond to a claim is a bedrock principle of our judicial system and in the interest of the public. To be honest with you I don't understand your quibbling with me over what the justice's role is.

 

 

 

 

The mind-set you are ascribing to the Judge was in place when she made her initial ruling regarding CJ's sentence of extendng his parole and releasing him. If she wanted to be more severe with him by incarcerating him she should have done it with her initial sentencing. The fact of the matter is that she changed her ruling to a 30 day incarceration period because she overreacted to a a discreet and innocuous backside tap.

 

It is not surprising that the near universal response of the legal community and anyone who is knowledgeable with the judicial system believes that this judge exercised poor judgment in this matter. CJ is a dope and often acts in an immature way. But that doesn't mean that a dope and an immature fool shouldn't be treated fairly in a court of law. I strongly believe that this jackass wrongly had his liberty taken away by an intemperate judge.

 

Not quibbling, John. But the people of Florida are represented by the DA, not the judge, as you earlier claimed. It's an important distinction--not a distraction. We agree that the judge's job is to assure a fair trail for all---that is wht the state pays her for, nothing else. The people of Florida want to convict and punish criminals (Chad is one) for their crimes. The DA represents the wish of the people in this regard. The Judge has no such mission. Pretty simple.

 

As I posted above, the Judge listed the problems she had with Chad--it wasn't just the ass slap. It was the touching of the prosecutor, the fact that he completely blew off the conditions of his previous gift of parole. DA's make deals with crooks all day. Judges go along with deals for low level lowlifes like Chad because they understand how the sausage is made in the halls of justice. But when she then saw the slap on his lawyer's butt, she knew Chad was again taking his gift for granted and she took his gift away.

 

Placed in that context, it's not hard for me to see why she correctly saw this guy as someone who wasn't serious about his serious situation. It's much harder for me to conclude she was having a bad day, or she wanted to "granstand" so every Joe Blow could subsequently light up message boards about what an a++hole she is.

 

 

She's an employee of the state isn't she?

 

Doesn't that basically define what her interests are?

 

The public defender and the prosecutor are both paid by the state, yet their "interests" are polar opposites, by "definition".

 

The answer is no. She's not paid to have an interest in either party--prosecutor of defendent. Just that a case is fairly prosecuted. If it's weighted in either direction, one could easily conclude that she is paid primarily to protect the defendant than the prosecutor.