• bleistift2@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    170
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Meanwhile every other person:

    gets shot for not following an officer’s orders in .5 seconds

  • Poppa_Mo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    121
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Nice. I got contempt of court once and spent the weekend in jail. No ifs ands or buts about it. Judge wouldn’t even let me hand my house keys to my partner. Lol

    What a fucking joke.

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      The judge doesn’t want to give Trump’s team any ammunition for an appeal. I realize it’s absurd, but if he’s thrown in jail without significant warning then they’ll argue it biased the already liberal jury (cause NYC) against him too much.

      (I am not a lawyer, that’s just my understanding.)

      • baru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        The judge doesn’t want to give Trump’s team any ammunition for an appeal.

        It’s still treating Trump different than most. If it’s such a problem to put Trump in jail, why isn’t it for any random person?

        • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s still treating Trump different than most.

          Of course it is.

          If it’s such a problem to put Trump in jail, why isn’t it for any random person?

          Because he is a former president of the United States who is currently running for re-election. This situation is unique in American history. As much as we may dislike these facts, they are true. The judge is in uncharted waters here, and needs to be careful to avoid anything that can be construed as evidence of bias against the defendant. This trial will be under scrutiny for as long as we have a country.

          It’s not fair that most defendants do not have the essentially limitless resources of the entire conservative political machine at their disposal to pay for their legal woes, but it is the reality of the situation.

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            The judge is in uncharted waters here, and needs to be careful to avoid anything that can be construed as evidence of bias against the defendant.

            And in so doing, hold a bias for the asshole.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              The judge is biased on the side of Justice. Getting the case thrown out out of principle wouldn’t help anyone but Trump.

              • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                That’s bullshit and you know it.

                There are established rules and procedures. When you fudge them on one side, to avoid appearing biased to the other….

                That is itself bias. against your “side of justice”.

                This judge is afraid of Trump; and in his fear making a mockery of justice. You know it, I know it, and Trump knows it. Even the judge knows it.

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Yeah so let’s treat him the same way as anyone else so he can use that as an excuse to stop the procedure against him, that will sure show him!

                  Of all the cases where people want the judge to treat the accused the same way they would be treated in order to prove a point, this is probably the worst one.

            • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              And in so doing, hold a bias for the asshole.

              Criminal court is intended to be biased towards the defendant. Hence the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof.

              (Obviously that bias is often not upheld properly, and plenty of people are railroaded by the system into unjust convictions.)

        • Steve@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          The stakes are genuinely higher for the court (and the nation) than in your average trial. Gotta be careful.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think 11 contempt charges represents 10 more “significant warnings” than anyone else would get.

        I legitimate appeals court would accept trumps argument and illegitimate courts aren’t going to care and just side with Trump anyhow.

        This isn’t for appeals… it’s for mass consumption; and it’s a massive miscarriage of justice.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The judge doesn’t want to give Trump’s team any ammunition for an appeal.

        If you believe this shit, you’re fooling yourself. Guy’s gotten ten warnings when any off-the-street plaintiff would be lucky to get one. Not only will there be ammo for appeal, Merchan is building precedent of untouchability. My man is straight up announcing

        The last thing I want to do is put you in jail.

        I-fucking-magine this getting said during any other trial. How much more biased can a judge get?

  • adam_y@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Wow, he must have really learned his lesson from the last 9 telling offs.

  • KidnappedByKitties@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    When does this raise questions of precedent? Is everyone entitled to 10 violations of a gag order in NYC now?

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yes, if they can pay the $10,000 fine.

      The judge said everyone gets warnings and fines before jail time. If he could, he’d issue a large fine, but he can’t because state law caps the fine at $1,000 per violation. The judge acknowledged that a $10,000 fine for a multi-millionaire isn’t even a punishment, but immediately jailing someone because they can easily afford the fine seemed wrong. Trump violated the gag order 10 times before being officially told to stop, so the judge is lumping them all into a “first” violation. He said the “second” violation absolutely will be punished with jail time. We’ll see.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        …but immediately jailing someone because they can easily afford the fine seemed wrong.

        No it doesn’t, not even a little bit! Restrictions on their time are the only things rich people understand; they should be jailed instead of fined early and often.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          And then they get the case cancelled because it’s clearly bias against them that they don’t get to just pay the same fee as anyone else as a first warning.

    • Natanael@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      This is the second time in this criminal trial (all previous ones have been civil trials), and this me the judge stated that fines are clearly not working and that jail time could be necessary if it keeps happening.

      Yes I knew we’ll all believe it when it happens, but it is different now that he’s in criminal court and the maximum fine has been dealt both for the first and second infringement.

  • BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Oh neat, a judge admitting that the justice system isn’t blind at all and that there is a privileged class with very different rules.

  • blazera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Wheres all those people that were telling me he’d be jailed with the next contempt charge?

  • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    10th time

    only now threatens jail time

    Correct me but any pregraduate law student who hasn’t been skipping on their classes could get rich by filing for the obvious bias the judges have to allow 10 contempts of court, wouldn’t they?

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      This is the second ruling of contempt

      First ruling was collectively over 9 comments he made.

      This is the second, and said next would be jail time.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Threatening him does nothing but make the judge look like a chickenshit same as the rest

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      “The last thing I want to do is put you in jail.”

      ~ Judge Juan Merchan

      We love our fair and impartial judiciary, don’t we folks? Lets give Judge Merchan a big hand. He’s helping to Make America Great Again.

      • drislands@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I wonder if he means that in the sense of “putting you in jail is only going to empower your frankly rabid base of supporters. I need to avoid even the slightest hint of a mistrial so we can put you in prison for good.”

        • Jojo, Lady of the West@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I need to avoid even the slightest hint of a mistrial so we can put you in prison for good

          I mean I’m pretty sure that’s it. There’s no chance whatsoever this doesn’t go to appeal if he’s convicted, and you don’t want the case to be overturned because the appeal court thinks the judge was biased against Trump

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          putting you in jail is only going to empower your frankly rabid base of supporters

          What does the judge think will happen should the jury returns a guilty verdict?