|
Post by Alex Shelley on Jan 26, 2011 20:35:06 GMT -5
I have never ever understood how wearing a hat is construed as disrespectful to anyone. I have noticed especially in churches or formal places, for guys, we are always told to take them off, however women are allowed to wear them. I mean, at what point does this all just become.....oh I don't know, something that somebody just made up? I understand having respect for the court, when it is warranted (I don't just blindly respect people because I'm told to) and yes, the dude could have picked his battles better perhaps, but come on. If somebody could intelligently explain to me why it is disrespectful for one gender to remove their hats while indoors, and it is perfectly fine for another to leave them on, then maybe I wouldn't feel like this whole hat s*** is all just some type of superstitious, antiquated nonsense that has no true bearing on anything of importance. You've made my point way better than I was able to.
|
|
sryans
Don Corleone
BROOKLYN, BROOKLYN
Posts: 2,001
|
Post by sryans on Jan 26, 2011 20:35:28 GMT -5
It is his court, so yes, he should be able to tell you what to wear in his courtroom.
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Jan 26, 2011 20:36:55 GMT -5
Considering I spent 8 years of my life in a private school where we had to wear a boater to and from the campus, I've sat through a lot of stupid, dated rules. But you know what? Even back then when I was a stupid asshole teenager, I still followed them because that's how the f***ing world works. Private is the key word there though. A court is public. I totally understand following rules on private property. Would anyone here agree if the judge made you wear a suit in court. Should he be allowed to control your wardrobe in a public setting? The court is an institution that has rules and conduct that the public are expected to follow. You can do and wear whatever you want outside, but when you're in their domain, you abide by their law. For example would you object to someone asking you to take off your shoes while in their house?
|
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,224
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on Jan 26, 2011 20:39:18 GMT -5
The guy with the hat did nothing but question authority. I guess that is illegal now huh? Welcome to Nazi Land everyone. I'm disgusted that you would even attempt to draw a comparison between a guy who chose to break a law and will have to spend a night or so in jail vs. the murder of 15,000,000 people. I dare you to ask a Holocaust survivor if they see any connection between this idiot and what they experienced under Hitler's regime. Just sickening... Wearing a hat in a courtroom is disrespectful. The rule is that you take off your hat. Take off the hat, and there will be no problem. Choose to pick a pointless fight, and you'll lose...in large part because your side has absolutely no merit. I was not comparing it to the holocaust. I was comparing it to unjust laws Nazi Germany had. You might think the US may never get there but Nazi Germany started out with little unjust laws and it just kept going. You are supporting violence on a man who would not take off a hat. Now THAT is sickening.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 26, 2011 20:41:06 GMT -5
First they came for those with hats, I did not speak up, for I did not wear a hat... But then came the day when they came for the scarves and the earmuffs as well. Never again would our necks know warmth, never again would our lobes be free from the chill. That was a sad chilly day, when those against neck and ear warmth enforced their brutalities. If only we'd stood side by side our hatted brethren when their caps, fedoras, fez, and berets were taken. But it was easy to believe their craniums weren't our problem. We didn't listen!
|
|
sryans
Don Corleone
BROOKLYN, BROOKLYN
Posts: 2,001
|
Post by sryans on Jan 26, 2011 20:42:56 GMT -5
I have never ever understood how wearing a hat is construed as disrespectful to anyone. I have noticed especially in churches or formal places, for guys, we are always told to take them off, however women are allowed to wear them. I mean, at what point does this all just become.....oh I don't know, something that somebody just made up? I understand having respect for the court, when it is warranted (I don't just blindly respect people because I'm told to) and yes, the dude could have picked his battles better perhaps, but come on. If somebody could intelligently explain to me why it is disrespectful for one gender to remove their hats while indoors, and it is perfectly fine for another to leave them on, then maybe I wouldn't feel like this whole hat s*** is all just some type of superstitious, antiquated nonsense that has no true bearing on anything of importance. You've made my point way better than I was able to. No one is arguing that hats will be the downfall of the legal system, what we are saying is that judges have the right to regulate what you wear in their courtroom. You may disagree with that, but make an argument based around why you think people should be allowed to wear what they want in court, not why you think this one judge was wrong this one time.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Jan 26, 2011 20:43:52 GMT -5
Eh, I do think it's a bit much to compare it to Nazi Germany. You've made my point way better than I was able to. No one is arguing that hats will be the downfall of the legal system, what we are saying is that judges have the right to regulate what you wear in their courtroom. You may disagree with that, but make an argument based around why you think people should be allowed to wear what they want in court, not why you think this one judge was wrong this one time. Maybe I'm just tired but I'm not really sure what you're trying to say
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Jan 26, 2011 20:44:20 GMT -5
I'm disgusted that you would even attempt to draw a comparison between a guy who chose to break a law and will have to spend a night or so in jail vs. the murder of 15,000,000 people. I dare you to ask a Holocaust survivor if they see any connection between this idiot and what they experienced under Hitler's regime. Just sickening... Wearing a hat in a courtroom is disrespectful. The rule is that you take off your hat. Take off the hat, and there will be no problem. Choose to pick a pointless fight, and you'll lose...in large part because your side has absolutely no merit. I was not comparing it to the holocaust. I was comparing it to unjust laws Nazi Germany had. You might think the US may never get there but Nazi Germany started out with little unjust laws and it just kept going. You are supporting violence on a man who would not take off a hat. Now THAT is sickening. Knock it off with the shots at each other and the Nazi comparisons.
|
|
BK From WV
Hank Scorpio
Claims to have sense of humor, probably stole it
I'm Here
Posts: 5,612
|
Post by BK From WV on Jan 26, 2011 20:46:19 GMT -5
Okay so you believe it is okay for cops and judges to do whatever they want. We get it. The guy with the hat did nothing but question authority. I guess that is illegal now huh? Welcome to Nazi Land everyone. Actually, he refused an order from the court which is against the law. Exactly. I wear hats pretty much all the time but if I'm in a place like this where someone from the court tells me to remove the hat,I take the hat off. I don't try to make a scene out of it. I feel no sympathy at all for this guy because all he had to do was take his hat off.
|
|
sryans
Don Corleone
BROOKLYN, BROOKLYN
Posts: 2,001
|
Post by sryans on Jan 26, 2011 20:47:38 GMT -5
Eh, I do think it's a bit much to compare it to Nazi Germany. No one is arguing that hats will be the downfall of the legal system, what we are saying is that judges have the right to regulate what you wear in their courtroom. You may disagree with that, but make an argument based around why you think people should be allowed to wear what they want in court, not why you think this one judge was wrong this one time. Maybe I'm just tired but I'm not really sure what you're trying to say Sorry if I was unclear, what I was saying is that I agree with you in that hats are no impolite to wear and I think are fine for the courtroom, and I wanted to make it clear that no one is arguing against hats. I guess I misinterpreted your statements.
|
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,224
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on Jan 26, 2011 21:06:52 GMT -5
Private is the key word there though. A court is public. I totally understand following rules on private property. Would anyone here agree if the judge made you wear a suit in court. Should he be allowed to control your wardrobe in a public setting? The court is an institution that has rules and conduct that the public are expected to follow. You can do and wear whatever you want outside, but when you're in their domain, you abide by their law. For example would you object to someone asking you to take off your shoes while in their house? That is right back to private property though. I follow the rules of private property. I went to a private school too and had no problem following the dress code. My point is this. A court is a public place supported by public money. It is not the Judge's court. It is the PEOPLE'S court. You should be allowed to wear whatever you want in a building that you technically partially own as apart of the public. The judge is not a god or necessarily someone you should respect especially if it is a judge initiating violence on someone by having them sent to prison for an unjust law. I don't agree with disrupting court and if someone does that they should first be asked to leave and if they don't then you can make the argument that they are disrupting the peace. This guy did nothing to warrant an arrest. He asked a question. That's it. He wasn't even asked to leave. They just cuffed him and hauled him off for not being an "obedient citizen".
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Jan 26, 2011 21:20:31 GMT -5
The court is an institution that has rules and conduct that the public are expected to follow. You can do and wear whatever you want outside, but when you're in their domain, you abide by their law. For example would you object to someone asking you to take off your shoes while in their house? That is right back to private property though. I follow the rules of private property. I went to a private school too and had no problem following the dress code. My point is this. A court is a public place supported by public money. It is not the Judge's court. It is the PEOPLE'S court. You should be allowed to wear whatever you want in a building that you technically partially own as apart of the public. The judge is not a god or necessarily someone you should respect especially if it is a judge initiating violence on someone by having them sent to prison for an unjust law. I don't agree with disrupting court and if someone does that they should first be asked to leave and if they don't then you can make the argument that they are disrupting the peace. This guy did nothing to warrant an arrest. He asked a question. That's it. He wasn't even asked to leave. They just cuffed him and hauled him off for not being an "obedient citizen". Courtrooms are the judge's domain and they set the rules for them. Failure to follow the rules that they set is contempt. It's cut and dry, simple and easy. Add in that bailiffs are peace officers and hat guy did strike one (he smacked the bailiff's hand away when he went to get the hat, which the bailiff had the right to do), he's lucky he he's not up on worse charges.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2011 21:30:22 GMT -5
That is right back to private property though. I follow the rules of private property. I went to a private school too and had no problem following the dress code. My point is this. A court is a public place supported by public money. It is not the Judge's court. It is the PEOPLE'S court. You should be allowed to wear whatever you want in a building that you technically partially own as apart of the public. The judge is not a god or necessarily someone you should respect especially if it is a judge initiating violence on someone by having them sent to prison for an unjust law. I don't agree with disrupting court and if someone does that they should first be asked to leave and if they don't then you can make the argument that they are disrupting the peace. This guy did nothing to warrant an arrest. He asked a question. That's it. He wasn't even asked to leave. They just cuffed him and hauled him off for not being an "obedient citizen". Courtrooms are the judge's domain and they set the rules for them. Failure to follow the rules that they set is contempt. It's cut and dry, simple and easy. Add in that bailiffs are peace officers and hat guy did strike one (he smacked the bailiff's hand away when he went to get the hat, which the bailiff had the right to do), he's lucky he he's not up on worse charges. Thank you for explaining that super clearly. That's exactly what I wanted to say.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 17,012
|
Post by BRV on Jan 26, 2011 21:32:48 GMT -5
Okay so you believe it is okay for cops and judges to do whatever they want. We get it. The guy with the hat did nothing but question authority. I guess that is illegal now huh? Welcome to Nazi Land everyone. *sigh* See, this is why we can't have nice things. His point was painting a group of people as attention seekers that just need to follow the rules no matter how dumb those rules are. My point was that these people are seeking attention and are utilizing rarely-enforced rules/laws in order to garner that attention. In the entire history of Keene, NH, how many times do you think someone has been arrested for wearing a hat in court? Once? Twice? Ever? I have nothing wrong with a demonstration or protest if its for a just cause. The cause of "I can't wear a hat inside of a Keene, NH courthouse" probably falls somewhere between "The barista at Starbucks got my order wrong" and "The bathroom at Arby's ran out of toilet paper" in terms of issues of great national concern. Is it an unjust rule? Sure, but it's a rule nonetheless. There are laws in place in society, and if we can just blatantly ignore one, then why not ignore them all? To put it in its most simplistic, preschool-level understanding: we follow the rules or else we get in trouble. I can't sympathize with him for being unable to get a second or third chance to take his hat off, because, apparently given his history, he was asking for trouble here. He wasn't making this great heroic stance (don't ask him and his buddy who screams "YOU'RE CHOKING HIM!" when they are clearly doing nothing resembling choking him). If we're just going to speak in rash generalities, then we can just as easily claim that Charles Manson was "kidnapped for life" because he broke a rule and a group of 12 of his peers felt that they were better than him because they did not murder people. As for what makes the guy in the black robe any better than anyone else? Because he was appointed to that position. He earned his right to judge other people, because, well, that's his job title. That's why he's called "the judge" and not "the suggester."
|
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,224
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on Jan 26, 2011 21:59:10 GMT -5
That is right back to private property though. I follow the rules of private property. I went to a private school too and had no problem following the dress code. My point is this. A court is a public place supported by public money. It is not the Judge's court. It is the PEOPLE'S court. You should be allowed to wear whatever you want in a building that you technically partially own as apart of the public. The judge is not a god or necessarily someone you should respect especially if it is a judge initiating violence on someone by having them sent to prison for an unjust law. I don't agree with disrupting court and if someone does that they should first be asked to leave and if they don't then you can make the argument that they are disrupting the peace. This guy did nothing to warrant an arrest. He asked a question. That's it. He wasn't even asked to leave. They just cuffed him and hauled him off for not being an "obedient citizen". Courtrooms are the judge's domain and they set the rules for them. Failure to follow the rules that they set is contempt. It's cut and dry, simple and easy. Add in that bailiffs are peace officers and hat guy did strike one (he smacked the bailiff's hand away when he went to get the hat, which the bailiff had the right to do), he's lucky he he's not up on worse charges. A judge has rules to follow as well though. I can't say the name of the document of rules he is to follow though because it'd be breaking the politics rule. If a judges rules infringes on the rights of others than his rules are unjust. The bailiff had no right to touch the guy unless the guy was disrupting court. The guy clearly was not disrupting anything. He was wearing a hat and question validity of the ridiculous rule. Technically the bailiff committed assault and should be held accountable. BTW the hat guy went limp because he is not obligated to assist in his arrest. Technically resisting is only running away or using violence against the police.
|
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,224
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on Jan 26, 2011 22:08:50 GMT -5
Okay so you believe it is okay for cops and judges to do whatever they want. We get it. The guy with the hat did nothing but question authority. I guess that is illegal now huh? Welcome to Nazi Land everyone. *sigh* See, this is why we can't have nice things. My point was that these people are seeking attention and are utilizing rarely-enforced rules/laws in order to garner that attention. In the entire history of Keene, NH, how many times do you think someone has been arrested for wearing a hat in court? Once? Twice? Ever? I have nothing wrong with a demonstration or protest if its for a just cause. The cause of "I can't wear a hat inside of a Keene, NH courthouse" probably falls somewhere between "The barista at Starbucks got my order wrong" and "The bathroom at Arby's ran out of toilet paper" in terms of issues of great national concern. Is it an unjust rule? Sure, but it's a rule nonetheless. There are laws in place in society, and if we can just blatantly ignore one, then why not ignore them all? To put it in its most simplistic, preschool-level understanding: we follow the rules or else we get in trouble. I can't sympathize with him for being unable to get a second or third chance to take his hat off, because, apparently given his history, he was asking for trouble here. He wasn't making this great heroic stance (don't ask him and his buddy who screams "YOU'RE CHOKING HIM!" when they are clearly doing nothing resembling choking him). If we're just going to speak in rash generalities, then we can just as easily claim that Charles Manson was "kidnapped for life" because he broke a rule and a group of 12 of his peers felt that they were better than him because they did not murder people. As for what makes the guy in the black robe any better than anyone else? Because he was appointed to that position. He earned his right to judge other people, because, well, that's his job title. That's why he's called "the judge" and not "the suggester." If there is no victim in a crime then it should not be considered a crime. It is that simple. I am all for following laws based on that. Charles Manson initiated violence on someone else and infringe upon their rights. There were victims in his crime so he deserved to be locked up. Please present hat guy's victims if you think that the Manson example is such a good comparison.
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Jan 26, 2011 22:33:17 GMT -5
Courtrooms are the judge's domain and they set the rules for them. Failure to follow the rules that they set is contempt. It's cut and dry, simple and easy. Add in that bailiffs are peace officers and hat guy did strike one (he smacked the bailiff's hand away when he went to get the hat, which the bailiff had the right to do), he's lucky he he's not up on worse charges. A judge has rules to follow as well though. I can't say the name of the document of rules he is to follow though because it'd be breaking the politics rule. If a judges rules infringes on the rights of others than his rules are unjust. The bailiff had no right to touch the guy unless the guy was disrupting court. The guy clearly was not disrupting anything. He was wearing a hat and question validity of the ridiculous rule. Technically the bailiff committed assault and should be held accountable. BTW the hat guy went limp because he is not obligated to assist in his arrest. Technically resisting is only running away or using violence against the police. You don't have the right to wear hats, no rights were infringed upon. Also, courtrooms are limited public property. Yes, you have access to them but, you still must follow the rules in them. Think of schools, public property but, if you don't listen to what the administrators say, you can be thrown out or arrested.
|
|
|
Post by sam_III on Jan 26, 2011 22:49:26 GMT -5
You don't have the right to wear hats, no rights were infringed upon. That's a really silly/dangerous way of looking at the situation. I cant really explain why without getting too political, so I'll just say that using that perspective, then I guess Rosa Parks should have just kept her mouth shut and moved to the back of the bus, because she didn't "have the right" to the particular seat she was sitting on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2011 22:54:16 GMT -5
You don't have the right to wear hats, no rights were infringed upon. That's a really silly/dangerous way of looking at the situation. I cant really explain why without getting too political, so I'll just say that using that perspective, then I guess Rosa Parks should have just kept her mouth shut and moved to the back of the bus, because she didn't "have the right" to the particular seat she was sitting on. You're right. She should have. Which is why it was such a big move when she didn't. But that was a small part of a much bigger thing happening all across the United States. It's not like we have been oppressed about wearing certain things in courtrooms and he's taking a big stand. Why even compare him with Rosa Parks in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by sam_III on Jan 26, 2011 23:02:03 GMT -5
That's a really silly/dangerous way of looking at the situation. I cant really explain why without getting too political, so I'll just say that using that perspective, then I guess Rosa Parks should have just kept her mouth shut and moved to the back of the bus, because she didn't "have the right" to the particular seat she was sitting on. You're right. She should have. Which is why it was such a big move when she didn't. But that was a small part of a much bigger thing happening all across the United States. Wow. Umm... I guess I'll just say this... No. She shouldn't have. And THATS why it was such a big move, because everyone else just kept their mouths shut.
|
|