Originally posted by Gunslinger
From the video it appears she wanted to charge a guy for leaving her courtroom and that was it. She asked the guy an opinionated question and then when he said something she didn't want to hear she wanted him arrested saying "I don't have to listen to this".
Like I allways tell my officers that I work for when they get offended by the pointed truth....."sir, never ask me a question that you might not want to know the answer too"
The video was too short to really tell what was going on. I got the impression they were caught poaching before I read the news link. I thought the guy that left was one of the witnesses/defendants? They were there for circumstances involving a crime. You can't just walk out. When asked why he left, (a legitimate question,) he went on about his "hunting" rights. [He was bored he had to be there when he could be out poaching more deer, which after all, everyone has the right to do according to him.] What do hunters and lawful hunting have to do with poaching? His defense sounded like a counterfeiter saying he has just as much right to make money as anyone else.
But yeah, I agree the judge was biased, hence the self-recusal. One thing fer darn sure, they shoulda had a lawyer. Might have prevented the contempt of court. I think she wanted to hear just such a reply from the guy. She's misguided in her prejudice against hunting. It's not right to lump those poachers in with the majority of hunters, who are law abiding. That's why I feel a pro-hunting judge may have grilled those guys in the same manner. Same level of prejudice but from the other end of the spectrum. Trophy deer poachers are criminals. Some of them are only after the mount and leave the carcass behind. They are scumbags that do this.
Standing up to the judge when an accomplice to crime implies they're just gonna go out and do it again. At least it seemed one of the brothers had some sense, and that ain't the one who walked out.
Sorry, distastful as it may seem, gotta say she handled it professionally by bowing out. I would have liked to see poachers involved in trophy snatching made an example of, no matter the political bent of the judge.
I've done a good bit of deer hunting. This is just my uneducated opinion concerning matters of law, which I know nothing about. It does reflect how hunters feel about poaching though. I guess my question is, what did the judge do wrong "legally?" Was it abuse of power? Surely some judges state a bias and then don't recuse themselves and go on to preside over a trial.
Les
