"Thank You Jesus" = risking 30 days in the hole

[Bucklion]

I said the innocent until proven guilty, and I stand by it. Just strikes me as funny that when some are making negative assessments about the judge as being anti-Christian, some people say that is basically dumb or naive, but some of those same people apparently have no problem assessing the guy who was found innocent in court.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Some of you people need to read the whole article:

Border declined to comment but indicated the court minutes reflected his actions. The minutes showed he found Stowers' "nonverbal gestures and outbursts to be disruptive and improper regardless of content."

This kid-beater disrupted the court on more than one occasion during the trail, and that's why the judge had to resort to telling both sides that there was to be no more such crap when the verdict was read. Still, this hide-behind-the-Bible asswipe felt obligated to "praise Jesus" one more time...

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

I said the innocent until proven guilty, and I stand by it. Just strikes me as funny that when some are making negative assessments about the judge as being anti-Christian, some people say that is basically dumb or naive, but some of those same people apparently have no problem assessing the guy who was found innocent in court.

Bucklion, you're right. I'm making an assumption as to this guy's ultimate guilt or innocence, and I don't dispute that. Given the high incidence where acccused child abusers are aquitted only later to be proven fully as abusers and the particulars of this case (last minute recanted testimony by the child), I don't think it's a completely uneducated guess.

Regarding the judge, there does seem to be a lot of evidence that his actions were not motivated by the content of the defendant's outburst but by the act of the outburst along with some prior similar actions on his part. That some in the public arena have now attempted to demonize the judge and transform the defendant into some form of martyr, to foster their own political/religious agenda, I find to be at best questionable and at worst disgraceful.

To question the agenda, practices or philosphies of the christian political movement does not make one a christian hater or basher. The predictable knee-jerk accusations of "christian bashing," however, certainly seem to serve the christian-political movement well when they want to silence any debate or inquiry into their actions.

 

[scarletngray]

Mili, perhaps your the one who should read the whole story. You seem to ignore these facts.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">
<!-- END HEADLINE --><!-- BEGIN STORY BODY -->When he was acquitted by a jury of abusing his son.

Court minutes said Border later dropped the charge because he realized Stowers' trial lawyer, Deputy Public Defender Carmel Kwock, did not have time to tell Stowers the judge had ordered both sides not to show emotion when the verdict was announced.

The boy recanted his earlier statements that his father hit him, according to court records.The boy instead testified his brother had hit him with a car door, a story verified by the brother in court.

Stowers asked to approach the bench and apologize, but the judge told him he could not and ordered him to remain in the courtroom, the defense request said.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Mili, perhaps your the one who should read the whole story. You seem to ignore these facts.

I read the story, smart guy. You really think he didn't belt that kid, just because the victim happened to "recant" his original story and his brother happened to be complicit in the recantation? Please...

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

I read the story, smart guy. You really think he didn't belt that kid, just because the victim happened to "recant" his original story and his brother happened to be complicit in the recantation? Please...

Again, I challenge anybody to ask experienced social workers, teachers or justice system employees with a background in these matters their opinion. I'm willing to bet that 9 out of 10 will without blinking say, "he beat the kid."

 

[scooter1369]

Unfortunately, many people think the way you do. That as men we are essentially guilty in any trials concerning our wives or kids.

My brother took his 9 month old daughter to Halifax Medical Center because he noticed something wierd when he was changing her diaper. He called the doctor's answering service, she advised him to take her to Halifax.

Once he explained to the nurse who checked him why he brought her in, she grabbed the baby from him and called security to detain him "until they determined he had molested her", as she said on the phone.

Not "Until we know he didn't" or "Until we verify he didn't". It was "Until we determine he did"

Guilty of bringing his daughter to the hospital

He was seperated from his daughter and detained by police for over 5 hours while they poked, prodded and tested his kid.

Diagnosys?

Yeast infection.

He was treated as a child molester for near six hours over a fucking yeast infection.

 

[Bucklion]

Bucklion, you're right. I'm making an assumption as to this guy's ultimate guilt or innocence, and I don't dispute that. Given the high incidence where acccused child abusers are aquitted only later to be proven fully as abusers and the particulars of this case (last minute recanted testimony by the child), I don't think it's a completely uneducated guess.

Regarding the judge, there does seem to be a lot of evidence that his actions were not motivated by the content of the defendant's outburst but by the act of the outburst along with some prior similar actions on his part. That some in the public arena have now attempted to demonize the judge and transform the defendant into some form of martyr, to foster their own political/religious agenda, I find to be at best questionable and at worst disgraceful.

To question the agenda, practices or philosphies of the christian political movement does not make one a christian hater or basher. The predictable knee-jerk accusations of "christian bashing," however, certainly seem to serve the christian-political movement well when they want to silence any debate or inquiry into their actions.

I hear you, and I am not one who believes the judge was anti-Christian either...I just think the same standards should be applied when judging people, be they a judge or a defendant, on an individual basis. Another example which we're all familiar, this happens with football players...an Ohio State guy is implicated in something, and ignorant people say "There's another one of those asshole Buckeyes who belongs in jail"...and it is possible that this hypothetical guy did something, but it is not the case that just because he plays for Ohio State and other Ohio State guys have been in trouble in the past, that he MUST have done something.

And yes, percentages say the guy beat his kid, and if he did, I would not be opposed to stringing him up a flagpole in purple sequins and having him pistol-whipped by Richard Simmons...or whatever worse punishment could be inflicted (you have to admit that'd be pretty bad though). My only point was that each individual is a person, not a statistic. It is perhaps unlikely, but not impossible, that this guy didn't do it...that's all I'm saying.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

No worries, Bucklion. And, you are right. Odds to the contrary, he very well may have been innocent. The fact of the matter is, whatever the reason, he was aquitted. If he's innocent, great. The system worked. If he got away with one, let's hope for the sake of those two kids that he takes this second chance to heart, gets some counseling and straightens his ass out.

 

[Bucklion]

No worries, Bucklion. And, you are right. Odds to the contrary, he very well may have been innocent. The fact of the matter is, whatever the reason, he was aquitted. If he's innocent, great. The system worked. If he got away with one, let's hope for the sake of those two kids that he takes this second chance to heart, gets some counseling and straightens his ass out.

We can definitely all agree with that. I wish the politicians could. Children need better protection from the government in all areas...you'd think everyone would want that, but unfortunately, some higher-ups don't seem to. This guy got another chance...let's hope he knows how close he came and straightens out like an arrow in a hurry...for his children's sake.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Unfortunately, many people think the way you do. That as men we are essentially guilty in any trials concerning our wives or kids.

My brother took his 9 month old daughter to Halifax Medical Center because he noticed something wierd when he was changing her diaper. He called the doctor's answering service, she advised him to take her to Halifax.

Once he explained to the nurse who checked him why he brought her in, she grabbed the baby from him and called security to detain him "until they determined he had molested her", as she said on the phone.

Not "Until we know he didn't" or "Until we verify he didn't". It was "Until we determine he did"

Guilty of bringing his daughter to the hospital

He was seperated from his daughter and detained by police for over 5 hours while they poked, prodded and tested his kid.

Diagnosys?

Yeast infection.

He was treated as a child molester for near six hours over a fucking yeast infection.

I hope your brother sued those people. How dare they make such an assumption.

 

[stxbuck]

A couple of thoughts.

1) Despite the best efforts of the pastor to turn this into some "christian bashing" episode, it looks like the judge would have penalized any outburst in court. Whether he's right to be so extreme or not is open to debate, but this was NOT a case of a judge persecuting christians despite attempts to spin it that way.

2) This guy sounds like a real scumbag who probably does beat his kids, but was able to intimidate them into recanting their testimony. That also might go a long way to explaining why the judge had such a short leash for this guy.

In the long run, this is probably the best thing that ever happened to this hillbilly. Yesterday, he was just some anonymous dick who [[allegedly]] beats his kids. Now, he's a christian martyr who'll get his fifteen minutes of fame on the 700 Club.

Your anti-Chritian bias is ridiculous and petty. However, having been on a jury myself that acquitted a man of child abuse involving his teenage son, all I can say is that you would need to hear all the facts before you render a spot judgement. When someone hears "child abuse" or "rape" that indictment sticks in the public mind, regardless of their actual guilt or innocence as determined by a judge, jury,etc. If I were acquitted, I would be yelling "Thank you Jesus" too!

 

[sandgk]

From my perspective the whole issue of whether or not others feel this fellow was likely guilty is irrelevant. Further, I doubt that the judge was inflicting punishment for the charged offence by proxy, though if in fact that was in the judge's mind then he is not doing his job. Only the jury could decide the guilt of the defendant, and they made clear with the delivered verdict that Stowers was not guilty.

I find it richly ironic that an understandable verbal outburst at the moment the verdict was read results in Stowers getting lead to a cell. For, this happens on the heels of him being declared a free man by a jury of his peers. If anything Stowers should have been thanking either his lawyer or the jury. Jesus, I suspect, had very little to do with outcome of the trial. Yes, the judge had his patience tested by the earlier "nonverbal gestures and outbursts." However, the defendant was not apprised of the judge's demand that everyone be quiet as church mice when the verdict was read. If the judge wanted to make sure that all in the court were quiet then why issue the warning sotto voce?

Just before the verdict was read, the judge whispered a warning to the attorneys.
Dialogue from the trial:
"No displays of emotion one way or another by anyone in the case. You understand?" Border said in court.
Defense attorney Carmel Kwock said she didn't have time to warn her client. The verdict came four seconds after the judge's warning.


(Then the incident)

Dialogue from the trial:
"We, the jury, in the above entitled case find the defendant not guilty," the jury foreman said.
"Thank you, Jesus!" Stowers exclaimed.
"You be quiet. OK, we will be in conference after that," Border said.
"He wanted to apologize, and the judge cut him off and didn't let him apologize," Kwock told KITV on Friday.Dialogue from the trial:
"May I approach the bench, your honor?" Stowers said.
"No, you may not," Border said.
"Your honor, he just wants to apologize," Kwock said.
"Well, I think I had earlier alerted counsel, and I had in previous cases," Border said. "This kind of behavior, outbursts are not permitted."

I wonder if the public defenders will have a high rating for Judge Patrick Border at the time of the next Judicial Performance Review.

As to whether the brothers stories were convenient fabrications. True, the whole car door line is typical of the sort of lie some will state, even when they are the victims of abuse. This does not mean that it did not happen that way.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

...Once he explained to the nurse who checked him why he brought her in, she grabbed the baby from him and called security to detain him "until they determined he had molested her", as she said on the phone...

...He was treated as a child molester for near six hours over a fucking yeast infection.

I smell a serious lawsuit...

 

[methomps]

Wow, I no longer know which is faster:

- The speed at which one will be called racist for saying anything negative about a minority.

- The speed at which one will be called a homophobe for saying anything negative about a homosexual.

- The speed at which one will be called a Christian-hater/basher for saying anything negative about a Christian.