• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

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

sandgk

Watson, Crick & A Twist
Political Correctness runs amok again.
Thankfully the 30 days soon got whittled down to 6 hours, though this still seems entirely too damned petty.

Perhaps they should get rid of the admonition to place the hand on the bible when swearing folks in as well.

Thanking Jesus in court lands man in jail

<!-- END HEADLINE --> <!-- BEGIN STORY BODY --> Fri Jul 14, 7:36 PM ET

Junior Stowers raised his hands and exclaimed, "Thank you, Jesus!" in court last month when he was acquitted by a jury of abusing his son.
But his joy was short-lived when Circuit Judge Patrick Border held him in contempt of court for the "outburst" and threw him in jail.
Stowers, 47, sat in the courtroom and a cellblock for about six hours until the judge granted him a hearing on the contempt charge and released him.
The judge at a July 7 hearing dropped the contempt charge, a petty misdemeanor that carries up to 30 days in jail.
Stowers couldn't be reached for comment. But his attorney in the contempt case, Deputy Public Defender Susan Arnett, said he wasn't treated fairly.
"I don't think there's anything about saying 'Thank you, Jesus' that rises to the level of contemptuous behavior in this case," she told The Honolulu Advertiser.
Stowers is a devoutly religious man active in his church who spontaneously expressed his thanks to the higher power in which he believed, she said.
Family members and Stowers' pastor at Assembly of God Church, Iakopo Sale, who watched from the gallery were "very upset that those words could land somebody in jail," Arnett said.
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."
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.
Stowers, of Honolulu, was charged with hitting his 15-year-old son with a broomstick in January. The misdemeanor charge of abusing a household member carries a sentence of up to a year in jail. Stowers was free on a $1,000 bond.
During the trial last month, 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.
Just before the verdict was announced on June 29, Border called city Deputy Prosecutor Sean Sanada and Kwock to the bench and told them he didn't want a show of emotion by either side, according to a defense request to dismiss the contempt charge.
When Stowers made his remarks after the verdict was announced, the judge told him, "There will (be) no more of that," the papers said.
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.
 
Political Correctness runs amok again.
Thankfully the 30 days soon got whittled down to 6 hours, though this still seems entirely too damned petty.

Perhaps they should get rid of the admonition to place the hand on the bible when swearing folks in as well.
That judge is a dick. How do you get a verdict in a child abuse case and have no emotion what so ever?

Just one more judge who is too full of himself to be effective.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.

Wow, innocent until prpven guilty or else whenever ORD decides so. And you say Christians are judgemental?
 
Upvote 0
I also think that this judge would have penalized anyone for whatever outburst had occurred. There's a lot that is not clear. Was the kid intimidated or did he make a false charge? Was the defendant gesticulating during the entire trial, to the point that the judge communicated his rules, which seem intended to maintain control of the courtoom. Is the judge actually a raving anti-Christian? I don't know. But I think, on this evidence, I can't conclude that this is an anti-Christian event anymore than I can accept alternative explanations.
 
Upvote 0
Ord - It's strange, even sad, how someone can read into something when they already hold a prejudice view. Sounds like you've got it all figured out by just reading an article. :paranoid:

I don't know that OJ lopped off those two people's heads. Only Ron, Nicole and Orenthal truly know whether he did it. However, from what came out in the public arena, one can make a fair assumption as to what happened.

That's all I'm doing here. And I think that those on the pro-christianity side seem quite willing to rush to judgement in favor of this guy (his innocence regarding his kids and the outrage of his contempt finding) simply because he wears his christianity on his sleeve. After all, the outwardly pious, have never been proven to be something quite different in their private lives. Have they?

_38691859_swaggart238.jpg


Ask any social worker who deals with these issues on a daily basis what the odds are that a guy like this did beat his kids. Quite frankly, the only ones who truly know are Junior and his kid, but others can make a fair assumption based on the info out there.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
ScarletnGray: If you had/have kids, would you allow them to go to this guys house simply because he was found innocent; and as you said 'innocent until proven guilty'.

I figured the same thing as ORD, i'm assuming it was simply the judge useing his power to the max because he felt the man was guilty of the crime. Could that not be the case? Of course but it's a reasonable assumption, considering it's obvious that parents can get off on this type of stuff far too easily through emotional abuse.

At the very least it's just as reasonable for ORD to make that assumption as it is for everyone else to assume a judge would throw a man in jail strictly based on religious expression.
 
Upvote 0
ScarletnGray: If you had/have kids, would you allow them to go to this guys house simply because he was found innocent; and as you said 'innocent until proven guilty'.

I figured the same thing as ORD, i'm assuming it was simply the judge useing his power to the max because he felt the man was guilty of the crime. Could that not be the case? Of course but it's a reasonable assumption, considering it's obvious that parents can get off on this type of stuff far too easily through emotional abuse.

Wouldn't we have to know this guy first to make these assessments? Isn't that the whole point here?
 
Upvote 0
Wouldn't we have to know this guy first to make these assessments? Isn't that the whole point here?
I added a little bit more, but my point is wouldn't we have to know the judge to know his actions were specifically because of 'Jesus'.

I don't have enough experience in court, it just seems much more likely to me that the man was looking for an excuse to punish someone he felt got off free OR that the judge is just a hard-ass who is power hungry over any outburst, then that this was an act against Christianity.
 
Upvote 0
Wrestler, I never said "innocent until proven guilty" - another poster did. Though that is the legal system we live under. At least some of us anyway.

I think your post says it all, "I WAS ASSUMING" - That's the problem.

Concerning kids, If I had any, I wouldn't leave them with a stranger. So no I wouldn't leave my kids with this guy. Only if I knew him and knew the true facts of the story, could I make a decision. Regardless, that is not what I was reacting to. It was ORD's obvious anti-Christian bias that brought about his "assumptions", not any real knowledge of the facts of the case or the person. Just an opportunity to spue his hate.

Hope that clarifies things.
 
Upvote 0
Wrestler, no problem. FWIW, this is the statement I was responding to:

"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"
 
Upvote 0
The fact of the matter is that we do not know what happened before the trial, during the trial or after the trail. Speculation on anybodies part is an act of futility......

This I am afraid is what has happened to America (me included) as everybody has the answers without the facts to back them up. We all (me included again) have to actually look at the facts before we judge, however in too many cases we have an agenda to advance and we look at it from that perspective only.

Case in point from the Christian perspective, the judge obviously hates Christians. That maybe true or not and we will probably never know but through my "rose colored" Christian glasses I could jump to that conclusion. And you know what I would be wrong, just like I would be wrong to assume the guy is guilty.....
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top