Always going to be less disrespectful than a first responder, or a fire martial/crime scene investigator not doing their job. They deserve to be ignored once they’re going to do a shoddy investigation and act like a clown on the stand.
@@MikeRafiLawyer Did the judge get your point thought? That's the real question because lets be honest no matter your position some people are just DENSE AF.
@@OAikoT the judge likely didn’t care. Seems they were siding with the back turner. Sometimes you just can’t win. Once the judge picks a side it’s over.
@@zooniba It's a fair retort. The "witness" was being disrespectful by dodging questions but the judge was silent about that disrespect. Why only call out the disrespect of one party involved when their role is supposed to be impartial? Yes, a judge must maintain order in their courtroom but they should do so equally or their order is arbitrary and meaningless.
@@razordrive3238 As I understand it, in the USA it depends on the state exactly how people are appointed/recruited to the role however I cannot find anything indicating it is an elected role. Many of the things I found looking online indicated if you aren't already a firefighter it is very unlikely you would end up being a fire marshal.
My local marshal is a 47-year experienced retired firefighter who turned down promotion to chief 6 times before they told him he was no longer allowed to haul hose because of his back, then he ran that department cleaner than any others I know of. I wish all marshals were as good as he is, dude is 70 and takes his career seriously, he's got a mind like a steel trap and keeps up with code. He publicly dressed down an inspector in another jurisdiction for letting something slide during construction that most people wouldn't consider a big deal, but his public admonishment included the phrase, "fire codes are written with the blood and ashes of history," and even the reporters that were there had no follow-up questions for that. But yeah, tons of them are nepotism and/or corruption in action.
@@thegurw1994 I worked at a volunteer station for about 10 years our chief was legit he used to be a captain for FDNY 911 even has a tool named after him because he invented it Rex Morrison I believe is his name
The Judge is supposed to remain impartial. He just mentioned what he was supposed to do; ask the judge to have him answer the question. The judge didn't step in until the attorney was being blatantly and intentionally disrespectful. Even the dude that got scolded agreed with both of these points. It's not the judge's place to jump in during questioning a witness to assist the attorney. It IS their job to step on when someone is disruptive during questioning to maintain order, and in this case, it was the attorney that was being disruptive by being blatantly, and intentionally, disrespectful. So, I'm not gonna get mad at the judge for that one, especially when the guy that got scolded agreed with them.
@@chibigirl8545 except the fire Marshal in this case was being disruptive by going on tangents. If it doesn't go both ways, and the judge doesn't step in in both cases, they ARE NOT BEING IMPARTIAL.
You can ask the judge to instruct the witness to answer the question. That may be a bit more effective than these pantomime performances as it is corroboration from the impartial arbiter that he is in fact not answering the question. If you don't like his answers then get a rebuttal witness. You don't even have to clear it with discovery, it's a rare case where you can have a surprise witness.
@@chibigirl8545Actively avoiding answering questions so often the lawyer gets tired of it, decides to turn his back on such nonsense, and then continues avoiding answering questions so much that being ignored is becoming a problem. The judge should've stepped in at some point before that to keep order.
@@Treblaine Actually, the pantomime might be more effective. It would have been very tempting to follow up with comments during his testimony such as “I respectfully request…” when asking that he actually address a question.
When my house caught fire a few winters ago because the landlord somehow passed code without actually being able to (everything was hooked to a single 15 amp circuit, EVERYTHING) the fire chief came only for the first fire where they ruled it as a power strip but not the second or third time (third time is when they discovered the absolutely fucked electrical system) so I was unable to get help to replace any of my kids clothing we lost from the Red Cross or even a settlement from the landlord given it was the dead of winter.
Growing up you think these people in high places earned it through merit, now as an adult I realize they usually do because no one wants to do it because it’s below what someone smarter could make
@@eavening4149 I know. But I still feel that it should be allowed. I mean, if the witness can be going on total tangents and talking crap, the actual lawyers should be able to just talk directly. I feel like all the "correctness" and "mandatory politeness" in courtrooms is only muddying the whole matter. Speaking directly, without having to worry about being "excessively polite" is important for clear communication.
Or the witness was saying things he didn't want We don't know what's really going on If the witness was going off topic, the judge would've stopped him in the first place
Great example of why you should hire a Lawyer. Most people wouldn't know when you should risk being disrespectful. A Lawyer has more experience to gauge the risk vs reward.
you can't treat the opposing side's witness as hostile, because 'treat the witness as hostile' is treating your own witness the way you would treat the opposing side's witness.
That's not true. The record also doesn't catch tone. It doesn't see whether the witness is sweating and nervous or is confident. It doesn't see that the witness drank three glasses of water while he was on the stand. That's one of the reasons that appeals courts don't generally look at factual findings, but only legal findings. Because the record is good for recording legal findings made by the judge. It cannot record factual findings made by a jury.
@@nomizakI guess they could mark certain behaviors as important enough to note down, but then you would need to record their alignment and where they are looking all the time. At least I believe it would be dishonest to only mark when they "turn away", and would then need to constantly mark where they are turning.
@@nomizak because then it's up to the stenographer to decide what extra detail they highlight, ie introduce their own bias. It would be very easy for someone to misrepresent on the record someone's behavior if they wanted to. "attorney turned back on witness" is different from "attorney turned around to grab some papers", but the latter could be presented on the record as the former if the stenographer wanted to. that's why lawyers will motion to add something to the record - it needs to be proceduralized.
I actually respect the Judge calling it out though. It is a GREAT tactic, and I respect the attorney acknowledging the judge was right lol. Court is definitely a bigger game than my silly "the law is written down. It says what it says" brain ever imagined.
"If the court would be so kind as to instruct the witness to answer my questions, I'd he happy to, Your Honor..." 😊 Judge: "Are you giving me an ultimatum??" "...No further questions." 😐
Doing what you did and asking the judge to compel the witness to answer the question accomplish the same thing of making the witness look unreliable in front of the jury. However, what you did is more powerful because you're essentially giving a non-verbal plea for sympathy or empathy in having to deal with the uncooperative witness. If the jury didn't understand he wasn't being uncooperative, they probably do now through your body language. For some jurors though, it can make you look like a jerk, but I don't think that's the case here if he was obviously avoiding the question like you said.
Was the guy negligent at all with the fire? Did his inaction cause your clients injury? I don’t understand why you don’t want the jury to pay attention to the fire marshal. Wouldn’t he be on your side?
I just saw a reel on multiple bikers running red lights, and the cop pulls over the only biker that stopped for the red light. “The reason I pulled you over is because you're revving your engine like a jerk.” I guess being disrespectful is a higher priority than law and order?
I live in athens and a few years ago had to deal with one of the investigators and now I'm wondering if it's the same guy because he was dumber than rocks
well you see here the good thing is when i was out getting breakfast and i do like gettin breakfast i go to this mexican place and well you see they do this thing where they cook tortilla chips in a red sauce then put cheese and well sorry i forgot what the question was again somethin about vehicular manslaughter yeah he hit em yep.
Manipulate the jury? If you are asked a question and you are wasting everyone's time yapping about irrelevant things then asking the witness to do what they came to do is normal. Bro thinks everything we do ever is manipulation.
@@Ardentic-better-eat-meat No but the lawyer questioning him might. No one here cares what you think about a witness not answering a question or answering it with a long and boring answer. The lawyer questioning him might however because it's possible it will affect the case.
So if you asked me "how, in your opinion, did the fire start?" And I say "well fires can be started in several different ways, but there always needs to be some source of activation energy to get the reaction going, be it from chemicals mixing like in a match, friction like when you rub two sticks together, electricity, either an arc or resistive heating. This initial activation energy must be released in the presence of 3 key things, a reducing agent, an oxidizer and an environment where the heat produced from the reaction will not diminish too quickly, you will have a hard time lighting a fire underwater, without any fuel or inside a cryogenic freezer. For the fire to remain self sustaining all 3 of these components must be there, and there must also not be anything that would impede the reaction on a chemical level, like bromide ions produced from the breakdown of halon gas, a rare, but potent fire suppressant. In this particular fire, I can say that all the above factors were present, initial activation energy, fuel, oxidizer, an environment conducive to slow heat transfer to the surroundings and a lack of chemical reaction inhibitors." You'd turn your back on me? Even though I'm educating the jury on fires in general? Despite not answering anything specific about this particular fire, other than it was, in fact, a fire?
I wouldn’t ask that question. Because on cross examination I only ask leading questions and not open ended ones, which allows me to keep control of the witness and either get a yes or no answer.
Glad the judge had eyes. Unfortunately, they weren't connected to the spaghetti noodles behind them, so he didn't understand that there was a reason for the disrespect LOL
So, justice is non existent. It’s about theatre, and cunning. Like Billy Flynn in the movie Chicago. The blindfolded lady is irrelevant. And this, fine young man, I believe, plays the game very well. It’s a shame a good mind like that is wasted.
Judge: “stop turning your back on the witness! It’s disrespectful” Lawyer: “The fact that he won’t stop blabbing is disrespectful to everyone’s time here”
How about you focus on bringing and critiquing facts and not manipulation tactics unrelated to the facts. This should be mandatory by law and judge should throw lawyers acting like you describe here to jail. Mire evidence and facts, less show and manipulation
"Trying to divert their attention from him to me"...."Shouldn't listen to him". If I was the judge, I would have had you step outside the court room as the witness spoke since jury manipulation like that is more than just disrespectful, but immorally manipulative. You were trying to just have the jury completely ignore the otherside when the otherside is suppose to be heard out as well. It is fine to try to persuade the jury to your side, but this is just bad lawyer behavior.
Imo, being disrespectful is only wrong if the person deserves respect. For a stupid example: disrespecting Hitler would actually be more moral than respecting him.
How was what you were doing any less Disrespectful then what he was doing. You asked him about Question A, but he answered a Questiion C asked by NO ONE.
As an actor watching your videos is making me realize that our jobs aren't all that different sometimes! Court is a performance for the jury just like acting is a performance for the audience.
With how hard the sporothrix has always been to get, I love that it’s powerful now. I’m all for overpowered weapons being hard to get. If you spend hours farming or even plat to get a particularly hard to acquire weapon and then it ends up being trash it feels pretty bad
Oh that's disrespectful? Ah, okay. Well then let's get down to it. *Proceed to force the witness to actually answer the questions every single time from there on out.*
For folks who are speculating that judge should have intervened about the witness on their own-- Generally an attorney will have to ask the judge to do certain things because it is their role in the courtroom to do so. The judge is there to deal with matters of law rather than matters of fact. It is the role of the attorneys to present two different perspectives about the facts of the case given their understanding of the law. It is the role of the jury to make a binding determination of fact. The judge is there to protect the process of effectively writing a microhistory. The attorneys are there to present different histories. The jury is there to choose from the histories available to them within the rules of doing so. In this way, it helps to think of a courtroom almost like a play -- everyone has a role that they play to the best of their ability regardless of who they are out of character, and the system of roles is supposed to function under that assumption. Whether this high-minded ideal of justice plays out as intended is another story. But you'll often have judges let attorneys make obvious errors -- especially if these errors do not cause a violation of the legal process in and of themselves. It is also the role of the attorney to make mistakes every so often -- and it is not the role of the judge to save them from themselves, unless it would undermine the legal process (and not just the determination of facts specifically) *not to intervene*.
Hopefully you then asked the judge to request the witness to answer the questions asked and not avoid answering questions as asked? Nice try to give the jurors "attention", need to flush out useless or lying witnesses, somehow 👍
It's an advantage for him to have the judge speak to him about turning his back because this gives him the opportunity to say in front of the jury why he is disregarding the testimony.
I'd be like I'm going to keep turning my back on him when he doesn't answer my questions I mean I need a credible knowledgeable witness someone who's professional not this joke
I get where you were going with that, but I would be too worried that the jury would also find it disrespectful without considering why you were doing it. I guess you probably know how to read them though…
Please be a judge and keep the witness on task. It’s disrespectful to the court for him to waste our time with his galavanting stories that don’t pertain to my questions
Judge: "That was disrespectful."
Narrator: "It was."
funny cuz he is the first person narrator anyway
@@Vekcrazah he probably is a first time viewer and doesn’t know his name is Mike
I'm glad you're learning judge.
Always going to be less disrespectful than a first responder, or a fire martial/crime scene investigator not doing their job. They deserve to be ignored once they’re going to do a shoddy investigation and act like a clown on the stand.
Lawyer Mike: “I’m sorry, I didn’t know I was supposed to give a fu-“
Judge: "You're being disrespectful"
You: "oh good I thought I was being too subtle"
Hahaha
… I definitely was not being too subtle.
@@MikeRafiLawyer Did the judge get your point thought? That's the real question because lets be honest no matter your position some people are just DENSE AF.
Judge: “…..get out”
@@OAikoT the judge likely didn’t care. Seems they were siding with the back turner. Sometimes you just can’t win. Once the judge picks a side it’s over.
"Please stop turning your back on the witness."
"When the witness stops turning his back on the question."
Damn, got ‘em 😂
And you'll be held in contempt or fined 😂
@@keiton9512judges be petty asf
@@chaosinsurgency6636they gotta keep order in court bruh it’s literally their job
@@zooniba It's a fair retort. The "witness" was being disrespectful by dodging questions but the judge was silent about that disrespect. Why only call out the disrespect of one party involved when their role is supposed to be impartial?
Yes, a judge must maintain order in their courtroom but they should do so equally or their order is arbitrary and meaningless.
As a former firefighter I can promise you fire marshals most of the time have no idea what they're actually talking about.
Its often an elected/appointed position, right? Rather than someone with actual experience working with fires?
@@razordrive3238 As I understand it, in the USA it depends on the state exactly how people are appointed/recruited to the role however I cannot find anything indicating it is an elected role. Many of the things I found looking online indicated if you aren't already a firefighter it is very unlikely you would end up being a fire marshal.
My local marshal is a 47-year experienced retired firefighter who turned down promotion to chief 6 times before they told him he was no longer allowed to haul hose because of his back, then he ran that department cleaner than any others I know of.
I wish all marshals were as good as he is, dude is 70 and takes his career seriously, he's got a mind like a steel trap and keeps up with code. He publicly dressed down an inspector in another jurisdiction for letting something slide during construction that most people wouldn't consider a big deal, but his public admonishment included the phrase, "fire codes are written with the blood and ashes of history," and even the reporters that were there had no follow-up questions for that.
But yeah, tons of them are nepotism and/or corruption in action.
@@thegurw1994 I worked at a volunteer station for about 10 years our chief was legit he used to be a captain for FDNY 911 even has a tool named after him because he invented it Rex Morrison I believe is his name
When do they know what they're talking about?
"The judge said that was disrespectful."
"It was." LMAO
Hey Stroheim
@@garrettcooper58 What are your thoughts on German science?
@@rudolvonstroheim3898best in the world!
@@rudolvonstroheim3898 the best in the world, obviously
@@garrettcooper58 You are correct.
Well judge, tell my witness to stay on topic then
The Judge is supposed to remain impartial. He just mentioned what he was supposed to do; ask the judge to have him answer the question. The judge didn't step in until the attorney was being blatantly and intentionally disrespectful. Even the dude that got scolded agreed with both of these points. It's not the judge's place to jump in during questioning a witness to assist the attorney. It IS their job to step on when someone is disruptive during questioning to maintain order, and in this case, it was the attorney that was being disruptive by being blatantly, and intentionally, disrespectful. So, I'm not gonna get mad at the judge for that one, especially when the guy that got scolded agreed with them.
@@chibigirl8545 except the fire Marshal in this case was being disruptive by going on tangents. If it doesn't go both ways, and the judge doesn't step in in both cases, they ARE NOT BEING IMPARTIAL.
You can ask the judge to instruct the witness to answer the question.
That may be a bit more effective than these pantomime performances as it is corroboration from the impartial arbiter that he is in fact not answering the question.
If you don't like his answers then get a rebuttal witness. You don't even have to clear it with discovery, it's a rare case where you can have a surprise witness.
@@chibigirl8545Actively avoiding answering questions so often the lawyer gets tired of it, decides to turn his back on such nonsense, and then continues avoiding answering questions so much that being ignored is becoming a problem. The judge should've stepped in at some point before that to keep order.
@@Treblaine Actually, the pantomime might be more effective. It would have been very tempting to follow up with comments during his testimony such as “I respectfully request…” when asking that he actually address a question.
When my house caught fire a few winters ago because the landlord somehow passed code without actually being able to (everything was hooked to a single 15 amp circuit, EVERYTHING) the fire chief came only for the first fire where they ruled it as a power strip but not the second or third time (third time is when they discovered the absolutely fucked electrical system) so I was unable to get help to replace any of my kids clothing we lost from the Red Cross or even a settlement from the landlord given it was the dead of winter.
Growing up you think these people in high places earned it through merit, now as an adult I realize they usually do because no one wants to do it because it’s below what someone smarter could make
Bro really hit the “get a load of this guy”
🙄😏
best reply would be along the lines of "I will when he gets back to the point"
No room for flippant talk to the judge.
@@eavening4149 I know. But I still feel that it should be allowed. I mean, if the witness can be going on total tangents and talking crap, the actual lawyers should be able to just talk directly. I feel like all the "correctness" and "mandatory politeness" in courtrooms is only muddying the whole matter. Speaking directly, without having to worry about being "excessively polite" is important for clear communication.
Or the witness was saying things he didn't want
We don't know what's really going on
If the witness was going off topic, the judge would've stopped him in the first place
@@eavening4149 Judge needs a grow a pair. You can give out life sentences, but you can't take sarcasm? Get real
Nah. Be atleast a bit subtle about it. Go along with it, apologize, and then the next time he goes off-topic start asking the judge to reign him in.
Glad to know we in Athens, GA are screwed if there’s a fire 💀
Athens mentioned 🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥
Athens mentioned 🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥
@@pongopower218I love Greece!🇬🇷
That's not what he said. He said the investigator is not going to decide who's fault it was. Got nothing to do with your safety, quit being dramatic
@@SicFromTheKushhe said “if there’s a fire in Athens they’re not going to solve it.” That’s what I was commenting on.
I’d be lying if i said I wouldn’t do the same 💀
If the jury didn't know what you were doing the Judge made it easy enough 😂
Yep, the judge helped make your point. Gotta love it!
Great example of why you should hire a Lawyer. Most people wouldn't know when you should risk being disrespectful. A Lawyer has more experience to gauge the risk vs reward.
"I will respect the witness when he starts behaving like a witness instead of a noisemaker."
Judges "that's disrespectful"
Me "I hope so, I dont respect him"
"Permission to treat the witness as hostile?"
"Do you two know each other?"
"She's my fiance'."
"That explains the hostility."
"Hostile? I'll show you hostile!" *sound of plastic breaking*
Guess you could say "We've got hostiles"
you can't treat the opposing side's witness as hostile, because 'treat the witness as hostile' is treating your own witness the way you would treat the opposing side's witness.
It's probably more than just disrespect, its impossible for the court reporter to record it. So basically an element of the case is off the record.
That's not true.
The record also doesn't catch tone. It doesn't see whether the witness is sweating and nervous or is confident. It doesn't see that the witness drank three glasses of water while he was on the stand.
That's one of the reasons that appeals courts don't generally look at factual findings, but only legal findings. Because the record is good for recording legal findings made by the judge. It cannot record factual findings made by a jury.
Why can't they just add a note that says defense attorney turned back to witness?
@@nomizakI guess they could mark certain behaviors as important enough to note down, but then you would need to record their alignment and where they are looking all the time.
At least I believe it would be dishonest to only mark when they "turn away", and would then need to constantly mark where they are turning.
@@nomizak because then it's up to the stenographer to decide what extra detail they highlight, ie introduce their own bias. It would be very easy for someone to misrepresent on the record someone's behavior if they wanted to. "attorney turned back on witness" is different from "attorney turned around to grab some papers", but the latter could be presented on the record as the former if the stenographer wanted to.
that's why lawyers will motion to add something to the record - it needs to be proceduralized.
the micheal scott
Would you do it in another case today?
Bro really pulled the “get a load of this guy” in court lmao
That's disrespectful.
That's the point.
“If theres a fire in Athens Georgia theyre not gonna solve it”
me: looks around in fear but potential
I actually respect the Judge calling it out though. It is a GREAT tactic, and I respect the attorney acknowledging the judge was right lol.
Court is definitely a bigger game than my silly "the law is written down. It says what it says" brain ever imagined.
I've seen a few of your shorts. They're very entertaining. Subscribed!
“Please stop turning your back”
“Your honour, tell this witness to stop deviating from the question then” 😂
"If the court would be so kind as to instruct the witness to answer my questions, I'd he happy to, Your Honor..." 😊
Judge: "Are you giving me an ultimatum??"
"...No further questions." 😐
Doing what you did and asking the judge to compel the witness to answer the question accomplish the same thing of making the witness look unreliable in front of the jury. However, what you did is more powerful because you're essentially giving a non-verbal plea for sympathy or empathy in having to deal with the uncooperative witness. If the jury didn't understand he wasn't being uncooperative, they probably do now through your body language. For some jurors though, it can make you look like a jerk, but I don't think that's the case here if he was obviously avoiding the question like you said.
Lawyers, better actors than most of Hollywood.
From what I know about Athens GA this is completely what I expected from people in charge there XD
Was the guy negligent at all with the fire? Did his inaction cause your clients injury? I don’t understand why you don’t want the jury to pay attention to the fire marshal. Wouldn’t he be on your side?
Because it's not about the truth or who did what.
It's about manipulating the jury so you can make your money.
How low can you be?
So do lawyers really need to study the law or jus psychology? It all jus sounds like mind games with the jury. 😂
I just saw a reel on multiple bikers running red lights, and the cop pulls over the only biker that stopped for the red light.
“The reason I pulled you over is because you're revving your engine like a jerk.”
I guess being disrespectful is a higher priority than law and order?
I live in athens and a few years ago had to deal with one of the investigators and now I'm wondering if it's the same guy because he was dumber than rocks
Good for you, Mike Rafi!
Genius. What that saying, never interrupt an opponent while they are making a mistake?
Trying to non-verbally manipulate the jury and distracting them from testimony is a good thing?
I also made bottom comment with my other comment here.
well you see here the good thing is when i was out getting breakfast and i do like gettin breakfast i go to this mexican place and well you see they do this thing where they cook tortilla chips in a red sauce then put cheese and well sorry i forgot what the question was again somethin about vehicular manslaughter yeah he hit em yep.
Manipulate the jury? If you are asked a question and you are wasting everyone's time yapping about irrelevant things then asking the witness to do what they came to do is normal. Bro thinks everything we do ever is manipulation.
@@mkmasterthreesixfive you've got time, let him talk, maybe it's relevant. i don't care that you can't muster up a longer attentionspan.
@@Ardentic-better-eat-meat No but the lawyer questioning him might. No one here cares what you think about a witness not answering a question or answering it with a long and boring answer.
The lawyer questioning him might however because it's possible it will affect the case.
Holy baby face Batman! So used to seeing you with a beard
Inspectors name is John L ain’t it? Basket case
So if you asked me "how, in your opinion, did the fire start?"
And I say "well fires can be started in several different ways, but there always needs to be some source of activation energy to get the reaction going, be it from chemicals mixing like in a match, friction like when you rub two sticks together, electricity, either an arc or resistive heating. This initial activation energy must be released in the presence of 3 key things, a reducing agent, an oxidizer and an environment where the heat produced from the reaction will not diminish too quickly, you will have a hard time lighting a fire underwater, without any fuel or inside a cryogenic freezer. For the fire to remain self sustaining all 3 of these components must be there, and there must also not be anything that would impede the reaction on a chemical level, like bromide ions produced from the breakdown of halon gas, a rare, but potent fire suppressant. In this particular fire, I can say that all the above factors were present, initial activation energy, fuel, oxidizer, an environment conducive to slow heat transfer to the surroundings and a lack of chemical reaction inhibitors." You'd turn your back on me? Even though I'm educating the jury on fires in general? Despite not answering anything specific about this particular fire, other than it was, in fact, a fire?
I wouldn’t ask that question. Because on cross examination I only ask leading questions and not open ended ones, which allows me to keep control of the witness and either get a yes or no answer.
Did bro just tell arsonists to head to Athens?
Mine straight up boycotted the guys yapping
Rip everyone at uga I guess 😂
Between this stuff and the ties, I love your videos
the disrespect is insane 💀
Disrespect of who? A fire marshall that didn't answer or solve anything at all..
Glad the judge had eyes. Unfortunately, they weren't connected to the spaghetti noodles behind them, so he didn't understand that there was a reason for the disrespect LOL
“That was disrespectful”
“No shit, Sherlock?!"
Mike is so sassy lmfao
What’s disrespectful is the witness wasting everyone’s time by not answering the questions in a sensible manner
Amen.
Cry about it lmfao
I do this to a coworker who incessantly interrupts conversations, or even interrupts your answers to his questions.
Well I hope to never need your services, I have dealt with those individuals in the past and I think you did right
I mean you said it yourself..... And you're the lawyer..... You should've asked the judge to correct the witness....
Im really curious if you won that case now
you look dapper btw
Got married in that suit
So, justice is non existent. It’s about theatre, and cunning. Like Billy Flynn in the movie Chicago. The blindfolded lady is irrelevant. And this, fine young man, I believe, plays the game very well. It’s a shame a good mind like that is wasted.
Judge: “stop turning your back on the witness! It’s disrespectful”
Lawyer: “The fact that he won’t stop blabbing is disrespectful to everyone’s time here”
How about you focus on bringing and critiquing facts and not manipulation tactics unrelated to the facts. This should be mandatory by law and judge should throw lawyers acting like you describe here to jail. Mire evidence and facts, less show and manipulation
"Trying to divert their attention from him to me"...."Shouldn't listen to him".
If I was the judge, I would have had you step outside the court room as the witness spoke since jury manipulation like that is more than just disrespectful, but immorally manipulative. You were trying to just have the jury completely ignore the otherside when the otherside is suppose to be heard out as well. It is fine to try to persuade the jury to your side, but this is just bad lawyer behavior.
Imo, being disrespectful is only wrong if the person deserves respect.
For a stupid example: disrespecting Hitler would actually be more moral than respecting him.
How was what you were doing any less Disrespectful then what he was doing. You asked him about Question A, but he answered a Questiion C asked by NO ONE.
Incredibly disrespectful and the whole goal of trying to have the jury not listen to him to me. Seems like an impopper carrying of Justice
Stop turning your back on the witness
Alright, Your Honor, are you gonna stop this? Oh yeah, I think that's still my job to say something...
As an actor watching your videos is making me realize that our jobs aren't all that different sometimes! Court is a performance for the jury just like acting is a performance for the audience.
Respect isn't real. It's imaginary. I wish our legal system was based on objective factual information instead of the emotions of specific people
With how hard the sporothrix has always been to get, I love that it’s powerful now. I’m all for overpowered weapons being hard to get. If you spend hours farming or even plat to get a particularly hard to acquire weapon and then it ends up being trash it feels pretty bad
Oh that's disrespectful? Ah, okay. Well then let's get down to it. *Proceed to force the witness to actually answer the questions every single time from there on out.*
For folks who are speculating that judge should have intervened about the witness on their own--
Generally an attorney will have to ask the judge to do certain things because it is their role in the courtroom to do so. The judge is there to deal with matters of law rather than matters of fact. It is the role of the attorneys to present two different perspectives about the facts of the case given their understanding of the law. It is the role of the jury to make a binding determination of fact.
The judge is there to protect the process of effectively writing a microhistory. The attorneys are there to present different histories. The jury is there to choose from the histories available to them within the rules of doing so. In this way, it helps to think of a courtroom almost like a play -- everyone has a role that they play to the best of their ability regardless of who they are out of character, and the system of roles is supposed to function under that assumption.
Whether this high-minded ideal of justice plays out as intended is another story. But you'll often have judges let attorneys make obvious errors -- especially if these errors do not cause a violation of the legal process in and of themselves. It is also the role of the attorney to make mistakes every so often -- and it is not the role of the judge to save them from themselves, unless it would undermine the legal process (and not just the determination of facts specifically) *not to intervene*.
It's pretty disrespectful for him to not just answer your damn questions in the middle of a fkn jury trial. 🤷🏻♀️
Hopefully you then asked the judge to request the witness to answer the questions asked and not avoid answering questions as asked? Nice try to give the jurors "attention", need to flush out useless or lying witnesses, somehow 👍
It's an advantage for him to have the judge speak to him about turning his back because this gives him the opportunity to say in front of the jury why he is disregarding the testimony.
I'd be like I'm going to keep turning my back on him when he doesn't answer my questions I mean I need a credible knowledgeable witness someone who's professional not this joke
I get where you were going with that, but I would be too worried that the jury would also find it disrespectful without considering why you were doing it. I guess you probably know how to read them though…
The judge seems to be okay with allowing moronic nonsense in their court. Seems disrespectful to me :P.
Please be a judge and keep the witness on task. It’s disrespectful to the court for him to waste our time with his galavanting stories that don’t pertain to my questions
excuse to the judge, ask the witness another question and go "please stop lying to me, it's disrespectful"
A good lawyer will argue your case by the law
a great lawyer will manipulate the jury into ignoring what a person says...
Great legal system.
“Please stop turning your back on the witness.”
“Please tell the witness to answer my questions.”
I'm from Athens. The Fire Marshals aren't the only group that don't do their jobs.
This is totally unrelated but you remind me of an ISO auditor/trainer who is a delight as a trainer but would be a huge nightmare as an auditor.
Can you comment on that clip where the lawyer was arrested in court for bringing up the judge's secret meeting with a witness?
i would of probly said not as disrepectful as playing games and not answering questions
The judge making certain the jury doesn't miss what the lawyer is doing.
Good method SOMETIMES. Also I just realized lawyers must be sociopaths. Goodonya.
Lovely to hear the court room has lawyers who try to manipulate the jury rather than presenting their case. Hate them as much as I hate advertising.
I mean, if the Fire Marshall cant do his job why should he be shown any respect at all? May as well be Pro Fire.
The fire marshal shouldn’t be acting like a high high schooler trying to lie his way outta trouble judge
Just look at the jury the whole time but keep your body facing the witness a bit, might do the trick
Yeah because why would a lawyer want a jury to rely on evidence rather than personal bias or body language in court.
Why call them witnesses they didn't saw the fire started , it's just his experience and opinion on fires.
Dudes in the wrong carrer with a mindset like that. Prob daddy forced him into the job
It’s almost like the courts are a circus and facts don’t matter. Putting in a good show does….
Spicy! 😂😂😂
Did you and Alan Jackson go to the same school?
The captions include a helpful emoji in case you forgot what fire is
3 mins ago is crazy crazy
honestly that's exactly something this guy would do...
That’s a great set up but what happened? Why would you stop in the middle of a story?
Y'all not concerned your justice system is mostly theatrics??
Law by Mike VS fire Marshal investigator Mike lets go
Playing music while talking is disrespectful.
Forgot being disrespectful was a crime...