• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Today's Judge Alex will involve OC on a motorcycle.

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Let's see if he speaks out against it. He has already used his show to express wonder why folks other than cops would want to carry. He is a former LEO.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
He described riding while armed as "light years beyond dumb."

BTW, this is in Indiana, and the rider routinely does not wear a helmet, which Judge Alex described merely as "dumb." The rider had a CCW :D (or whatever IN calls its pistol permit/license).

[Sorry about the off-topic needling on "CCW."]
 
Last edited:

Brion

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
160
Location
Goldsboro, NC
:banghead:
Typical. LEO that thinks only LEOs are privi to OC. Like you are some gift from God and protector.
:banghead:

Please post a link so I can see this moron in action.

Sad, I used to watch this guy. Glad I don't anymore. And if I did. This would have been the last episode I would ever watch. It's funny. Where do they find those half***ed "judges" for those ghettofabulous tv shows. Every one of them are ignorant.
 

usamarshal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
251
Location
Ohio
Used to be in Ohio you had to ride OC...this was for motorcycles and vehicles...the law was recently changed to allowed CC on motorcycles and in vehicles...the reason you had to OC on a motorcycle or vehicle was for officer "protection"...haha....I love how judges have there own opinions on these television shows...hopefully they go by state laws instead of what they think is best.....:banana:
 

matt2636

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
201
Location
cedar rapids
Used to be in Ohio you had to ride OC...this was for motorcycles and vehicles...the law was recently changed to allowed CC on motorcycles and in vehicles...the reason you had to OC on a motorcycle or vehicle was for officer "protection"...haha....I love how judges have there own opinions on these television shows...hopefully they go by state laws instead of what they think is best.....:banana:

officer protection?? i dont think that superseeds the constitution. actually it doesnt. when i was in afghan anyone could carry a ak47. we couldnt stop them or anything just cause they were carryin a ak or for what i would like to call "marine safty" they had more rights with guns over there then we do here.
 

usamarshal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
251
Location
Ohio
officer protection?? i dont think that superseeds the constitution. actually it doesnt. when i was in afghan anyone could carry a ak47. we couldnt stop them or anything just cause they were carryin a ak or for what i would like to call "marine safty" they had more rights with guns over there then we do here.

Yea...actually I should have explained a little further...if you had a CCW in Ohio you had to OC on your motorcycle or vehicle. The law recently changed where if you have a CCW you can now CC on your motorcycle or vehicle. I know, makes no sense...haha
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Why was the guy in court? Was the OC/helmet issue relevant to the charge(s)? What was the outcome, other than insulting him?

The case was regarding a repossession of the bike. The carry and helmet were tangentially mentioned, giving the judge a chance to opine on those unrelated matters without fear of rebuttal.

Had it been me, I'd've risked my case by objecting and accusing the judge of prejudicing my case by considering irrelevant facts in a negative light and in opposition to the current law!.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
The case was regarding a repossession of the bike.
Thanks, I'd already guessed that by checking out the episode guide.


Had it been me, I'd've risked my case by objecting and accusing the judge of prejudicing my case by considering irrelevant facts in a negative light and in opposition to the current law!.
The only problem there, is that these shows are not court. They're legally binding arbitration, not courts of law.

Civil arbitrators have much wider latitude, and can say whatever they want. Those who enjoy big TV audiences say whatever will please the most viewers (thus advertisers). On the other hand, professional arbitrators who aren't on TV, rely on their reviews to get more cases, which means they have to be as neutral, objective, and fair as possible. If they're not, they don't get inflated ratings, they get fewer cases to mediate.
 

Brion

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
160
Location
Goldsboro, NC
Thanks, I'd already guessed that by checking out the episode guide.



The only problem there, is that these shows are not court. They're legally binding arbitration, not courts of law.

Civil arbitrators have much wider latitude, and can say whatever they want. Those who enjoy big TV audiences say whatever will please the most viewers (thus advertisers). On the other hand, professional arbitrators who aren't on TV, rely on their reviews to get more cases, which means they have to be as neutral, objective, and fair as possible. If they're not, they don't get inflated ratings, they get fewer cases to mediate.

+1
I was just about to talk about that. You see if I'm not mistaken, Judge Alex is filmed in houston. So what happens in other states and their laws really don't matter here. He does reference the law from the state sometimes in order to sometimes justify is ruling. But honestly he can do what he wants.

You see people sign a contract that are going to be on the show that states that they will follow the ruling of the judge or face civil suit from the production company.

The trick to those shows should you be trashy enough to try and force someone on the show is to watch it and learn how folks win. Judge Judy for an example is to shut your mouth, don't interups, answer her questions in a few words as possible but give her all the information that was asked and you win. Let the other moron piss her off when things don't go their way when you follow the above.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Thanks, I'd already guessed that by checking out the episode guide.

The only problem there, is that these shows are not court. They're legally binding arbitration, not courts of law.

Civil arbitrators have much wider latitude, and can say whatever they want. Those who enjoy big TV audiences say whatever will please the most viewers (thus advertisers). On the other hand, professional arbitrators who aren't on TV, rely on their reviews to get more cases, which means they have to be as neutral, objective, and fair as possible. If they're not, they don't get inflated ratings, they get fewer cases to mediate.

Hence my having said that I'd be willing to risk my case. I know that these judges do not have to follow the law. That being said, they almost always do.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
...You see if I'm not mistaken, Judge Alex is filmed in houston. So what happens in other states and their laws really don't matter here...

These shows draw cases from all over the nation. The laws applied in each case will be the laws applied in the State where the action was filed before being dismissed to be resolved in arbitration.
 
Top