Defendant instantly loses case


#1

[Read the post]


#2

<img src=’//discourse-cloud-file-uploads.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/boingboing/original/3X/7/7/773ab6734d6891848e3ca8143f593d609734cf9b.jpg’ alt=‘D’oh’>


#3

I don’t know much about court shows, but I’d take bets on this being scripted.

Edit: Everyone walks away with $250, friend repays the money, Judge Judy gets a ratings boost from this being passed around, everybody wins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Judy#Contrived_cases


#4

Judge John Hodgman’s immediate summary judgement:

https://www.quora.com/On-the-Judge-John-Hodgman-podcast-has-anybody-ever-correctly-identified-the-obscure-cultural-reference-and-received-an-immediate-summary-judgment

:smiley:


#5

Maybe. I am leaning towards “criminals are that dumb”.


#6

I’ve notice a recent trend that Boing Boing posts videos like this without description. Okay, as performed it was slightly funny - but it would be kinder to your readership (read: less annoying) to give a sentence or two describing what happened, for the benefit of those who can’t easily watch video or don’t want to spend the time.


#7

or for those who could not hear/understand what the defendant mumbled in the video that was so funny. the only word i could hear him saying after listening to it several times was “earpiece”… maybe i need one?


#8

from the reddit:

“There was no earpiece in there, ma’am.”

and

“He denied there being an earpiece amoungst what they stole, thereby admitting guilt.”


#9

Usually – but when it involves a punchline or other surprise whose appeal is tied up in qualities unique to the video presentation, all you’re going to get is a tease.


#10

Encyclopedia Brown would be proud.


#11

Yeah, you really have to watch this one.


#12

Ever read case law? Truth is so much stranger than fiction. These little fights and squabbles are invariably over pointless and mundane crap and usually make it to court because one party is either too stupid or too stubborn to do the right thing.

In reality the reason these shows find people to enter into this binding arbitration (which is what this is) is that your costs are covered if you lose, which beats losing in any other court. I’ve heard they scout for cases on dockets in various small-claims courts as well.

ETA: I’m not really arguing against your point, but I don’t think it’s necessary to explain most of the ridiculous cases on that show.


#13

And don’t forget, he can vote.


#14

At first I was like

But then I was like


#15

Not after he’s convicted of burglary.


#16

I thought the whole idea of “Judge Judy” was that these are civil settlements voluntarily agreed on in advance. No criminal case at all.


#17

I couldn’t make it out too. What did he say?


#18

“But… There wern’t no earpiece in the stuff I done stolded… why did be I lose??”


#19

Yes but that doesn’t preempt criminal prosecution. Imagine if it did!


#20

Actually there was a description, it’s just hidden in the default view for some strange reason. Try boingboing.net/blog, it’s ugly but at least it’s functional. For example from that view you’ll get this description under the headline:

“On arbitration show Judge Judy, the plaintiff describes the possessions allegedly stolen by the defendant. But she never gets to finish the list. [via r/videos]”