I donāt know much about court shows, but Iād 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
Judge John Hodgmanās immediate summary judgement:
Maybe. I am leaning towards ācriminals are that dumbā.
Iāve 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 canāt easily watch video or donāt want to spend the time.
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 āearpieceāā¦ maybe i need one?
Usually ā but when it involves a punchline or other surprise whose appeal is tied up in qualities unique to the video presentation, all youāre going to get is a tease.
Encyclopedia Brown would be proud.
Yeah, you really have to watch this one.
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. Iāve heard they scout for cases on dockets in various small-claims courts as well.
ETA: Iām not really arguing against your point, but I donāt think itās necessary to explain most of the ridiculous cases on that show.
And donāt forget, he can vote.
At first I was like
But then I was like
Not after heās convicted of burglary.
I thought the whole idea of āJudge Judyā was that these are civil settlements voluntarily agreed on in advance. No criminal case at all.
I couldnāt make it out too. What did he say?
āButā¦ There wernāt no earpiece in the stuff I done stoldedā¦ why did be I lose??ā
Yes but that doesnāt preempt criminal prosecution. Imagine if it did!
Actually there was a description, itās just hidden in the default view for some strange reason. Try boingboing.net/blog, itās ugly but at least itās functional. For example from that view youāll get this description under the headline:
āOn 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]ā
Thatās a rather clickbaity description. A small fraction of the information specifically designed to increase curiosity and waste minutes instead of adding one more sentence and spend a second on reading it.
