Why I Love, Love, Love Judge Judy
Down to my chromosomes.
Readers of my columnsometimes write me all irate at how "mean" I am to people who e-mail me for advice. People who e-mail me for advice often thank me for being the one person who told it to them straight.
The guy was an asshole for street racing...putting others and his son in danger is both insane and totally reprehensible.
However...a cop SHOULD have an obligation to ensure a minor isn't left behind when the adult in charge of him is arrested. If someone has to drive an hour to get to the kid the cop should have to wait or bring him to the station. The state is very clear about its responsibility to protect minors. 17 isn't that young but the state has a line and it should stick to its own regulations. If 17 is "old enough" to not be protected then lower the age of legal adulthood...
If it were my kid, regardless of what my husband did and how much of an asshole he was being, the kid is a separate ordeal. The mother seemed like a loser and she doesn't have the "right" to boss around another person but somewhere in her craziness there is a point with which I agree.
Also, a note to Judge Judy: Cops aren't ABOVE the law or the citizens they serve. If a person respectfully requests her son not be left by the roadside I don't think he should be a dick about it as it's a fair request (unfortunately she was probably acting like a crazy bitch, which was probably due, in part, to the officer being a d-bag to her first, which was probably due to the fact he was pissed b/c the dad was being a d-bag to him. Where does it end?).
Gretchen at July 2, 2008 6:16 AM
I hear you, Gretchen - though I'm a sucker for Judge Judy more often than not!
She seems to appeal to that part of the American psyche that made Margaret Thatcher an icon of bossiness in the UK! Apart from the Falklands War thing, of course!
Jody Tresidder at July 2, 2008 7:46 AM
No, cops aren't above the law or the citizens they serve. And you're right about the minor not being left behind. What I loved about this is somebody, probably for the very first time, telling these parents what utter assholes they are.
Amy Alkon at July 2, 2008 7:48 AM
"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining!"
Tru at July 2, 2008 8:19 AM
The couple in the case bring up a phrase my father used all the time: "Picking the farts out of a gnat." How much time did these ditzes waste on comping up with all of these petty complaints to make a 'case?'
We have no idea how that phone conversation went, but if the woman acted then like she did in the courtroom I imagine the officer had a lot of repeating to do, just like Judge Judy had to (and it probably didn't sink in then, either).
I just hope the son got some good lessons out of this. For example, that you can't just throw out the race card and get what you want (I knew race was going to be an issue the second I heard an officer was involved; how sad I was correct) and that you can't bullshit a judge by acting like you know the law or an officer's job better than they do.
Jean Moczy at July 2, 2008 9:53 AM
Unfortunately, the only thing the son is going to learn out of all of this is that you can get on TV and YouTube for arguing with a police officer, and when he "sues" you, the producers of the show pick up the tab:
"The award limit on Judge Judy, as on most 'syndi-court' shows (and most small claims courts in U.S.), is $5,000. The award for each judgment is paid by the producers of the show, from a fund reserved for each case."
Poor kid, he's so desensitized to his parents' self-centered behavior he actually believes their line of crap.
Juliana at July 2, 2008 11:02 AM
The plaintiffs (mother, father, & son) are Poster Children for the New Age Permanent Victim class. They live their lives doing whatever they want and then cry "Waahhhh" whenever anyone calls them on their bullshit.
Sadly, throughout the West there are countless social service agencies and their ilk who have based their entire lives (and their income) on defending such twits.
IMHO such lack of responsibility for one's actions are at the very heart of most of our problems today.
Robert W. at July 2, 2008 12:07 PM
The parents are certainly assholes.
However, unless there are some facts missing from this video, Judge Judy was completely wrong about just about everything she said about the cop. First of all, the cop absolutely did NOT have a right to pat down and search the 17-year-old passenger in the car. From what I gather, the kid isn't accused of anything at all except being a passenger in a speeding car driven by his father. Assuming that is the case, he is not even required to show identification to the cop, much less submit to a search. It constantly amazes me that people think that cops have the right to do whatever they want, and have no idea at all what their own rights are.
Also, Gretchen was correct that the cop had a responsibility not to leave the 17-year-old kid alone and stranded in the street, and the mother did indeed have a right to ask that the cop not leave him stranded.
By the way -- I am a lawyer.
Gail at July 2, 2008 6:33 PM
Know your rights! (While we still have them.)
http://www.flexyourrights.org/frequently_asked_questions#02
Gail at July 2, 2008 6:43 PM
Sorry -- I promise I'll stop posting websites after this one! Here's another website explaining the rights of passengers when the driver is stopped -- this one has case cites in it. http://keglawyers.com/blog/?p=58 Seriously -- Judge Judy's not right about the kid and the officer.
Gail at July 2, 2008 9:33 PM
I've probably seen parts of a hundred trials on CourtTV with real judges doing real judge things. They vary all over the place in style and temperament, however, never once have I seen a real judge behave the way this "Judge Judy" (whoever the hell she is -- is she an ex-professional wrestling referee?) does. So let us recap... "Judge Judy" hits the trifecta:
1) Obnoxious and loud
2) Unprofessional (yikes!) and,
3) Incompetent
Now, once again, why would anyone love "Judge" Judy?
Steve at July 3, 2008 3:35 AM
I love Judge Judy! And Steve you living under a rock or what? She did a career as a NYC family court judge dealing largely with juvenile delinquents and was noted for being a tigress even then, cutting through the bull and cutting through it quickly. She was so much more efficient than the other judges 60 Minutes did a story on her -- which invariably led to her stint as a TV judge following her retirement from NY.
LOL, Amy! I've always loved your column but thought people had to be nuts to write to you even while I liked the way you cut through the bull to answer with something obvious to the rest of us they needed to hear. Good to know the LW's often do too.
As far as leaving the 17 year old to wait for Mom, please. It's a 17 year old, not a five year old. So this officer should take an hour off from law enforcing to babysit a 17 year old who's mom is on the way to pick him up? You all are kidding me, right?
Donna at July 3, 2008 11:22 AM
Uhh, for entertainment value Steve? Thats all it is, though "Judge Judy" isn't exactly right here, she's telling two asshole adults they're assholes. Something you don't see a lot of and this is a small claims arbitration court. I didn't know that the producers pay for any judgement either, so the defendant parents here lost nothing really financially.
Racially motivated (not likely but possible) or not
The only thing I see the defendants in the case being right on is how the son was treated and then left behind. Tight cuffs and a key scratch on paint is likely baloney.
I'm with Gail in that the boy's rights were violated. The cop violated his rights by the search. Im not a lawyer but as I understand it, the only way he could search the kid is probable cause for "contraband" since he was arresting the driver and I'm assuming impounding the car (and he can only legally search the car with a warrant, permission from the driver/owner or if he was arresting the driver), thus he could search the car legally and that seems pretty shaky. What, did he smell "pot" on the kid or find any in the car? Did the kid freak out and get in the officer's face or make undue threating motions towards the cop that made him fearful of his security? We didn't hear that in testimony...
To leave a kid, a minor on the side of the road like that, regardless of what the mother's wishes were is a dereliction of duty IMHO. What would Judy be saying to the cop if the kid got run over by another speeder or a semi truck? Or, got in some dude's van for "free candy" cause he seemed "legit"?
FP at July 3, 2008 11:49 AM
The kid was 17. He could have been driving on his own for over a year. Why on earth is Mommy afraid of him being left alone? But that's beside the point.
The complaint made by Mommy is absurd. If Stepdaddy is so concerned about owies on his wrists, then perhaps flooring his vehicle down public streets at roughly double the speed limit should be on his "don't do" list. You know, because crashing can sometimes ickle bumps and bruises.
And if he's so concerned about his keys getting - OMG!! - a scratch on his car, the same thing applies. Smashing into some poor pedestrian, dog, bicyclist, or other car can - I hear - ding your paint job.
I don't call myself a JJudy fan, but I surely do appreciate her telling the parents, such as they are, that all the problems were of Stepdaddy's making, and he's the one that Mommy should be filing complaints against. The risk of that kid being hurt while in a car zooming along residential streets at roughly 100mph is a shitload more than the odds of him being, say, kidnapped by the bad guy from "Saw" while he waits on the side of the road.
Idiots, all of them.
Lauren at July 3, 2008 2:03 PM
A 17 year old can't be left alone? In the UK (http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/leaving_children.html):
So if the mother didn't want to leave her precious 17 year old alone, she could have paid a 14 year old to babysit him.
Norman at July 4, 2008 12:08 AM
Oops - that second paragraph (The National Society ...) is also an excerpt.
Norman at July 4, 2008 12:09 AM
Um . . . Norman? This isn't about him being left home alone. Of course a 17 year old doesn't require a babysitter, and no one said he did.
We're talking about leaving him in the middle of nowhere on a highway, instead of fetching him back to the police station along with the parents he was traveling with or taking him home, in a situation where the officer arrested the parents, leaving the kid without a ride (can I repeat that the kid didn't do ANYTHING?). I would also submit that the police officer should not leave an elderly lady on the side of the road, although clearly she would be old enough to be home alone without a babysitter. Or an elderly man. Actually, let's take the age thing aside -- he shouldn't leave me or you or anyone on the roadside, if the person driving a car we had the misfortunate to be a passenger in decided to go batshit and drag race. Leaving an innocent passenger miles away from anywhere on a highway is just a bad idea. The passenger could be run over, robbed, raped, killed, suffer heatstroke or freeze to death . . . Actually, if you were simply stranded on the highway somewhere under ANY circumstances -- your car broke down, your driver got pissed at you and kicked you out of the car, whatever -- wouldn't you expect a police officer to stop and help you instead of fricking leaving you there? You damn sure would.
I'm also surprised more of you aren't outraged by the completely illegal frisking of the kid. (If you think I'm just spouting bullshit on this point, please look at the websites I've cited, and do some research on your own. I recommend you look at it anyway -- if you're ever stopped for any reason, you really should know what your rights are.)
The Bush administration has eroded our rights quite far enough without our assisting the process. We get closer to the Third Reich every day. When the police and government go too far, we should get outraged and pipe up, and stick up for our rights. This cop went too far with respect to the 17 year old kid. Judge Judy was way off in telling him that he had no right to protest the frisking, or even to "speak to" the officer. This is America, or at least it used to be.
Gail at July 4, 2008 7:27 AM
>>>>We get closer to the Third Reich every day.
This is a bit much, to imply an administration in DC is pushing us down that road. It is much more likely an Imam will impose the goose stepping.
>>>>...you really should know what your rights are.
I'm not that impressed by "rights" that come down to us by 5-4 votes, or by reversal of lower court rulings.
Co-operation with and support of police officers is one way to help good triumph over evil.
doombuggy at July 5, 2008 12:58 AM
Leave a comment