- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,859
- Reaction score
- 30,124
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Was he talking about the conviction or the sentence? How do you know he ignored the circumstances? Maybe the true circumstances aren't quite as they've been presented in the press. Maybe there are factors he had to consider that haven't been reported. The simple fact is that we don't know.
But the information we have is hugely limited - a few paragraphs in a couple of news article. Certainly enough to ask further questions but not enough to lynch the judge.
I will bet you if there is a connection it is tenuous at best.
The Judge was right.
She was a truant.
She had no legitimate reason to miss whole days of school.
The girl should have listened the first time she was told.
So the district did what they were supposed to do.
She was previously told not to miss but continued.
She is at fault.
She has no legitimate excuse for missing full days of school.
She is a truant.
Yes that would be teaching her a lesson. And it is very lenient.Regardless of how the legalities are distributed; all in all - what point does the jail time serve? She's missing school *and* work to go to jail for a while. How is that teaching a lesson to her or anyone?
Just like suspension from school for behavior, etc - that's not teaching the student anything other than if they're bad enough at school they won't have to go anymore :shrug:
Yes.Are you serious, or just playing Devil's Advocate?
At most, all he is going to do is suspend the sentence if she meets certain requirements. And we all know how she is at doing that.The judge has applied a one size fits all approach to this situation, the judge was again apprised of the facts after he ruled and he is now reconsidering this situation and his ruling as he has a certain latitude within his discretion .
At most, all he is going to do is suspend the sentence if she meets certain requirements. And we all know how she is at doing that.
I see no missteps on his part.He may not even do that. He said he would think about it and and may reconsider. I checked his bio and he has 31 years of law enforcement. He is not a career jurist. All I see are missteps on the part of the judge and while I do see various avenues for him to truly be a positive force in this girl's life and by example create a very good situation with the school and possible problemed children I have very little faith in the judicial acumen of this Justice of the Peace.
With a successful tenure in law enforcement including 21 years with the Houston Police Department and 10 years with the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department, Judge Moriarty reminds himself daily, “I am a human first and a law enforcer second.” He was elected as JOP in 2003.
Pffft!Looks like his judgement also came under fire with the state ethics board.
"The file below contains the Texas Ethics Commission’s Order and Agreed Resolution for Montgomery County, Texas, Precinct 1 Justice of the Peace, Lanny Moriarty.
JP Moriarty agreed to pay a $2,800 civil fine for various alleged mistakes made on campaign finance reports.
Some of the alleged mistakes listed included receiving contributions from corporations. "
Justice of the Peace, Lanny Moriarty – TEC Resolution – $2,800 Civil Fine*|*Montgomery County Monitor
I was emancipated.10 days? Damn man, I skipped a lot during my senior year glad I didn't live in Texas.
He may not even do that. He said he would think about it and and may reconsider. I checked his bio and he has 31 years of law enforcement. He is not a career jurist. All I see are missteps on the part of the judge and while I do see various avenues for him to truly be a positive force in this girl's life and by example create a very good situation with the school and possible problemed children I have very little faith in the judicial acumen of this Justice of the Peace.
Yeah, it pretty much is.
You are assuming he didn't on both counts.
Bs! If anything, she set herself up.
You have no evidence to support such a conclusion.
Apparently he did.
We do not know if that is true.
The absences can be deemed "involuntary" pursuant to statute,
The burden is on the respondent to show by
a preponderance of the evidence that the absence has been or should
be excused or that the absence was involuntary.
Full day absences because she is tired? BS!
The school and the Judge were correct.
How do you know she initially wasn't?
And he obviously exercised it. Just not to your liking.
Of course it is punitive, as it should be. She failed to follow the previous ruling.
lolNo, she did not misstep.
1.) I don't buy her sob story.She has done what is virtuous: In order to provide sole support for herself and her siblings, she has worked 2 jobs and gone to school full time for a total of 100 hours of total weekly time obligation!!! This is out of a total of 168 total hours in a week and doesn't even account for time for doing homework. And when she needed to, took time off from school to rest. What she has done is WAY beyond what I could have done. I admire her fortitude. Your assertion that she didn't need to miss a full day of school is just plain stupid, period. Most people would miss 3 every week trying to do what she is doing (in other words, they wouldn't be able to do it). Yet, she still received good marks. BRAVO!!!
All that said, the Judge may not have taken the time to find out all the facts, so I am not quite ready to call him an ignorant monster. But, I am just this close.
No it isn't. She had an order to follow. She chose not to.Your assertion that she didn't need to miss a full day of school is just plain stupid, period. Most people would miss 3 every week trying to do what she is doing (in other words, they wouldn't be able to do it).
lol
Yes, she did misstep.
If she hadn't, she wouldn't be in this pickle.
You don't just get to ignore a judges order.
She missteped.
1.) I don't buy her sob story.
2.) This was all known by her when she received the original order. She chose not to follow it.
She mistepped.
3.) The above is not an excuse to miss full days. It just isn't.
No it isn't. She had an order to follow. She chose not to.
And most people wouldn't miss three a week. That is hyperbole.
Who says going to jail for a night won't be a positive influence on the girl? It may teach her to 1: Take a warning from a judge to heart. 2: not to take so much on that it screws up your life. It is better that she learn this now than years later when she's responsible for her own kids (if she has some).
Besides if she gets away with breaking the rules just because she sheds some tears then she will never stop breaking the rules as she will never learn that there are consequences to every action she takes.
lolShe was faced with no good choices. She chose to do what was virtuous, which also apparently happened to result in a violation of the judges order.
It is hyperbole.It is not hyperbole, absolutely not. Most people simply wouldn't be able to sustain it, and something would indeed give way, catastrophically. That you can't see that is just blindness.
lol
She did not choose to be virtuous.
She knew her situation (whatever that may be) and chose to disobey a court order instead of taking steps and making arrangements to follow it.
That is a somewhat severe violation of which she needs to learn something about.
24 hours in a jail cell will do her good.
It is hyperbole.
I have lived it. I was emancipated and supported three people. Don't give me this crap about blindness.
You are blind because you think her actions in violating a court order is virtuous. :doh
Yeah ... right! And you want to talk about blindness.
I see no missteps on his part.
He gave her a chance the first time.
I have no problem with that.
She misstepped.
Pffft!
Yeah ... What ever!LOL, right back at ya', hehe.
How many hours? She alleges a full time and a part time.She was working two jobs,
No... That is what this is all about.going to school full time,
Just more hyperbole.Then she just decided to what? Throw all the hard work out the window and become a rebellious truant for no good reason? Yeah, she was probably just wanting to throw in a little partying or something those days cuz she just didn't have enough to do, and was trying to round out a light schedule. My bad.
Wrong.Your interpretation would be laughable, if it wasn't so sadly arrogant.
LMFAOAnd your attempt to establish credibility is convenient and literally unbelievable.
She wasn't behind in her work. She simply wasn't making it to school, actually attending classes. If she is learning the stuff, and from what is given about her grades, she is, then she is doing her job as far as school is concerned. We have kids sitting in classes, learning nothing or struggling to learn all the time and you think we should put a girl in jail for actually working hard to ensure she is keeping up with her work because she has to work to take care of herself. This is only teaching the girl that common sense is not very common at all, particularly when applied to the law and that hard work will get you into trouble because people don't have that common sense to know what school is for, learning, not being a butt in the classroom.
Apparently that is how it worked the first time around.When in a position of authority where you decision carries a record that follows a person through their lifetime there is a greater responsibility to look at all options and not rest with what you think you know, but, look to the actual facts of the case and weigh all the options to the applicable facts.
Apparently that is how it worked the first time around.
"Houston defense attorney Ned Barnett on Tuesday called the ruling "outrageous" and said "a little discretion should have been used" in the teenager's case."Why do you think this persons opinion matters?
As far as I am concerned it is much like many of the opinions here; A knee-jerk reaction.
Not realizing that the girl had already been given a chance, and deserving of punishment for failing to obey the courts order.
And an over reaction to a mere 24 hours.
"Houston Councilman Al Hoang said what he worries about most is Tran's record. "I’m going to ask the judge to expunge the record," Which goes right back to what I thought the judge may be likely to do.
Well Mr. Hoang is a little lost on the facts it seems.
Hoang told FoxNews.com. "The truancy laws should be applied case by case and in this case, it should not be applied. I believe Judge Moriarty should have used his discretionary power to excuse her from this matter."
Apparently the Judge used that discretionary power the first time. and she failed to follow the courts order.
And as thorough as you are, I doubt you missed this, but from the link you provided.
E. Tay Bond, a well-known Houston defense attorney, said the judge likely had no discretion to avert a jail sentence.
"There's no legal exception that I’m aware of that if you're an honors student, you’re allowed to exceed a maximum number of unexcused days under the Texas Compulsory Education Laws," Bond told FoxNews*com. "Twenty-four hours would be about the minimum period of confinement to make a point.
I addressed this previously in post 14. Your "authority" cites that the law does not excuse "honors students" and he is correct, but, that is not the issue whatsoever. The issue is whether Ms. Tran's absences could have been excused by the judge using his discretion and the answer is yes.
Who says going to jail for a night won't be a positive influence on the girl? It may teach her to 1: Take a warning from a judge to heart. 2: not to take so much on that it screws up your life. It is better that she learn this now than years later when she's responsible for her own kids (if she has some).
Besides if she gets away with breaking the rules just because she sheds some tears then she will never stop breaking the rules as she will never learn that there are consequences to every action she takes.
What you don't seem to be getting is that he had already used his discretionary powers and had already gave her a warning previously. This was not the first time that Ms. Tran had been in front of the judge for truancy. This was the second time. If Ms. Tran did not heed the first warning why would she have heeded a second warning?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?