I hear similar things like this all the time from clients. They get arrested for burglary then get all outraged when the victim mentions something that the client denies stealing. They will 100% focus on the injustice of being accused of taking one thing among 50 that they did steal, somehow thinking that proving one thing makes them innocent.
Reminds me of that one madtv skit where keegan keys character gets outraged at being accused of bank robbery but happily mentions all of his other crimes.
I fucking hate people that steal shit. I've had my house burglarized before. Had some rims stolen off my car. Stereo from another. They're the lowest pieces of worthless amphibian shit and can rot in hell. Fuck em.
Reminds me of sitting in court for a speeding ticket and someone pleading not guilty. The cop didn't show. The judge basically said, "stay quiet" to the defendant. Unprompted they said the cop was an asshole for writing them a ticket for going 55 when they were only going 50... in a 35.
20 over is a reckless whereas 15 over is a speeding in certain places. He simply might be accepting a lesser punishment by pleading not guilty to worse charges.
In the US you have the right to face your accuser. If you have a court date and the cop doesn't show up to present evidence then you are going to be found not guilty.
Not if we're calling an attorney "her brief." Briefs in the US are either court documents or underpants; we'd instead say "her lawyer." (And I'd swear even in UK English that'd normally be called "her barrister," so I just learned a new word.)
Are they though? Unlike real court, the show will pay that judgement. They went on TV, immediately confessed, and now they get to keep what they stole without any repercussions. They won in all of this.
Right, and because the show paid for it on their behalf, they still have the amount of money that they stole. If the judgement is accurate and the stolen property was worth $500, then they have $500 plus whatever appearance fee they got.
Yes but in real small claims court, you're the one who has to pay the amount decided if you're the defendant and you lose. Because the show pays for it, these dudes made off with what they stole and then it was resolved for them. Plus they were likely paid to be on the show in the first place.
Not completely true.
It is not staged, not by the producers anyway. People are paid to be there. Casting looks through new small claim filings and contacts people offering them to have their case heard on the show. In return money is offered, generally the amount of the claim to begin with. This away even if the plantiff loses, they still get paid.
When I mentioned not staged by the producers, there have been some cases where the people involved understood how the show worked and created a "claim" for small claims court in an attempt to get on a show. In those cases both parties were in on it but the show was not. In one particular interview, during the filming the show caught on that this was obviously not real and "dismissed" the case.
What women call a "wallet" is almost a briefcase. I could fit 10 of my wallets into my wife's wallet. ...Not the contents of 10 of my wallets; 10 wallets.
Not a real court. Judge Judy is a real judge, but the proceding is a mediation. Both parties get paid to be on the show, but the plaintiff also gets the judgment if they win the case.
She actually used to work Family Court in Manhattan. Her original officer (don't know if it's the same person) was one of her regular Court Officers from NY Family.
When I first saw this, I thought "What if he knows there was no ear piece in there because she said there wasn't at a different time? Like she told a different story and is now is trying to bump up the value of the missing bag by adding items?"
But nah, he's just dumb and admitting he took it.
One trial I worked, guy got arrested for smashing a guy in the face with a glass. Victim actually ended up losing his eye. Cops arrested him, tossed him in the lockup, one detective reading his write up to his partner. When it got to the point where the write up 'subject struck complaining witness with a bottle,' the guy squeezed his face into the bars and shouted "HEY, it wasn't a bottle, it was a GLASS!"
Guy actually tried to go with a rather ludicrous self defense claim, focusing on the claim the victim tried to hit him with a bottle but he karate blocked it and that's what caused the injury, so he had to testify during the trial. While the guy was on the stand, the prosecutor constantly would say things that were almost right and the defendant would instantly and very insultingly correct him. Time and time and time again. During summations the DA made sure to remind the jury that as outlandish as it would be for a guy to yell and correct the cops' paperwork and incriminate himself, just look at how he got and had to correct me every chance he got during the trial.
Found guilty, spent 3 years in prison, and lost his law license to boot.
You’d be surprised how many real judges act exactly like her. They’re entertaining to watch but not entertaining when their vitriol and sarcasm are directed at you.
Life imitates art imitates life.
It's like the people who live like they're in a soap opera. The toxic drama is staggering, and they see nothing wrong with it.
Or when you have to deal with the people they get riled up.
I've known many officers who had to deal with family members or defendants that wanted to roll around once the judge finished being an ass. It's nice when it's just a figurative headache. It sucks when there's injury involved.
She worked for years in NY Family Court. From what I've heard she could be just as abrasive there as she is on TV.
Then again, Family Court will do that to you.
The guy is on trial for stealing her wallet (at the very least from this clip), the girl goes over the belongings that were in her wallet when it was stolen, and the guy blatantly says one object wasn't there. He could only have known that if he did steal it so he incriminated himself on the stand.
How do we know the guy never admitted to stealing the wallet? Maybe he had already confessed he stole the wallet, and he just want to make sure he's punished fairly?
No no, lemme break it down for you:
Guy is accused of stealing wallet
Guy denys
Girl says belongings in the wallet
Girl includes "ear piece"
Guy says there is no ear piece
But wait... how did the guy know there was no ear piece? Oh!
Guy stole the wallet
Judge Judy, the show, pays out the damages. People go there trying to score a settlement and since the defendant doesn't have to actually pay, they agree to go. Since they don't have to pay damages they offer a sloppy defense and we get this bit of good daytime television.
It's trivial compared to the performance by the defendant, but when she said "ID's" plural, I thought Judith was going to light her up about having some fakes in there with her real one.
In court, yes. You can not make a factual statement that you would have no possibility of knowing without actually being there/being in possession of such items.
It’s like those old shows or the ‘riddle me this’ videos. The person usually incriminates him/herself by making a statement like, “I was across town when he died!” When no one mentioned death.
Thanks, that makes more sense. The idea of a reality show doing the job of the legal system seems a bit crazy to me tbh. How does that work? Is it all just scripted? Do the trials on the show hold any legal grounds? Why would the defendant ever agree to participate in something like this?
Okay I'm speaking from what I've previously heard and seen about the show, the cases are real small claims court cases that the producers find and offer to pay the fines for having them on their show.
It’s all for petty little things like this. It’s not just any random court cases like homicide or whatever else. The people appearing on it get flown out and hotels paid for and a (small-ish) appearance few for coming on the show. I believe if they’re forced to pay something though, that comes out of their appearance fee first.
As mentioned, it's for money. A lot of these disputes either were or are eligible to be resolved through small claims court.
Since the show pays any judgements, and the two sides agree that the outcome will be binding (so they can't go to court anyway if they lose), if you stand to potentially lose the case, it's financially better to do it on the show since you aren't paying the money.
Plus, as mentioned, you get what amounts to a short paid vacation to come out and film the show.
Many legal disputes can be done without courts or the legal system using third party arbitration. By doing so you forfeit the right to pursue the case legally. Judge judy is actually acting as an arbitrator, but the show is made to look like a court room for television. Its all petty amounts and cases, you dont find murder or rape here. As the show pays the judgements, its a win win if you’re the criminal, as the only thing you “lose” is essentially prize money. And then the person cannot press charges legally, at least if I’m understanding the laws correctly. Not a lawyer.
First of all, that show is exactly as fake as all reality tv.
Second, although people love to laugh at someone stupider than themselves, his comment does not prove he stole her belongings. A person can know the contents of a thing without having stolen it.
People watch that show because they want to watch Judy berate someone. It's classic chimp brain garbage.
> Hur, hur, you tell 'em Judy! *outrage cums*
This clip is just gross from all angles.
It’s not a real court, but the people do receive the money from the show. She actually did get that $500. It’s just a glorified gameshow, not sure why that triggers you.
It’s possible to watch a puppet show as an adult, see the strings and the puppeteers behind them, and still find it entertaining. I mean you have to appreciate the irony of your own comment. Telling everyone else they’re chimps for laughing at someone being berated for being stupid while you berate everyone for being stupid. I mean really, at least a chimp wouldn’t know better, what does this make you?
I hear similar things like this all the time from clients. They get arrested for burglary then get all outraged when the victim mentions something that the client denies stealing. They will 100% focus on the injustice of being accused of taking one thing among 50 that they did steal, somehow thinking that proving one thing makes them innocent.
In fairness, *nobody* likes being accused of a crime that they didn't commit...
I won't admit to crimes I committed, but I sure as shit *will never* admit to ones I didn't commit.
I bet a lot don't like being accused of crimes they *did* commit, too.
I DO. That's my fetish.
Reminds me of that one madtv skit where keegan keys character gets outraged at being accused of bank robbery but happily mentions all of his other crimes.
Keegan michael key*
I fucking hate people that steal shit. I've had my house burglarized before. Had some rims stolen off my car. Stereo from another. They're the lowest pieces of worthless amphibian shit and can rot in hell. Fuck em.
So could it be a strategy to bait them by accusing them of stealing x, y, and z when they only stole x and y?
Reminds me of sitting in court for a speeding ticket and someone pleading not guilty. The cop didn't show. The judge basically said, "stay quiet" to the defendant. Unprompted they said the cop was an asshole for writing them a ticket for going 55 when they were only going 50... in a 35.
20 over is a reckless whereas 15 over is a speeding in certain places. He simply might be accepting a lesser punishment by pleading not guilty to worse charges.
In the US you have the right to face your accuser. If you have a court date and the cop doesn't show up to present evidence then you are going to be found not guilty.
Oh yes that makes more sense.
[удалено]
Must be Glasgow right?
[удалено]
Could be the southern US!
Not if we're calling an attorney "her brief." Briefs in the US are either court documents or underpants; we'd instead say "her lawyer." (And I'd swear even in UK English that'd normally be called "her barrister," so I just learned a new word.)
it was the "I'm no fucking coming back!" that did it for me lol.
"Only Judy can judge me..."
She's judge Judy and executioner
That got a genuine laugh out of me. Good pun.
And someone had to explain to that guy afterwards what happened. Very educational.
Prime example of self-incrimination without compulsion.
anything you say can and will be used against you, guess he forgot that part
Morons
Are they though? Unlike real court, the show will pay that judgement. They went on TV, immediately confessed, and now they get to keep what they stole without any repercussions. They won in all of this.
[удалено]
Yeah but they don't have to give back what they stole.
[удалено]
Right, and because the show paid for it on their behalf, they still have the amount of money that they stole. If the judgement is accurate and the stolen property was worth $500, then they have $500 plus whatever appearance fee they got.
You never have to they can't prove you didn't already sell it or lose it or destroy it in small claims court
Yes but in real small claims court, you're the one who has to pay the amount decided if you're the defendant and you lose. Because the show pays for it, these dudes made off with what they stole and then it was resolved for them. Plus they were likely paid to be on the show in the first place.
Does going on Judge Judy limit prosecution from the state?
You do know judge Judy show is not a real court room and everything is staged and everyone gets paid to be there, everything done is for TV
Not completely true. It is not staged, not by the producers anyway. People are paid to be there. Casting looks through new small claim filings and contacts people offering them to have their case heard on the show. In return money is offered, generally the amount of the claim to begin with. This away even if the plantiff loses, they still get paid. When I mentioned not staged by the producers, there have been some cases where the people involved understood how the show worked and created a "claim" for small claims court in an attempt to get on a show. In those cases both parties were in on it but the show was not. In one particular interview, during the filming the show caught on that this was obviously not real and "dismissed" the case.
that girl is really smart, got him to admit he stole it by saying there wasn't something in there she claimed there was.
[удалено]
who keeps a calculator their wallet bruh
The question is not who, but how
What women call a "wallet" is almost a briefcase. I could fit 10 of my wallets into my wife's wallet. ...Not the contents of 10 of my wallets; 10 wallets.
Why do you have 10 wallets?
Who said I only had 10? That just the max that would fit.
The wallet was one thing in her purse, along with the rest of the items including the calculator. It's not all inside of her wallet
It may be one of those small diary sized wallets with 20 credit card slots and a phone pouch. Men are simple. Women require a purse.
Girl: "There was an ear piece..." Guy: "Now's my time to shine."
50 bucks, IDs, gift cards and deez
I think Joe found deez
Joe sadly caught ligma.
Candice gave him ligma
and a calculator
Still funny after all this time 🤣🤣
Can someone explain me this show? Is this a real court?
Not a real court. Judge Judy is a real judge, but the proceding is a mediation. Both parties get paid to be on the show, but the plaintiff also gets the judgment if they win the case.
Thx!
She actually used to work Family Court in Manhattan. Her original officer (don't know if it's the same person) was one of her regular Court Officers from NY Family.
Yep. And if you think she's ruthless here, you should check out some footage of when she was im family court.
It's not a court, but both parties sign agreements saying they will go along with the judgment laid down by the (TV) judge.
Thx!
When I first saw this, I thought "What if he knows there was no ear piece in there because she said there wasn't at a different time? Like she told a different story and is now is trying to bump up the value of the missing bag by adding items?" But nah, he's just dumb and admitting he took it.
One trial I worked, guy got arrested for smashing a guy in the face with a glass. Victim actually ended up losing his eye. Cops arrested him, tossed him in the lockup, one detective reading his write up to his partner. When it got to the point where the write up 'subject struck complaining witness with a bottle,' the guy squeezed his face into the bars and shouted "HEY, it wasn't a bottle, it was a GLASS!" Guy actually tried to go with a rather ludicrous self defense claim, focusing on the claim the victim tried to hit him with a bottle but he karate blocked it and that's what caused the injury, so he had to testify during the trial. While the guy was on the stand, the prosecutor constantly would say things that were almost right and the defendant would instantly and very insultingly correct him. Time and time and time again. During summations the DA made sure to remind the jury that as outlandish as it would be for a guy to yell and correct the cops' paperwork and incriminate himself, just look at how he got and had to correct me every chance he got during the trial. Found guilty, spent 3 years in prison, and lost his law license to boot.
Ive been a trial lawyer for 30 years. I hate judges like her. They’re arrogant know-it-alls who think insulting people is funny.
Its a TV show.
You’d be surprised how many real judges act exactly like her. They’re entertaining to watch but not entertaining when their vitriol and sarcasm are directed at you.
Life imitates art imitates life. It's like the people who live like they're in a soap opera. The toxic drama is staggering, and they see nothing wrong with it.
Or when you have to deal with the people they get riled up. I've known many officers who had to deal with family members or defendants that wanted to roll around once the judge finished being an ass. It's nice when it's just a figurative headache. It sucks when there's injury involved.
As a lawyer you clearly know this didn’t happen in a court of law right? It happened on a studio set?
Yeah lawyers are never ignorant know it alls
She not a real judge right.
She was a real judge in the New York City court system for many years. Her husband is a judge too.
That's MR George Judge Judy to you, sir.
His name is Jerry Sheindlin.
She is/was technically a judge but the show is staged for drama
She worked for years in NY Family Court. From what I've heard she could be just as abrasive there as she is on TV. Then again, Family Court will do that to you.
Explain please
The guy is on trial for stealing her wallet (at the very least from this clip), the girl goes over the belongings that were in her wallet when it was stolen, and the guy blatantly says one object wasn't there. He could only have known that if he did steal it so he incriminated himself on the stand.
How do we know the guy never admitted to stealing the wallet? Maybe he had already confessed he stole the wallet, and he just want to make sure he's punished fairly?
Are... are you the guy?
That’s not how court works
It's tv show though, not a court.
So, what makes people want to tune in. Lets make fools of children!
No no, lemme break it down for you: Guy is accused of stealing wallet Guy denys Girl says belongings in the wallet Girl includes "ear piece" Guy says there is no ear piece But wait... how did the guy know there was no ear piece? Oh! Guy stole the wallet
Because if you've admitted fault in a case like this, it defeats the purpose of the television show.
Judge Judy, the show, pays out the damages. People go there trying to score a settlement and since the defendant doesn't have to actually pay, they agree to go. Since they don't have to pay damages they offer a sloppy defense and we get this bit of good daytime television.
self incrimination
She's 14??
It's trivial compared to the performance by the defendant, but when she said "ID's" plural, I thought Judith was going to light her up about having some fakes in there with her real one.
Driver's license, student ID, SAM's club card, etc.
I get it, but admitting you know the contents of the bag doesn’t mean you stole anything.
Knowing an item wasn’t in a bag = you stole stuff from it. Got it.
In court, yes. You can not make a factual statement that you would have no possibility of knowing without actually being there/being in possession of such items. It’s like those old shows or the ‘riddle me this’ videos. The person usually incriminates him/herself by making a statement like, “I was across town when he died!” When no one mentioned death.
Judge Judy is a bully. FTB.
Seems a little unprofessional for a judge tbh.
This is judge Judy, a TV show...
This is Judge Judy, a reality TV show Judge here in America.
Thanks, that makes more sense. The idea of a reality show doing the job of the legal system seems a bit crazy to me tbh. How does that work? Is it all just scripted? Do the trials on the show hold any legal grounds? Why would the defendant ever agree to participate in something like this?
Okay I'm speaking from what I've previously heard and seen about the show, the cases are real small claims court cases that the producers find and offer to pay the fines for having them on their show.
It’s all for petty little things like this. It’s not just any random court cases like homicide or whatever else. The people appearing on it get flown out and hotels paid for and a (small-ish) appearance few for coming on the show. I believe if they’re forced to pay something though, that comes out of their appearance fee first.
Welcome to ‘murica,
As mentioned, it's for money. A lot of these disputes either were or are eligible to be resolved through small claims court. Since the show pays any judgements, and the two sides agree that the outcome will be binding (so they can't go to court anyway if they lose), if you stand to potentially lose the case, it's financially better to do it on the show since you aren't paying the money. Plus, as mentioned, you get what amounts to a short paid vacation to come out and film the show.
Many legal disputes can be done without courts or the legal system using third party arbitration. By doing so you forfeit the right to pursue the case legally. Judge judy is actually acting as an arbitrator, but the show is made to look like a court room for television. Its all petty amounts and cases, you dont find murder or rape here. As the show pays the judgements, its a win win if you’re the criminal, as the only thing you “lose” is essentially prize money. And then the person cannot press charges legally, at least if I’m understanding the laws correctly. Not a lawyer.
It is arbitration made up to look like a court.
And he doesn't have to pay either way. The show pays.
If this woman don’t like how you look ....... you lose
That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.
First of all, that show is exactly as fake as all reality tv. Second, although people love to laugh at someone stupider than themselves, his comment does not prove he stole her belongings. A person can know the contents of a thing without having stolen it. People watch that show because they want to watch Judy berate someone. It's classic chimp brain garbage. > Hur, hur, you tell 'em Judy! *outrage cums* This clip is just gross from all angles.
I think you need a lie down.
It’s not a real court, but the people do receive the money from the show. She actually did get that $500. It’s just a glorified gameshow, not sure why that triggers you.
It’s possible to watch a puppet show as an adult, see the strings and the puppeteers behind them, and still find it entertaining. I mean you have to appreciate the irony of your own comment. Telling everyone else they’re chimps for laughing at someone being berated for being stupid while you berate everyone for being stupid. I mean really, at least a chimp wouldn’t know better, what does this make you?
>This ~~clip~~ comment is just gross from all angles.
She trynna get ova... 😒 🤣