Always going to be less disrespectful than a first responder, or a fire martial/crime scene investigator not doing their job. They deserve to be ignored once they’re going to do a shoddy investigation and act like a clown on the stand.
@@zooniba It's a fair retort. The "witness" was being disrespectful by dodging questions but the judge was silent about that disrespect. Why only call out the disrespect of one party involved when their role is supposed to be impartial? Yes, a judge must maintain order in their courtroom but they should do so equally or their order is arbitrary and meaningless.
@@MikeRafiLawyer Did the judge get your point thought? That's the real question because lets be honest no matter your position some people are just DENSE AF.
@@razordrive3238 As I understand it, in the USA it depends on the state exactly how people are appointed/recruited to the role however I cannot find anything indicating it is an elected role. Many of the things I found looking online indicated if you aren't already a firefighter it is very unlikely you would end up being a fire marshal.
My local marshal is a 47-year experienced retired firefighter who turned down promotion to chief 6 times before they told him he was no longer allowed to haul hose because of his back, then he ran that department cleaner than any others I know of. I wish all marshals were as good as he is, dude is 70 and takes his career seriously, he's got a mind like a steel trap and keeps up with code. He publicly dressed down an inspector in another jurisdiction for letting something slide during construction that most people wouldn't consider a big deal, but his public admonishment included the phrase, "fire codes are written with the blood and ashes of history," and even the reporters that were there had no follow-up questions for that. But yeah, tons of them are nepotism and/or corruption in action.
@@thegurw1994 I worked at a volunteer station for about 10 years our chief was legit he used to be a captain for FDNY 911 even has a tool named after him because he invented it Rex Morrison I believe is his name
The Judge is supposed to remain impartial. He just mentioned what he was supposed to do; ask the judge to have him answer the question. The judge didn't step in until the attorney was being blatantly and intentionally disrespectful. Even the dude that got scolded agreed with both of these points. It's not the judge's place to jump in during questioning a witness to assist the attorney. It IS their job to step on when someone is disruptive during questioning to maintain order, and in this case, it was the attorney that was being disruptive by being blatantly, and intentionally, disrespectful. So, I'm not gonna get mad at the judge for that one, especially when the guy that got scolded agreed with them.
@@chibigirl8545 except the fire Marshal in this case was being disruptive by going on tangents. If it doesn't go both ways, and the judge doesn't step in in both cases, they ARE NOT BEING IMPARTIAL.
You can ask the judge to instruct the witness to answer the question. That may be a bit more effective than these pantomime performances as it is corroboration from the impartial arbiter that he is in fact not answering the question. If you don't like his answers then get a rebuttal witness. You don't even have to clear it with discovery, it's a rare case where you can have a surprise witness.
@@chibigirl8545Actively avoiding answering questions so often the lawyer gets tired of it, decides to turn his back on such nonsense, and then continues avoiding answering questions so much that being ignored is becoming a problem. The judge should've stepped in at some point before that to keep order.
@@eavening4149 I know. But I still feel that it should be allowed. I mean, if the witness can be going on total tangents and talking crap, the actual lawyers should be able to just talk directly. I feel like all the "correctness" and "mandatory politeness" in courtrooms is only muddying the whole matter. Speaking directly, without having to worry about being "excessively polite" is important for clear communication.
Or the witness was saying things he didn't want We don't know what's really going on If the witness was going off topic, the judge would've stopped him in the first place
When my house caught fire a few winters ago because the landlord somehow passed code without actually being able to (everything was hooked to a single 15 amp circuit, EVERYTHING) the fire chief came only for the first fire where they ruled it as a power strip but not the second or third time (third time is when they discovered the absolutely fucked electrical system) so I was unable to get help to replace any of my kids clothing we lost from the Red Cross or even a settlement from the landlord given it was the dead of winter.
Growing up you think these people in high places earned it through merit, now as an adult I realize they usually do because no one wants to do it because it’s below what someone smarter could make
Great example of why you should hire a Lawyer. Most people wouldn't know when you should risk being disrespectful. A Lawyer has more experience to gauge the risk vs reward.
you can't treat the opposing side's witness as hostile, because 'treat the witness as hostile' is treating your own witness the way you would treat the opposing side's witness.
That's not true. The record also doesn't catch tone. It doesn't see whether the witness is sweating and nervous or is confident. It doesn't see that the witness drank three glasses of water while he was on the stand. That's one of the reasons that appeals courts don't generally look at factual findings, but only legal findings. Because the record is good for recording legal findings made by the judge. It cannot record factual findings made by a jury.
@@nomizakI guess they could mark certain behaviors as important enough to note down, but then you would need to record their alignment and where they are looking all the time. At least I believe it would be dishonest to only mark when they "turn away", and would then need to constantly mark where they are turning.
@@nomizak because then it's up to the stenographer to decide what extra detail they highlight, ie introduce their own bias. It would be very easy for someone to misrepresent on the record someone's behavior if they wanted to. "attorney turned back on witness" is different from "attorney turned around to grab some papers", but the latter could be presented on the record as the former if the stenographer wanted to. that's why lawyers will motion to add something to the record - it needs to be proceduralized.
"If the court would be so kind as to instruct the witness to answer my questions, I'd he happy to, Your Honor..." 😊 Judge: "Are you giving me an ultimatum??" "...No further questions." 😐
With how hard the sporothrix has always been to get, I love that it’s powerful now. I’m all for overpowered weapons being hard to get. If you spend hours farming or even plat to get a particularly hard to acquire weapon and then it ends up being trash it feels pretty bad
Our firemarshall told us we had too many chairs on the side of the windows at the dinner table. 3 were next to the window facing 2 more on the other side. 😮 In a fire having those chairs will be handy.
For folks who are speculating that judge should have intervened about the witness on their own-- Generally an attorney will have to ask the judge to do certain things because it is their role in the courtroom to do so. The judge is there to deal with matters of law rather than matters of fact. It is the role of the attorneys to present two different perspectives about the facts of the case given their understanding of the law. It is the role of the jury to make a binding determination of fact. The judge is there to protect the process of effectively writing a microhistory. The attorneys are there to present different histories. The jury is there to choose from the histories available to them within the rules of doing so. In this way, it helps to think of a courtroom almost like a play -- everyone has a role that they play to the best of their ability regardless of who they are out of character, and the system of roles is supposed to function under that assumption. Whether this high-minded ideal of justice plays out as intended is another story. But you'll often have judges let attorneys make obvious errors -- especially if these errors do not cause a violation of the legal process in and of themselves. It is also the role of the attorney to make mistakes every so often -- and it is not the role of the judge to save them from themselves, unless it would undermine the legal process (and not just the determination of facts specifically) *not to intervene*.
Depends on the judge on how much court etiquette is enforced or expected. I always try to know the judges attitude/quirks before entering the court room.
Was the guy negligent at all with the fire? Did his inaction cause your clients injury? I don’t understand why you don’t want the jury to pay attention to the fire marshal. Wouldn’t he be on your side?
well you see here the good thing is when i was out getting breakfast and i do like gettin breakfast i go to this mexican place and well you see they do this thing where they cook tortilla chips in a red sauce then put cheese and well sorry i forgot what the question was again somethin about vehicular manslaughter yeah he hit em yep.
Manipulate the jury? If you are asked a question and you are wasting everyone's time yapping about irrelevant things then asking the witness to do what they came to do is normal. Bro thinks everything we do ever is manipulation.
@@Ardentic-aa No but the lawyer questioning him might. No one here cares what you think about a witness not answering a question or answering it with a long and boring answer. The lawyer questioning him might however because it's possible it will affect the case.
Doing what you did and asking the judge to compel the witness to answer the question accomplish the same thing of making the witness look unreliable in front of the jury. However, what you did is more powerful because you're essentially giving a non-verbal plea for sympathy or empathy in having to deal with the uncooperative witness. If the jury didn't understand he wasn't being uncooperative, they probably do now through your body language. For some jurors though, it can make you look like a jerk, but I don't think that's the case here if he was obviously avoiding the question like you said.
Oh that's disrespectful? Ah, okay. Well then let's get down to it. *Proceed to force the witness to actually answer the questions every single time from there on out.*
So, justice is non existent. It’s about theatre, and cunning. Like Billy Flynn in the movie Chicago. The blindfolded lady is irrelevant. And this, fine young man, I believe, plays the game very well. It’s a shame a good mind like that is wasted.
Odd question, what would the legal and financial ramifications be if I were to assist a police officer who is in pursuit of a suspect vehicle by backing out of my driveway (on purpose) to have him hit my car? Would the suspect owe me money? Would the police department offer me anything?
So if you asked me "how, in your opinion, did the fire start?" And I say "well fires can be started in several different ways, but there always needs to be some source of activation energy to get the reaction going, be it from chemicals mixing like in a match, friction like when you rub two sticks together, electricity, either an arc or resistive heating. This initial activation energy must be released in the presence of 3 key things, a reducing agent, an oxidizer and an environment where the heat produced from the reaction will not diminish too quickly, you will have a hard time lighting a fire underwater, without any fuel or inside a cryogenic freezer. For the fire to remain self sustaining all 3 of these components must be there, and there must also not be anything that would impede the reaction on a chemical level, like bromide ions produced from the breakdown of halon gas, a rare, but potent fire suppressant. In this particular fire, I can say that all the above factors were present, initial activation energy, fuel, oxidizer, an environment conducive to slow heat transfer to the surroundings and a lack of chemical reaction inhibitors." You'd turn your back on me? Even though I'm educating the jury on fires in general? Despite not answering anything specific about this particular fire, other than it was, in fact, a fire?
I wouldn’t ask that question. Because on cross examination I only ask leading questions and not open ended ones, which allows me to keep control of the witness and either get a yes or no answer.
Imo, being disrespectful is only wrong if the person deserves respect. For a stupid example: disrespecting Hitler would actually be more moral than respecting him.
"Trying to divert their attention from him to me"...."Shouldn't listen to him". If I was the judge, I would have had you step outside the court room as the witness spoke since jury manipulation like that is more than just disrespectful, but immorally manipulative. You were trying to just have the jury completely ignore the otherside when the otherside is suppose to be heard out as well. It is fine to try to persuade the jury to your side, but this is just bad lawyer behavior.
Judge: "That was disrespectful."
Narrator: "It was."
funny cuz he is the first person narrator anyway
@@Vekcrazah he probably is a first time viewer and doesn’t know his name is Mike
I'm glad you're learning judge.
Always going to be less disrespectful than a first responder, or a fire martial/crime scene investigator not doing their job. They deserve to be ignored once they’re going to do a shoddy investigation and act like a clown on the stand.
"Please stop turning your back on the witness."
"When the witness stops turning his back on the question."
Damn, got ‘em 😂
And you'll be held in contempt or fined 😂
@@keiton9512judges be petty asf
@@chaosinsurgency6636they gotta keep order in court bruh it’s literally their job
@@zooniba It's a fair retort. The "witness" was being disrespectful by dodging questions but the judge was silent about that disrespect. Why only call out the disrespect of one party involved when their role is supposed to be impartial?
Yes, a judge must maintain order in their courtroom but they should do so equally or their order is arbitrary and meaningless.
Judge: "You're being disrespectful"
You: "oh good I thought I was being too subtle"
Hahaha
… I definitely was not being too subtle.
@@MikeRafiLawyer Did the judge get your point thought? That's the real question because lets be honest no matter your position some people are just DENSE AF.
As a former firefighter I can promise you fire marshals most of the time have no idea what they're actually talking about.
Its often an elected/appointed position, right? Rather than someone with actual experience working with fires?
@@razordrive3238 As I understand it, in the USA it depends on the state exactly how people are appointed/recruited to the role however I cannot find anything indicating it is an elected role. Many of the things I found looking online indicated if you aren't already a firefighter it is very unlikely you would end up being a fire marshal.
It means that guy got $10k to go on the stand as a, “expert”.
My local marshal is a 47-year experienced retired firefighter who turned down promotion to chief 6 times before they told him he was no longer allowed to haul hose because of his back, then he ran that department cleaner than any others I know of.
I wish all marshals were as good as he is, dude is 70 and takes his career seriously, he's got a mind like a steel trap and keeps up with code. He publicly dressed down an inspector in another jurisdiction for letting something slide during construction that most people wouldn't consider a big deal, but his public admonishment included the phrase, "fire codes are written with the blood and ashes of history," and even the reporters that were there had no follow-up questions for that.
But yeah, tons of them are nepotism and/or corruption in action.
@@thegurw1994 I worked at a volunteer station for about 10 years our chief was legit he used to be a captain for FDNY 911 even has a tool named after him because he invented it Rex Morrison I believe is his name
"The judge said that was disrespectful."
"It was." LMAO
Hey Stroheim
@@garrettcooper58 What are your thoughts on German science?
@@rudolvonstroheim3898best in the world!
@@rudolvonstroheim3898 the best in the world, obviously
@@garrettcooper58 You are correct.
Well judge, tell my witness to stay on topic then
The Judge is supposed to remain impartial. He just mentioned what he was supposed to do; ask the judge to have him answer the question. The judge didn't step in until the attorney was being blatantly and intentionally disrespectful. Even the dude that got scolded agreed with both of these points. It's not the judge's place to jump in during questioning a witness to assist the attorney. It IS their job to step on when someone is disruptive during questioning to maintain order, and in this case, it was the attorney that was being disruptive by being blatantly, and intentionally, disrespectful. So, I'm not gonna get mad at the judge for that one, especially when the guy that got scolded agreed with them.
@@chibigirl8545 except the fire Marshal in this case was being disruptive by going on tangents. If it doesn't go both ways, and the judge doesn't step in in both cases, they ARE NOT BEING IMPARTIAL.
You can ask the judge to instruct the witness to answer the question.
That may be a bit more effective than these pantomime performances as it is corroboration from the impartial arbiter that he is in fact not answering the question.
If you don't like his answers then get a rebuttal witness. You don't even have to clear it with discovery, it's a rare case where you can have a surprise witness.
@@chibigirl8545Actively avoiding answering questions so often the lawyer gets tired of it, decides to turn his back on such nonsense, and then continues avoiding answering questions so much that being ignored is becoming a problem. The judge should've stepped in at some point before that to keep order.
best reply would be along the lines of "I will when he gets back to the point"
No room for flippant talk to the judge.
@@eavening4149 I know. But I still feel that it should be allowed. I mean, if the witness can be going on total tangents and talking crap, the actual lawyers should be able to just talk directly. I feel like all the "correctness" and "mandatory politeness" in courtrooms is only muddying the whole matter. Speaking directly, without having to worry about being "excessively polite" is important for clear communication.
Or the witness was saying things he didn't want
We don't know what's really going on
If the witness was going off topic, the judge would've stopped him in the first place
@@eavening4149 Judge needs a grow a pair. You can give out life sentences, but you can't take sarcasm? Get real
Nah. Be atleast a bit subtle about it. Go along with it, apologize, and then the next time he goes off-topic start asking the judge to reign him in.
When my house caught fire a few winters ago because the landlord somehow passed code without actually being able to (everything was hooked to a single 15 amp circuit, EVERYTHING) the fire chief came only for the first fire where they ruled it as a power strip but not the second or third time (third time is when they discovered the absolutely fucked electrical system) so I was unable to get help to replace any of my kids clothing we lost from the Red Cross or even a settlement from the landlord given it was the dead of winter.
Growing up you think these people in high places earned it through merit, now as an adult I realize they usually do because no one wants to do it because it’s below what someone smarter could make
Bro really hit the “get a load of this guy”
Great example of why you should hire a Lawyer. Most people wouldn't know when you should risk being disrespectful. A Lawyer has more experience to gauge the risk vs reward.
Glad to know we in Athens, GA are screwed if there’s a fire 💀
Athens mentioned 🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥
Athens mentioned 🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥
@@pongopower218I love Greece!🇬🇷
That's not what he said. He said the investigator is not going to decide who's fault it was. Got nothing to do with your safety, quit being dramatic
@@SicFromTheKushhe said “if there’s a fire in Athens they’re not going to solve it.” That’s what I was commenting on.
If the jury didn't know what you were doing the Judge made it easy enough 😂
I’d be lying if i said I wouldn’t do the same 💀
Bro really pulled the “get a load of this guy” in court lmao
"I will respect the witness when he starts behaving like a witness instead of a noisemaker."
"Permission to treat the witness as hostile?"
"Do you two know each other?"
"She's my fiance'."
"That explains the hostility."
"Hostile? I'll show you hostile!" *sound of plastic breaking*
Guess you could say "We've got hostiles"
you can't treat the opposing side's witness as hostile, because 'treat the witness as hostile' is treating your own witness the way you would treat the opposing side's witness.
Judges "that's disrespectful"
Me "I hope so, I dont respect him"
I just love the trial tips on here. Too bad I am now retired but I would have liked to try them!
It's probably more than just disrespect, its impossible for the court reporter to record it. So basically an element of the case is off the record.
That's not true.
The record also doesn't catch tone. It doesn't see whether the witness is sweating and nervous or is confident. It doesn't see that the witness drank three glasses of water while he was on the stand.
That's one of the reasons that appeals courts don't generally look at factual findings, but only legal findings. Because the record is good for recording legal findings made by the judge. It cannot record factual findings made by a jury.
Why can't they just add a note that says defense attorney turned back to witness?
@@nomizakI guess they could mark certain behaviors as important enough to note down, but then you would need to record their alignment and where they are looking all the time.
At least I believe it would be dishonest to only mark when they "turn away", and would then need to constantly mark where they are turning.
@@nomizak because then it's up to the stenographer to decide what extra detail they highlight, ie introduce their own bias. It would be very easy for someone to misrepresent on the record someone's behavior if they wanted to. "attorney turned back on witness" is different from "attorney turned around to grab some papers", but the latter could be presented on the record as the former if the stenographer wanted to.
that's why lawyers will motion to add something to the record - it needs to be proceduralized.
Would you do it in another case today?
the micheal scott
I've seen a few of your shorts. They're very entertaining. Subscribed!
Between this stuff and the ties, I love your videos
Lawyers, better actors than most of Hollywood.
Good for you, Mike Rafi!
That is a hilarious and absolutely savage trail strategy, and sounds like it's out of a movie
"If the court would be so kind as to instruct the witness to answer my questions, I'd he happy to, Your Honor..." 😊
Judge: "Are you giving me an ultimatum??"
"...No further questions." 😐
Did bro just tell arsonists to head to Athens?
“Youre being disrespectful” “Yes”
“If theres a fire in Athens Georgia theyre not gonna solve it”
me: looks around in fear but potential
Forgot being disrespectful was a crime...
To be fair, I’m a lawyer and I didn’t know you’re not supposed to do that
From what I know about Athens GA this is completely what I expected from people in charge there XD
Lovely to hear the court room has lawyers who try to manipulate the jury rather than presenting their case. Hate them as much as I hate advertising.
Holy baby face Batman! So used to seeing you with a beard
I literally just saw this video on a tictoc ad
"It was" was cold
I do this to a coworker who incessantly interrupts conversations, or even interrupts your answers to his questions.
This is why we don't trust lawyers.
That's disrespectful.
That's the point.
Least despicable lawyer
Brilliant!
Genius. What that saying, never interrupt an opponent while they are making a mistake?
honestly that's exactly something this guy would do...
"I'm sorry, your honor, but i'm allergic to bullshit, and if i have to stare at him why he spews it i may explode in a rash of ....anger."
With how hard the sporothrix has always been to get, I love that it’s powerful now. I’m all for overpowered weapons being hard to get. If you spend hours farming or even plat to get a particularly hard to acquire weapon and then it ends up being trash it feels pretty bad
It’s a brilliant move though lol
What’s disrespectful is the witness wasting everyone’s time by not answering the questions in a sensible manner
Amen.
Cry about it lmfao
The most anticlimactic ending to a story ever
You're like the rockstar of attorneys
I do that to my kids and then look at my wife...😂
you look dapper btw
Got married in that suit
So do lawyers really need to study the law or jus psychology? It all jus sounds like mind games with the jury. 😂
Positions like that are full of "experts" that just start talking in circles😂
Ask any regular firefighter and they would would be 95+% accurate how the fire started and where not wanting to talk about anything else randomly😂
He's your witness 🤣
Our firemarshall told us we had too many chairs on the side of the windows at the dinner table. 3 were next to the window facing 2 more on the other side.
😮
In a fire having those chairs will be handy.
Not the Jim turn to the camera from the office
I’m half expecting this guy to do a fire inspector cert just to avoid this
So then I turned my back on the judge...
For folks who are speculating that judge should have intervened about the witness on their own--
Generally an attorney will have to ask the judge to do certain things because it is their role in the courtroom to do so. The judge is there to deal with matters of law rather than matters of fact. It is the role of the attorneys to present two different perspectives about the facts of the case given their understanding of the law. It is the role of the jury to make a binding determination of fact.
The judge is there to protect the process of effectively writing a microhistory. The attorneys are there to present different histories. The jury is there to choose from the histories available to them within the rules of doing so. In this way, it helps to think of a courtroom almost like a play -- everyone has a role that they play to the best of their ability regardless of who they are out of character, and the system of roles is supposed to function under that assumption.
Whether this high-minded ideal of justice plays out as intended is another story. But you'll often have judges let attorneys make obvious errors -- especially if these errors do not cause a violation of the legal process in and of themselves. It is also the role of the attorney to make mistakes every so often -- and it is not the role of the judge to save them from themselves, unless it would undermine the legal process (and not just the determination of facts specifically) *not to intervene*.
Mine straight up boycotted the guys yapping
Im really curious if you won that case now
Depends on the judge on how much court etiquette is enforced or expected. I always try to know the judges attitude/quirks before entering the court room.
I’d still do it again
@@MikeRafiLawyer 👍 I get it
Spicy! 😂😂😂
Did you and Alan Jackson go to the same school?
Well I hope to never need your services, I have dealt with those individuals in the past and I think you did right
Cool story bro
Why tf would the judge even care he did that. It's irrelevant to the situation at hand
Stop turning your back on the witness
Alright, Your Honor, are you gonna stop this? Oh yeah, I think that's still my job to say something...
Because it's not about the truth or who did what.
It's about manipulating the jury so you can make your money.
How low can you be?
Was the guy negligent at all with the fire? Did his inaction cause your clients injury? I don’t understand why you don’t want the jury to pay attention to the fire marshal. Wouldn’t he be on your side?
Slimeball does slime all things.
Were you in theater?
Jim Halpert vibes
Dudes in the wrong carrer with a mindset like that. Prob daddy forced him into the job
Inspectors name is John L ain’t it? Basket case
Trying to non-verbally manipulate the jury and distracting them from testimony is a good thing?
I also made bottom comment with my other comment here.
well you see here the good thing is when i was out getting breakfast and i do like gettin breakfast i go to this mexican place and well you see they do this thing where they cook tortilla chips in a red sauce then put cheese and well sorry i forgot what the question was again somethin about vehicular manslaughter yeah he hit em yep.
Manipulate the jury? If you are asked a question and you are wasting everyone's time yapping about irrelevant things then asking the witness to do what they came to do is normal. Bro thinks everything we do ever is manipulation.
@@mkmasterthreesixfive you've got time, let him talk, maybe it's relevant. i don't care that you can't muster up a longer attentionspan.
@@Ardentic-aa No but the lawyer questioning him might. No one here cares what you think about a witness not answering a question or answering it with a long and boring answer.
The lawyer questioning him might however because it's possible it will affect the case.
Doing what you did and asking the judge to compel the witness to answer the question accomplish the same thing of making the witness look unreliable in front of the jury. However, what you did is more powerful because you're essentially giving a non-verbal plea for sympathy or empathy in having to deal with the uncooperative witness. If the jury didn't understand he wasn't being uncooperative, they probably do now through your body language. For some jurors though, it can make you look like a jerk, but I don't think that's the case here if he was obviously avoiding the question like you said.
Oh that's disrespectful? Ah, okay. Well then let's get down to it. *Proceed to force the witness to actually answer the questions every single time from there on out.*
Bro got the Jim from the office look
Rip everyone at uga I guess 😂
He said here’s where your unrelated comments go: 🍑
So, justice is non existent. It’s about theatre, and cunning. Like Billy Flynn in the movie Chicago. The blindfolded lady is irrelevant. And this, fine young man, I believe, plays the game very well. It’s a shame a good mind like that is wasted.
Nice
This is totally unrelated but you remind me of an ISO auditor/trainer who is a delight as a trainer but would be a huge nightmare as an auditor.
NOT ATHENS, man that's rough 💀 is this the young one or the old one?
The now-retired one.
Just look at the jury the whole time but keep your body facing the witness a bit, might do the trick
Judge: You're being disrespectful to the witness.
Lawyer: He's disrespecting all our time by being an idiot, I'm just turning my back on him.
Can you comment on that clip where the lawyer was arrested in court for bringing up the judge's secret meeting with a witness?
the disrespect is insane 💀
Disrespect of who? A fire marshall that didn't answer or solve anything at all..
I mean you said it yourself..... And you're the lawyer..... You should've asked the judge to correct the witness....
Odd question, what would the legal and financial ramifications be if I were to assist a police officer who is in pursuit of a suspect vehicle by backing out of my driveway (on purpose) to have him hit my car? Would the suspect owe me money? Would the police department offer me anything?
I'm no lawyer but if you're backing out of your driveway the person on the road has right of way.
case in point: the law is hardly working these days
Oh wait, why dpes he look different in this one? I cant name why
So if you asked me "how, in your opinion, did the fire start?"
And I say "well fires can be started in several different ways, but there always needs to be some source of activation energy to get the reaction going, be it from chemicals mixing like in a match, friction like when you rub two sticks together, electricity, either an arc or resistive heating. This initial activation energy must be released in the presence of 3 key things, a reducing agent, an oxidizer and an environment where the heat produced from the reaction will not diminish too quickly, you will have a hard time lighting a fire underwater, without any fuel or inside a cryogenic freezer. For the fire to remain self sustaining all 3 of these components must be there, and there must also not be anything that would impede the reaction on a chemical level, like bromide ions produced from the breakdown of halon gas, a rare, but potent fire suppressant. In this particular fire, I can say that all the above factors were present, initial activation energy, fuel, oxidizer, an environment conducive to slow heat transfer to the surroundings and a lack of chemical reaction inhibitors." You'd turn your back on me? Even though I'm educating the jury on fires in general? Despite not answering anything specific about this particular fire, other than it was, in fact, a fire?
I wouldn’t ask that question. Because on cross examination I only ask leading questions and not open ended ones, which allows me to keep control of the witness and either get a yes or no answer.
Gotta love ath ga’s legal system, totally through & not sketchy at all….. 🙄
Is it bad to be disrespectful to a bad person?
Hey Im from there
Imo, being disrespectful is only wrong if the person deserves respect.
For a stupid example: disrespecting Hitler would actually be more moral than respecting him.
"Trying to divert their attention from him to me"...."Shouldn't listen to him".
If I was the judge, I would have had you step outside the court room as the witness spoke since jury manipulation like that is more than just disrespectful, but immorally manipulative. You were trying to just have the jury completely ignore the otherside when the otherside is suppose to be heard out as well. It is fine to try to persuade the jury to your side, but this is just bad lawyer behavior.
Okurrrrr