A defendant who was captured in courtroom video leaping over a judge’s bench and attacking her, touching off a bloody brawl, is scheduled to appear before her again Monday morning.
In his Jan. 3 appearance before Clark County District Court Judge Mary Kay Holthus, Deobra Redden, who was facing prison time for a felony battery charge stemming from a baseball bat attack last year, tried to convince the judge that he was turning around his violent past.
Redden asked for leniency while describing himself as “a person who never stops trying to do the right thing no matter how hard it is.”
But when it became clear Holthus was going to sentence him to prison time, and as the court marshal moved to handcuff and take him into custody, Redden yelled expletives and charged forward. People in the courtroom audience, including his foster mother, began to scream.
Not necessarily. If they actually were reformed and the judge wasn’t hearing it, the sentencing wasn’t correct.
Dude leaped over the bench and beat her ass and you think he’s reformed lmao
You understand though, he was angry in that situation that he was going to face consequences, it’s totally different.
??? Being grumpy about something warrants physical assault, huh
The comment heavily reads like sarcasm.
Good thing we all decided we were too sensitive for the ol’ /s and that this kind of misunderstanding never happens
If you need a /s to realize that was sarcasm you don’t have the reading comprehension/social skills to be on the internet by yourself anyway.
I had that attitude until I stumbled on people who clearly must live in upside-down world. The “/s” is essential for a site where that relies on text as the medium and where people will have no prior knowledge of the writer.
Sarcasm in the real world can usually be understood through body language and tone. We don’t have that here.
deleted by creator
Lol talking about social skills while not knowing that sarcasm is generally conveyed with changes and tone and other markers that aren’t possible with text…
I picked up on that being sarcasm just fine. The context of the comment was plenty to assume that.
Poe’s law is an adage of internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author’s intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
Yes, those are the ones that shouldn’t be on the internet unsupervised.
From the article:
I’m not saying he can’t turn his life around, but I’d venture to say he hasn’t been reformed yet. Most functional citizens know by 30 that you can’t assault a judge.
Most nonfuctioning citizens do too
I mean I’ll say he can’t turn his life around. Multiple violent offenses is the entire point of jail. People like that should be permanently removed from society.
deleted by creator
No, not everyone can. Some people are irredeemable, and some crimes are unforgivable and should result in permanent removal from society regardless of reformation.
This is a dude that has multiple convictions for increasingly escalating violent assaults. This most recent one was for beating someone nearly to death with a baseball bat.
How many chances should he get to kill someone?
Fucking idiots will bend over backwards to defend violent scumbags before defending the innocent people these fucks prey on.
deleted by creator
You didn’t say change. You said turn their life around. Don’t change your words now, bud. To which I said, no not everyone can turn their life around. Some people are only capable of getting worse.
And sure that’s the point of the criminal justice system, ideally.
The point of jail/prison itself is to keep offenders segregated from society while that happens, with security levels matching the severity and risk of the offender. For those that cannot be reformed or have committed unforgivable crimes, the point is to permanently segregate them from society to prevent them from further harming it.
deleted by creator
My god you really have no reading comprehension do you? Or you just don’t know how to have a good faith conversation.
YOU started with the colloquialism. That was entirely you. I never used it other than responding to YOUR use of it.
I know what it means, and I am arguing that SOME people are NOT capable of changing for the better. SOME people only change for the worst.
Violent crimes are also not “making a mistake”, ffs. They are a conscious act to decide to severely harm another person. In this dudes case he consciously made the decision to try to end another person’s life by violently beating them with a baseball bat. After having repeated other offenses of violently attacking others and being given chances to reform.
And even then he was given incredible leniency by having the charge dropped from assault with a deadly weapon to attempted assault causing substantial bodily harm.
the only part i disagree with is “entire adult life”
at 30 dude hasn’t had an entire adult life yet so that seems prejudicial
The lengths some people go to defend criminals is worrying. Dude proved he hasn’t reformed by leaping across the bench and attacking the judge sentencing him, after pleading his case talking about how he is reformed, and you’re still trying to defend him.
Perhaps consider the impact this clearly unreformed criminal will have on the impact of society and perhaps his other future victims.
FWIW, I’m not defending him at all, I’m saying he hasn’t been reformed.
I’m saying he needs a lot more work to get there.
They weren’t reformed. Jumping the judge proves that.