Current Events > Louisiana judge resigns and apologizes following video with racial slurs

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/31/us/louisiana-lafayette-judge-resignation-racial-slurs/
This crosses the line in my opinion. A video recorded in the judge's home was released by an unknown party. In the video she used some racial slurs which - while offensive - shouldn't impact her job. She recently resigned, and I think it's crazier that no one is more outraged by someone releasing a video recording in another's private dwelling. I'm not on board cause she isn't the only one saying such things. Thoughts?

Good.

So she shouldn't resign because there are plenty of racist judges out there?

A fucking judge is supposed to be the most unbiased person in the world. Fairest next ive seen in a long time.

Vampirehuntr posted...

In the video she used some racial slurs which - while offensive - shouldn't impact her job.

When your job is literally judging people and deciding how long they should be locked up, yes you should lose your job if you are racist.

Fuck her. Next every case she ruled on with a black defendant should be reviewed for racial bias.

I'm not agreeing with WHAT she said, but my concern is around HOW that information was released. For example, if I record our conversation (without your consent) in a two-party consent state it won't (I believe) be admissible as evidence in court.

Commute the sentences of all black people she sentenced for nonviolent crimes. And the rest should still be reviewed.

justaguy3492 posted...

Fuck her. Next every case she ruled on with a black defendant should be reviewed for racial bias.

Her backlog is already being looked into.

TC, how could you possibly think that she shouldn't resign.

This video wasn't hacked out of her shit, it looks like someone in her family knew that their mom was racist and terrible shouldn't be a judge, so they posted it.

Vampirehuntr posted...

I'm not agreeing with WHAT she said, but my concern is around HOW that information was released. For example, if I record our conversation (without your consent) in a two-party consent state it won't (I believe) be admissible as evidence in court.

Obviously someone knew she was a piece of shit behind the scenes and thought she deserves to be ruined. Completely fine by me.

Vampirehuntr posted...

I'm not agreeing with WHAT she said, but my concern is around HOW that information was released. For example, if I record our conversation (without your consent) in a two-party consent state it won't (I believe) be admissible as evidence in court.

We are not talking about court. We are talking about the court of public opinion.

No one is saying she should be in jail. The standard for something like this does not have to meet the rigorous requirements of presenting evidence at trial. She does not get to be protected from the 4th amendment because nobody searched through her stuff. She assumed that all her family and friends were just as racist as her, but guess not everyone is a total piece of shit.

Vampirehuntr posted...

I'm not agreeing with WHAT she said, but my concern is around HOW that information was released. For example, if I record our conversation (without your consent) in a two-party consent state it won't (I believe) be admissible as evidence in court.

This isn't court though. She isn't facing legal challenges.

Is it just it being a video that bothers you? If the person verbally told the news what was said, would you still have an issue.

Robot2600 posted...

Her backlog is already being looked into.

TC, how could you possibly think that she shouldn't resign.

This video wasn't hacked out of her shit, it looks like someone in her family knew that their mom was racist and terrible shouldn't be a judge, so they posted it.

I'll acknowledge that a judge should be unbiased and said video indicates her disdain for Black people. I was wrong in my initial assessment. If it were her family member, I can see that happening to expose their mother/cousin/sister/aunt or whatever her relation is to said person. In this case, it's a moral win because a racist is removed.

I'm thinking about ways that releasing something recording at one's private home could have the opposite effect. Example, you get WASTEDDDD at a party at your home with a few strippers. Someone releases that and says "This guy is a teacher and he's living this awful life, get rid of him!"

This is NOT the case with a racist judge - and I retract my stance saying she should remain - but I hope my concern is coming across a bit better now? It's not the racist judge being removed but the mechanism for removal.

emblem boy posted...

Is it just it being a video that bothers you? If the person verbally told the news what was said, would you still have an issue.

I wouldn't have an issue with someone verbally telling the news.

A person using racial slurs is pretty damn positive evidence that they're not unbiased. Fuck 'em.

Vampirehuntr posted...

I wouldn't have an issue with someone verbally telling the news.

Why is that different?

Vampirehuntr posted...

I'm thinking about ways that releasing something recording at one's private home could have the opposite effect. Example, you get WASTEDDDD at a party at your home with a few strippers. Someone releases that and says "This guy is a teacher and he's living this awful life, get rid of him!"

Lol, I mean, if you want to push for stronger worker and labor legal protection, I'll back you up.

But like, this has always been a thing. I mean, you could get fired for a large amount of social taboos in the past. So I'm hoping you're not thinking this is done new phenomena

Vampirehuntr posted...

I'll acknowledge that a judge should be unbiased and said video indicates her disdain for Black people. I was wrong in my initial assessment. If it were her family member, I can see that happening to expose their mother/cousin/sister/aunt or whatever her relation is to said person. In this case, it's a moral win because a racist is removed.

I'm thinking about ways that releasing something recording at one's private home could have the opposite effect. Example, you get WASTEDDDD at a party at your home with a few strippers. Someone releases that and says "This guy is a teacher and he's living this awful life, get rid of him!"

This is NOT the case with a racist judge - and I retract my stance saying she should remain - but I hope my concern is coming across a bit better now? It's not the racist judge being removed but the mechanism for removal.

This makes more sense. We all could be "canceled" for something. Teachers, especially, face pressures to be virginal role-models. I don't think that's okay, but a virulently racist judge on the bench is about the largest miscarriage of justice possible.

emblem boy posted...

Why is that different?

Lol, I mean, if you want to push for stronger worker and labor legal protection, I'll back you up.

But like, this has always been a thing. I mean, you could get fired for a large amount of social taboos in the past. So I'm hoping you're not thinking this is done new phenomena

This also. Being queer, being trans, being gender non-conforming can all lead to you getting "cancelled" at work where all of a sudden you get disciplined for small, inconsequential things until they find an excuse to get rid of you. I've had it happen to me, and you can read a lot of stories about it online.

User Since: Nov 2004
Karma: 1027
Active Posts: 38

emblem boy posted...

Why is that different?

Good question. I think of it like this. Telling someone I had sex with LaShawndra is different than showing a video.

If I invite you to my house, I can't expect you to remain silent on everything but recording and releasing that content? IMO that's different. May not be right, but that's how I view it. :-)

A judge's job relies very heavily on public trust, and once comments like this become public it throws that trust out the window. The idea that it shouldn't matter because she said it at home is frankly stupid as fuck

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


City court judge, not federal.

this is something that impacts her ability to do her job fairly and properly, so fair next

How does that not impact her job? A racist judge can hardly be impartial. Yikes, TC

lilORANG posted...

How does that not impact her job? A racist judge can hardly be impartial. Yikes, TC

Someone in the thread I acknowledge my mistake by saying it shouldn't affect her job. It was moreso on the method the info was released. Let me find it.

Fair, but fuck the person who recorded.

lilORANG posted...

How does that not impact her job? A racist judge can hardly be impartial. Yikes, TC

Here is the post I made acknowledging my error:
"...

I'll acknowledge that a judge should be unbiased and said video indicates her disdain for Black people. I was wrong in my initial assessment. If it were her family member, I can see that happening to expose their mother/cousin/sister/aunt or whatever her relation is to said person. In this case, it's a moral win because a racist is removed.

I'm thinking about ways that releasing something recording at one's private home could have the opposite effect. Example, you get WASTEDDDD at a party at your home with a few strippers. Someone releases that and says "This guy is a teacher and he's living this awful life, get rid of him!"

This is NOT the case with a racist judge - and I retract my stance saying she should remain - but I hope my concern is coming across a bit better now? It's not the racist judge being removed but the mechanism for removal.

..."

Vampirehuntr posted...

I'm not on board cause she isn't the only one saying such things.

...

_Krave_ posted...

Fair, but fuck the person who recorded.

Yeah, my point. F*** the person who recorded. If they felt strongly about her racist actions, they could have called her out during the video. I haven't watched the whole thing...maybe they did? I'll acknowledge when I'm wrong.

Tyranthraxus posted...

...

I've acknowledged my previous errors. Said somewhere in this thread.

I think they'll find the person that took the vid

Yeah, how dare someone release a video of a family member using racial slurs who happens to also be a government official who sees over cases that may have black people involved. Clearly someone using derogatory words like that couldn't be systemically biased, right?

Vampirehuntr posted...

but my concern is around HOW that information was released.

Not applicable.

For example, if I record our conversation (without your consent) in a two-party consent state it won't (I believe) be admissible as evidence in court.

But we're not in trial court.

We're in the court of public opinion.

Which is still important.

I've gone up infront of several judges who treat my minority clients a lot worse than my white clients, all who have the same circumstances. Racism in the judicial bench is pretty common and it's really hard for a judge to lose their job. "Calling them out" really just leads to them being transferred to another seat.

Also isn't Louisiana a one-party consent state? Pretty sure it is.

Ps2Twilight posted...

Also isn't Louisiana a one-party consent state? Pretty sure it is.

Why sir I believe it is.

The person who released the recording did the right thing tbqh

Sometimes the truth hurts.

The person recording the video did society a service. It was the morally correct thing to do. Making a racist judge lose her seat is a good thing.

Vampirehuntr posted...

Good question. I think of it like this. Telling someone I had sex with LaShawndra is different than showing a video.

If I invite you to my house, I can't expect you to remain silent on everything but recording and releasing that content? IMO that's different. May not be right, but that's how I view it. :-)

Snitching is snitching. Not sure why it would matter if it was by word of mouth or video or audio.

Audio and video are just more verifiable.

Vampirehuntr posted...

I'm not agreeing with WHAT she said, but my concern is around HOW that information was released. For example, if I record our conversation (without your consent) in a two-party consent state it won't (I believe) be admissible as evidence in court.

this isnt a court case. Ironically.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

The person recording the video did society a service. It was the morally correct thing to do. Making a racist judge lose her seat is a good thing.

Yeah this. I'm ok with secretly recording racist judges to get them out of office.

It's also ironic that part of her explanation was that someone gave her a sedative (xanax or something like it) and not that she had a script for it. She would almost certainly convict someone of possessing a pill without a prescription. She thought she was above the law. She thought she was special, and she definitely thought the rules didn't apply to her. She was burgled and had emotional ptsd, but she's laughing about it like the queen of england in the video.

Recording someone is pretty much the only way to get the ones in power.