Where the hell are you getting that from? He was intentionally speaking in a different language to the one he was spoken in and refused to speak in English when warned. That's intentionally being difficult.
By that reasoning, every defendant who doesn't plead guilty is being "intentionally difficult". Resisting arrest is being intentionally difficult, and that's a crime. But this isn't a crime, but it's being "intentionally difficult". But every defendant who doesn't plead guilty is just being difficult. Like resisting arrest.......
Does it help if we both argue against ourselves, or is that more of a one person sort of thing?
Seriously, it's hard for me to tell if you're trying to make a coherent single argument, or arguing against yourself, because YOU said he was being "intentionally difficult", and now you're saying being "intentionally difficult" is "like" a crime.
That's not at all what I said, what part of context do you not understand?
Ad I said, "all of what you said" is that the defendant did not respond, that he did respond but not with his name, and that he did respond with his name, but in a different language. You've pretty well covered all the bases, even when they are contradictory as mutually exclusive.
I think he did nothing wrong. He did something wrong but it didn't violate any laws. He intentionally violated the law. Does that help?
Whether or not the judge knows him is irrelevant, he was asked to state his name for the sake of the record.
I agreed with that!! The relevant thing is whether the judge knows whether he was present. You, however, said it is relevant: "the judge made it clear that the Prof needed to identify himself for the record." The record would show he was there, if the judge admitted he was there. Ergo, the judge is being dishonest.
Now, maybe you aren't aware that being "for the record" for court isn't like roll-call at your school. It's not roll-call. It's... well, literally, writing it in a record that you were there. If the judge knows someone is there, then he could say "Let the record show he's here". You are technically right that it's irrelevant if how the judge knows he's there is by personal recognition.
And also things I didn't say. I said he chose not to respond for the record, not that he didn't respond at all.
Alright, my bad... You didn't say it, even though you just said you said it, while denying you said that you said it.
He did respond. He did respond with his name. He did respond with his name "for the record". Seriously, I really don't care how wrong, or contradictory, you want to be, but I will ask that you discontinue intentionally stating things you know to be false.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on ignorance... No defendant does anything "for the record". The judge REQUESTED INFORMATION, so that the COURT could record it. If the court recorder called in sick, that doesn't make the every defendant on the docket guilty of refusing to put something "in the record". The defendant literally has no choice whether something is "in the record" or not (aside from asking for a sidebar "in chambers"). If that were the case, every defendant who is judged guilty could just refuse "for the record". Again, the JUDGE asked "for the record", and the defendant RESPONDED WITH HIS NAME!
Why are you completely ignoring the record part here and sticking to the irrelevant "well the judge knew him" bit?
Because you're the one who said that, since it's not relevant, it is relevant. You said it's not relevant... because the judge had multiple ways to know whether he was there or not, including but not limited to the defendant TELLING HIM... But you claim it is relevant, because DESPITE knowing him, the judge demanded he provide his name, only to IGNORE HIS ANSWER.
Honestly, I don't care which side of the argument you want to take, it'd just be helpful to know which you choose. At this point, I just trying to explain to you what you said when refuting yourself. I've only just now got a word in edgewise between you arguing with yourself, and that's just to explain how at least one of you is outright wrong.
Not what happened, the judge asked him to respond for the record, Prof decided to say fuck it and was surprised when the case couldn't proceed and he got punished for it.
Again, you are... intentionally misrepresenting the facts. The defendant did respond. He did respond for the record. He did respond with his name for the record. Just as fair warning, if you either can't tell the difference between facts and made-up claims, or you chose to continue to intentionally present made-up claims as facts, then I'm simply not going to respond since I make it a general rule to not argue with people who lie.
Now, I don't know which part you support - the racism, the corruption, the punishment of innocent people, the violation of basic human rights, the autocracy, etc. - but even if your support it, that doesn't mean the harm is limited to one brown person.
And now we have the accusations of racism. Clearly this was an emotional argument for you all along.
Yes. Clearly the judge is showing racial bias, by denying specific human rights guaranteed in the constitution to a racial minority, specifically provided due to historical abuse. Not sure what qualifies as "racism" if violating someone's basic human rights based on race doesn't.