Judge faces lawsuit after forcing student to put on jail garments and handcuffs and enter isolated holding cell
A Detroit judge who briefly detained a teenage girl who fell asleep in his courtroom during a school field trip to learn about the justice system was demoted to presiding over traffic court as he faces a federal lawsuit.
Judge Kenneth King was moved to the state court’s traffic division after the incident on 13 August. King was temporarily removed from the bench as he completed mandatory training following his actions.
“We appreciate his efforts in preparing for this role, and wish him success as he transitions into this new responsibility,” said the chief judge, William McConico, in a statement.
This guy gets demoted and Eileen Cannon gets nothing? Total BS
On a side article about her suing this asshole, there is the following quote:
Eventually, King asked Goodman’s peers by a show of hands to indicate whether he should let her go or send her to jail. Amid nervous laughter, most agreed he should show leniency, according to the video, which has since been removed from YouTube.
What the actual frack? How do people like this become a judge?
The lawsuit lists a litany of alleged violations of constitutional rights. That includes unreasonable search and seizures, being detained without due process, being compelled to provide evidence against herself, not getting the chance to hire a lawyer of her choosing and protection from “unusual punishment.”
Yeah, this. When you don’t even know the basic laws that you’re supposed to uphold, how the frack do you become a judge?
Good. Powertrip consequences.
Imagine getting him for your traffic court hearing.
King is facing a federal lawsuit filed by Eva Goodman, 15, and her mother, Latoreya Till, after Goodman was forced to put on jail garments, handcuffed and put in an isolated holding cell during an educational trip to King’s courtroom.
The trip certainly was educational, though probably not in the way the school intended.
Ironically the judge got himself an educatin’ too didn’t he. Fuck around power tripping and find out.
But perhaps exactly what was (unfortunately) needed;
Don’t assume institutions and those in power or authority are anything more than fallible efforts. Ever.
The bigger picture here is that he had an active YouTube livestream with roughly a 1000 fans that he used to interact with while in cases over the last few years. He even repositioned the cameras for them while he was harrasing that poor girl.
Its clear that his treatment of her was not only an ego trip, but one done for views.
Hmm the world has already turned more dystopian than I had assumed
What in the fuck? I’m surprised they even let cameras in the courtroom, let alone let the judge be a streamer!
They are public places with public proceedings. For the most part, you can just go in and sit down and watch a case, assuming there is space.
My local court house makes all non-lawyers leave their phones in their cars. You can watch all you want, but only with your eyes. They won’t let you through the metal detector with a phone.
Well there’s a difference between them streaming things to the public for the sake of transparency, and you taking private videos for god knows what.
It varies wildly by location as to whether or not recording equipment is allowed in. Why do you think courtroom sketch artists are still a thing?
I can see a certain angle where it makes sense: youth/general outreach, educating people about the court system. Something a little more interactive/entertaining than CSPAN, but more real than Judge Judy.
But you throw “influencer culture” into the mix and you’ve got a disastrous recipe for The Chat influencing the outcome of cases.
The only way I could see it potentially working is if there’s like a team who handles the whole thing.
Maybe there’s one or two cameras, one facing the courtroom and the other facing the judge. The judge doesn’t see any screens of any kind, and doesn’t have access to a keyboard or anything to interact with a chat, if there even is one; ideally there would be no chat and it would just be a stream you watch. If there is a chat, someone else should be handling it and possibly not even in the same room.
My link goes into it, but thats what the court oversight commission in the state wants. An inhouse system where streams and their features are centrally controlled. They have not been able to get funding to stand that up, but they have been advocating for it.
Their current recommendation is that YouTube comments be disabled, but they don’t have the legal mandate to enforce that apparently. This judge’s shitty behaviour may help them make that case at least.
streaming is actually not that unheard of.
https://youtube.com/@honjcedricsimpsonlivefeed4076
https://youtube.com/@highcourtofmeghalaya
Demoted for illegally kidnapping a child. Wild. Better than nothing I guess.
He’s an elected judge. I don’t know Michigan’s laws but there might not be much more that can be done by the court administration themselves. I personally also took Chief Judge McConico’s statement as a tactful ‘fuck you’ to Judge King.
Yep. Everyone wants blood but can’t get past the fact that there are laws and procedures.
Innocent until proven guilty in matters of law, for better AND for worse.
Ya, that’s only when you are on trial, and he isn’t on trial or even being legally charged with a crime. There is also a video of the incident, so there really is zero ambiguity here.
Yes, hence the “AND for worse” part
Yeah I’m not at all surprised it happened, I am surprised there was some sort of consequence, weak as it is.
I was so, so waiting for consequences to finally reach this asshole. Reminder that this teenage student and her family *were experiencing homelessness and was apparently exhausted trying to meet all her responsibilities! She needed an advocate, not a bully. This is the type of person that demands respect from you, while not valuing you as a human, beyond considering what you can do for him. I hope he endures excruciating traffic cases until he is removed from the bench…
EDIT: Changed to people-first language.
She was homeless, not ✨ unhoused ✨. Stop trying to minimise other people’s suffering
Ah yes, pretend outrage.
I sure everyone understood what was meant by that. Stop creating an issue over nothing.
People can call them whatever they want. You can call them homeless, unhoused, unsheltered, houseless, displaced, vagrant, destitute, loiterers, whatever language helps you talk about homelessness in a way that actually helps people and doesn’t obfuscate the issue.
“Unhoused” is callous and “homeless” is not?
While others are downvoting you for missing the point (possibly because I was already attempting to consider them with empathy and dignity), I probably should have actually said “person experiencing homelessness”, and have edited it as such.
In 2020, an entry on homelessness was added to The Associated Press Stylebook noting how “Homeless is generally acceptable as an adjective to describe people without a fixed residence” and that reporters should use person-first language to "avoid the dehumanizing collective noun the homeless, instead using constructions like homeless people, people without housing or people without homes.”
Interestingly, the quote notes that using homeless as an adjective is fine, while using it as a noun is not. I did not know that!
Oh shit, I’m sorry. I didn’t know you were a Associated press reporter. My bad 😔
it’s OK, we all make mistakes 🙂
How the fuck is that your only takeaway from that comment? Go play a game or something lol
People who are unhoused are not always homeless. Many unhoused people have homes in tents, camps, etc.
The term homeless is often used to obscure these homes so that residents can be attacked, dispossessed, encaged, etc.
They should demote him to defendant.
If I was the family of this girl I’d want to sure this dude so hard he’d end up living in a box under a bridge. Then go find him and take away his box.
Ya, I agree that they should 100% get some sort of monetary compensation for this. The issue is that the judge has a lot of money and can get a much better lawyer than them. They are already close to being homeless so I don’t imagine they can afford a good lawyer, there may be 1 or 2 who would take the case Pro Bono but I’m betting most would offer to do it for 40% of the winnings.
40% of the winnings is a bargain. The difference in good lawyers is both the time spend on your case, and how much they win.
That 60% wouldn’t be gotten without the lawyer.
Yeah I know. We live in hell.
Dude had a fucking power boner.
He saw a tired teenager who was bothering nobody as an opportunity to wave his dick around.
