Alabama Judge Pulls Gun On Violent Defendant

Alabama Municipal Judge Carlton Teel is packing more than legal principles under his robe. When a defendant Brian (Bryant) Keith Ford reacted badly to a sentence and started swinging his crutches at the judge, Teel whipped out a gun and then a deputy shot Ford in the side.

Accounts differ on how much danger the man posed — with some witnesses saying that he was not attacking the judge when he was shot. Others say he tried to grab the gun.

Ford was in the courtroom on a harassment charge from a neighbor who said Ford had cursed at her in December after accusing her of talking about him to police.

Teel reportedly fined him $800 — a rather modest sum when one considers he now faces serious criminal charges and remains in critical condition.

The most disturbing account was:

Sara Williams said she was sitting in the front row when the man, whom she knew, got agitated after the judge fined him $800. He waved one of his crutches in the air.

“The police were hollering for him to get down” when an officer opened fire, she said.

Williams said she yelled “Don’t shoot him no more!” right before the officer fired again.

If that is true, it is hard to see why potentially lethal force was used. However, others describe Ford as attacking the judge.

Do you believe judges should be allowed to pack heat in a courtroom?

Source: ABA Journal

250 thoughts on “Alabama Judge Pulls Gun On Violent Defendant”

  1. @Brian: More lies; you claim my characterizations of you are my self-projection, and (as Buddha says) that is just a childish version of “I know you are,” trying to reflect my insults back at me. Even in children that displays a pathetic lack of imagination in insults, a marked failure of parental training in my view; children should be trained to live in the real world, and that includes giving as good as they get in an insult match.

    But the deeper meaning is that you do apparently have need of hateful words. The proof is that you cannot possibly know what is in my mind or what childhood abuse I suffered. So you lie. You cannot possibly know whether I am projecting or making a valid observation about your stupidity; because even the stupid think they are smart, and the stupider they are, the smarter they think they are.

    Insult by cowardly subterfuge. What you think is clever Ju Jitsu is actually kindergarten verbal aggression. But that’s fine, it confirms for me you have gotten the message, because even kindergartners understand when they use this little trick that the insults are real and intended for them, that the reflection is a weak counter-attack that doesn’t stick to their opponent, because it originated with their opponent. That is why they stop using this tactic, you dumbass.

    So I catch you lying once again.

  2. You’ve mistaken me for someone who cares what you do with your “research”, Brian. If it is of the same quality as your arguments/statements/rambling drivel against the rule of law and adversarial process? It’ll make a fine liner for a bird cage.

  3. Where in the realm of imagination did the notion come from that I am making any mistake? I am getting useful research data.

    When I have suitably analyzed the data, then I will share it with whosoever may find it useful…

    Mostly, I am learning really wild things about what has been named, “theory of mind.”

    I am not getting away with the data, I am merely getting it.

  4. No.

    I think you’re a long winded antisocial/anti-legalism propaganda troll who bleats nonsense obfuscated with bullshit in an attempt to spread your poison unchallenged.

    The only mistake here is you thinking you’re getting away with it.

  5. Hi Hi Hi
    (Ham radio talk)

    Think I argue here?

    Uh Uh…

    Thee may mistaken be regarding thy model of me…

  6. What you abhor is that no one is buying your antisocial/anti-legalism nonsense, Brian.

    A longer winded version of “I know you are but what am I” isn’t a winning argument either.

    If you don’t like that people are uncivil when you propagate ideas that are inherently anti-civilization?


    Then maybe Widdle Bwian should go play at the kiddie’s table where bad ideas and lies aren’t challenged with adult language and frankness.

    If this playground is too rough for your “delicate sensibilities”?

    That would be your problem, troll.

    Protest your “innocence” all you like.

    Your words have betrayed your intent.

  7. Delusional self-imago projection is a curious psychological defense.

    Those who understand depth psychoanalysis can recognize the way I gather research data by sending possible countertransferences which may elicit transferences.

    The transferences so elicited may be manifestations of time-corrupted-learning trauma, which, in sufficiently, chaotically decompensating people, may result in forms of intermittent explosive disorder (ICD-10 code F63.8).

    In the world of those who believe in the supposed way of most people and take that broad and easy path to (perdition?), every bit of real-world truth is known and understood to be false.

    Sociologist Donald R. Kraybill wrote of the inverted nature of what remains as mainstream society rather well in his book, previously mentioned, “The Upside-Down Kingdom.”

    Note how I have no need of hateful words such as may be found in the comment posted above by Tony C., on February 15, 2011 at 10:41 pm.

    Hateful words, in the right-side up world, are the refuge of those whose unresolved trauma is so unbearable as to compel scapegoating the innocent.

    I love these demonstrations of the tragedy of child abuse, though I abhor the abuse itself.

  8. By real world validation, you moron. Good information is true, by definition, and misinformation is a untrue, even a lie. Misinformation carries the threat of harm by tricking people into believing that reality is other than what it is. If I tell a blind man it is safe for him to cross the street, when it isn’t, and he believes me, he is endangered. If I tell my friend an investment is safe, when it isn’t, I put his financial security in danger. If I tell a volunteer a drug is safe, when it isn’t, I put their health in danger.

    You spread misinformation and put people in danger. I think you do it purposefully, making it lies, but either way you endanger the well being of others. Buddha is right, I respond to your misinformation because it is has negative value, and it should be pointed out you are an evil, worthless asshole.

  9. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 15, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    Suppose that everything I have ever been allowed to know is misinformation.

    How would I distinguish information from misinformation if all I have is misinformation?

    If all I have is misinformation, surely everything I learn from you is also misinformation, or surely, by now, I would have picked up some little bit of information, yet, as you and TonyC. resolutely inform me, I have nothing but misinformation.

    Do I have only misinformation solely because all anyone ever gives me is purely of misinformation?

    Or, are you deliberately giving me misinformation with your sole intended purpose being that I will never have anything other than misinformation?

    So, if you are misinforming me as has, according to how I understand your words, that I am misinformed because I am being misinformed about being misinformed, then you are right and all I have to share is misinformation because no one ever gave me anything except misinformation.

    Do I now understand that my “substance” is only misinformation because everyone who gives me any form of information only gives me that of misinformation?

    Or, am I misinformed about my “substance” being misinformation?

    Sure sounds like misinformation to me, but sounds like and is like are never the same, so I have been misinformed.

    Or, have been misinformed about being misinformed about being misinformed about being misinformed about being misinformed about being misinformed about being misinformed about being misenformed about being missinformed about being messinformed, ad infinitum +1?

    Methinks you are misinforming me.

  10. You spread misinformation, Brian.

    If you are claiming what you spread is no information?

    Why bother to spread it?

    Misinformation is your substance.

    It always merits response lest someone mistake it for valid fact.

  11. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 15, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    By what measure is no information misinformation?

  12. If I write words, and someone responds to the written words, and the written words are without information, to what does said someone respond?

  13. Blah blah blah.

    (Those three words have more informational content than anything Brian writes).

  14. Few people understand how reference dictionaries are produced. People take writings of diverse authors and identify particular words in context and thus, the meaning of a word is derived from its use, and not its use from its dictionary definitions.

    In my field work, I never defined the word, “mistake” because I knew, know, understood, and understand enough of communication theory and linguistics to be rather immune to the traditional errors of uninformed notions of human language.

    S. I. Hayakawa, in almost any edition of “Language in Thought and Action” deconstructs the unwitting superstitions regarding word connotation and denotation as well a may ever be useful. I read and studied that book.

    Who else here has?

    Sincere, unwitting ignorance often manifests itself as a masquerade of falsehood pretending to be truthful fact.

    I simply have no need of groupthink so that I can imagine myself to be an actual, real person.

    The simple observation that I am is all I can ever need. I cannot be validated by another person, and therefore, I cannot be invalidated by another person.

    All else is abusive, authoritarian despotic tyranny, so I always observe. As I am an authority only regarding myself, so I allow no one to have any authority whatsoever over me.

    Citing authoritarian sources which contain error merely replicates error.

  15. Methinks a word problem is, perhaps:

    In the Ebonics subculture within which I was raised,

    “don’t nohows done” is a triple negative, so that

    “don’t nohows done be” translates into Standard English as


    Oh. Sorry

    Methinks my use of words may be tainted.

    Tainted with agape, for my word often are agape with agape.

  16. Oh. Sorry.

    With the Affirmational Principle,


    Oh. Sorry about that.

    “SAY-SO” BE “BE-SO” only in the world of Authoritarian Tyranny.

    Or, am I Ms. Takun?

    Karotype: One X and one Y.
    I guess I cannot be Ms. Takun.
    One too many of Y, one two few of X.
    Three bad my brain hormone receptor biology does not understand that.
    Or, does it really understand all along the way?

    If not us, who?
    If not here, where?
    If not now, when?
    If not love, what?

  17. TonyC.

    Thanks for your continuing demonstration of the divide between “Normal Science” and “Scientific Revolutions.”

    You are a remarkably articulate presenter of the reason for Scientific Revolutions.

    Of course, anyone who really bought into the Adversarial Process as though it is other than deceptive will rant and rave and hurl every epithet imaginable at anyone who dares to notice that the emperor is simply not there!

    Keep up the good work, within its actual context, it is spectacular.

    Like a fireworks factory exploding!

    I love beautiful fireworks displays, so long as they do not actually damage people.

    Congratulations. You are doing as I would wish if I were ever wish for an impending psychological decompensation.

    Only, I find psychological decompensation sometimes problematic.

    So, wishing only the best for you, TonyC., I remain your brother in agape love.

  18. @Brian: Ah, I can not imagine caring less why you write as you write; I presume it is a pathetic attempt to appear different.

    Somebody has negative IQ when their intelligence is used to harm themselves more than help themselves. I think you do have negative IQ. It is not necessary to read your dissertation before refuting it, the abstracts you have provided here suffice: You redefine words without any justification for the redefinition; and that is self-serving, and the product is self-serving drivel. Prove there are no mistakes using the consensus definition of “mistake,” “error,” “poor reasoning,” etc, as found in Webster’s or another recognized reference dictionary, and you might have something: But you do not, and cannot.

    Let me point out you already rely upon those reference works for the words used to build your private definition; but you provide no justification for inventing private definitions for some words but not others. “Mistake” is already an English word, it already has a defined meaning, claiming that your new definition is “error free” without any proof of that claim is just hand waving bullshit. I don’t get to redefine what a contour integral is in my work, I don’t get to redefine the meaning of “matrix multiply” in order to prove an eigenvalue theory. You don’t get to redefine “Mistake” or “Preventable” or “Error” in your work and have any hope of it making sense.

    Which of course it doesn’t. If I get to redefine birds as pigs, it isn’t hard to prove that pigs can fly. But that is just a word game, and it isn’t going to fool anybody out there that what they think of as a “pig” can fly.

    The same goes for your idiot’s rant of a dissertation. All you have shown, and convinced some failed, corrupt academics to let you join their ranks of failed, corrupt academics, is that if people accept your absurd redefinitions of known words, then some other absurdities follow.

    What a waste of your life. Go to and buy a goat, you owe us at least that, and maybe if you buy enough of them your life of insidious bullshit can still mean something to humanity.

Comments are closed.