August 31, 2011

Analogizing the Wisconsin Supreme Court "chokehold" incident to... basketball.

This is email from a reader, which I am posting in full, without additional comment, except to say that it's a theory and I don't agree with every aspect of this theory, nor do I understand whether the statements made about the rules of basketball are entirely correct. This is a framework for discussion, presented in that spirit. (If you need more background on the incident, click the Wisconsin Supreme Court tag and scroll.)

A reader writes:
I admire your blog and, as a distinctly separate matter, some evident personal traits. You are willing to research, document and state clearly, the conclusions you draw from those findings. That, though important, is secondary to your tenacity. I have read every post on the Prosser-Bradley Affair known as the "Choke-Hold Incident" and until recently, every comment made to each. It is evident by the content of your posts that you have intentionally avoided a "post simply to post" redundancy, keeping it fresh by adding newly found material and incorporating new conclusions in their proper place, to include a summary and time-line when it became appropriate.

Still, even with such praise, I write with some objections because I believe that this issue is of major importance, not just for the city or your state but nationally, and this will only become obvious in time, when looking back on it. The principle reason that I have become reluctant to read every comment is not because of the sheer number of contributions, but their repetition and the rather narrow framework within which the issue has fallen, in the matter as it is addressed.

Perhaps I should tell you why I do not like or follow sports.
There were many new rules being crafted, and I won't detail them but will use basketball as an example. In one particular, very close championship game, I lost a bet with a friend. I lost because my friend was a coaching expert and had been called in to counsel a player on "How to get an opposing player to foul him." I later learned that this was a known "tactic," acknowledged and named as an "intentional foul" which was itself a violation having a penalty if caught doing it. It is, in and of itself, a foul because an intentional foul is recognized as an intent to break the rules (laws) that are the fabric of agreement for the game in an acknowledged attempt to gain illegal advantage and unearned gain.

What Bradley did, suddenly standing, the rushed approach, the confusing gestures, the close body proximity and even the unusual and unexpected language all read, almost word for word as those instructions for creating an intentional foul. Abruptly standing draws attention, the quick approach focuses that attention, the gestures are specifically intended to create the idea that one thing is going to happen while it will not, and the emphasized "BUDDY..!" cements the idea, the emotional response and, at its best, the target becomes both defensive and irate.

It is important to note that, while I learned this many years ago, like the steps of known "Con Jobs" each of these have now expanded in use and are so well known that they have individual names. From "The Fake" to "The Distraction" to "Trash Talking" each has predictable and reliable results. The gestures, in particular, practiced and done correctly, will produce the desired and unavoidable reaction; in fact even being told that a person will approach and "throw a punch" at your face I doubt that you could prevent a defensive reaction of some kind. Try it with a harmless ball of foam thrown at your face to verify.

I am not normally a conspiracy theorist but I propose that this is more, much more, than a spontaneous incident. This was not only planned but all indications are that it required coaching and possibly (repeated) rehearsal. Many of the remaining portions indicate the same, in support and intent, from the threat to "take it public" to the outraged emphasis on details of what and who was told and the perfect timing of each.

You have the correct handle on this: the origin of the leak to the newspaper columnist. You might suggest that all known parties volunteer to publicly waive any claims and support the disclosure by that columnist. No, I do not think that a biased columnist would do that, even under those circumstances, but as there are a limited number of first-hand possibilities that might force at least a "reassurance contact" from the responsible party. It would also leave the columnist at a loss for adequate, possibly awkward, explanation.

Good work, and keep at it. The matter of exposing those, in sports or in politics, willing to cheat the game for gain is important.

This issue applies to other sports as well, simply look at the newest rule changes, often being those to correct similar previous incidents. A switch to chess as player or observer, makes cheating much less a concern.

59 comments:

Surfed said...

As Smokey Robinson would say - "I second that emotion".

Lincolntf said...

I read the e-mail, and I get what the writer is saying, but I do not believe that Bradley needed any coaching or rehearsal to act the way she did. By all accounts, she has a weird fixation with "protecting" Abrahamson (is that the name?) and a huge chip on her shoulder with regard to Prosser. I think it was more a matter of her going over the line, panicking and immediately trying to cast Prosser as the aggressor.

For what it's worth, most intentional fouls are called when a player is approaching the basket unimpeded and the defender catches up in time to grab their arms, ride up their back, even grab their shirt, but not in time to defend the ball. It's a legit tactic that every team coaches and employs. Never let a man score an automatic two, send him to the line.

Hagar said...

I am not ready to go all conspiracy theorist.

However, with all the speculation, myself included, and conflicting data being flung around, could the Professor provide the correct height and weight data for the principals, so that we can at least get that much straight?

dbp said...

When I read the details of the altercation my initial reaction was that Bradly is just "psycho", but I think your writer may be on to something.

If Bradly was so agitated as to rush Prosser and then add to that surprise at being "choked", it seems implausible that she would suddenly regain her composure to type up an incident report.

What made me think Bradly was crazy was her insistence on pushing the narrative that she was attacked, even when other justices were not responding as if Prosser was the aggressor. If it was a planned incident, then her actions make sense as just trying to stick with the plan in spite of the plan not coming off perfectly.

dbp said...

I think what the writer meant by "intentional foul", is actually referred to as "drawing a foul". This is where you use tactically use your position to create a situation where another player almost cannot help but to foul you.

virgil xenophon said...

Well, to continue the Basketball "meme" I would point out as a long time player, coach and now fan what even the average knowlegeable fan knows (let alone players or coaches): It's almost ALWAYS the "retaliation foul" or "shove/elbow-back" etc., that gets first observed by the refs and gets called, NOT the original foul which is usually missed by the refs--just as was the case in this instance, where the "protective reaction" became the FIRST subject of scrutiny and criticism and NOT the initial bull-rush charge by what later became known only in the fullness of time as the obvious aggressor.

Mogget said...

Six months ago I would have laughed. Now, I'm not so sure. The longer this goes on, the more I think that Bradley is pretty wacko.

Scott M said...

How do we get through an entire basketball choking analogy without one mention of Sprewell? Not to mention the apologists that came out in droves afterward?

Tim said...

In life, as in sports, often the one who responds to provocation is penalized, not the instigator.

And it's not like the Left never intentionally instigates normal people, do they.

It's almost as if some Leftist once rules about this, eh?

Writ Small said...

Nicely written. Good analogy about Bradley "drawing a foul."

Too little evidence to support pre-planning. More likely Bradley was smarting from the Kloppenburg loss and simply lost her composure.

Watch the recent Bobby Fischer documentary if you don't think chess players can force errors on their opponents.

trumpetdaddy said...

I get what the email writer is saying. It is generally the second player in an on-court incident who gets penalized/sent off because the official generally doesn't seen the initial contact, only the retaliation.

You see it in hockey and football and other sports, as well. A player hits another player in the course of play, or mouths off about his mother, or some such. The retaliating player is the one caught and sent off, thus validating the inciting tactic and giving the advantage desired.

Fans of various sports could probably name off the top of their head players in their sport who routinely engage in such tactics.

exhelodrvr1 said...

The writer is referring to "flopping," where a player exaggerates the amount of contact with an opponent so that the ref will call a foul. It's especially bad in soccer, but is becoming a more frequent occurrence in basketball. Whether it's poor sportsmanship or just smart play usually depends on whether or not it's "your" team that benefits.

bagoh20 said...

It's possible but I don't think coaching or planning was necessary. It is in a basketball game, because you need to do it often and and it's expected. It's a skill developed to work with many people and referees watching, but some people just act this way naturally when stressed, or irritated.

I'm not sure which is more damning anyway: that she planned it first, or just couldn't control herself. One is evil, one is weak, but both are dangerous and warrant removal in my opinion.

The motivation doesn't really matter. She chose to do it, and was not in anyway forced into it. The only acceptable excuse is that she had a seizure, which still requires her to step down.

phx said...

Ah me. Reason flies the coop.

traditionalguy said...

That is a very good analysis.

Even a shoving and touching sport will have anti contact rules against intentional striking that will be enforced as are assault and battery misdemeanors.

(Hockey is in another world)

The person who instigates the intentional striking is often overlooked as only doing an accidental movement causing contact (Bradley here) while the counter striker's moves always look intentional.

He makes a very good point. It is the surprise that invokes the un thought out counter move.

When the other player suddenly stops competing and bites, gouges an eye, or grabs private parts it is so unexpected that it almost makes you laugh at the uselessness of that tactic.

Prosser needs practice in not reacting when the other person does a stupid action. Focus on the goal only and say, "There she goes again."

Mark O said...

This is not unreasonable. It was played out to perfection in the football scene in the movie "M*A*S*H". See it on YouTube.

I must confess, as well, that some of the most unprincipled people I know are state court judges, top to bottom.

Henry said...

He should have used Soccer as an example.

Henry said...

Or she.

Jenner said...

What's the revelation here? It seems clear that this type of provocation has been going on for years at the court. Planned or just a pattern of escalating annoying behavior? Either one indicates full knowledge of the expected reactions.

I don't see any reason not to like sports because these things happen. Sometimes they are unsportsmanlike which should not be condoned, but sometimes they are smart strategies. Anticipating what your opponent will do is mostly how you win the game. If you create a situation where your opponent only has one or two options, then the chances of you beating him rise accordingly.

edutcher said...

Bradley and Abrahamson are buds, and Bradley doesn't like Prosser, who has a mouth. Prosser said something to Abrahamson and Bradley got mad.

Maybe Prosser was provoked, maybe he just got mad.

Whatever the case, Bradley invoked the "system" because she knew it would stand on her side.

That about it?

MadisonMan said...

should have used Soccer as an example.

Was there anything sweeter than the US winning in extra time 'cause the Brazilian player was acting hurt? No.

Henry said...

exhelodrvr1 said...
The writer is referring to "flopping," where a player exaggerates the amount of contact with an opponent so that the ref will call a foul.

Good specifics. Flopping is why all serious basketball fans do not like the Duke Blue Devils.

Prosser should have flopped. Imagine the wonderful depositions that might have been taken if Prosser had launched himself backwards into the credenza with Bradley's fist of destruction still raised in the air.

Ann Althouse said...

"However, with all the speculation, myself included, and conflicting data being flung around, could the Professor provide the correct height and weight data for the principals, so that we can at least get that much straight?"

It's been stated more than once in the blog posts and it is absolutely clear in the police file that Justice Bradley is 5'3" and 131 pounds and Justice Prosser is 5'9" and 165 pounds.

Henry said...

MadisonMan wrote: Was there anything sweeter than the US winning in extra time 'cause the Brazilian player was acting hurt? No.

Pure Karma.

What the writer describes brings to mind the antagonization of Zinedine Zidane in World Cup Play in 2006. In the final against Italy, Zidane played well but did not complete the game. Zidane was then sent off in the 110th minute of the game after headbutting Marco Materazzi (who had just insulted his sister)...

phx said...

Sorry, can't we get their arm reach?

Joe Schmoe said...

As someone who has played a lot of sports, this analysis struck me as a little tendentious. Written in a sort of tone similar to Dian Fossey discovering amazing things about gorillas that were heretofore unknown. Yet the stuff she finds amazing is completely commonplace and unsensational to the gorillas. I'm speaking as one of the gorillas, so I'm not trying to make some sort of offensive or derogatory analogy.

Some players are good at agitating, and yeah, they try to do it to rile up the opposing teams' best players. But coaches rarely teach or ask players to do it, mainly because if it became known that they coached that way they'd likely be fired. NBA players like Dennis Rodman and Bill Laimbeer didn't need to be taught how to agitate; it was second nature to them. It was up to opposing players to try to control themselves and not retaliate.

In this case it seems all the judges were aware that Prosser could be a loose cannon. I don't think Bradley premeditated exactly what she was going to do, but I do think that she determined that she was going to respond in some fashion the next time she perceived him to be lashing out. Was she trying to get him to do something that would make him look bad, and hopefully get him off the court? Yeah, probably. But to think this was elaborately schemed by multiple people, and rehearsed, is highly unlikey IMHO. I can see how this would've happened much more quickly and organically than the e-mailer.

edutcher said...

Ann Althouse said...

"However, with all the speculation, myself included, and conflicting data being flung around, could the Professor provide the correct height and weight data for the principals, so that we can at least get that much straight?"

It's been stated more than once in the blog posts and it is absolutely clear in the police file that Justice Bradley is 5'3" and 131 pounds and Justice Prosser is 5'9" and 165 pounds.


Actually, it hasn't. I was under the impression the heights were reversed (from an article outside the blog) and Googled trying to get the facts correctly and couldn't find them.

I don't recall the heights being posted here (yes, I could be wrong). Apparently, several other people were/are in the same boat.

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ndspinelli said...

Since height and weight seems to such an issue, maybe prior to each session they should do weigh-ins; height, arm length, just like prior to a championship fight. Of course, that's done w/ the boxers in their underwear. Does anyone want to file an open records request to see a Supreme Court weigh-in? Maybe Titus so he can see tits.

Pogo said...

Does Bradley play sports?

Maybe softball?

NTTAWWT.

Bart said...

I agree with Scott M, I thought that the whole thing was going to be about Sprewell. I believe he was from Mileaukee, so there is a natural tie in.

Pogo said...

'Provoking a reaction that will be punished' is a method known to all children.

My little brother did it all the time. I would end up punching him after multiple provocations, and Mom never believed me, until she witnessed his actions herself. Then she never believed him again.

So I punched him some more. =)

G Joubert said...

Who leaked this to the sympathetic journalist and why? Keeping with the sports analogies, sometimes offense is the best defense. Bradley was the one out of control and who charged Prosser, forcing him to reflexively adopt a defensive stance. Isn't this a case of assault in the classical sense? On that basis alone Bradley could be called to account, which she surely realized. So, preemptively, she and/or her minions accused Prosser first. Make her the victim of him instead, and keep him on the defensive.

DADvocate said...

I have no problem believing Bradley acted in such a manner as to provoke a response from Prosser. I've had women tell me that they've done such things. In her reports she also exaggerated Prosser's reaction.

When you want to stop a person aggressively approaching you, the gender of the approaching person influences how you react. If the person is male putting a hand in the center of his chest or both hands on his chest is a common action. With a woman, because of boobies, putting a hand or hands on her chest is a no-no.

You go for her shoulders, one hand on each shoulder. With arms outstretched in front of you and hands with the fingers pointing upward ready to place against an object (the person's shoulders), your thumbs naturally extend to the inside area where the neck would be. Apparently Bradley is a rather small woman, it would be hard to put you hands on her shoulders without touching her neck. For dramatic effect, Bradley screamed "Chokehold!!"

The basketball analogy is a good one. I played basketball. Teaching players how to draw fouls is a big part of the game. I got a guy so pissed once he knocked me across the lane (12 feet). Foul on him!! He was so mad he couldn't see straight and was effectively a non-factor in the game. Victory!

fleetusa said...

This is probably obvious to all but it needs to be mentioned as the incident occurred, as I remember, as the Wisconsin legislative and recall pot was boiling.

Hence, it became a "set play".

vet66 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Random Arrow said...

Althouse, get a grip.

The email is praising you by further prodding you as if its elegance adds justification toward the cusp of a tragedy in which a better analogy is to Orson Welles’s classic about the simultaneous virtues and – vices – of tenacity, Touch of Evil.

There is a yellow flashing light ahead. An imperative for extra caution. Flashing yellows are usually reserved for severe weather conditions. Where I live. Caution and extra caution lest your tenacity think to defy the weather conditions of sheer emotional turbulence in which spontaneous emotional behaviors across multiple guilty parties are indeed only what they are. Spontaneous. Emotional behaviors. Under pressures. With histories of -- mutual -- antagonisms as a part of the pressures. The touch of evil being less in the irrational spontaneous emotional behaviors ubiquitously present under stress than in the greater evils of the insidious suspicions of evil which our tenacities force upon them.

The key to the email you received, Ann, is in the word – “bet.”

Sports betting amongst friends can be a pleasure. A sport in itself.

Sports bets against house casinos (the house here, the Wisconsin court amidst the greater pool of public opinion bets) means you are betting against -- the juice. Always a predatory evolutionary game economic.

In Nevada (I live on the California-Nevada border), there is an officially recognized disease – gamblers disease. A touch of evil in itself.

Place your bets. If that's your game. And watch the flashing yellow.

Tenacity is not always a virtue against the perfect storm -- of human emotions.

EDH said...

One of the most memorable basketball fights, between referee Richie Powers who was attacked by a Celtics fan, Game 5, 1976 Finals.

Lots of hands around the neck area.

Joe Schmoe said...

DADvocate: The basketball analogy is a good one. I played basketball. Teaching players how to draw fouls is a big part of the game.

You make a good point, but I disagree that this case is similar to legally drawing fouls, usually by 'drawing a charge' (defender stakes claim to his space, plants his feet, and is then illegally dislodged from his space by a charging offensive player).

We're taught to draw fouls within the rules of the game primarily to gain control of the ball and secondarily to lead to disqualification of opposing players, or at least get enough fouls on them so they play more tentatively.

What happened here is the attempt to agitate outside of the rules. To further analogize the disorder on the court (pun intended), Bradley basically tried to pinch Prosser or pull his shorts down after a whistle stopped play. She wanted him to retaliate, not to get a foul and gain possession, so to speak, but to get him to react and get a technical foul or 2, and hopefully get immediately thrown out of the game. That's something that coaches don't generally teach, and that's where the emailer's argument falls down.

caplight said...

I like the analogy though I think practiced in advance is one step too far. Bradley forced the foul and then ran to the referee. In the context of the time this s occurred there was a great deal of brinksmanship going on in public confrontations and others in the left wing community were trying to draw fouls so they could run to the referee (Media?) to claim victim status, oppression, intimidation, fascism and martyrdom. What Bradley did in the office and her behaviors in response to the events indicate the achieving of the goals.

It is interesting that in the history of the court the falling out that Prosser had with Crooks was over Crooks not supporting Abramson's reelection.

William said...

Who could believe that a woman could be so sang froid and scheming? My only quibble is that a woman so Machievellian as to see two moves ahead would also be able to see three moves ahead and anticipate all the problems this would cause..... It's an ingenious theory, but I don't quite believe it. However, I think this was unquestionably the motivation of having those black Congressmen walk through the tea partier crowd at the Capitol a while back.

Charlie said...

This comment is much like one from David R. Graham on the infamous "attack on Althouse" post from August 12. Here's the post:

attack-on-althouse

David R. Graham's comment on what the talkative guy *really* is doing is at 11:34 pm.

In both cases, there is more going on than meets the eye. Serious games are being played, with the perpetrators knowing how to act so that most observers will naturally frame it incorrectly. This is what magicians and con artists do. Psychologists are a little slow on the uptake (by a couple thousand years) but they are on to it now. Unfortunately the news media is about the easiest to fool.

Marla said...

Has anyone considered Bradley was wearing shoes with heels making her taller than her stated height?

michaele said...

Love Henry's (at 10:21 am) idea of Prosser doing a big fake fall back.That sure would have turned the tables.

Wally Kalbacken said...

5'3", 131 lbs.? Va-va-va-voom!

traditionalguy said...

Another justice said, "Ann this is just not like you."

Bradley was acting her part to bait Prosser.

But Prosser has to get smarter, or get out. These are the big leagues now.

DADvocate said...

We're taught to draw fouls within the rules...

Absolutely. But, off the court the rules are less clear and people, even judges, often make them up as they go or feel perfectly justified in breaking the rules to defeat a hated enemy.

Plus, I was never taught this, but I learned to push the limits. I'd do things to other players that often would be a foul if caught by the ref. I learned to be subtle and discreet so I wouldn't the ref wouldn't see. That's why the guy knocked me across the lane, which I was delighted with as he rewarded my efforts greatly.

Bradley pushed those same limits, but unfortunately for her, the refs can keep looking back and see what she did to instigate the situation.

PWS said...

The email is mixing three different things, all of which have been touched on in the posts.

1) There is no such thing as an "intentional foul" in the rule book in basketball. It is not a term of art. It is usually used to refer to a foul committed intentionally at the end of the game to stop the clock and get the ball back. (A flagrant foul IS a term of art and refers to a foul done intentionally and, in the judgment of the referee, with some malice beyond the usual efforts to stop the other player.) (The use of the word intentional is to contrast it with other fouls where the defender is trying to, for example, block a shot, without fouling, but commits a foul unintentionally by touching the shooting player's arm.)

2) The flopping issue is one where a player exaggerates the effect of some physical action by his opponent. E.g., he gets bumped lightly, but flops down as though the bump was much harder. He hopes the referee will then call a foul on the flopping player's opponent (the bumper). It's sort of lame, but no question it is done and is a part of the game, in a sense.

3) While there is no formal name for it, sometimes a player will (w/o detection by the referee) provoke another player by word or deed in the hopes of getting the second player to react strongly which the refs will then see and the second player will receive the consequences. (This the soccer World Cup incident referred to.)

Bradley's behavior does not fall squarely into any of these categories although it seems there might be elements of the second two. Some amount of flopping: "He choked me!" when in reality Prosser's hand simply touched her neck. This is akin to when a player bumps another player in basketball and the second player "flops" down making the bump appear to have risen to the level of a foul ("crime").

There is also an element of seeking to induce retaliation by the gesturing, etc. Hard to know about this; the conspiracy thing seems a little far-fetched, in the sense that I am skeptical it could have been planned for weeks; on the other hand one can imagine that Bradley has considered that Prosser is easily inflamed.

In sports, you can watch the replay to make a better judgment about what happened. Obviously here the task is much more difficult.

roesch-voltaire said...

As I said in a previous post if Bradley can charge and then stop on a dime-- just how far from Prosser's face no one has been able to say, then she should be on a basketball team and the writer maybe on to something. And if Prosser can pull a flop and neck grab in a flash he should join World Wide Wrestling show. But I honestly think its an exaggeration to consider that either one of these Justices have rehearsed these foolish moves. Strikes me more as a grudge match and both are at fault.

Holmes said...

To commit a premeditated murder, one only need mere moments of determined thought and planning before pulling the trigger to be found guilty. The same could be true here. It was initially a reaction, but in a moment, Bradley contemplated what was going on and yelled out, "He choked me!" in order to set the stage.

Joe Schmoe said...

I think the whole episode should be made into a Westside Story-kinda Broadway musical. The modern twist on the romantic involvement could be that Prosser and Abramson had a thing going, but then she went through a bi-curious phase where she shacked up with Bradley, and now she's vacillating between the two. The whole thing turns on the two judges vying for the Chief Justice's heart.

Mr. Fabulous said...

The issue of relative size continues to crop up, and I am not comfortable that we have accurate information. According to J, from yesterday's Greta Van Susteren post:

“From the sheriff's report:

"We asked Justice Bradley if we could have her physical description
and she stated she was 5'3" and 131 lbs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT JUSTICE DAVID PROSSER SAID: .....
Justice David T. Prosser Jr. Male white DOB 12/24/42 Height: 5'9"
Weight: 165 lbs

Book him.

8/30/11 5:25 PM "

So according to J, Justice Bradley is the source for her own physical size information included in the Sheriff’s report, although I can’t see that explicitly stated in the report. It seems reasonable though-would they ask to measure height and weight, or just take what she stated and put it into the report? Nowhere in the report does it state that the detectives weighed or measured the height of Justice Bradley. Based both upon other published accounts of her statements regarding this matter, as well as the entirely understandable tendency to state your height and weight in the most flattering light possible, I'm skeptical as to the veracity of this information.

In the same post's comments, Dustin links to a picture of both Justices Bradley and Prosser together, but they are sitting down. I had already looked out on the internet for pictures of the 2 together, but like the picture Dustin posted I was only able to find photos of them sitting down. In all the photos I saw of them sitting down, including the one on the WISC website showing them in court where they were seated next to each other, they appear to be of similar size. Having said that, I don’t think we can reasonably draw our own conclusions as to their relative size unless we can see a (relatively recent) photo of them standing next to or near each other, and where they are standing on the same level.

Does anyone have a link to a recent photo of the 2 justices standing near each other, in order that we can judge for ourselves their relative sizes? Note that the relative size should normally not excuse assault or similar aggressiveness. I’ve known plenty of smaller men and women who were quite able and willing to be aggressive towards or assault someone larger than they were.

Scott M said...

Honestly...does size even matter? Isn't assault the same crime regardless of the size of those involved?

What if a 6'4", 300 lbs man attacks a 5'6", 165 man, but the short guy is a black belt something?

Ditto if a 300 lbs woman attacks a 160 lbs man. Sex and size shouldn't matter. Assault would seem to be assault.

The crime isn't the damage done...that's separate. The crime is touching someone in the first place, isn't it?

Lem said...

Basketball?

Carol_Herman said...

Good analogy from Basketball. But to win games you still need the players who get the ball into the basket.

Now. If you want to grab a hissing cat, I'd suggest you aim for the scruff of the neck.

And, in this instance? You know I don't think the Chief Justice was sitting there, talking to Ann Walsh-Bradley on how they can anger Prosser.

Because Justice Prosser shows up with 3 others. And, both ladies also knew how the decision broke.

I think Ann Walsh-Bradley is crazy enough that she flew off the handle!

And, I also think when Justice Prosser saw her coming ... and flailing her arms ... (And, he couldn't go backwards except into a piece of furniture) ... He aimed NOT TO GET HIT IN HIS FACE!

Roggensack also intervened. Facing Bradley. If Justice Prosser was being the aggressor ... Roggensack would have face Justice Prosser, instead.

I think the threat to GO PUBLIC also belongs to Ann Walsh-Bradley. This was HER GAME. While the Chief Justice (for a moment), thought her mask was going to fall off of her face! PANIC TIME!

For Shirley Abrahamson to lose her mask was on par with a woman's wig flying off in public! (This is why once women wouldn't go out without their hats on.)

So, after this went public ... And, you'll never find out "who" leaked it ... The court, itself, has suffered damage. As if a rock flew in a window and shattered glass.

Then? Well, why did Mark Bradley say his wife is now having crying fits? That she turns to tears for two or three minutes, at a spurt, before she regains her sanity?

Sure. Judges should know the law. And, not just use it to make false CRIMINAL CHARGES appear out of the woodwork.

The damage has been done.

How it will get fixed? Stay tuned. (ET will call home.)

LilEvie said...

Surely this was a spur-of-the-moment flop from Bradley. Had she rehearsed it, the moment Prosser's hands touched her neck she would have let out a blood-curdling scream, which would have so alarmed the witnesses they might have actually believed she was being hurt. A smarter Prosser might have pulled his own flop, careening backward and possibly striking his head on a nearby object.

Carol_Herman said...

You know, it's just another example of a journalist not willing to reach for a Pulitzer.

Even if you're in the "business" of protecting leakers ... because you get stories from them.

How can Bradley get her version out ... When the first thing that's OBVIOUS is that Roggensack stuck herself in Bradley's way!

If Justice Prosser had been the aggressor, here ... Roggensack would have either let him punch the daylights out of Bradley ... Or? She'd have stepped in facing him!

And, that's not what you heard!

You heard: "THAT'S NOT LIKE YOU, ANN."

And, from Shirley? She floats about the story. Sugar doesn't melt in her mouth.

Maybe, ahead, there will be a medical reason found for Bradley to step down?

And, I also think Crooks should retire. (Maybe, we can get daily updates on his horoscope?)

Sadly, too, women are gonna pay a heavy price! It's gonna be like when PROHIBITION got started by women who carried hatchets. They didn't cure alcoholism, either.

Men and women don't get judged the same. So much is still at stake. And, there's so much left to lose.

LilEvie said...

BTW, a good scream, judiciously employed, can be very effective. You might consider it, Ann, the next time someone grabs your camera.

Patrick said...

Bradley is under educated. Her actions are immature. Any other judge in the world would make an example of her in court to deter other law breakers.

The election of the court officers in Wisconsin needs to be better.