- law dawg
- 12 Comments
- 1328 Views
- Fatal shooting looms over Family Court race, with two attorneys trying to unseat incumbent (Henderson, Caston, Petsas). [RJ]
2026 Judicial Election #9
- 2026 Judicial Election
- Posted on 1 month ago
Ad Placeholder
Most Commented Posts
Recent Comments
from my perspective, it’s hard to put any blame on Henderson for the shooting given the personalities of everyone involved. But, that’s why we have this process, so people can challenge the judges who they think didn’t handle something they way they would have wanted it done.
Can anyone explain what Henderson could realistically have done differently that would have prevented that incident? It’s natural to look for someone to blame. And there is certainly plenty of blame to go around. But blaming Henderson is blaming the wrong guy. Take issue with his performance as a judge, if you need to. But let’s give it a rest relative to the shooting. That’s just unfair.
Nothing like trying to use the death of two individuals to further one’s political ambitions.
Hindsight is always 20/20. These Family Court judges get caught in the middle many times.
Yes, he could make a g-damn decision once in a while instead of delaying and setting status check after status check (while conflict continues to escalate with no end in sight). I really like Henderson as a person but he is ridiculously indecisive as a judge.
Ashley tried to get Henderson to understand that the Houston’s were dangerous for years and he kicked the can down the road and required more discovery which is when the shooting happened. Still, not necessarily Henderson’s fault but the family court judges are just so overwhelmed and see so much bad stuff each day that they become numb to actual threats of harm
Henderson has some blame but not all of it. Ashley was telling the court for years that the Houston’s were dangerous and Henderson refused to make a decision so more discovery ensued and that’s when the fatal deposition happened
A court order wouldn’t have changed things, a million things could have gone differently but ultimately a sick person is going to do what they’re going to do regardless of a piece of paper. Henderson shouldn’t blame himself and people shouldn’t hold this against him in the election.
Murder is illegal. Lawyers are supposed to know and follow the law. That did not change anything. The only thing that could have changed anything would have been locking him up before he committed the crime. What would be the legal basis? If the legal team felt so strongly as some people do in hindsight, why did not they insist that the depo be done by zoom? OP should explain exactly what they feel Henderson should have done and the legal basis for him to do it.
9:10 has the right perspective. As to 5:06 and 5:09, if you are in fact attorneys, please consult the readily available record before ravenously devouring slabs of red eat thrown out by the media and others. The record not only fails to support your views, but directly contradicts it. In my view, it is recklessly irresponsible for attorneys to publicly post that a judge is responsible for the deaths of two people, when there is a clear record directly contradicting both of your representations-that the judge caused the danger by unduly delaying matters, and that the judge further created danger by failing to take safety precautions. First, the case continuance was a stipulation between attorneys, with the clear consent of their clients, as the attorneys represented they needed more time for case preparation, and even alluded to possible negotiated resolutions. Secondly, as to the safety issue, the judge was the one, not the parties, who insisted and ordered that all exchanges would be in the interior of the police station, and that Joe Houston under no circumstances was to be present.
As for 4:14, whose comment is not malicious, and does not seek to absurdly blame the judge, I respect that we have different anecdotal experiences with the judge, but my experience is the complete opposite. I believe he is often too decisive and seeks to resolve as many matters at a hearing as is possible, even when I urge him that I need more time, more discovery, or even an evidentiary hearing. But I’m not contradicting you as I have learned over the years that often when I complain about certain proclivities of judges, respected colleagues often complain about the judge for the exact opposite reason.
found Henderson
9:10 has the right perspective. As to 5:06 and 5:09, if you are in fact attorneys, please consult the readily available record before ravenously devouring slabs of red eat thrown out by the media and others. The record not only fails to support your views, but directly contradicts it. In my view, it is recklessly irresponsible for attorneys to publicly post that a judge is responsible for the deaths of two people, when there is a clear record directly contradicting both of your representations-that the judge caused the danger by unduly delaying matters, and that the judge further created danger by failing to take safety precautions. First, the case continuance was a stipulation between attorneys, with the clear consent of their clients, as the attorneys represented they needed more time for case preparation, and even alluded to possible negotiated resolutions. Secondly, as to the safety issue, the judge was the one, not the parties, who insisted and ordered that all exchanges would be in the interior of the police station, and that Joe Houston under no circumstances was to be present.
As for 4:14, whose comment is not malicious, and does not seek to absurdly blame the judge, I respect that we have different anecdotal experiences with the judge, but my experience is the complete opposite. I believe he is often too decisive and seeks to resolve as many matters at a hearing as is possible, even when I urge him that I need more time, more discovery, or even an evidentiary hearing. But I’m not contradicting you as I have learned over the years that often when I complain about certain proclivities of judges, respected colleagues often complain about the judge for the exact opposite reason.