The lawyer and the judge are joking.

I think this kind of speech is too vulgar and obviously personal, which is really unacceptable. The judge at the scene of the first trial in Chengdu said that the lawyer's talking too fast was equivalent to farting and sentenced to probation. It happened in Xindu District, Chengdu, Sichuan Province. A judge surnamed Zhou in the local people's court not only told the plaintiff's lawyer that "you speak too fast is equivalent to farting", but also interrupted the plaintiff's lawyer's normal speech many times. Mr. Lai, the plaintiff in this case, thought that Judge Zhou's attitude and work style were problematic, so he posted his own experience on the Internet.

The incident sparked a heated discussion on the Internet. Some netizens believe that the judge's speech at the trial should conform to the relevant national norms. After the incident, the Xindu District People's Court issued a notice saying that the judge did have improper speech and violated judicial etiquette. He has been suspended, and the situation has been replied to the client and his attorney, and has been recognized.

I think this kind of words and deeds is really vulgar, which not only shows that his personal accomplishment is not high, but also shows that his legal consciousness is not strong. As the last hurdle for residents to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests, the judges of the people's courts should be people who know, understand and abide by the law. However, in the content of online exposure, we can clearly see that Judge Zhou's words are uncivilized and have violated judicial etiquette according to relevant laws and practices.

I think this kind of words and deeds is really vulgar, and most people can't accept it. As one of the most trusted people, his practice not only exposed the fact that his personal accomplishment is not high and his legal consciousness is not strong, but also reduced the public's expectation and impression of the judge group, and even made the public question the standardization and legitimacy of the judicial organs to a certain extent, and the consequences of such questioning were undoubtedly disastrous.

Although the court has suspended him at this stage, I think no one will want such a judge to participate in the trial of his own case in the future.

In people's daily life, it is often a last resort to defend rights through prosecution. If people can't protect their personal rights and interests in a legal and reasonable way, there will be many extreme cases, which is extremely unfavorable to social harmony.