"You might as well shoot your lawyer..."

That's what a Georgia judge told a witness in the courtroom - and offered her a real gun.

Yes, judges are allowed to carry concealed weapons in the courtroom.

But, judges are not allowed to pull their weapons to intimidate witnesses or their attorneys.

Fortunately, that judge is off the bench, even though the attorney who was questioning the witness when the judge pulled his pistol in the courtroom, tried to practically justify his conduct by describing how "combative" the witness was and that it was the judge's usual style, just a little bit more than the "usual", and that the judge should not have been "judged by one incident".

Wow.

Well, the judge resigned.

But, had the judge killed somebody in that courtroom, accidentally or intentionally - I bet he would have invoked his "absolute judicial immunity" if sued for wrongful death.

Which brings back the point - does judicial immunity make us all unsafe in the courthouses, including physically unsafe from our "officers of justice" who deem themselves "independent" from all restrictions of the law and morals because of that absolute immunity?

And one other thing - why wasn't the judge charged with assault?

Because he is a judge?

But isn't it true that anybody else in the judge's situation would have been charged with an assault with a deadly weapon if he would pull his gun at somebody in public?

I bet that if ANYBODY ELSE pulled a gun in an open courtroom and offered it to a person with a suggestion to shoot another person, the armed court attendants would not have hesitated to overpower and arrest the owner of the weapon.  To protect the public.  And there should be no exceptions to this rule.

So my question - why that was not done? Because the judge can do whatever he wants in "his" courtroom to whoever appears there before him?