or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 163

post #2431 of 6078
I propose a thread in which several members can safely practice their fledgling attempts at sarcasm.
post #2432 of 6078
Quote:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/19/government-stifles-speech

For the past two weeks, Reason, a magazine dedicated to "Free Minds and Free Markets," has been barred by an order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from speaking publicly about a grand jury subpoena that court sent to Reason.com.

The subpoena demanded the records of six people who left hyperbolic comments at the website about the federal judge who oversaw the controversial conviction of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht. Shortly after the subpoena was issued, the government issued a gag order prohibiting Reason not only from discussing the matter but even acknowledging the existence of the subpoena or the gag order itself. As a wide variety of media outlets have noted, such actions on the part of the government are not only fundamentally misguided and misdirected, they have a tangible chilling effect on free expression by commenters and publications alike.


US Attorney Preet Bharara and Assistant US Attorney Niketh Velamoor should be disbarred. Judge Frank Mass should be removed from office and disbarred. This is such an egregious overreach and violation of civil rights. There is no excuse for this kind of heavy handed action. They are explicitly violating the 1st Amendment which they swore to uphold.


I hope all 3 are sued to bankruptcy and have to wander the streets as homeless peasants, giving handjobs for beer money. Disgusting statist pigs.
post #2433 of 6078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

US Attorney Preet Bharara and Assistant US Attorney Niketh Velamoor should be disbarred. Judge Frank Mass should be removed from office and disbarred. This is such an egregious overreach and violation of civil rights. There is no excuse for this kind of heavy handed action. They are explicitly violating the 1st Amendment which they swore to uphold.


I hope all 3 are sued to bankruptcy and have to wander the streets as homeless peasants, giving handjobs for beer money. Disgusting statist pigs.
That's some seriously fucked up shit.
post #2434 of 6078
I have sent a letter to the Federal Bar for Southern New York as well as the New York Bar condemning their actions and asking for an investigation and potential disbarment. I don't expect anything to come of it but this kind of shit simply cannot stand. I know several of you are also attorneys and I urge you to do the same. This is a blatant, unwarranted, unnecessary, unconstitutional action taken by individuals sworn to uphold the constitution. Also the gag order appears to have been sent in violation of New York's Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2.
Quote:
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the prior consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law.

This is unconscionable action. If we don't take a stand on this it will get swept under the rug and ignored. I know many of you are not libertarians and don't agree with Reason.com's positions, but that's not the point. If this happened to Mother Jones I'd be doing the same thing.
post #2435 of 6078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

I have sent a letter to the Federal Bar for Southern New York as well as the New York Bar condemning their actions and asking for an investigation and potential disbarment. I don't expect anything to come of it but this kind of shit simply cannot stand. I know several of you are also attorneys and I urge you to do the same. This is a blatant, unwarranted, unnecessary, unconstitutional action taken by individuals sworn to uphold the constitution. Also the gag order appears to have been sent in violation of New York's Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2.
This is unconscionable action. If we don't take a stand on this it will get swept under the rug and ignored. I know many of you are not libertarians and don't agree with Reason.com's positions, but that's not the point. If this happened to Mother Jones I'd be doing the same thing.

I haven't reviewed the underlying facts in any detail. But with respect to the Rule 4.2 point, I've always understood such rules to deal with communications from an attorney acting as an advocate. Are you suggesting it would apply to the service of a court order? Or (quite likely) am I misunderstanding your point?
post #2436 of 6078
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

I haven't reviewed the underlying facts in any detail. But with respect to the Rule 4.2 point, I've always understood such rules to deal with communications from an attorney acting as an advocate. Are you suggesting it would apply to the service of a court order? Or (quite likely) am I misunderstanding your point?


If it is equivocal to the PA rule (as it appears to be) it applies to prosecutors attempting to contact represented individuals. I should have included that it was more than just service, there was a whole letter attached to it directed to the individuals when the prosecutor knew the individual had counsel, as he had a conversation at length with Reason's lawyer.
post #2437 of 6078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

If it is equivocal to the PA rule (as it appears to be) it applies to prosecutors attempting to contact represented individuals. I should have included that it was more than just service, there was a whole letter attached to it directed to the individuals when the prosecutor knew the individual had counsel, as he had a conversation at length with Reason's lawyer.

Ah, I see. Thanks. In any event, it's pretty outrageous.
post #2438 of 6078
These "citizens " are lucky NYPD cops are not quick on the trigger.
post #2439 of 6078
I see the authoritarians are trying to co-opt this thread.
post #2440 of 6078
..
Edited by rnoldh - 6/27/15 at 1:06am
post #2441 of 6078
Another unarmed fleeing middle-aged man shot in the back: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/29/nyregion/second-new-york-prison-escapee-shot.html
post #2442 of 6078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Another unarmed fleeing middle-aged man shot in the back: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/29/nyregion/second-new-york-prison-escapee-shot.html


There is no justification to shoot merely because he is a fleeing felon. I don't care if the governor gives the cop a medal, it's not a good shoot.
Edited by Harold falcon - 7/1/15 at 11:09am
post #2443 of 6078

That cop has been watching too much Justified. Or he's out of shape and couldn't catch the guy because cops aren't tested for fitness beyond the academy. 

post #2444 of 6078




post #2445 of 6078
Quote:
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A 4-year-old girl who was shot in the leg when a police officer fired at a dog is recovering after surgery as her family questions how the officer responded.

Ava Ellis was hit accidentally on the afternoon of June 19 when an officer fired at a charging dog at a home in Whitehall, in central Ohio, according to Columbus police. The department said another relative had flagged down the officer for help after the girl's mother cut herself on glass.

Ava's parents, Andrea and Brad Ellis, and their attorney disputed the police account Tuesday and alleged the policeman fired unnecessarily and acted recklessly with children nearby on the porch. They say the roughly 40-pound dog, a bulldog mix named Patches, was retreating inside from the porch when the officer fired.

"The dog may have barked at the officer; however, the officer should not have shot," attorney Michael Wright said. "There was absolutely no reason for him to shoot. He was within 10 (or) 12 feet of the children."

The family also says people yelled to notify the officer that the girl was hurt but claims he drove away without offering help, and other emergency responders had to care for the girl.

A police spokeswoman, Denise Alex-Bouzounis, contradicted that, saying by email that the officer remained at the scene and called for help. The department identified him as Officer Jonathan Thomas, who had been with the force for five years.

He is not on paid administrative leave, as the Ellises' attorney suggested, Alex-Bouzounis said.

The Ellis family and their attorneys are conducting a private investigation separate from the pending police investigation of what happened, said Wright, who added that it was too early to comment on possible legal action by Ava's parents.

The family says the bullet broke Ava's leg, and she'll require further surgeries.


Shoot at a dog, hit a 4 year old girl. Same thing. They probably weighed about the same.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?