Lawyer up, guys.
-
wrote on 31 May 2020, 21:29 last edited by
Two Brooklyn lawyers, including an Ivy League graduate corporate attorney, are facing federal charges for tossing a Molotov cocktail into an NYPD vehicle early Saturday morning during a protest over the police killing of George Floyd.
Colinford Mattis, 32, a lawyer and member of Community Board 5 in East New York, was charged along with fellow attorney Urooj Rahman with the attempted attack on an empty police cruiser parked outside the 88th Precinct station house in Fort Greene. -
wrote on 31 May 2020, 21:44 last edited by
Officers of the court.
-
wrote on 31 May 2020, 21:56 last edited by
Not any more.
-
wrote on 31 May 2020, 22:31 last edited by jon-nyc
This chick threw one in a car with four cops in it. THey're fine, though, because she's new at this and messed it up.
Attempted murder of four cops? She's facing serious time I'll bet.
She bragged about it on Twitter last night. 'They doxxed me but it was worth it'. I wonder if she still agrees with that tweet today? Or in 5 years?
-
wrote on 31 May 2020, 22:33 last edited by
Insane
-
This chick threw one in a car with four cops in it. THey're fine, though, because she's new at this and messed it up.
Attempted murder of four cops? She's facing serious time I'll bet.
She bragged about it on Twitter last night. 'They doxxed me but it was worth it'. I wonder if she still agrees with that tweet today? Or in 5 years?
wrote on 31 May 2020, 22:41 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Lawyer up, guys.:
This chick threw one in a car with four cops in it. THey're fine, though, because she's new at this and messed it up.
Attempted murder of four cops? She's facing serious time I'll bet.
Nope: Link
She’s been charged under federal law with using and attempting to use improvised incendiary devices.
According to the Daily News, she was originally charged with attempted murder, attempted arson, weapons possession and reckless endangerment before the case went to federal authorities.
Not charged with attempted murder, something less serious, apparently.
-
wrote on 31 May 2020, 22:48 last edited by
Well, she was white so she should be let off easy.
-
wrote on 31 May 2020, 23:01 last edited by
Sure, why would they charge a white person? That's not right.
-
wrote on 31 May 2020, 23:29 last edited by
I said it in another thread, I hope they go back through all of the video clips, and identify as many criminals as possible that were attacking cops or police property, and charge them all accordingly.
-
wrote on 1 Jun 2020, 01:13 last edited by jon-nyc 6 Jan 2020, 01:14
“Rioting is the language of the unheard”.
Mr. Mattis began working in July 2018 as an associate in the corporate group at Pryor Cashman, where, according to his profile on the firm’s website, he advises public and private companies, their executives and boards on mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, financing and corporate governance, among other matters.
He also served on the community board in East New York, the Brooklyn neighborhood where he lives.
The picture on his LinkedIn profile shows a smiling young man in a business suit, white shirt and striped red tie, and the profile says he graduated from Princeton University in 2010 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in sociology and earned a law degree from New York University Law School in 2016.
(From the NYT story)
-
wrote on 1 Jun 2020, 02:05 last edited by
Unheard?
The whole world revolves around them.
Both presidential candidates are begging them
-
wrote on 1 Jun 2020, 13:27 last edited by Catseye3 6 Jan 2020, 14:37
Oftentimes, charges which strike people as obvious are not brought because of some perceived difficulty with prosecuting them successfully. Lots of time and revenue wasted, lots of judges pissed off, and if double jeopardy attaches, the accused walks free altogether. Prosecutors often decide to go for the lesser charge, like employing an incendiary device instead of attempted murder, and a greater hope of success.
-
wrote on 1 Jun 2020, 22:28 last edited by
-
Oftentimes, charges which strike people as obvious are not brought because of some perceived difficulty with prosecuting them successfully. Lots of time and revenue wasted, lots of judges pissed off, and if double jeopardy attaches, the accused walks free altogether. Prosecutors often decide to go for the lesser charge, like employing an incendiary device instead of attempted murder, and a greater hope of success.
wrote on 1 Jun 2020, 22:47 last edited by@Catseye3 said in Lawyer up, guys.:
Oftentimes, charges which strike people as obvious are not brought because of some perceived difficulty with prosecuting them successfully. Lots of time and revenue wasted, lots of judges pissed off, and if double jeopardy attaches, the accused walks free altogether. Prosecutors often decide to go for the lesser charge, like employing an incendiary device instead of attempted murder, and a greater hope of success.
Yep. It all depends on how the attempted murder statute is written, and I suspect it has to do with intent.
Yep:
"In most jurisdictions, attempted murder charges consist of two elements:
The offender took some action towards killing another person
The offender’s act was intended to kill a person" -
@Catseye3 said in Lawyer up, guys.:
Oftentimes, charges which strike people as obvious are not brought because of some perceived difficulty with prosecuting them successfully. Lots of time and revenue wasted, lots of judges pissed off, and if double jeopardy attaches, the accused walks free altogether. Prosecutors often decide to go for the lesser charge, like employing an incendiary device instead of attempted murder, and a greater hope of success.
Yep. It all depends on how the attempted murder statute is written, and I suspect it has to do with intent.
Yep:
"In most jurisdictions, attempted murder charges consist of two elements:
The offender took some action towards killing another person
The offender’s act was intended to kill a person"wrote on 1 Jun 2020, 23:04 last edited by@Mik said in Lawyer up, guys.:
"In most jurisdictions, attempted murder charges consist of two elements:
The offender took some action towards killing another person
The offender’s act was intended to kill a person"In the context of Floyd, did the officer take action toward killing another person? Yeah, probably, but that's not for us to decide.
Was the offender's act intended to kill a person? Did the cop intend to kill Floyd? I'd guess not.
-
wrote on 1 Jun 2020, 23:27 last edited by
There are rumors of a backstory, the cop knew Floyd. One thing I read was that they were both security guards some years ago.
So, if true, there may be a motive, something to prove which went too far (?)
-
wrote on 2 Jun 2020, 13:22 last edited by George K 6 Feb 2020, 13:23
-
wrote on 2 Jun 2020, 13:45 last edited by
Criminal morons.
-
wrote on 2 Jun 2020, 15:16 last edited by
I am sure they felt and feel righteous. And I am sure they will not lack for friends and supporters after this is all over.
-
wrote on 13 Jun 2020, 00:34 last edited by
