|
Red Bean Juice posted:Went to New England Webcomics Weekend today. Brought some bad comics. You should market yourself to lawyers who like to laugh! it is a small market
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101104/NEWS/101109939/1078&ParentProfile=1062 Found this on GBS! Just wanted to give a shout out to all the prosecutors in the thread, you do this country proud. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 12:25
|
|
|
Red Bean Juice posted:Went to New England Webcomics Weekend today. Brought some bad comics. The Feist one made me lol 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 16:03
|
|
|
nm posted:Wanna start a lovely crim defense firm in norcal with me? If I flunk out of biglaw I'll come back and join you. I've got 6 complete acquittals this year. It's like I'm good at this or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
Defleshed, I don't really check this thread on a daily basis but I seem to remember you going for Marine JAG? Can you email me at whammeporfavor at gmail?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 19:50
|
|
|
calmasahinducow posted:Defleshed, That was Yojimbo, defleshed was Army JAG (although he seems to be knowledgeable on the JAGs in general). I'll tell Yojimbo to shoot you an e-mail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 20:31
|
|
|
Red Bean Juice posted:Went to New England Webcomics Weekend today. Brought some bad comics. I have added your webpage to my collection of webcomics that I read on a daily basis, you are awesome. You need to get that poo poo bound and start marketing to law students.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 20:43
|
|
|
Link, I want to read?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 21:07
|
|
|
Also <3 cop reality shows. http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2010/11/05/wwb-youtube-video.aspx unedited clips for the win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:That was Yojimbo, defleshed was Army JAG (although he seems to be knowledgeable on the JAGs in general). Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 21:25
|
|
|
I don't understand. The cops were more-than-typically assholish, but I don't see what the problem was. According to their report (and their comments as they initially detained him), they saw a known drug dealer stuff a black sock down his pants when they pulled up. The video doesn't disprove that. That sounds like probable cause.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 21:35
|
|
|
I don't think they saw the sock until they started. That's why the one cop was like "it's in his mouth" and the other was like "No you moron its under his nuts". Beyond that, they don't know what's in the sock, and they'd have no way of knowing WHAT drug was in there, if any, and especially to justify putting a taser in his face.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
Of the Western Colorado prosecutor news you guys could have pulled, you picked that one? http://cbs4denver.com/local/myrl.serra.prosecutor.2.1994861.html I smell a job opening lawgoons!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 21:56
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:I don't think they saw the sock until they started. That's why the one cop was like "it's in his mouth" and the other was like "No you moron its under his nuts". Beyond that, they don't know what's in the sock, and they'd have no way of knowing WHAT drug was in there, if any, and especially to justify putting a taser in his face. They saw the guy, recognized him from an earlier arrest, and pulled up on him. He realized that they saw him and turned away from them--suspicious--and from the very beginning the girl (who had jumped out first) says it's under his nuts. If that was a guess it's pretty good. I also don't expect the driver to have seen everything since he was driving. Even if they didn't see the sock, she obviously knew he had stuffed something in his pants when they pulled up. I think his behavior is probable cause for a personal search to find out what he stuffed into his pants. The taser is meaningless--she's a little chick and he was a pretty big dude. Maybe she pulled it a little too soon but it appears to me that she saw him stuff whatever down his pants before she pulled the taser on him. I've always been on the criminal defense side but I just don't see anything wrong with this stop and search.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 22:11
|
|
|
calmasahinducow posted:Defleshed, Go Army there's more bases to go to and no chance of having to suddenly be an infantry platoon commander. But yeah, what Judicial Restraints said
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 02:51
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Link, I want to read? It's the livejournal link at the bottom of one of the comics. S/he doesn't have any additional comics that haven't been posted here, I don't think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 02:56
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:They saw the guy, recognized him from an earlier arrest, and pulled up on him. He realized that they saw him and turned away from them--suspicious--and from the very beginning the girl (who had jumped out first) says it's under his nuts. If that was a guess it's pretty good. I also don't expect the driver to have seen everything since he was driving. They don't have probable cause; they have enough to justify a Terry stop at best, but once you have him at taser-point, that's gotta be beyond Terry. edit: Or, a comment from the link: quote:and the cop could see the drugs in the sock how exactly?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 03:53
|
|
|
you nerds sound like gunners in a crim pro class
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 04:05
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:They don't have probable cause; they have enough to justify a Terry stop at best, but once you have him at taser-point, that's gotta be beyond Terry. stuffing a sock into your undies sounds like a certain type of fraud to me
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 04:10
|
|
|
Shang Yang posted:stuffing a sock into your undies sounds like a certain type of fraud to me
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 04:33
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:They don't have probable cause; they have enough to justify a Terry stop at best, but once you have him at taser-point, that's gotta be beyond Terry. Yeah, I think you get to reasonable suspicion. I don't think you get to probable cause. Having said that, we all know the outcome of the overwhelming majority of suppression hearings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 05:02
|
|
|
Linguica posted:Hasn't some jurisdiction decided women can sue for rape by fraud when a guy pretends to be rich to gently caress women? Not a big leap There was an article about a Palestinian being charged with rape for pretending to be a Jew in order to get sex. Is that what you're thinking of?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 05:13
|
|
|
mrtoodles posted:If I flunk out of biglaw I'll come back and join you. I've got 6 complete acquittals this year. It's like I'm good at this or something. My greatest accomplishment is keeping a .13 DUI jury out for 1.5 days. (Not a no drive) Oh and the sex offender case I got dismissed. You still in Sacto?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 05:38
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:They don't have probable cause; they have enough to justify a Terry stop at best, but once you have him at taser-point, that's gotta be beyond Terry. They arguably had enough for a Terry stop when they saw a man they had previously detained on a drug dealing arrest standing around a drug neighborhood. Regardless, they pulled up for a consensual discussion and before they even got out he turned around like he was going to run. At some point, it's clear that he stuffed a sock down his pants. The lady cop saw him do it. Either that or she's a pretty good mind reader since she was saying it from the very beginning of the stop. I don't know what fantasyland that commenter lives in but in reality PC doesn't require x-ray vision to see the drugs inside a sock that a known drug dealer shoves into his pants at the sight of police. I'm curious what possible legal reason he would have for stuffing a black sock into his pants at the sight of police? That is probable cause; once the Taser came out, he was under arrest; the search is legal. The End. Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Nov 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 14:50
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Asked this in another thread, but this seems to be a good thread too to ask it. I have the names of a few expert witnesses in different fields and a PI guy and its all been word of mouth and meeting them at events. It seems like everyone and their mother knows the successful ones. Lawyers are busy, so mass-marketing materials I feel like are far less effective, as I know i just throw all that poo poo in the recycle immediately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 16:03
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:They arguably had enough for a Terry stop when they saw a man they had previously detained on a drug dealing arrest standing around a drug neighborhood. That's nowhere near enough for a Terry stop. Before they got out of the car, the cops had dropped all pretence of a consensual encounter or a Terry stop and went straight to seizure, custodial interrogation without Miranda and a search of the guy’s privates, in public, in mixed company. The stop was illegal at its inception, and the cops' later actions only make it worse. Unfortunately, many stops are just like this, but not on videotape. aside: About 10 years ago, one of the cops in town got shot and killed during a traffic stop, the killer was very hard to find because there was no video of the stop. The people of the city raised enough money to get the cops cameras in their cars. The cops then trashed the cameras so they wouldn't be on tape. The cameras lasted maybe a year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 16:50
|
|
|
joat mon posted:That's nowhere near enough for a Terry stop. Even assuming it wasn't enough--which is a classroom assumption in my experience--there absolutely was enough justification for a Terry stop when he turned to walk away and stuffed something in his pants. Clearly, the search was more than a pat-down. The only question in my mind, then, is whether the totality of the circumstances gave PC for the search. The lack of a Miranda warning is irrelevant since the guy said nothing incriminating. I think the Taser is the face was a seizure--he was under arrest at that point. I don't really see how they "dropped all pretense" of a Terry stop until they saw the guy conceal his li'l sockie. quote:The stop was illegal at its inception, and the cops' later actions only make it worse. Let's assume that the officer did not fabricate what she says she saw him do as they pulled up. What was illegal about the inception of the stop? The fact that they decided to pull up on the guy at all? Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Nov 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 18:15
|
|
|
Got a demand letter come in today: Background: One of the parties in a bankruptcy court action asks us where to send a subpoena. (Note: he could have easily checked our website or googled and found out, but instead, no.) We email back with the address for our designated agent. In the mail today -- quoting the response we sent with the designated agents info: "IF YOU DO NOT PROVIDE US THE ANSWER REQUESTED BY 4PM TODAY WE WILL PROCEED WITH FILING A MOTION TO HOLD YOU IN CONTEMPT. What the gently caress...I almost want them to do it so we can request Rule 11 sanctions against them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 18:16
|
|
|
joat mon posted:aside: At least they're self-aware enough to realize that there's a greater possibility of them engaging in something improper--if not illegal--than they are of being shot. Not sure why the department wouldn't have a "you break it, you bought it" policy, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 18:52
|
|
|
Save me jeebus posted:Of the Western Colorado prosecutor news you guys could have pulled, you picked that one? This article is hilarious. "Montrose DA faces charges of unlawful sexual contact, indecent exposure, exploitation, and official misconduct against three victims. Court records show he sent a naughty text to a girl!" Like a naughty text is the entire justification for the several sex-based felonies. hey baby u got gud boobs
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 19:22
|
|
|
BigHead posted:This article is hilarious. "Montrose DA faces charges of unlawful sexual contact, indecent exposure, exploitation, and official misconduct against three victims. Court records show he sent a naughty text to a girl!" Our DA threatened to let a woman's domestic abuser free if she didn't sleep with him. He also tried to trade an expungement for sex with another woman. Wisconsin wins again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 19:47
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Our DA threatened to let a woman's domestic abuser free if she didn't sleep with him. He also tried to trade an expungement for sex with another woman. Wisconsin wins again. The best part was when he said he wasn't going to resign, adding that he hoped his "entire career won’t be judged on a single series of text messages."
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 20:09
|
|
|
Wyatt posted:The best part was when he said he wasn't going to resign, adding that he hoped his "entire career won’t be judged on a single series of text messages." I love Wisconsin corruption because it's full on belligerent. Our officials do terrible things, get caught and then tell you to go gently caress yourself. Our Supreme Court, the DA, the 'Shadow Caucus,' the DA we had who was negotiating settlements which included payments to a charity he ran. God I love our state. Someone needs to make a badger shedding a tear in front of a Wisconsin flag .gif so I can put it right here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 20:24
|
|
|
Red Bean Juice posted:Went to New England Webcomics Weekend today. Brought some bad comics. hahaha I knew what #4 was before I looked it up, I am a hopelessly broken trainwreck of a human being
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 20:27
|
|
|
From a three attorney firm's listing on my school's job bank:quote:JOB DESCRIPTION
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 20:39
|
|
|
nm posted:You bastard. One more month. I've only beat one DUI. I've taken down, in one form or another, every non-DUI I've tried. We should get together some time. It's criminal that we haven't gotten together to trade war stories.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 20:51
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:hahaha I knew what #4 was before I looked it up, I am a hopelessly broken trainwreck of a human being In fairness, that's a memorably bizarre style of cause. Anyone know why it's not, say, U.S. v. Vazquez?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 21:05
|
|
|
Save me jeebus posted:Of the Western Colorado prosecutor news you guys could have pulled, you picked that one? DIBS Moving from America's Gooch with a low-paying job to a much better state with no job = the life 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 21:19
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:In fairness, that's a memorably bizarre style of cause. Anyone know why it's not, say, U.S. v. Vazquez? Have you never heard of In Rem actions? They're all like that. See, e.g., US v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins, 520 F.3d 976 Anthropolis fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Nov 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Let's assume that the officer did not fabricate what she says she saw him do as they pulled up. What was illegal about the inception of the stop? The fact that they decided to pull up on the guy at all? That's a generous assumption. In any event, if the oficers thought it was a weapon he stuffed in his pants, they could do a Terry pat-down, (not a search) but they didn't. They thought it was drugs - not basis for a Terry stop, not a basis for the full search they did. Pulling up on a person isn't a problem. Pulling up, jumping out and immediately detaining and searching a person is a problem. This was an arrest, not a consentuial encounter, not a Terry stop. There was not enough PC to support the arrest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2010 23:24
|
|