Two New York Attorneys Arrested For Throwing Molotov Cocktail At Police [Updated]

downloadYesterday we discussed the four arrests associated with two attacks on New York police officers using Molotov cocktails.  It is now being reported that one of the defendants arrested, Colinford Mattis, 32, is a furloughed Pryor Cashman associate.  Mattis is a graduate of New York University and Princeton University. He was reportedly arrested with a second attorney in the attack.  Mattis is accused of driving a van and passenger Urooj Rahman, 31, threw a Molotov cocktail. Rahman is reportedly a human rights lawyer but also recently lost her job. Update: The FBI now says that the two defendants sought to pass out Molotov cocktails.

An NYPD surveillance camera reportedly recorded Rahman throwing the device toward a NYPD vehicle in Fort Greene.  A video showed her getting out of a tan 2015 Chrysler Town and Country minivan driven by Mattis and moving toward the patrol car. She was observed lighting a fuse on a Bud Light beer bottle and throwing it through a broken window.  It exploded inside of the vehicle and the two fled.

The police also have a picture of Rahman with the explosive:


The FBI statement included the following description:

“Officers pursued the minivan and arrested Rahman and Mattis, who was the vehicle’s driver.  The NYPD recovered several precursor items used to build Molotov Cocktails, including a lighter, a bottle filled with toilet paper and a liquid suspected to be gasoline in the vicinity of the passenger seat and a gasoline tank in the rear of the vehicle.”

They are now charged with causing damage by fire and explosives to a police vehicle. If convicted, each of them faces up to 20 years behind bars. There is a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years.

The specific provision charged appears to be 18 U.S.C. 844 (i):

“Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both;  and if personal injury results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be imprisoned for not less than 7 years and not more than 40 years, fined under this title, or both;  and if death results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall also be subject to imprisonment for any term of years, or to the death penalty or to life imprisonment.”

Unlike Samantha Shader’s case discussed yesterday, the vehicle was unoccupied.  However, the device did explode (unlike Shader’s Molotov cocktail). Still, Shader is looking at more serious charges of attempted murder. I would expect that additional charges might be sought now that authorities are saying that they were trying to distribute the Molotov cocktails.   The criminal complaint now includes the allegations that “Rahman attempted to distribute Molotov cocktails to the witness and others so that those individuals could likewise use the incendiary devices in furtherance of more destruction and violence.”  The use of the federal system is also likely to produce a longer sentence in a case of this kind, particularly if they can show a broader conspiracy or interstate movements or communications.

The new allegation reflects premeditation and planning to unleash multiple fire bombings. The FBI is likely looking at the ownership of the van and anyone who may have rendered material support.  The case is framed perfectly as a test case of the Administration treating defendants as domestic terrorists under the definition in subsection 5 of 18 U.S.C. 2331:

The term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

If the Justice Department is looking for a way to reframe cases as domestic terrorism without dealing with the dubious effort to define Antifa as a “foreign terrorist organization” under the State Department regulations, this may be the right case at the right time from their perspective.  For Mattis and Rahman, the consequences of such a reframing would obviously magnify the already serious allegations that they are facing.

Pryor Cashman’s website described Colinford Mattis, 32, as a member of the firm’s Corporate Group. That reported entry was deleted after the media learned of the connection.

However, two references remain on site.  One describes the corporate team that worked on a deal to sell a $319 million stake in AccorHotels. Another entry refers to Mattis as being on the team that launched brand management platform WHP Global on the acquisition of legacy women’s fashion brand Anne Klein.

According to Pryor Cashman managing partner Ronald Shechtman, Mattis has been on furlough since April due to the pandemic.  He said that Mattis’ employment status will be reviewed.  Given the serious federal criminal charges, a review may be in order.

Mattis graduated from New York University School of Law in 2016 and received his bachelor’s degree from Princeton University. He was also previously employed as an associate at Holland & Knight.  Rahman was just admitted to the New York bar in June 2019 after graduating from Fordham University School of Law.

Here is the DOJ filing: Criminal Complaint

309 thoughts on “Two New York Attorneys Arrested For Throwing Molotov Cocktail At Police [Updated]”

  1. Who will automatically go to prison and be given a longer sentence if convicted:

    A white man wearing a blue pantsuit and brass jewelry who intentionally torture murders a black man using slow strangulation?


    A black woman who intentionally firebombs a white man wearing a blue pantsuit and brass jewelry’s unoccupied car without causing any personal injury?

    Any American, including Johnathan Turley, who lives in the United States and says the legal system there is fair, or just, or any different from Russia’s or China’s for poor people and blacks is necessarily a wealthy white lying racist fool.

    1. Seriously? The cop who killed George Floyd will spend far more time than the ‘lawyer’ playing ANTIFA. Silly question. ‘Automatic’ – stupid!! We are supposed to have a system of law…

      NOW – if you were to complain that conservatives are harshly treated by the DoJ and courts – and trivial things are blown up into serious crimes (see, for example – LTG Flynn, or how Sen. Ted Stevens was FRAMED by a corrupt DoJ, or Scooter Libby was FRAMED by a corrupt Special Prosecutor ) – while leftists get a pass….(see for example – Hillary Clinton – guilty of many violations of handling classified material, her corrupt Clinton Foundation, and more…..or how Sandy Berger got a hand slap for serious theft and destruction of classified materials from the National Archives.) Leftists have corrupted the concept of Justice.

      AND – where do we see most of the violence – In Democrat ‘havens’ – usually with Democrat Governors, Mayors and Chiefs of Police – and many time – they minorities- and somehow – it is the fault of conservatives? GIVE ME A BREAK!

  2. Habakkuk’s Complaint
    2 How long, Lord, must I call for help,
    but you do not listen?
    Or cry out to you, “Violence!”
    but you do not save?
    3 Why do you make me look at injustice?
    Why do you tolerate wrongdoing?
    Destruction and violence are before me;
    there is strife, and conflict abounds.
    4 Therefore the law is paralyzed,
    and justice never prevails.
    The wicked hem in the righteous,
    so that justice is perverted.

    The Lord’s Answer
    5 “Look at the nations and watch—
    and be utterly amazed.
    For I am going to do something in your days
    that you would not believe,
    even if you were told.
    6 I am raising up the Babylonians,[a]
    that ruthless and impetuous people,
    who sweep across the whole earth
    to seize dwellings not their own.
    7 They are a feared and dreaded people;
    they are a law to themselves
    and promote their own honor.
    8 Their horses are swifter than leopards,
    fiercer than wolves at dusk.
    Their cavalry gallops headlong;
    their horsemen come from afar.
    They fly like an eagle swooping to devour;
    9 they all come intent on violence.
    Their hordes[b] advance like a desert wind
    and gather prisoners like sand.
    10 They mock kings
    and scoff at rulers.
    They laugh at all fortified cities;
    by building earthen ramps they capture them.
    11 Then they sweep past like the wind and go on—
    guilty people, whose own strength is their god.”



  3. These two are the people that can actually bring justice through the legal system. They’re the ones that can enact change. Why waste your time with this nonsense. At this time we need to come together and fight the system the legal and safe way.

  4. I’m sure Keith Wright and the New York County Democratic Committee will have these two on the bench in nine years as soon as they are eligible to serve as judges. Unless they are disbarred as they should be.

  5. So, I take it that they were not satisfied with their stints as lawyers? Lol. Wow.

    So privileges, and yet, some stupid. Some smart folks turn out to be idiots, and vice versa, and everything in between.

    “They know what the system wants to hear, but they do not know what the system wants them to do.”

    — Me, quotes by me.

    As a Gen Y (myself), way. to. go. guys. ::two thumbs up:: Kiss your life and everything you worked for (for years) good-bye.

    I will now play the smallest violin for you both in a magnificent Bach: Sonata for Violin Solo No. 1 in G Minor

    1. These two lawyers should go to China, Russia, Cuba, North Korea or Vietnam to practice their revolutionary tactics, then they could come back to America to burn their own cities if— they still be alive! They will be rotten in prisons over there.

    2. They both will need lawyers, deserve a ten year incarceration each

      1. they will get 10 years for making destructive devices and they will get more time, for whatever terror or conspiracy charges are laid on. maybe consecutive too. we will see if the weak federal government can actually defend itself with court system or not.

        if not, then this goose is cooked, it’s over, time to move on to the next phase and beyond

  6. —Rahman is reportedly a human rights lawyer but also recently lost her job. —

    Not true – she is still on the payroll of Legal Services NYC.

  7. The American professoriate is sick with hatred toward this country and are a major source of instilling ignorance in our college students.

    1. True. When I went to school back in the 60s they taught patriotism, not hated of our country. Obviously our country is not perfect because people are not perfect! But the U.S. is the best in the world!!

      1. I dont know if America is the best or not.

        Singapore is better governed far as I can see. Lots of places are richer per capita. New Zealand seems pretty swell.

        But I was born here and my ancestors watered the soil with their blood. they have been buried here for generations. I love it just because I was born here. That’s all. My love is the love of the native born. I respect my ancestors who were migrants,. who thought it was better than whichever place in Europe. But hey came and died before I was born and for me, it’s all I got.

        I can’t move to Singapore. Lord knows I’ve thought about it. Cant afford it. Probably never will be able to either. And then I would not be in my home anyways.

  8. Seth… can you check for me ?
    We’ve had about 100 vehicles or more torched in the riots.
    Any of ’em wind up like Michael Hastings vehicle ?

    Just wondering if going fast makes it burn and melt more.

  9. Darren needs a reminder that there is beauty and craftsmanship in this world

  10. Your taxpayer dollars probably helped fund these two losers’ days in law school. Infiltration rather than invasion. Remember that cop killer Bernadine Dohrn teaches law and Ayers was teaching teachers a curriculum of Hate America. They raised terrorists’ kid who is now DA of San Francisco. They first announced their treasonous plans at the 1969 SDS Convention in Chicago, used 100,000 anti war protestors as pawns in 1970, just as they are now using Black protestors as pawns. Until all these Leftist leaders are tried for Treason and hung, the violence won’t stop. Don’t wait for Young Communist League and DSA vets who are now leaders in Congress to stop this.

  11. Q+ sent me. I wonder who these kids will give up in order to get a reduced sentence.

  12. A lot of hard work, student loans, support from proud parents lost in a instant, and for what. They are both still so young, and prison will be a long hard stretch. When they finally get out, they’ll be lucky to get jobs flipping burgers.

    1. No. They’ll always find work in Illinois law schools as “adjunct professors” like Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers,

  13. Throwing Molotov cocktails are acts of terrorist ….so they are domestic terrorist and should be transported to GITMO immediately

    1. Lock them up. They are no better then the cop. I’m so sick of people who represent or know the law think they are above the law

      1. You mean they don’t get some post graduate assignments from Bill Ayers ?
        What is this world coming to.

  14. The New York Daily News interviewed Urooj Rahman’s coop superintendent, Geotge Raleigh of the Bay Ridge section of Brooklyn.

  15. Adios law ticket, hola Federal penitentiary. If I were the judge, I’ve give them both 20 years.

    1. Maybe do a Judge Sullivan routine and tack on your own charges and sentence them on those too. “Prosecutors? I don’t need no stinkin prosecutors. I be da judge!”

      1. If you’re referring to Flynn, Sullivan hasn’t “tack[ed] on [his] own charges.” He did ask an amicus to address whether Flynn should be held in contempt for perjury, but Sullivan hasn’t received the amicus brief yet, much less found Flynn in contempt. Judges have an inherent power to punish contempt, but they can’t tack on whatever other charges they want.

        1. The judge is digging his own hole, again. Hope he falls in.

          I don’t like her t-shirt above, but it’s funny how the struggle for her will continue, regardless.

        2. “Sullivan hasn’t “tack[ed] on [his] own charges.”

          This guy CTHD is something else. When he wants to get a political opponent he will advocate anything. Stalin got Trotsky and CTHD will get Flynn despite the lack of guilt.

          CTHD is creating charges that should not be created. We have a lot of people that pled guilty because they were being railroaded into a guilty plea. Though innocent they took the lower sentence. With DNA some of those that pled guilty have been found to be innocent and CTHD wants to lock them up for perjury.

          This guy CTHD has an awful understanding of justice.

    2. It’ll be a liberal judge that pats them on the back and send them out to practice law again.

      1. All too likely. So they can turn their lives around….and buy more gasoline and matches.

      2. I know of two people convicted of murder who had their cases reversed and went on to practice law

        imagine that, murderers, admitted to law

        not making this up and im not naming names, but one’s black and one’s white

        1. Kurtz– John Wesley Hardin also became a lawyer. The Old West museum in Griffith Park has one of his business cards with a bullet hole in it. He liked to shoot them for souveniers.

          1. yeah, that guy died in 1895, but these 2 guys are alive today. and both have active licenses

            1. I wonder if their clients know? Could be a great billboard ad:

              “I beat my murder rap and I can beat yours! Call ******> or **murderlawyer. I wash the legal blood off… and the rest of it.”

  16. I don’t think the second autopsy report helps the prosecution. Instead it creates doubt about the whole conduct of both medical examinations. “If they can’t agree, why should we?” a juror might ask. Doubt is an emotion rather than a fact and it can spread like a stain on an entire case so that even good evidence is blurred. I have used doubt as a technique before.

    As Squeeky noted below, the presence of a powerful drug like fentanyl puts another big poisoned arrow in the defense quiver. The drug kills healthy people. It is even more dangerous with individuals whose cardiovascular system is compromised. Using the drug, the criminal was committing slow suicide. It just wasn’t quite as slow as he expected. I would try to put the drug on trial, right along with the state prosecution. If the jury hears enough about the dangers of fentanyl–and it is relevant–they may just say, “to hell with it. The drug he took killed him.”

    I suspect that no medical expert can truthfully testify that the actions of the officer were the cause of the criminal’s death. They will be cross examined, closely. Unless the state can prove that the officer’s actions caused the criminal’s death beyond a reasonable doubt there is no case for murder or manslaughter.

    There is an added problem for the state. Reports were that they neck compression the officer used to control the criminal were approved by the local police department. Is the department going to enjoy saying that their procedures are likely to kill criminals needing restraint or will they likely testify that it is a safe procedure unless, perhaps, the criminal has ingested dangerous drugs which the officer could not reasonably anticipate?

    1. “…the criminal has ingested dangerous drugs which the officer could not reasonably anticipate?”
      The jury will:
      Laughing at that.
      Here’s a good strategy – get the video evidence destroyed. If that can’t be mustered, have the sound portion muted. In lieu of that really lousy speakers and volume in the courtroom.

      If the jury acquits I will eat a donut.

    2. Young – the neck control approve is for the carotid, not the spine.

    3. Young– I have seen cases defended to a not guilty verdict with much less. Although I do not do criminal law (except mandatory federal appointments when I was younger) I once lost a case because the jury foreman was black and my clients were the sons of a deceased Hispanic man and, little did I know, there was considerable animosity between the Hispanic and black communities in that county at that time. That fact, which had nothing to do with the merits, lost me the case as confirmed by other jurors when I talked to them. It is hard to explain to clients that they may or may not find justice at the courthouse.

      1. Honest- You can win despite the merits too. But you know that. I don’t think this case would be hard to win with a lot of work, but for the mob of course. And I think they will cheat, but you have probably seen that too. That can be good if you expect it can catch them. Just random thoughts.

        1. Young– I once saw DEA agents lie in a trial about why finger prints were not found on any of the drug paraphernalia my client was accused of having. They felt they were doing what needed to be done to get my client behind bars because he knew all of the agents and could burn any undercover operation they tried, and he had nine prior felony convictions (I am not exaggerating) and he really did need to be in prison. I did catch them in the lie but the nine convictions was what stuck in the jurors’ minds. I love what I do because it really is where the rubber meets the road and you never know where that road will go.

          1. I have had officers lie as well and sometimes I have been able to turn it to advantage. It comes in degrees, shading a story a bit onto outright fabrication. Any witness looks bad when caught in a fabrication but it looks worse when an officer does it. Usually they are just trying to help the case along a bit and deal with someone who needs jail more than most. And some do. I had one who threatened me if I didn’t win his case. He meant it, having used a knife liberally on his victim. Fortunately he killed himself on a motorcycle before the legal issue was decided.

            Sounds like the jurors in your case made the right call even having to overlook the agent’s lies. It is fascinating work. I am not active now, but I am enjoying gaming this case just for the fun of it. You might want to look at Professor Jacobson’s site, Legal Insurrection, and the comments under his post on this subject. I was pleased to see the professor and several very good posters in Comments had the same doubts about this case that we have. On this site the lawyers, and Squeeky, are the only ones who picked up on the flaws in the case almost at once. The rest are ready with nooses in hand.

    4. The Hennepin County ME concurred with the independent autopsy.

      Also, everyone in under the mistaken impression Derek Chauvin was on Floyd’s neck while three officers watched. That is false. Three cops were on Floyd – one on his legs, one on his back and then Chauvin with his knee in Floyd’s neck. The fourth cop was keeping the horrified onlookers at bay.

      1. Mimi– The autopsies concurred to a degree but on the essential question of the causation pathway they differed. That differnce can be–should be– a big problem for proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

        Now we are hearing that the shopowner thought he was drunk or under drugs because of his behavior before the arrest. It also appears that he may have been having a heart attack before he was restrained and was complaining about breathing problems when standing.

        Given his identified medical pathologies and the drugs in his system he could very well have been having a heart attack or stroke before he was subdued. It is not clear beond a reasonable doubt that the department approved restraint the officer was using caused the criminal’s death.

        1. Cardiac arrest precipitated by cocaine, meth or other neuro-stimulants is called Prinzemetal / Variant Angina. Illegal drugs like cocaine / amphetamines and opiates negatively affect the central nervous system. Coupled with his obesity and a physical altercation, it was a perfect storm for death. The cop knew this man was a drug user and knew as a professional that physically provoking him would push him to near death scenario because of said drugs. That he kept his knee as long as he did on his neck was excessive. He knew it, the man died, he murdered him.

          Defending the cop is an act of cowardice. Blacks rioting is more cowardly considering it is killing and injuring the very people they say they represent. Neither side is a shining example of authentic nor virtue. Such is the zero sum game played by conservatives vs liberals with everyone losing like now.

          1. Estovir– Well said as to the medical part, but less so as to your legal points. I don’t partrcularly care for the cop because of his record of complaints. He probably should have been let go. I said earlier I would have fired him before this.

            However, as a purely legal issue I think his case is winnable and should be won with competent counsel. He’s a brute but is he a brute who should go to prison on these facts? Probably not.

            Any defense attorney who takes this case and gives it the level of dedication his duty commands is courageous and is possibly putting his career and his life in danger. He is certainly no coward. Nothing looks quite so noble as a defense attorney who has an unpleasant client and a raging mob at his doorstep and still does his best for the law. He is protecting more than his client; he is protecting civilization.

            1. I agree the accused is entitle to presumption of innocence and due process and a fair trial and competent counsel

              i also tend to think he will get convicted of murder 3, theyve bumped it up to 2, and may yet bump it up to 1

              malice aforethought doesn’t have to start the day before. it can be right before the incident, even once it’s underway

              for now it’s not my job to protect chauvin. I said before, let the system do its work,

              protest if you like, but any amount of vandalism, rioting, theft, burlary, assault, battery, arson, and homicide is not ok

              not only is it not ok, and not justified by the george floyd death– but it is muddles the picture to the detriment of those who find it most offensive.

              this point seems to escape the protesters, who have been apologizing abundantly for the crimes committed in floyd’s name

              at this point, floyd is one victim and against him there are tens of thousands of people who have had property destroyed, livelihoods ruined, businesses ended, and have also ended up in the hospital or dead

              the shameful rioting is on the heads of those who apologized early on for illegal actions. they are almost uniformly Democratic party officials or at the very least, cheerleaders of the Democratic party. oh well i guess there are a lot of people to the left of them who have apologized for the mess too but they won;’t be the ones standing in the next elections

              now if a majority of Americans who vote in the relevant elections, come november, want elected officials who apologize for riot, looting and crime? what then?

              then the American voters are themselves criminals, and we will reap the whirlwind because of it

    5. Young,
      What matters more is the levels of Fentanyl in his system. Fentanyl is an opiate, it decreases respiratory drive and would contribute to decreased oxygenation… but only if there was enough in this system. It would also make him less aware of pain and less likely to complain of pain or difficulty breathing… but from the video, we know he DID do those things. So, if you ask me (as a physician assistant, with lots of experience with fentanyl) the only plausible way it would have impacted the outcome is if the drug was taken before the encounter, but had not reached peak effect…. meaning it peaked AFTER his being held down. Given fentanly is very powerful and has a very short onset, peak (~15-20min), and duration (<1hr), it likely had no effect on this encounter unless he took a lot of the drug <10 minutes before the encounter. You will still have detectable levels in the system for long after taking it. I never really take much stock in reports that people "have drugs in their system"…. what matters is HOW MUCH did they have in their system. Even then, with opiates people develop tolerance… so the actual "effect" of a drug is not necessarily the same between individuals. Someone who uses opiates frequently can tolerate a much larger dose before having negative effects. The fact that someone has drugs in their system matters to a point (esp. when you look at character), but what matters more is behavior and whether behavior correlates with drug use. (it's why cops use field sobriety tests… it actually tests for/verifies impairment) If there was no video, the officer may have a case that it contributed to Mr. Floyd's death… but there is a video. If his drug levels were off the charts high… to the point where overdose is a likely COD, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. My guess is he had minimal levels in his blood, so it's there… but that is essentially meaningless unless your defense is to attack Mr. Floyd's character. I'm not sure I would recommend that, but the defense has to play the cards they have.

      1. Joe Snuffy – there is video of him collapsing as he starts to round the right front corner of the SUV. That is exactly what happened to me both times I stroked. Then we have no video until they have him in the backseat, but it is clear it has taken the four of them to get him there. Next videos we have are him on the ground, face down, one officer with his knee on his neck, one on his back and one on his legs, the other is keeping people on the sidewalk. This goes on for at least 8.5 minutes. We do not have video of them getting Floyd out of the car. Somewhere in all of this ambulance was called. We do not know by whom.

      2. Joe, thanks. I am sure you are right for the most part. I would add that he also had detectable methamphetamine in his system. A direct attack on Floyd’s charcter might be unwise but it is relevant to say why he was arrested and that he had two dangerous drugs in his system and that he seemed out of it to the store clerk. A juror could reasonably figure out from that that he is a low-life criminal. Just with that sentence you probably are already thinking that.

        The drugs, his behavior and his medical pathologies are relevant for a different reason. They reveal plausible alternative causes of death that do not include the officer.

        The officer does not need to prove that the criminal had enough drugs in his system to kill him. It is the responsibility of the state to show that the alternative paths to his death are not reasonably possible. That would be easy if the criminal were not intoxicated with drugs and not medically compromised. But he has those compromising factors. All you need to do is get a single juror to think, ” Hey MAYBE those drugs and his diseases did kill him.” That ‘maybe’ is reasonable doubt and a possible acquittal.

        The jury must also recognize that though gruesome the neck restraint is an approved procedure for that police department and is regularly used without fatal consequences. Department experience shows that thst procedure should not kill. If it is dangerous then that is the fault of the department rather than the officers who have been trained by experts to believe it is safe.

        I would like to ask you whether in your medical experience, if a large man with a history of hypertension and cardiovascular disease and with those two drugs in his system had a heart attack or stroke and died after strenuous exertion would you be particularly surprised? Probably not. More likely you would think it was going to happen sooner or later.

        I think I read that sudden death is not an unusual side effect of that combination of factors, even without the addition of a cop.

        The jury does not have to have anything medically proven to them. All that is needed is to persuade them that there is some doubt whether the cop is truly responsible.

        Reasonanble doubt.

        Also you may need to be sure you don’t have jurors determimed to lynch him as appears to have happened in Stone’s case.

        Someone should also ask if we would be going through this with the same set of facts but the races reversed.

      3. Joe, have a closer look at Estovir’s comment. He says the criminal’s obesity, cardiovascular issues and use of that combination of drugs coupled with strenous exercise was a perfect storm likely to lead to death and that the cop was responsible for the death because he knew of the crimimal’s dangerous conditions.

        He is a doctor and is likely right about the risk factors. I am less sure he is right in saying the cop knew about all of them. Cops don’t usually have an opportunity to conduct a “fitness for resisting arrest” medical examination on criminals and issue a medical clearance for fighting before actually taking them down. They carry guns, not stethoscopes.

        1. Young, you provide good arguments but they are rather generic. Estovir adds the argument, “because he knew of the crimimal’s dangerous conditions.” I will take the same ill health of the criminal and ask you had the cop shot him in the heart (under anyone of a multiplicity of circumstances) could not that same man have died from his illness rather than the bullet that became incidental because his death preceded the bullet? It might be an off the wall comment but under both circumstances one can blame the death on the illness killing him vs the policeman’s actions or visa versa. This is something that has not actually been proven, but the knee on the dead man’s neck is a very vivid picture that makes a jury trial into a gamble. Charge high settle lower.

          1. Allan– The video of the knee on the neck is powerful and going to be a major problem for the defense. I might change my mind with more thought but right now I would lean toward spending a lot of time on the department’s approval of the procedure, that it is taught, that is used often without causing death, that it is needed particularly with strong criminals under the influence of drugs that make them insensible to pain. In short I would saturate the jury with information of that nature. I need to wash out the video.

            Just occurred to me that the criminal’s previous coniction for armed home invasion might get to the jury if the cop can explain that he was aware of it from working with him and that knowledge informed his decisions in controlling a big strong man who had a history of violence and, he thought, was likely very dangerous when arrested again.

            As for your example, shooting someone is overwhelmingly the most likely cause of a death. On the other hand, there are several plausible alternative pathways to death in this instance that do not impose liability on the cop. All you need is reasonable doubt. I have won with less and I am sure honestlawyer and Kurtz have as well. The real problem here is getting a fair trial but even that is not insurmountable. Zimmerman did not get a fair trial, but he had excellent representation and still won.

            1. “a lot of time on the department’s approval of the procedure”

              Young, the problem is this cop went so far that if the video is shown in court the jury is going to be sickened. ‘Mr. Young, I recognize procedure and agree procedure is important but when the man is restrained and cuffed do you then shoot him which is also a procedure police use? Do you then shoot him again and again after the man has been dead for several minutes? Is that procedure? You want to claim he died because of his medical problems. If the medical problems were killing him, why the cuffs and why the 9 minutes where the knee was placed where many of those minutes were after death. Is that procedure as well?’ What was the intent of the officer? You are going to have to explain the minutes after the man was dead and while the man was asking for help while he was dying in front of a crowd and other officers. What will the other officers say? Will they dump on him for better treatment.

              Charge high and settle lower.

              I’m strongly pro police but when they step over the line the picture reverses. However, this officer didn’t just step over the line. He went well past the goal post indicating intent to kill. Intent to kill with proximity to a dead body? What do you think?

              1. Allan: You said I ” want to claim he died because of his medical problems.”

                Actually, no I don’t. I am not trying to prove anything in the logical and scientific sense. True proof lies beond the reach of the evidence.

                I am gaming how to persuade a jury that his medical and dope and fighting problems present a reasonable alternative for cause of death. I am not trying to prove a fact; I am trying to ‘prove’ ambiguity.

                And now I am thinking that the officer’s foreknowledge of the criminal’s history of committing serious crimes while armed with a deadly weapon reasonably guided the officer’s choice of legal options in controlling a big, powerful man on dope.

                Do I really care if the jury thinks about the officer’s reasons for his thinking? Probably not much, but I use it as a relevant vehicle to try to get this thug’s criminal past in front of the jury. I want him seen as a thug instead of a saint.

                As for the handcuffs, that guy is big and very strong and could do a lot of harm even cuffed.

                1. As for the handcuffs, that guy is big and very strong and could do a lot of harm even cuffed.

                  Heroin and cocaine were found in his system. By the time the cop wrestled him to the ground he was a beached whale out of water. He murdered him. This isn’t that difficult

                  1. I am looking for ways to make it difficult from a lawyer’s point of view.

                    If I shoot at someone and he is sinking to the ground, moaning and is hit by lightning and killed before he hits the ground am I guilty of murder or of attempted murder?

                    Causality is important and I and other lawyers here and at Legal Insurrection see problems with causality and proof beyond a reasonable doubt in this case.

                2. Young, I was actually saying how I would feel if on the jury with any of those ideas being presented. Those would be the questions running through my head and those few minutes of the knee laying on the handcuffed dead man’s neckwould make me think long and hard enough to consider intent to murder blocking my mind from any idea of ambiguity. The knee on the neck of the dead man doesn’t permit me to be easily convinced that the officer didn’t kill him.

                  “As for the handcuffs, that guy is big and very strong and could do a lot of harm even cuffed.”

                  Not after he is dead.

                  1. Allan, I know the video is bad and it will be shown (though I would argue it is prejudicial). That’s why the defense should spend as much courtroom time as possible to mitigate the impact of the video. I wonder if the department has training films demonstrating the technique? It is an easier sell if much of the blame is shifted to the department. “But the officer was trained to do it and he was told it was safe.” I think to ease doubt in and hit it again and again from different angles till they begin to get used to the narrative. There are different stories and you want the jury to follow your story from the beginning. My voir dire questions would hint at it as much as the judge would let me get away with. My opening argument would possibly begin with “this is a department approved technique used safely by officers all of the time. Why not safe this time? Because we will show the deceased was already on the brink of sudden death because of multiple dangerous medical conditions and because he was taking a dangerous combination of illegal drugs on top of it. The officer couldn’t know that when he used a common, safe, department approved technique that the man he was arresting had one foot in the grave because of his medical condition and the other foot on a banana peel because of the dangerous illegal drugs he was taking. They would remember that and if only one or two jurors begins to see the case from that point of view it is good.

                    Something along that line. I would fight for theme control from the beginning. The facts aren’t the big problem; the emotions are, and they have to be moved where you want them.

                    1. Young, I understand why you would argue prejudicial but unless there are problems with the video that indicate something other than is being viewed I think the video should be shown. You could show me all the video’s you want of proper procedure but none would show the knee on the neck for minutes after the handcuffed individual is on the ground and dead. I am very pro Police so I provide police officers a lot of leeway. However, this case appears off the charts, don’t you think?

                      Those extra few minutes after he is dead at least in my mind create an emotion that blocks out sympathy.

                      Convince me that you could make me change my mind. I was on a six man jury where some of the facts were known and there was a video. I was sure the defendent was guilty and I would have to convince 5 others to agree. During the trial the defendent was called and I listened. Immediately I realized she was not innocent but not guilty either. I was afraid I would be facing 5 others that wanted conviction. I am telling you this story to show that I can be convinced even with video that proves guilt. Notable was the most educated found the defendent not guilty. The least educated held firm to guilt. I asked the defense counsel later why he wanted me on the jury since my profile wasn’t good for the defendent. He said guilt was too obvious so he wanted the most educated that could understand why a guilty person wasn’t guilty. I don’t think that will occur in this case.

  17. Shaun King

    BREAKING: The family of George Floyd & @AttorneyCrump literally hired the most respected medical examiners in the world to conduct an independent autopsy.

    They determined that the 3 men on George compressed his neck, back, diaphragm and caused asphyxiation.

    2:48 PM · Jun 1, 2020

      1. Get the help you so obviously need. This is to the idiot @ 7:57.

        1. so to the person at 7:57 and the other person who “liked” the comment

          I guess there are a couple of dummies: the two of you.

    1. These clowns are going to realize even after disbarment, they still have to pay off the loans they took out for law school. I bet her parents are less than pleased.

      1. They will both claim to have identity issues and the state will have to pay for their sex change procedures while in prison. Then they will assert that they, the new they, are being imprisoned illegally because they are no longer the individuals who committed the crime. 1 year imprisonment and lose your wanker or vagina, your Scott free.

        1. You don’t lose your wee – wee. The Docs split it like a hot dog bun and tuck it in a skin pouch. My understanding is that if the surgeon is good, you still have all the sensation that you had before. A local hairdresser had the procedure. What ever happened to pizza, beer and a lousy movie on first date night? M

  18. SPLC a phony hate watchdog group, famous mostly for its massive half billion dollar endowment, built ripping off gullible liberal donors, rides to the rescue— of ANTIFA 2020/06/01/designating-antifa-domestic-terrorist-organization-dangerous-threatens-civil-liberties

  19. Competing autopsy reports alert! Excerpts:
    The attorneys representing George Floyd’s family and Hennepin County officials have now released competing autopsy results, agreeing that the death is a homicide but disagreeing over the precise cause.

    Attorneys for the Floyd family said Monday afternoon that a private autopsy conducted by two doctors found he died of asphyxia, which happens which pressure is placed on certain parts of the body, limiting the flow of oxygen to the brain and shutting down organs.

    Hours later, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office issued a report expanding on its initial release, classifying the manner of death as “homicide” and finding Floyd died of “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.”

    The medical examiner’s report also listed “arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease,” as well as fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use as “other significant conditions.”

    Private autopsies do have their limitations, Wilson said, including that “we are not seeing the tissues in their original state and some items may have been kept by the original pathologist. With that acknowledgment, we feel those items will not change or alter the primary cause of death of mechanical asphyxia.”

    Dr. Michael Baden, also working for the family, said the second autopsy shows that Floyd “had no underlying medical problem that caused or contributed to his death. … He was in good health. The compressive pressure of the neck and back are not seen at autopsy because the pressure has been released by the time the body comes to the medical examiner’s office.

    It’s too early to tell whether the family’s autopsy will play a role in Chauvin’s criminal case.

    “I don’t even know how this goes,” said Bradford Colbert, a practitioner in residence at Mitchell Hamline School of Law. “It’s not exactly clear to me, because in a criminal case, it’s the state vs. the defendant. Theoretically, the victim does not have the right to be involved. That’s how it rolls.”
    I told you guys it was METH!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Repprter

    1. Compression to the neck cuts off the flow to the brain, and the resulting retardation kills them – by stopping the heart, etc.
      They need to stop the kneeing because we have enough retards, we don’t need more when the abused doesn’t die.

      1. Compression to the neck can cut off flow to the brain but that is not asphyxiation which is cutting off air. Also you can’t say much of anything if blood flow is cut off. You are unconscious. I saw it demonstrated and a person goes out very, very fast. I guess we need a third autopsy to bring even more conclusions to the table.

        When air is cut off you also can’t say, “I can’t breathe.” When a person is suspected of having blockage of an airway the doctor will ask, “can you talk?” and if they do their passage isn’t blocked. If they can’t speak it’s time to act fast and clear the airway.

        1. Stop the CRUD. He quit talking, he went limp, gimp pulled the mace.

        2. Then, for 3 minutes the gimp kept the pressure on.
          I guess time to clear the airway was really time to pull the mace.(your scenario)

        3. The carotid arteries are major blood vessels in the neck that supply blood to the brain, neck, and face. There are two carotid arteries, one on the right and one on the left. In the neck

          “…the doctors also found a hemorrhage “over the vertebral bodies and in the cervical region,” as well as on the outside of the carotid artery …”

          The cervical spine is delicate—housing the spinal cord that sends messages from the brain to control all aspects of the body

    2. Thanks Squeeky! Good information.

      “He was in good health.” Except for: “arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease,” as well as fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use as “other significant conditions.”

      Wow! do you think he was in good enough health to pass a DOT exam with those conditions? No, he was not. The only thing more ridiculous would be to say that “except for being dead he was in robust good health but needs more exercise.”

      If the defense counsel is competent these people are going to be shredded on cross examination.

      “Dr. Baden, in your professional opinion would you characterize a person who is intoxicated with fentanyl and recent methamphetamine use added to ateriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease as being in good health? Would you allow a person in that state to drive you to the grocery store?”

      The update on the medical examiner’s report can be construed as submitting to outside pressure.

      It’s shaping up to be a judicial lynching.

      1. hey thats what riots are all about, right?

        because if the jury doesnt convict there will be more riots

        now with the dueling medical reports, most juries could find reasonable doubt– barring fear of reprisals for the rest of their lives.

        so they know how they’re supposed to vote. voir dire will be a joke, it will be packed with the right jurors, for sure

        i’d lay odds of 80:1 right now in favor of a conviction,. and I don’t need a look at the evidence.
        at 100:1 odds, however, i might lay a small bet on an acquittal.

        I think Chauvin should be tried for manslaughter,. even if the department authorized neck compressions, which they probably did. i take a dim view of a lot of the current police restraint methods. the swarm tactics are actually worse than the old fashioned “sleeper hold” that they replaced.

        but i can accept the jury’s decision either way, and not pitch a riot over it.

        1. In Miami a police officer of Columbian heritage killed a black kid charging him on a motorcycle in Overton, a dangerous, black community. There were riots. The jury convicted the police officer but admitted that they did it because they were afraid of more riots. New trial.

          The second trial was held in Orlando where they didn’t care about Miami riots. Roy Black, a great attorney, represented the officer and won. The announcement of the verdict was delayed so the Miami-Dade Police could get in position. Swarms of helicopters came above Overton and Liberty City. Squad cars and vans raced into the area. Then the verdict was announced and the police were there and armed and ready to stomp the moment there was trouble. No riot. Easy. Nobody seems to have learned anything from them.

        2. “now with the dueling medical reports, most juries could find reasonable doubt”

          They both say nature of death is Homocide. Hardly dueling.

          Good thing he wasn’t covid-19 infected.

          1. They do both say homicide, but for different reasons. Homicide is a mostly legal conclusion. The medical conclusion is WHY he died and they can’t totally agree on the cause. He was killed by lightning and he was killed by being shot. Different causes. Confusion. The defense attorney needs to highlight that the ‘science’ can’t agree on what in the hell killed him and therefore there is a reasonable doubt that the officer was responsible for the death of the drugged-up criminal. There are indications he may have been having a heart attack or stroke even before he was pinned. I would like to know what he was doing in the day or so leading up to his death, including taking methamphetamine and fentanyl and, probably, alcohol. His body was a walking chemistry set.

            It seems a political necessity for the mob [including the governor and attorney general] to lynch him, and they might succeed, but I think there is room for reasonable doubt that the officer killed the doped-up criminal.

            For sure they need a change of venue. Somewhere the jurors aren’t afraid the Mau Mau and anarchists will be coming to their homes at night. It would not surprise me in the least if the prosecution accidentally released the names and addresses of the jurors.

            1. Young, this is going to be an interesting legal case. They could boost the charges to murder one and settle at murder 2. That might end the problem of a jury.

              I haven’t looked at all the details of the case but it sounds from some sources that Floyd was dead while he was lying on the ground being held down with the boot for some time. I think that type of imaging will have an effect on the jury so drugs and pre-existing conditions etc. will be forgotten. I’m not sure how much of the officer’s prior history can be used at trial.

      2. Young – Baden states he does not have access to the tissue samples, but they would not change his conclusions.

        1. Paul — I noticed that too. It’s a ridiculous statement, the equivalent of “I haven’t seen all the evidence but more evidence won”t change my mind.”

Comments are closed.