In a November 8, 2023 decision, United States District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New York rejected a motion for summary judgment filed by NYPD Officers Jillian Suarez and Bryan Rozanski, who sought to avoid a federal civil rights trial stemming from their shooting of ECBAWM client Peyman Bahadoran. In June 2020, Officers Suarez and Rozanski shot Mr. Bahadoran in the back and arm while he was in front of a Manhattan deli, permanently paralyzing him. Mr. Bahadoran was unarmed and experiencing a mental health emergency at the time. Citing the evidence gathered during discovery, including security camera footage, police bodycam recordings, and police officers’ own testimony, the Court concluded that Mr. Bahadoran’s case must continue to a trial, where a jury will determine whether Officers Suarez and Rozanski acted unreasonably and used excessive force when they shot Mr. Bahadoran. ECBAWM attorney Nick Bourland said: “Mr. Bahadoran was experiencing a mental health crisis and needed help. Instead, Defendants shot, paralyzed, and nearly killed Mr. Bahadoran, changing the course of his life in the blink of an eye. The Court’s recent ruling guarantees that Mr. Bahadoran will be able to present this tragic case to a jury and hold these officers responsible for their actions.” Mr. Bahadoran is represented by ECBAWM attorneys Jonathan Abady, Earl Ward, and Nick Bourland.
Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
Retired Sheriff’s Captain; Former CA POST Executive Director; Police & Corrections Practices Expert; Public Safety Consultant; Government Relations Strategist...
This CNN story is clearly biased, and there is insufficient information to form any judgments in my opinion. I join many others in being deeply concerned about the unfair quest for criminal prosecution against officers who make split-second decisions resulting in unfortunate deaths, but I digress. The bigger picture issue here is the wording used in the article. Note the statement from the State Prosecutor’s Office contains the familiar buzzwords: “…exhibiting a pattern and practice of conduct that requires closer examination…” We know from experience that these words are the dog whistle to trigger a USDOJ inquiry and subsequent oversight. The initiation of a federal consent decree is the golden holy grail for Plaintiffs’ attorneys suing police agencies. I don’t think the use of this phrase is a coincidence. These people are waving their arms just hoping the DOJ will step in and begin the daunting scrutinizination process. This is a topic that others like Bob Scales have poignantly written about extensively. Suffice to say, the policing profession is under siege and articles like this only serve to fuel the divide. Wash, rinse, repeat… https://lnkd.in/gB4uN-5F
A grandmother was fatally shot in her car by an officer. It’s not his force’s only deadly encounter under scrutiny | CNN
cnn.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
🚨⚖️ DOJ leaders are raising concerns as the House advances funding cuts, potentially impacting vital operations and public safety initiatives. These budget reductions could have significant implications for law enforcement and justice system effectiveness. Stay informed about the ongoing debate and what's at stake for the Department of Justice: https://lnkd.in/egJ4r-XG #DOJ #BudgetCuts #PublicSafety #JusticeSystem #FederalFunding #PolicyDebate
DOJ Leaders Cry Foul Over Budget as House Advances Funding Cuts — FEDagent
fedagent.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
A retired old guy who loves people and is happy to share my (FREE) advice, mistakes, valuable career and life lessons, good and bad experience, wisdom - and some funny stuff, too. Please FOLLOW and CONNECT WITH ME.
**TODAY'S THOUGHT EXERCISE** President Biden apparently believes he is a KING rather than an elected public servant with limited powers. For the last ~100 years, various Presidents have tried to impose their will and implement agendas via Executive Orders. I think we need to take a hard look at placing some limits on that. But consider the numbers. There is 1 President, 1 Vice President, 9 Supreme Court Justices, 435 House Members, 100 Senators, and 15 agency/cabinet members. That's 561 people in positions of executive authority, every one of whom is subordinate to the US Constitution. Meanwhile, there are 50 sovereign US States, each with a Governor and a Constitution, with a total of 335 MILLION citizens, about 40% of whom are legal residents and eligible voters. These voters are about 1/3 conservative/GOP, 1/3 independent/unaffiliated and 1/3 Democrat/progressive/liberal. There are no accurate records on how many and what types of firearms are in the US, nor who actually has them. The right "to keep and bear arms" has been in existence since the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. MOST (but not all) persons who have purchased firearms in the last 30 years have had to pass a criminal background check. That is intended to keep firearms out of the hands of people like felons and crazy people. It seems reasonable to me. NOTE: I do not like nor advocate for insurrection, sedition, terrorism, violence or threats of violence. But I do like and advocate for every one of the rights and freedoms in the Constitution. So, here's my point. I truly hope that the nice folks who are trying to stop Texas from enforcing the border will back off of their efforts to suppress American freedoms for American citizens. But if they don't, here is my advice to them...
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
There was a shooting outside of our local courthouse today, and the shooter killed someone. Rumors are swirling and the investigation is ongoing, and I am not going to be a public vector for creating rumors. But I am going to say this: the reason we have courts in organized society is that courts are, fundamentally, civilization's alternative to violence. They are a universal signifier of a civilized people. Instead of sending mobs to torture and kill criminals, we have an orderly legal system to process and punish crimes both big and small. Instead of burning your neighbor's house down if you have a dispute over land, you file a lawsuit. And in a democratic society, if you disagree with how the courts work, you can help create change. On an individual level, you can argue your case in a fair court. While courts tend to be more removed from the democratic process, they are connected to it, so who you vote for in executive and legislative elections affects who sits on the courts. You have a voice in the laws that will be written and passed through your elected representatives. You can sit on a jury. And you can protest, petition, and push to change rules that you believe are unfair. That is what democracy is. If today's violence is directly connected to a court case, that is a significant tragedy. It is a tragedy for the victim and their family. And it also chips away at our orderly system of law. Violence shatters order and replaces "equality before the law" with "might meets right." It makes us, in a profound and fundamental way, less civilized.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Check out this article from IndyStar: Op/Ed: How Supreme Court decides Rahimi case could save or cost lives https://lnkd.in/gRca_swA
Op/Ed: How Supreme Court decides Rahimi case could save or cost lives
indystar.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Senior Executive Leader Focused in the Healthcare Industry, Driving Transformational Strategies to Increase Operational Efficiencies & Influence Business Growth
The woke/equity movement now controls many American towns, including Kansas City, Missouri. That mass shooting during the Super Bowl parade on February 14 remains undefined. Why did it happen? What was the motive? Who exactly are the perpetrators? Four suspects are in custody. The two adults are black men, no details at all about the minors who will most likely be tried as adults. Of course, at this point, the authorities know what exactly happened but refuse to tell the public. Why? Because race is in play. Lisa Lopez-Galvan was killed, and 22 other innocent people were injured, yet there is no explanation from Kansas City. This is wrong. Everyone understands that if a white person was deemed responsible, that would have been front-page news on February 15, the day after, but minority criminal activity is handled differently. The public should know why horrendous crimes happen. It's a matter of safety. Is there a gang component to the mass shooting in KC? How did those arrested get handguns, especially the minors? Authorities have an obligation to inform us. This censorship stuff has got to stop. Stonewalling important information because of skin color or ethnicity is not in the public interest. The Mayor of Kansas City is not doing his job, and apparently, the police are afraid of him. Woke/equity: a plague upon the land.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
This is a thorough article about the various states working on similar legislation. 🙏❤️🕊 -- "Facing increased threats to election workers and superheated political rhetoric from former President Donald Trump and his supporters, more states are considering firearm bans at polling places and ballot drop boxes ahead of November’s presidential election. This month, New Mexico became the latest state to restrict guns where people vote or hand in ballots, joining at least 21 other states with similar laws — some banning either open or concealed carry but most banning both. Nine of those prohibitions were enacted in the past two years, as states have sought to prevent voter intimidation or even violence at the polls driven by Trump’s false claims of election rigging. At least six states are debating bills that would ban firearms at polling places or expand existing bans to include more locations." https://lnkd.in/eSxJ7xAz
Fearing political violence, more states ban firearms at polling places • Pennsylvania Capital-Star
https://penncapital-star.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Dear Members, The CBA condemns former President Donald Trump’s continued and recently heightened campaign of unfounded and dangerous accusations and personal attacks directed towards members of the judiciary, their staff, prosecutors, and their families. Mr. Trump’s statements labeled the judges and prosecutors handling his cases as “deranged,” “evil,” “crooked,” and “sick.” His social media posts identified by name and photograph a family member of one of the judges overseeing one of the cases currently pending against him. This dangerous rhetoric is intended or at least carries with it an unacceptable risk of both inciting violence and intimidating those public servants who are the backbone of our nation’s judicial branch. Words matter, especially when they come from leaders whose conduct others will replicate, or worse, take to the next level. Here in Connecticut, we have witnessed similar vitriol and behavior from people who have posted online judges’ home addresses, photos, and the make and model of their cars, while also referencing ammunition and specific models of firearms and making unfounded claims about bias and coercion. Our judges have been stalked and harassed at work and at home. In New Jersey, a litigant who had made threatening internet posts against a federal judge showed up at her house with a gun, fatally shooting her son and wounding her husband. Words matter. Words have consequences. Judges should not be required to issue orders barring litigants from engaging in reckless and malicious behavior designed to intimidate or threaten those involved in the judicial system, including court staff, their families, witnesses, and potential jurors. Political leaders who purport to believe in the Constitution should never place judges in that position through their own behavior. That behavior should never be the norm. The CBA has been committed to supporting our state and federal legal systems and the rule of law since 1875. We cannot, and will not, remain silent. We oppose and condemn efforts undertaken by any political leader that seeks to undermine the independent operation of our judiciary and the public’s trust in the legal system because of personal animus. Sincerely, Maggie Castinado President, Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Association 30 Bank St | New Britain, CT 06051 | (844)469-2221 | [email protected]
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Physician, Medical Director, Injectable Instructor, Social Vigilante, Educator in Medical Aesthetics. BC Fam Med, Urgent care. Contrarian thinker and problem solver. Personality type: ENFJ-A Protagonist
Does the Trump “Assassination attempt” change citizens minds about voting for one candidate or another? The debates did not change many minds. Neither should the “assassination attempt,” in my opinion. While a natural inclination maybe to feel sorry for someone after someone else has attempted to take their life, you should dig a little deeper before you solidify your feelings. What party has been the source of violent rhetoric in America? GOP What candidate has been inciting violence, leading violence and threatening political foes lives on a regular basis? Trump. What court has made several additional more aggressive actions favoring violence and more aggressive guns in America? The Trump Biased SCOTUS. Instead of feeling “sorry” for Trump, you should be feeling that our country is excessively violent and the GOP, MAGA, Trump biased (and paid) SCOTUS need to make our country safer and all of us, including Mr Trump. Please recall before you solidify your vote or feelings, one way or other, that there is real data behind PROJECT 2025 and future Dictatorship in America. Why feel “sorry” for a Dictator? After all, GOP, MAGA and Trump and Trump Biased SCOTUS are responsible for the gun control (or lack of control) laws in America. When regular citizens die, they don’t blink or care. When their own Leader is almost assassinated, maybe only now they will pay attention. Violent rhetoric is Karma. And Karma is a bitch. Mr Trump puts negative energy into the world, and that negative energy just raced by his right ear at 1500 feet per second. Let’s see if MAGA, GOP and Trump will tone down their violent rhetoric or will more Karma await? Vote wisely against violence in the USA. Only one party favors peace without violence. 🧐
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Defending Democracy: ADDRESSING THE DANGERS OF ARMED INSURRECTION - PDF: https://lnkd.in/gWSZpAUt The growing presence of firearms in political spaces in the United States endangers public health, safety, and the functioning of democracy. Far from being an outlier, the January 6th insurrection at the United States Capitol was part of a long line of events in which individuals have sought to use political losses to justify violence or threats of violence to disrupt our government and limit civic engagement. These attacks on our nation and democratic institutions are preventable, but not without taking purposeful action. This report is both an examination and a warning of the threat that armed insurrectionism poses to democracy in the United States. It also counters the false narrative that the Constitution creates rights to insurrection and the unchecked public carry of firearms, and rejects the notion that violence has any place in our nation’s politics. The report concludes with recommended policy and practice solutions that policymakers and advocates can use to address the dangers of armed insurrectionism. The First and Second Amendments Do Not Protect a Right to Armed Insurrection Courts have not recognized the open carry of guns as speech protected under the First Amendment. If anything, the presence of guns at venues where political speech occurs, such as legislative buildings and demonstrations, imperils the exercise of First Amendment rights. A right to take up arms against the government has not been recognized by courts as a protection within the Second Amendment and is incompatible with our democracy. As evidenced by events like the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the January 6th insurrection, individuals deciding for themselves when democracy becomes “tyranny” jeopardizes lives and the foundational civil liberties of free speech and fair elections necessary for democratic governance. Policy and Practice Recommendations - Regulate the public carry of firearms - Strengthen existing laws, or increase the enforcement of current laws, to prohibit paramilitary activity - Prohibit the civilian possession of firearms in locations essential to political participation, such as polling places, legislative buildings, and protests to protect the core functions of government - Enact and implement Extreme Risk Protection Order laws to temporarily disarm people who pose a high risk of violence - Repeal or create exceptions for firearm preemption laws to give local governments the ability to create policies to address risks of insurrectionism in their jurisdictions - Break the insurrectionist permission structure by openly denouncing violence
To view or add a comment, sign in
1,406 followers