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
-
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
-
-
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
-
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
-
The Trump campaign embraces Jan. 6 rioters with money and pardon promises Three years after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, the future of the government's massive investigation into the riot, as well as the fate of many rioters themselves, may hinge on this year's presidential election. In response to the violent assault on the Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump, federal agents and prosecutors launched one of the largest investigations in American history. FBI Director Christopher Wray, a Republican appointed by Trump, called the attack an act of "domestic terrorism." The FBI has now arrested upward of 1,200 people. Prosecutors have secured around 900 guilty pleas or convictions at trial – in cases ranging from breaching the Capitol building to assaulting police, obstructing Congress, bringing a gun onto Capitol grounds and seditious conspiracy. If Trump wins in 2024, he has repeatedly pledged to roll back much of that investigation. An NPR review of social media posts, speeches and interviews found that Trump has made calls to "free" Jan. 6 defendants or promised to issue them presidential pardons more than a dozen times. Trump has said he would issue those pardons on "day one" of his presidency, as part of a broader agenda to use presidential power to exact "retribution" against his opponents and deliver "justice" for his supporters. "We'll be looking very, very seriously at full pardons," Trump told an interviewer in 2022. "I mean full pardons with an apology to many." "LET THE JANUARY 6 PRISONERS GO," Trump posted on his social media site, Truth Social, in March 2023. Later that year, Trump re-posted a Truth Social post stating, "The cops should be charged and the protesters should be freed." In the immediate term, a pardon for Jan. 6 defendants would free them from prison as well as other court-ordered supervision, and end ongoing prosecutions. The pardon would also allow the hundreds of defendants convicted of felonies to legally own guns again. Some judges in Jan. 6 cases have imposed sentences that include requirements to seek mental health care and restrictions on viewing "extremist media." A full pardon would lift those requirements, too. https://lnkd.in/g9Vqm_zs #TrumpforPrison
The Trump campaign embraces Jan. 6 rioters with money and pardon promises
npr.org
To view or add a comment, sign in