‘Molotov thrower’ Urooj Rahman blames de Blasio for not holding back NYPD

[Wendell]

We've established that a police officer cannot post a non-PC opinion on social media... but lawyers are free to also practise anarchy? Really?

The Brooklyn lawyer accused of tossing a Molotov cocktail into an NYPD vehicle blamed Mayor Bill de Blasio for not holding back cops for their own protection less than an hour before the incident, according to a video interview. “I think this protest is a long time coming,” lawyer Urooj Rahman said near the Barclays Center in Brooklyn around 12:15 a.m. May 30. “This s–t won’t ever stop unless we f–kin’ take it all down. And that’s why the anger is being expressed tonight in this way,” she said.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/05/molotov-lawyer-urooj-rahman-blames-de-blasio-for-not-calling-off-nypd/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lPUaYssVWc

[SecondsCount]

Liberalism is a disease, de Blasio is a dumbass, and guess what Ms. Rahman, orange is the new black.

[Wise_A]

I would like to point out that in the YouTube preview frame, Ms Rahman is clearly making a white supremacist hand signal in the lower right corner.

She must be purified.

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm not sure why people are surprised a lawyer would do this. Think about what "human rights" and criminal defense attorneys actually do, for example. Do you not suppose that draws a certain idealism and world view?

[blues]

I'm not sure why people are surprised a lawyer would do this. Think about what "human rights" and criminal defense attorneys actually do, for example. Do you not suppose that draws a certain idealism and world view?

Careful what you say, bro'. They're watching and waiting to pounce. Anything not approved by the central committee will be grounds for removal or firing squad.

Democracy and justice at work.

[Wendell]

A pair of lawyers charged with throwing a Molotov cocktail into a New York City police vehicle amid civil unrest last weekend was back in federal custody Friday after a federal court sided with prosecutors in keeping them detained. The ruling from the three-member Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision to release Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman to home confinement with GPS monitoring pending bail. Friday's court ruling comes after high-level Obama administration intelligence official guaranteed the $250,000 bail set for Rahman. Salmah Rizvi, who served in the Defense Department and State Department during the Obama administration, agreed to secure her bail during a Monday hearing in which prosecutors strongly objected to her release. Federal prosecutors filed an appeal Tuesday with the Second Circuit to overrule the bail decision. Mattis has been furlough from his job since April and has reportedly been suspended without pay.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/molotov-cocktail-attack-on-nypd-court-orders-defendants-taken-back-into-custody

[Wendell]

The Pakistani-born Rahman, 31, who grew up in Bay Ridge and was educated at Fordham University and its law school, is a fiery social-justice activist whose work took her to Istanbul, Turkey, where she helped refugees find permanent housing; Egypt; South Africa; and to Israel’s West Bank, where she wrote about the harsh treatment of Palestinians. “This is why I find it ridiculous when people claim that ‘Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East,'” Rahman wrote in a since-deleted post on Fordham’s Leitner Center for International Law and Justice website after a two-month trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories in 2014. “This is a blatant lie. Israel is nothing of the sort. “I … witnessed brutality perpetrated by the Israeli Occupational Forces (aka the Israel Defense Forces) as well as by right-wing Zionist settlers on Palestinians who resist the illegal occupation of their land,” she wrote.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/06/alleged-molotov-cocktail-lawyers-fought-to-top-friends/

[FrankinCA]

Wasn’t Angela Davis an attorney? I’m not surprised by the way.

[Medusa]

I'm not sure why people are surprised a lawyer would do this. Think about what "human rights" and criminal defense attorneys actually do, for example. Do you not suppose that draws a certain idealism and world view?

What a fun game. Why, we can say the same about cops who brutalize people. “Do you not suppose a badge and gun draws a certain sort of arrogance and world view”? “I’m not sure why people are surprised a cop would do this.”

I thought y’all wanted to preach over and over about judging people as individuals, and all that? No? Just certain favored kinds of people?

i unequivocally oppose terrorism and mob violence and unlawful violence of any kind. I don’t know a single lawyer who doesn’t.

[MickAK]

i unequivocally oppose terrorism and mob violence and unlawful violence of any kind. I don’t know a single lawyer who doesn’t.

I do, the one that threw the Molotov in the cop car.

[Medusa]

I do, the one that threw the Molotov in the cop car.
Oh, you know them personally?

[BehindBlueI's]

What a fun game. Why, we can say the same about cops who brutalize people. “Do you not suppose a badge and gun draws a certain sort of arrogance and world view”? “I’m not sure why people are surprised a cop would do this.”

I thought y’all wanted to preach over and over about judging people as individuals, and all that? No? Just certain favored kinds of people?

i unequivocally oppose terrorism and mob violence and unlawful violence of any kind. I don’t know a single lawyer who doesn’t.

You did notice that I never once expressed surprise over the Floyd death and supported the termination and criminal charges, right?

I'm not surprised in the least when I see a story that a police officer has used violence inappropriately. We are human and in a role that requires violence on occasion and that is constantly exposed to violence. Policing does tend to draw a certain world view. We don't get a lot of hippies. There's a reason there's a psych test before you get hired pretty much everywhere, as it absolutely can attract people who want the badge for the authority and then use it arrogantly. So, yes, I've never once said "I cant believe a cop could do this" and don't think many people are. The only time I can recall being legimately surprised by unethical or illegal behavior by an officer was drinking on duty, and even that doesn't surprise me now.

I don't think being an officer gives you some halo that you can't or won't commit an unethical act or a crime. We wouldn't need internal affairs if that were the case. I don't think being a lawyer does, either. I also don't think that all rioters are poor, uneducated, and unemployed...which is actually why some people are surprised since lawyers are viewed as wealthy (even though we both know that pay ranges wildly), well educated, and employed. Almost like I'm realizing a group isn't monolithic, eh?

Being surprised by something and condoning it are different discussions.

Being surprised someone is capable of an act and judging the group as problematic or having some shared responsibility are different discussions.

As per your usual MO, you've read my post in the most negative light possible so you could be offended and preachy. I'll note that this also doesn't surprise me.

[Medusa]

And yet somehow, as per usual, you come across as condescending and hypocritical especially when you get called on something. Most often, I see you discussing specific police actions, rather than making generalizations about the kinds of people who are attracted to policing, and drawing the most unfavorable inference about them, or making vague references to how it’s no surprise so many are involved in abuses of power.

But lawyers are an easy target, as is - and this wasn’t you - “liberalism,” and so on. Again, not you, but someone now says they “know” anyone they’ve read about or heard a news story on. If the latter is true, then lots of folks “know” lots of abusive cops.

I also don’t think being a lawyer gives you a halo, but there’s a big difference between saying, re a story regarding Molotov cocktail throwing, “well, you know, civil rights lawyers are often a certain type” and “this particular lawyer effed up.” What is the point of saying what you said if you are not trying to make a generally negative and unfavorable inference about lawyers, not just that you disagree with them but that they many be prone to unlawful violence? And how many times have you said similar things about cops?

You’re big on disclaimers and requests to avoid generalizations....when it suits you.

[blues]

Open season on lawyers? Oh, too easy a target. But to be fair, I've known some bad ones on the prosecution side as well.

And, a couple, that I was so impressed with that I told them that if I ever needed an attorney, they would be who I would call. And meant it sincerely.

Interestingly enough, or maybe not...one was white, one was black. Both were outstanding (despite my sending their clients up the river).

[BehindBlueI's]

And yet somehow, as per usual, you come across as condescending and hypocritical especially when you get called on something. Most often, I see you discussing specific police actions, rather than making generalizations about the kinds of people who are attracted to policing, and drawing the most unfavorable inference about them, or making vague references to how it’s no surprise so many are involved in abuses of power.

But lawyers are an easy target, as is - and this wasn’t you - “liberalism,” and so on. Again, not you, but someone now says they “know” anyone they’ve read about or heard a news story on. If the latter is true, then lots of folks “know” lots of abusive cops.

I also don’t think being a lawyer gives you a halo, but there’s a big difference between saying, re a story regarding Molotov cocktail throwing, “well, you know, civil rights lawyers are often a certain type” and “this particular lawyer effed up.” What is the point of saying what you said if you are not trying to make a generally negative and unfavorable inference about lawyers, not just that you disagree with them but that they many be prone to unlawful violence? And how many times have you said similar things about cops?

You’re big on disclaimers and requests to avoid generalizations....when it suits you.

How is "Do you not suppose that draws a certain idealism and world view?" an unfavorable inference? Is idealism negative? Does someone's occupation not often color their world view? Does the idealism and worldview of a human rights lawyer somehow preclude participation in a riot? Then why are people surprised? My point, and entire point.

People who are drawn to police work or to the military also often have a certain idealism and world view. Nothing negative in the slightest. At least for police, reality often beats it out of them, hence the stereotype of the idealistic rookie who thinks he can save the world vs the cynical veteran who realizes he's doing damn good if he can make an impact on a hand full of folks over the course of a career.

Where, exactly, did I say "civil rights lawyers are often a certain type". I didn't. You assumed it then assumed what that certain type was so you could be offended. Nothing I said implied or indicated some systematic issues with lawyers or blamed other lawyers for this lawyer's actions.

Lawyers absolutely are an easy target. It's the 97% that give the other 3% a bad name. So are hillbillies, Kentuckians in particular. I made a joke about Waffle House employees too, might want to run over there and be offended for them as well.

[Wendell]

Oh, you know them personally?

I'm confused by your various posts...

Are you smart?