There are two things clear about the nature of those whose days are spent in the Academy: They have thin skins and refined sensibilities.  So much so that their expressions of outrage are often mistaken for love notes.  Which is why George Washington Law School’s Jonathan Turley, who sits in the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, shocked me with his embrace of violence. 

The scene was the US Open Tennis Championship.  If you’ve never had the pleasure, it’s a very refined event.  You can hear a pin drop during play, the crowd is that quiet and well-mannered.  There is an etiquette to tennis, and it’s long been observed by all, a remarkable thing when you consider that the crowds are quite large and increasingly diverse. 

Tennis has always struggled with the absence of crowd-pleasing violent outbursts as in hockey.

The still of the game was broken, however:

There’s no dispute that the man with a drinking problem (as evidenced by the front of his shirt) was obnoxious, offensive and completely inappropriate.  But then there’s the slap.

The fight reportedly started because the young man was swearing loudly and acting obnoxious in the stands before being confronted by a woman and her father. At one point the woman lightly slaps the man and other fans scream “throw the bum out.” If you watch this video, the man appears to continue to trash talk and eventually prompts the father (who appeared earlier to want to avoid the confrontation) to take after him. They went tumbling over two rows of seats.

Notably, you can barely make out what’s being said between the antagonists, but the sound of the slap rings clearly.  To call it a “light slap” leaves me to wonder about Turley.  That was a damn good slap, shocking as it happened and more so as the obnoxious man didn’t haul off on the woman in retaliation.

If this fight started over the young man’s swearing I have no sympathy for him. There is a segment of our society who were simply raised poorly and cannot watch a sporting event without being crude and obnoxious. I know people who no longer take their kids to Philly baseball games because the crowd is often too vulgar and inappropriate for kids. Stadiums have the ability to toss out and even ban spectators who lack manners or restraint. They are better off at home watching and swearing with their friends.

While the loud mouth’s conduct was, in itself, clearly wrong, since when does being obnoxious justify physical violence?  Sure, security would have done well to remove him far earlier, although at a New York Giants Football game, the nice folks in the nearby seats would have handled a mouth like his quickly and cleanly.  New York fans aren’t anything like Philadelphia Eagles fans, who tend to follow the dubious path of their favorite team into the gutter.  But I digress.

Regardless of how loud and offensive the fellow was, the woman doesn’t get to smack him for it, nor does the old man, who appears to kick something (perhaps his drink) as he moves into his space with his hands at the ready, get to add insult to injury.  Sure, the old man appears to make one brave but foolish decision in going after the drinker, but that fall down the two rows of seats is going to be awfully painful at his age.  Awfully painful.

The woman and her elderly companion would have done well to get stadium security and have them deal with the loud-mouth.  She was not, however, entitled to give him a smack, whether light or hard.  While the sounds of others in the area suggest that the crowd was uniformly in favor of the drinker getting the boot, and understandably so since he was annoying them as well while the woman and old man were merely doing the dirty work on behalf of the crowd, it offers no justification for violence and is merely self-serving. 

But what of Jon Turley? What would Shapiro think of you sitting in his chair applauding a violent response to mere words?  It may have been publicly interesting, but I don’t think that’s what Shapiro had in mind.  Granted, it reveals a certain machismo on the part of a nationally recognized legal scholar that took me by surprise, but advocating a violent reaction, at a tennis match, is hardly the sort of pedagogical product one would expect.  And why would anybody go see Philly’s baseball game?

Via Radley Balko, it seems that the cops don’t love guys with concealed carry permits as much as one might think.  The Philly Inquirer  interviews nine permit holders who weren’t treated with the respect they deserved.

Eight of the men said that they were detained by police – two for 18 hours each. Two were hospitalized for diabetic issues while in custody, one of whom was handcuffed to a bed. Charges were filed against three of the men, only to be withdrawn by the District Attorney’s Office.

Now most folks who apply for a carry permit tend to feel a certain camaraderie with law enforcement.  These aren’t the sort of guys who run around with illegal handguns, intending to do harm, rape and pillage.  These are the ones who believe in being prepared in case some other guy intends to do harm.  You don’t get a permit if you’re a bad guy.

So why are the cops in the City of Brotherly Love so unimpressed with concealed carry permit holders?

The “loophole” is unpopular with Philadelphia cops, who say that it allows those denied a permit here or whose permits were revoked to circumvent Philadelphia authorities and obtain it elsewhere.

But proponents say that it’s necessary because Philadelphia has unusually strict criteria for obtaining a concealed-carry permit. Philadelphia, according to police and gun owners, relies heavily on a clause that allows denial of a permit based on “character and reputation” alone.

The problem is that these people possess a perfectly valid concealed carry permit, but not one that the local cops like.  They know it’s valid.  They know it’s lawful for people to carry a concealed weapon with this permit, but what better way to make their displeasure clear than to pretend otherwise and make their lives miserable with false arrests and needless custody. 

So what does the Philadelphia police department say to explain their infliction of needless pain?

Despite following the law, all of the men said that they were treated like criminals by city cops who either ignored their rights or didn’t know the laws.

Lt. Fran Healy, special adviser to the police commissioner, acknowledged that some city cops apparently are unfamiliar with some concealed-carry permits. But he said that it’s better for cops to “err on the side of caution.”

“Officers’ safety comes first, and not infringing on people’s rights comes second,” Healy said.

Balko’s reaction to this announced bit of absurdity is “It doesn’t get more succinct than that.”  Certainly, there’s no doubt (has there ever been?) that officer safety comes first.  As I’ve written many times, the first rule of policing is make it home for dinner.  But Healy’s excuse is only an excuse, and since it’s not a truthful reflection of what’s happening, it’s not something to rely on.

The bottom line is that the Philly cops want control over who, other than them, gets to carry a gun in their jurisdiction.  Forget the Second Amendment RKBA nuts; this is about control.  There’s no safety issue after a guy with a gun shows the cop his permit.  There’s just an opportunity to teach a lesson, that in Philadelphia, you play by their rules.

There isn’t a cop in the country who will choose to put his life at risk to assure that constitutional rights are not infringed.  Frankly, who can blame them?  But that’s got nothing to do with going the extra step, detaining, arresting and initiating the prosecution of people who have a lawful permit to carry a weapon. 

Rather, this is an affirmative decision to use their authority to teach a bunch of gun carriers who’s boss.  And so, the question posed to all those NRA types:  What is it again that makes you feel so close and loving with law and order, and want to be bestest friends with the cops?

If you think that we don’t know much about how the government gathered evidence against accused terrorists, consider how it feels to be SDNY Judge Lewis Kaplan. He’s apparently as much in the dark as anyone else.  From the New York Times.

With the trial of a terrorism suspect held for nearly five years in the C.I.A.’s “black sites” and later in the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, only weeks away, a dispute has arisen over the role of a key government witness.

The dispute has played out largely in secret, with much about the witness classified. But in heavily censored briefs, lawyers for the suspect, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, have argued that the witness should not be allowed to testify, and a federal judge in Manhattan has scheduled a hearing in two weeks on the matter.

Nothing instills respect for our system of justice better than talk of “black sites” for interrogation.  Probably some lovely spa on foreign soil, fine wine, wonderful food, native girls giving massages.  Or just your basic prison torture.  The government is prepping to try Ghailani, and doesn’t plan to use the information he gave up.  Because that would be wrong. On the other hand, they have a witness, an unnamed Tanzanian fellow who was miraculously discovered (what wonderfully good fortune) and wants to testify  on behalf of the government against Ghailani.  Even more kismet.  Wow, do we have a lucky government or what?

The defense, on the other hand, contends that maybe, just maybe, the government isn’t quite that lucky, but did something to make this nice Tanzanian fellow decide that testifying for the government is a better idea than, say, electrified alligator clips on his nipples.  Just saying…

Judge Kaplan, in his [heavily censored 36 page] ruling, which was made public Wednesday, said that it was “not clear” the witness “truly would be the volunteer that the government claims” or that “unlawfully obtained evidence did not play a role” in securing his cooperation.

“The record discloses nothing about what happened while he was in Tanzanian custody,” Judge Kaplan said, “and it is sketchy even about what took place after the F.B.I. arrived.” The judge said that it was known only that the witness “was released after he was questioned by the F.B.I. and promised to appear as a witness in this case.”

It’s not easy being a judge when the scope of the record before you consists of conclusory government assurances that everything is just hunky-dory.

Federal prosecutors said in a legal filing that the witness’s appearance “would be entirely voluntarily.” They said he told the F.B.I. on various occasions since 2006 that he was willing to come to the United States to testify. But the judge noted that the witness was originally arrested by Tanzania, flown to a distant location, held there for days and questioned by the Tanzanian police before the F.B.I. questioned him.

Of course, rather than see this as a negative, one could view the time the witness, apparently named “Hussein,” spent with the FBI as a bonding opportunity, a chance to authentically engage, get to know one another, appreciate the great joys of the American way of life. 

The defense has been less sanguine.  The judge isn’t quite sure which way to go.  He’s already refused to dismiss the case on the basis of speedy trial and his treatment by the CIA.  To the extent he finds himself neck deep in a pile of government poo, it’s his own choice.  It doesn’t have to be this way.

The attempt to defend, not to mention decide, this case presents the dilemma created by this hybrid form of prosecution, where an accused is to be prosecuted according to some of the rules, but under constraint of secrecy.  One might be more precise to call it a bastardization of process, where both the defense and the judge are denied all the really good, important information and then told to proceed. 

Is it fair?  Is it adequate?  Does it comport with basic due process?  Did the government torture its witness into cooperation?  We look to the judge to conduct a fair trial.  The judge has no one to look to except the prosecution, and the only thing the prosecution has to say on the subject is “trust us, judge.”

The defense is working with two hands and three feet tied behind its back.  So what else is new?  But it doesn’t have to be that way.  Should the government refuse to disclose classified information, the option isn’t that the defense simply suck it up, but rather that the court hold it inadmissible.  The deal could be, comply with the same process as would be the case in any criminal prosecution or be precluded.  Or the deal could be, fly blind and throw the core of due process out the window.

Judge Kaplan has ordered a hearing to determine whether Hussein should be allowed to testify against Ghailani.  What he plans to do when the government’s evidence consists of an agent giving his personal assurance that everything is just fine, and not to worry his pretty judicial head about it, is another matter.  Judge Kaplan may not be a pushover for the government, but then, this isn’t going to be an easy case to deal with, no matter what. 

But hey, we’re in a war against terrorism.  That changes everything.

Few people have observed the blawgosphere as well as Colin Samuels.  He is the undisputed King of Blawg Review, and served as blawg sherpa, guiding others in their quest to avoid blawg review shame by comparison,   In the past year, Colin created a BR of his own, A Round Tuit, which is a Master’s Class in Blawg Review, for those willing to learn.

In his latest A Round Tuit, number 43 to be precise, Colin reflected on changes to the Blawgosphere over time.

Has the legal blogosphere become a “Happysphere” where criticism is considered unmannered and applause is expected for any contribution? In the years since I first posted here, the character of the space has certainly changed — many times, depending on how nuanced your analysis might be. In many ways, I think it’s fair to say that overall, the Happysphere ethos dominates.

With few exceptions, you can choose nearly any marketing-centric blog and find equal measures of warmed-over “next big thing” cheerleading from last week’s social media conference, effusive praise for other marketers, and quoting of other marketers’ effusive praise for oneself. Again with few exceptions, one is safe in dismissing these blogs outright — these add nothing meaningful or consequential to our discussion. Those few exceptional marketing-concerned blogs tend to be engaged in other areas of the legal blogosphere, so you needn’t be concerned about overlooking them if you steer a wide path around the marketeers.

But if what goes around comes around, I am now hearing murmurs that blogs are dead — or at least dying — within the legal profession.

The universe of blogs has become too crowded, too noisy, and too cluttered with spam to have any value, some say. Services such as Twitter and Facebook are easier, more direct and more personal, they contend.

So I come today to declare blogging alive, well and thriving within the legal profession. As evidence, I could refer you to any number of established blogs such as the one I already mentioned. But the future is foretold by what is new, so allow me to highlight some recently launched blogs, all of which show the continuing vitality of the medium.

Amongst most blawgs, Simple Justice gets its share of comments.  But it’s nothing compared to Volokh Conspiracy.  GW Lawprof Orin Kerr, who is known for his lengthy and well conceived posts on significant legal issues, showed his lighter side when he posted about The Ultimate Legal Blog Comment?

I found this gem in a comment thread at the blog of my collegue [sic] Jonathan Turley by commenter “Mick” at 4:42 am, May 22, 2010 :

How do you live with yourself? A supposed Constitutional expert that doesn’t know what a Natural Born Citizen is? I would say that you probably do. You know, and are obfuscating the fact that Obama is not an eligible Natural Born Citizen, NO Matter if born in the White House, in JFK’s lap. Obama Sr. was not a citizen when Obama 2 was born. You and Obama both know that makes him ineligible. Destroying the Constitution for the benefit of your Leftist agenda. Fraud!!!

Awesome.

Awesome indeed.  Lord knows we can have some fun with some of the nuttier comments that people leave, and this comment is, as those youthful lawprofs like to say, awesome.

But even within the scheme of awesome, there is, well, awesome, and as Orin subsequently notes, the awesome had just begun.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry that the comment thread to my post from yesterday, The Ultimate Legal Blog Comment?, is now at 314 comments.

As of the moment of this keyboard tapping, the number stands at 506, and appears to hold the potential to start a meme, where all comments to Kerr going forward will end in “Fraud!!!”. 

Now that’s awesome.  Really awesome. 

And they say scholars are no fun.

Update:  September 7, 2010.  Kerr writes :

In case you’re wondering about the fate of the Ultimate Legal Blog Comment thread, it seems that it is now at 1,032 comments and is still going. Fraud!!!

And still going.

Let’s be frank, had Caroline Giuliani not been sired by Rudolph, no one would have either known or cared about her arrest for shoplifting or her court appearance, where she was given an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) with one day of community service.  I wrote about it, not because of Caroline but because of my deep, abiding feelings toward her father.  It would have killed me not to take a shot at Rudy.

The outcome of her case, a first arrest for a minor offense, was absolutely, completely, totally typical.  She was shown no favor for her lineage.  She was also treated no more harshly than any other defendant.  At least by the court.

Unfortunately, Carolyn Giuliani didn’t fare as well in the blogosphere.  In a post at Above the Law, this young lady was pointlessly skewered in a post entitled All Made Up and Nowhere to Go — Except Community Service.

You might remember that a month ago, Caroline Giuliani was busted for stealing $100 worth of cosmetics from a Sephora store on the Upper East Side. Well, yesterday the swift hammer of justice came down upon young Miss Giuliani’s perfectly made-up head. And I think it’s fair to say that any young woman seeking to figure out her daddy issues by thieving beauty supplies will think long and hard before she goes on a crime spree:

The daughter of prosecutor and former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani will have a shoplifting charge dismissed and her case closed and sealed if she completes a day of community service at the city’s sanitation department and doesn’t get arrested again in the next six months.

You read that right. A day. Just enough time to think long and hard about what she has… day’s over! Smell ya later, Sanitation Department! Seems like that gross of “Free Caroline” T-shirts wasn’t the good investment I thought it would be.

Funny?  Was there something about her appearance (“perfectly made-up head”), psyche (“daddy issues”) or attitude (“smell ya later”) that gives rise to a college student whose only external interest is a poorly coiffed father worth being ridiculed?  No, it’s not funny.  Ridicule Rudy?  Fair game.  Ridicule an improper disposition given the offspring of a anti-crime zealot? Fair game.  Ridicule a young lady personally?  Unfair.

What it is, sadly, is a pathetic attempt at snark by one child at the expense of another.

Ed. note: This post is by “Juggalo Law,” one of the two writers under consideration to join Morning Dockette as a Morning Docket writer. As always, we welcome your thoughts in the comments.

ATL has become the blogospheric equivalent of a cottage industry, converting a weird interest by David Lat in Biglaw smarm and judicial underwear in a revenue-raising enterprise.  He’s the Harvey Levin of blawgs to ATL’s TMZ.  To his credit, he’s making money at it, which is no small feat.

The process, however, has given rise to some transitional growing pains.  ATL started at Lat’s baby, and despite his untoward curiosity with judicial salaciousness, he brought sharp wit and an exceptional understanding of how far one could go before going too far.  ATL was an immediate, blockbuster success, and drew huge interest from Biglaw newbies and wannabes, who proved their mettle by writing the most idiotic, nasty comments conceivable. 

In time, Lat went from A3G to CEO, leaving a void to be filled.  He ran a brilliant contest called ATL idol, which ended with Elie Mystal filling Lat’s small shoes.  Elie, another Harvard grad and Biglaw washout, has grown into the job, though he’s lately been spreading his reach beyond his grasp.  For a while, Lat had non-lawyer Kashmir Hill doing yeoman’s work, but she got a real job with Forbes and left ATL in a bind.  And so Lat’s running another contest, a little lower profile, to find some worker bees.

The nature of ATL is to be snarky and salacious, but the children vying for Lat-love possess neither the wit nor grasp that made ATL a blogospheric staple.  It’s not easy to find writers for a blog like ATL, and apparently even less easy to find writers with the guts to use their real name while ripping others.  But this one, calling herself Juggalo Law, shows how the desperate need to be a wiseass overcomes any semblance of sound judgment.  They know that Lat wants snark, and try to be as snarky as possible, even to the point of gross impropriety. 

Even Law and More noted that this post went too far:

In the tradition of American Idol, it seems that Juggalo Low is auditioning for being a writer of the “Morning Docket” on Abovethelaw.com.  Her try, which consists of commentary on Sweet Smelly Caroline Giuliani, lacks the usual brilliance and sarcastic bite of ATL. 

Humor is a difficult genre.  That’s why they pay such big bucks to those who master the craft.  Therefore, it’s too high risk to try to handle it so early in a writing career or in a new client relationship.  Best to incorporate subtle irony. 

She asks whether this commentary is too harsh. It strikes me as too kind.  Jugs isn’t entitled to be inappropriate in the job hunt process, and she’s not funny.  The idea that she can do “subtle irony” seems to be a huge stretch, as there was nothing subtle or ironic about her post.   This might have been a “here’s a dime” opportunity. 

Growing pains at ATL have given rise to a number of dubious decisions, ranging from pointless “columns” to guest-writers lacking any subject matter qualifications to flagrant pandering on behalf of paying advertisers.  If that’s what Lat needs to do to fill blank space, that’s fine.  It diminishes ATL (as happily noted by the commenters) and harms no animals in the process.

When the posts personally attack the wrong people, however, like “Smelly Caroline,” it’s time to pull the plug.  I realize that David’s probably busy signing autographs and fielding requests for Elie’s television appearances, but he still holds the keys to publishing these posts by children without sound judgment.  Come on, David, you had no issue dropping the hatchet when you were an assistant United States Attorney in New Jersey.  Time to exercise some prosecutorial discretion at ATL and put an end to the offense.

Via Doug Berman, there’s a columnist for the Peoria Journal Star named Phil Luciano who has come up with a provocative approach to sentencing everyone’s favorite hair mishap, Rod  Blagojevich.

How would you like to see Rod Blagojevich punished?

I’d like to see him do something that involves hard and demeaning work. You know, like real punishment.

In the real world, that ain’t gonna happen – at least, not how a lot of us would like it. I realize change comes slow to our governmental systems. And, frankly, my ideas make too much sense to get real consideration.

Luciano then goes into a discussion of how his dear ex-con buddy, “Screamin’,” says federal time is easy.  That, Luciano explains, is why they call it “Club Fed.”  Nothing gets past a columnist in Peoria.

Behind bars, Blago gets easy jobs and a chance to network with other pols and bigwigs. That’s hardly what I call punishment. So maybe it’s time to get creative.

Judges sometimes opt for alternate sentences nowadays. In Ohio, a man who ran from police was forced to jog around a jail every day. In Texas, a woman who tried to weasel Hurricane Katrina rebuild money had to clean houses. In California, a beer thief had to wear a T-shirt declaring his crime.

But those were state sentences. Federal sentencing guidelines don’t allow anything but incarceration.

Yet wouldn’t it make more sense to find a different way to handle Blago and others like him? A way that not only makes him pay his debt to society but takes the taxpayer off the hook?

Don’t get hung up in his mistaken assumption that there’s no room in federal sentencing for a little imagination.  Word that the guidelines are merely advisory probably hasn’t made it to Peoria yet, so it’s not his fault.  The Booker decision will be in his mailbox any day now.  Any day.

Make him work a 9-to-5 minimum-wage job – fast food, retail or whatever – so he can learn how the little guy squeaks by while earning money to help support his family. At night, he would have to stay at home – no restaurants or fun until his term is over.

Weekends, though, he would do very visible public service. Picking up trash on the highways, cleaning state Dumpsters, shoveling state-owned sidewalks – anything involving sweat and humility. And the aggrieved public could watch – perhaps with knowing smiles and pointing fingers – what happens when a government official brazenly goes bad.

Now, that’s effin golden – at least, as far as the public is concerned.

Effin?  The guy writes a newspaper column and the best he can do to express himself is write “effin”?  He’s a wild man.  As for his contention that a more custom-tailored sentence will make Blago “pay his debt to society,” it appears that Lucky is focused solely on the general deterrence component of sentencing.  Since Blago’s unlikely to hold another government position, he won’t be in need of specific deterrence.  He could use some rehabilitation, since we learned on the Apprentice that the guy is computer illiterate, which will definitely impair his future employment potential.

But there’s one additional issue that Luciano seems to ignore.  As far as I recall, the only thing Blago has been convicted of is lying to federal agents, who were investigating allegations of misconduct in office, the sale of Obama’s senate seat, for which he wasn’t convicted.  It’s not like I’m on Blago Watch, but I’m pretty sure that the retrial has been put off until the healing is completed from surgery to remove Blago’s foot from his mouth.  So what exactly is he talking about when he writes “what happens when a government official brazenly goes bad.”

Phil, or Lucky, or whoever, my suggestion is to put this very interesting column back into your pocket until the day after a jury returns a verdict that supports your views about Blago, at which time you’ll have something really great to stick in the paper.  But not now.  In America, we like to wait until after a guy is convicted before we argue about sentence.  I wonder how that will play in Peoria?

The normal course of affairs is that there is no situation a police officer prefers than one where he comes out a hero.  Saving a life, especially that of a child, is the chance to make the front page, get the gold shield, shake hands with the mayor and make a name for oneself.  So what if that’s what they are trained and paid to do.  Glory is a wonderful thing.

Which is why the story of Briana Ojeda, an 11 year old in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn, is so bizarre.  She died following an asthma attack, with her mother alleging that an NYPD officer she flagged down after hitting a car in an effort to get her daughter to the hospital, refused to perform CPR, claiming he didn’t know how to do it.  The officer then drove behind her as she made her way to the hospital, rather than leading the way to expedite her arrival.  And then drove off. 

The story first appeared in the New York Post, and was picked up on cop website PoliceOne. 

Briana was playing in Carroll Park in Carroll Gardens on Friday when she suffered an asthma attack, according to the family.

Her mother managed to drive her within three blocks of the hospital when she hit a parked car and flagged down the white marked car for help.

Michael Ojeda said he has a radio scanner and heard the cop who stopped his daughter misrepresent what happened when he called other officers.

Scott Voloshin, a good Samaritan who performed CPR on Briana, later insisted the man who stopped the family was an NYPD officer.

But Browne noted that the family claimed the man denied knowing CPR, in which all NYPD officers are trained.

The department “has not yet determined whether he was an NYPD officer or some other uniformed individual, such as an auxiliary [cop] or a traffic agent or a lookalike entity,” he said.

What sort of outrage, anger, mere sadness and condolence, did the fine officers have for the grieving family of this 11 year old child?

Posted by Baltoblue on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 08:01 PM Pacific  Report Abuse I could be wrong, but it sounds like mom did a hit and run on the way to the hospital, and if it was NYPD, they were trying to box her in as she appeared to be fleeing the scene. Either way, this reporting is horrible and makes no sense. Press members like these two should be fired. If only members of the press were responsible for true representation of facts in their “reports”, just the same as police are…… Posted by louieo311 on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 06:40 PM Pacific  Report Abuse Excuse me people….. have you not heard….. People are no longer responsible for their own actions ! It is our fault that they did something stupid because our badge allows us to control EVERYTHING. Posted by TravisLudlow on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 05:43 PM Pacific  Report Abuse I agree. And how does one officer box in a car? “I have you surrounded!” Bottom line is, we can’t give people permission to violate traffic laws. They should have called the squad. Posted by vtdp3 on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 05:10 PM Pacific  Report Abuse Probably didn’t want to pay for the ambulance ride. Posted by Smeared1 on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 02:52 PM Pacific  Report Abuse I know this sounds callous but this is most likely how it went – Mother not watching asthmatic daughter properly, later finds asthmatic daughter on deaths door, wrecks in a panic to get to the hospital, don’t have money for the funeral, and now wants the PD to “ease their suffering” with taxpayer money, period. Posted by derb79 on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 02:38 PM Pacific  Report Abuse Nothing about this story makes any sense… Posted by jhulme369 on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 02:36 PM Pacific  Report Abuse …and it took 2 reporters to come up with this so called report?? “By Michael Blaustein and Jamie Schram The New York Post” Wow, the media is far more irresponsible than any officer that they condemn. Posted by jhulme369 on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 02:33 PM Pacific  Report Abuse I agree totally with arff… they can’t even get the story straight, but somehow it’s a cop’s fault. the young child has, aparently, severe asthma. Why don’t the parents have an “eppi” pen to slow the effects of asthma down while EMS responds to THEM, instead of attempting to drive as an emergency vehicle through N.Y. without anyone caring for the child? Why was the father listening to the “scanner”? Was he present when the daughter became asthmatic? Was he not present and the mother called him first instead of 911? Furthermore, how can the NYPD not know who responded? Surely, a medic was called to the location where the mother was “boxed in” by the officer. This “report” is missing a LOT of information, and just sounds like a grab for money by the parents who are themselves responsible for the delayed medical treatment of their daughter. Great now I have a headache… too many questions… Posted by arff312 on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 01:58 PM Pacific  Report Abuse Ok I dont normally respond but this is crazy. I got a headache reading this. First of all the article states that a Cruiser attempted to stop the car by boxing it in.”Briana, died after a uniformed officer in a police cruiser tried to box in a car driven by his wife”. Later in the article it says “Her mother managed to drive her within three blocks of the hospital when she hit a parked car and flagged down the white marked car for help” However it says that the farther was listening on the scanner when ” the cop who stopped his daughter misrepresent what happened when he called other officers.” But the wife admits she wasnt stopeed she hit a car and flagged the patrol car down. Is this whole story just a joke ? Why didn’t they call 911 like a normal person would ? Espically when you are going to face NYC Traffic. Posted by DBPDMatt on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 01:51 PM Pacific  Report Abuse Im confused. What happened? Why were they stopped? More importantly, why wasnt an ambulance or LE called. Ambulance could have transported code…so could the PD if serious enough an the rig was too far out. As callous as it sounds, had they followed a common procedure, their daughter might have lived.

Granted, the story is less than informative in many respects, though it is the New York Post (the most knee-jerk pro-law enforcement paper in New York and, purely coincidentally, catering toward people who prefer short words and even shorter stories), yet there is no doubt that the story involves a dead child.  Nonetheless, not one demonstrated the slightest concern for the child.

Since this story, it’s been determined that it was indeed an NYPD officer, a five year veteran, Alfonso Mendez, who was on the scene and refused to give CPR or otherwise help.  According to investigators, Mendez wasn’t confident in his CPR abilities, so decided to do nothing.

After identifying Mendez from a gas station video when he filled up the tank of his cruiser, he was suspended without pay and stripped of his gun and shield.  Not for failing to help Briana, however.

That Officer Mendez never made a record of his actions is what led to his suspension, Mr. Browne said. “A police officer would be required,” he said, “to radio in the fact he had this pickup job.”

That’s police lingo for a dying 11 year old child on the street.  A pickup job.  Don’t forget to call it in or you could get in trouble.  Then, even your brother officers may not defend you.

Larry Joe Davis was pissed.  He was rated 3.7 by Avvo.  3.7.  Bricks are rated higher than 3.7.  Well, that’s certainly not going to get him any business.  From the Courthouse News :

Davis claims Avvo misleads the public by failing to disclose that the attorney ratings on its website depend upon an attorney’s level of cooperation with the site.

Davis says he has been an attorney in good standing in Florida since 1992, and has been board certified in health law by the Florida Bar since 1999.

Davis says he does not challenge Avvo’s subjective opinions, but its misrepresentations of facts and material omissions of “so-called public information.” He claims, for example, that Avvo.com identified him and at least eight other board-certified attorneys in health law in the Tampa area as practicing “100 percent employment/labor law.”

Uh oh.  Misrepresentations of fact and material omissions are generally frowned upon.  So Larry Joe Davis sued.  What is Avvo thinking?  According to its Mr. Davis’ free Avvo Profile, which includes an editorial Avvo Rating of 3.7 “Caution,” is impacted by the fact that he was reprimanded and placed on probation by the Florida Bar in 2007 after twice being found guilty of willfully refusing to pay court-ordered child support, failing to appear for his court dates and willfully obstructing the Bar’s disciplinary process.

Oh, Larry Joe, you nasty miscreant.  You didn’t mention anything about a reprimand and being on probation by the Florida Bar.  Or did you?

Davis said he contacted Avvo and that initially his ranking on the site improved. But he says the details in his listing did not change. When he decided he had had enough and tried to delist himself, he says, his rating declined into the “caution” category.

While his Avvo profile at the moment seems pretty clear, it’s hard to say what it looked like before Larry Joe get angry.  Did Avvo retaliate against him?  Did Avvo dig a little deeper and find out that there was some additional information that needed to be addressed in his profile?  Who’s got transparency on their side?

If I had to take a wild guess about such things, I would tend to go with Avvo.  My experience is that they aren’t out to wreak havoc with the legal world, upon which they depend for their bread and butter.  If it was simply a matter of correcting an erroneous profile, I can’t imagine any reason they wouldn’t be happy to comply. 

Really, it’s no skin off their nose, not to mention that it’s all fairly easy to change by any lawyer who dedicates 47 seconds to cleaning up the mess.  Sure, Davis is right that it requires some degree of personal involvement by the lawyer to get things right, and it’s really not the victim’s duty to clean up the mess of the attacker, but then there’s a bit of a glitch in Larry Joe’s story in the first place.

Davis said he found out about the erroneous listing when he a potential client contacted him about an employment law matter. 

He says the woman told him he was he listed as an employment law attorney, and that he was lowly rated. She told him she had called higher-rated attorneys but none had returned her calls, Davis says. He says she told him she finally called him, believing that as a low-rated attorney, he’d be more eager for work and more likely to return her call.

So if this incredibly low rating and caution came only after Larry Joe complained about Avvo, but he first learned about Avvo from some gal who went to him because he had a god-awful crappy rating and would be more appreciative of her call then, say, good lawyers, we’ve got a bit of a conflict in Larry Joe’s story.

So how do we explain Larry Joe’s potential confusion?

Davis, who is representing himself, seeks punitive damages for libel.

Davis is representing himself.  Well, thanks for that clarification.  Carry on, Larry Joe.

A theme amongst social media pseudo-gurus is that it works, but only if a lawyer identifies a peculiar, underserved, niche of the law. 

Even if your skills and abilities allow you to practice broadly, you need to market yourself very narrowly. Here are a few great examples: 

• Mixed Martial Arts Law Blog
• Spatial Law and Policy (that’s right, spatial as in outer space)
• Furniture Law

Now if you have a passion for mixed martial arts law (and who doesn’t?), then this could be sound advice.  The problem is that the “advice” is worthless, bordering on idiotic, if outer space law isn’t your thing.  The gurus might be aware of this is they were lawyers.  Not lawyers in the sense that they have a license to practice law, but lawyers in the sense of being a member of a learned profession. 

Marketing philosopher Seth Godin expressed the problem this way.

If you want something done, perhaps you would ask a professional to do it. Someone who costs a lot but is worth more than they charge. Someone who shows up even when she doesn’t feel like it. Someone who stands behind her work, gets better over time and is quite serious indeed about the transaction.

Or perhaps you could hire a passionate amateur. That’s a forum leader doing it for love, not money. An obsessive in love with the craft. A talented person willing to trade income for the chance to do what he loves, with freedom.

Please, though, don’t hire someone who just thinks it’s a job.

While the amateur in his post may not apply to this situation, his point remains.  It’s better to have someone who cares than someone who couldn’t care less.  Better still to have someone who cares and has the ability to perform.

Don’t look to the verbiage to guide you.  The pseudo-gurus use language that conveys the impression of substance, often stealing substantive words from some other use and inserting them in a manner that renders them utterly meaningless.  They love this stuff so much that others jump on board, repeat the pointless words as if its lack of meaning suggests depth of thought.  Then others applaud them, express how amazing their deep thoughts are and bask in their reflected awesomeness.

These folks speak to people who want jobs and call them professionals.  They aren’t professionals.  Professionals don’t change direction on a dime to follow the possibility of making a quick buck. 

Most lawyers enter the profession for a reason, with a goal in mind.  They want to practice law.  Perhaps they want to prosecute the accused or defend them, but there is a practice area that draws them in and holds their interest.  Perhaps they just want to help people, itself a worthy goal.  Perhaps they enjoy the thrill of the megadeal or the closing argument.  What it’s not about is getting a paycheck.  If that was the case, they would do far better to contract with a factory in China to make women’s dresses, and save a fortune on law school tuition.

But if you weren’t making the big bucks you hoped for as a public defender, would you switch gears and become a furniture lawyer?  Not because you’re into the intricacies of hard wood and eight-way-tied-springs, but because there was a big opening in the blawgosphere for furniture law and you have the chance to fill it?

There are quite a few new criminal defense lawyers that come around here, and flit about twitter, who are full of exuberance about their chosen legal niche.  It’s really pretty cool to see so much interest and zeal, though I can’t help but wonder what they’ll be doing 20 years from now.  No doubt most will assure me that they will be right in the thick of criminal defense, but experience suggests that for some, criminal defense will be nothing more than a distant memory.  It happens.  Things change.  And there’s nothing wrong with that.

It may be that lawyers find themselves gravitating to other practice areas, some due to fortuitous circumstance and others due to necessity.  Some will find a different niche more interesting, satisfying or worthwhile.  All of these are perfectly fine reasons to hitch your wagon to an area of law.

But if you decide tomorrow to become a mixed martial arts lawyer because there’s an empty hole in the blawgosphere that some social media pseudo-guru suggests you can fill, then you do so merely to try to grab a quick buck.  You may be a lawyer, but you aren’t a professional.   For you, it’s just a job, and as Godin says, “don’t hire someone who just thinks it’s a job.”

The path to wealth and fame as a lawyer isn’t by finding an empty hole, no matter what proponents of social media tell you.  It’s by wanting to fill that hole.