My good friend, FritzMuffknuckle, who has been missing in action for a few months now, once asked me whether I thought Reddit’s Bad Cop No Donut, where he was a mod, was a good or bad thing.  I told him I thought it was a good thing, as it not only provided a place to post about police abuse and misconduct, but a place for non-lawyers to vent their anger and frustration.

Fritz was worried that so many redditors posted reactions about harming police that it had become a cesspool of hatred.  It spread misinformation, whether about the law or blame, and fed the fire of anger.  My thought was that while it was true that BCND seemed to work the choir into a frenzy, Continue reading →

On the surface, it reads like a bad joke: three shots fired and two bystanders hit, while the guy two relatively new New York City cops were shooting at is unscathed. Again.  But it’s not funny, certainly not to the two women struck by poorly aimed bullets.

But concerns over the fact that New York City police are historically poor shooters can be fixed with practice, more time at the range.  Concerns that the officers had their guns drawn and chose to use them are more difficult to tackle. Continue reading →

Jordan Rushie of the Fishtown Lawyers sent me over a post from Wait But Why, with the notation that “this is like, everyone I know.”  What I call the Slackoisie, he calls GYPSYs,

I have a term for yuppies in the Gen Y age group—I call them Gen Y Protagonists & Special Yuppies, or GYPSYs.  A GYPSY is a unique brand of yuppie, one who thinks they are the main character of a very special story.

It’s funny. It’s enlightening. It will infuriate many, Continue reading →

Many viewed it as a gaping hole in the protection needed by the press to report on bad things government might be doing, and most think it already exists: A federal shield law to protect a journalist from being compelled to disclose his sources. Remember Deep Throat (the source, not the movie)?

While most states already protect the reporter’s privilege, the United States has no national shield law, which leaves the press at risk of being compelled to disclose the source of information or suffer the consequences. At a time when information about the government is being revealed, Continue reading →

The case made the news for the craziest of reasons, that there was an old photo of one of the accused men with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  An editor googled his name, and there it was. Suddenly, it was interesting.

The accusation was rape and sodomy, that two men had drugged a 32-year-old woman and then passed her between them.  The name of the woman is unknown, because she was the victim, Continue reading →

Some opinions are head shakers, making one wonder how a judge can read what he’s written, review what he’s signed his name to, without that nagging feeling that he has contributed to the death of reason in the name of rule.  And the opinion of 11th Circuit Judge William Pryor in Paul Howell’s case makes my head shake.

It made Jeff Gamso’s head shake too. Maybe more than his head. Rough language ahead: Continue reading →

Over the past few days, I’ve watched in awe as a debate unfolded at the ABA Journal’s New Normal column by Paul Lippe. Now I like Paul, and respect both his efforts and acumen, even if I don’t always agree with him, but his post was a flagrant attempt to pass off a logical fallacy, the appeal to authority.

The topic of discussion was the merit of two year law school, and more precisely, the  op-ed by Yale Lawprof Bruce Ackerman arguing for the virtues of the third year.  Paul wasn’t impressed by Ackerman’s argument. I wasn’t either.  One might suppose, then, Continue reading →

In a relatively short decision out of the 9th Circuit, Judge Stephen Reinhardt addresses a very important question in his opinion in United States v. Lopez-Cruz affirming the district court’s grant of suppression.  The defendant was in a car believed by Border Patrol Agent Soto (that narrows it down, right?) to be picking up people who had illegally cross the border.  After the stop, Soto asked:

“Can I look in the phones? Can I search the phones?” Continue reading →

As always, any post relating to “Amy” begins with the caveat of the horror of what happened to a young girl victimized by being forced to engage in kiddie porn. That’s never been the issue before, and it isn’t the issue now. But being the poster child for restitution against defendants convicted of having watched kiddie porn, the Amy saga continues.

One of the pressing questions was whether every person convicted of possessing images of Amy would be jointly and severally liable for the more than $3 million in damages determined to be due her.  The Second Circuit has finally chimed in with Judge Denny Chin’s opinion in United States v. Lundquist. Continue reading →

Reviews on the internet are one of the best features offered, providing insight into everything from a restaurant to a lawyer before spending hard-earned money. So within minutes of people realizing their value, businesses realized the value of their manipulation.

There are fake positive reviews, where the businesses say good things about themselves. Phony bad reviews, where competing businesses or adversaries say bad things about their competitors. Astroturfing and extortion to clear up the lies for a price. A cottage industry in reputation management was born to do the dirty work for you. Continue reading →