Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 6/5/2008 10:45:40 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:46:06 AM EST
Disgusting
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:46:47 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:48:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/5/2008 10:50:44 AM EST by kybosshog420]
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:48:37 AM EST
The real question is why are the officers who stood around and watched their buddy kick the crap out of a girl half their size still officers?
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:49:46 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:50:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

They should tell the judge to stick it. Don't show up.



Ahh...

They should use that as the excuse to not snitch on their lady bartender beating brother?
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:51:05 AM EST
Cops aren't super citizens. If the average person isn't allowed to be armed in the courtroom no one should be allowed to be armed in the courtroom.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:51:41 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:51:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
What sniveling retards....

If the guys are on duty, they are required to be armed. The lawyers complaining about "an atmosphere of fear" are just blowing smoke.

The video seems to be sufficient in proving that the officer who beat the bartender up doesn't need to be a cop anymore and needs to pay her money...but going to this extreme for a PR score is just silly.



Exactly.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:52:12 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:52:14 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:52:27 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:52:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Cops aren't super citizens. If the average person isn't allowed to be armed in the courtroom no one should be allowed to be armed in the courtroom.


It's not a courtroom, it at some lawyer's office.


It's at the courthouse, according to the article.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:52:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/5/2008 10:56:48 AM EST by Aimless]
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:53:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/5/2008 10:54:21 AM EST by Cpt_Kirks]

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Cops must come to depositions unarmed, judge rules


By David Heinzmann
The Chicago Tribune

CHICAGO — The videotaped beating of a female bartender by an off-duty Chicago police officer has turned into a contentious lawsuit that took a dramatic turn recently when police officers involved in the case showed up for depositions carrying guns.

When Karolina Obrycka's lawyers protested that armed officers answering their hard-nosed questions created an atmosphere of fear, the city said on-duty cops had no choice but to wear their guns.


U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve resolved the issue Tuesday, ruling that officers must leave their guns behind when they sit down with Obrycka's attorneys to answer questions. She also held that the depositions take place at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse.

"The thing we wanted to accomplish was for the cops to not have guns in depositions," Obrycka's lawyer, Terry Ekl, said.

In a May 29 e-mail defending the practice, city lawyer Barrett Rubens said that during all depositions of police officers at Ekl's suburban office, "you should presume that they will be armed with their service weapons when they do so."

Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city's Law Department, said the city tried to work out a solution with Ekl but was concerned that the officers—who are witnesses and not defendants in the case—should have a secure place to keep their weapons during questioning.

Other lawyers with experience deposing police officers said it is not uncommon for officers to be armed during depositions.

Obrycka is suing the city and Officer Anthony Abbate over the incident at a Northwest Side bar last year when security video captured the officer beating and kicking her after she refused to serve him another drink. The broadcast of the video on TV and online sparked a firestorm of criticism of police.

Copyright 2008 The Chicago Tribune


They should tell the judge to stick it. Don't show up.



Tell a Federal Judge to "stick it" and not show up.

Then, act surprised when the Marshals show up.



(These are Chicago cops who watched another large cop beat the shit out of a little woman bartender. They should NOT be carrying guns, period.)

Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:53:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Cops aren't super citizens. If the average person isn't allowed to be armed in the courtroom no one should be allowed to be armed in the courtroom.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:53:25 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:53:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Cops aren't super citizens. If the average person isn't allowed to be armed in the courtroom no one should be allowed to be armed in the courtroom.


Good point
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:54:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Cops must come to depositions unarmed, judge rules


By David Heinzmann
The Chicago Tribune

CHICAGO — The videotaped beating of a female bartender by an off-duty Chicago police officer has turned into a contentious lawsuit that took a dramatic turn recently when police officers involved in the case showed up for depositions carrying guns.

When Karolina Obrycka's lawyers protested that armed officers answering their hard-nosed questions created an atmosphere of fear, the city said on-duty cops had no choice but to wear their guns.


U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve resolved the issue Tuesday, ruling that officers must leave their guns behind when they sit down with Obrycka's attorneys to answer questions. She also held that the depositions take place at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse.

"The thing we wanted to accomplish was for the cops to not have guns in depositions," Obrycka's lawyer, Terry Ekl, said.

In a May 29 e-mail defending the practice, city lawyer Barrett Rubens said that during all depositions of police officers at Ekl's suburban office, "you should presume that they will be armed with their service weapons when they do so."

Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city's Law Department, said the city tried to work out a solution with Ekl but was concerned that the officers—who are witnesses and not defendants in the case—should have a secure place to keep their weapons during questioning.

Other lawyers with experience deposing police officers said it is not uncommon for officers to be armed during depositions.

Obrycka is suing the city and Officer Anthony Abbate over the incident at a Northwest Side bar last year when security video captured the officer beating and kicking her after she refused to serve him another drink. The broadcast of the video on TV and online sparked a firestorm of criticism of police.

Copyright 2008 The Chicago Tribune


They should tell the judge to stick it. Don't show up.



Then the Judge should throw them all in jail for Contempt of Court and leave them there until they learn their lesson.



Vulcan94
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:55:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Cops aren't super citizens. If the average person isn't allowed to be armed in the courtroom no one should be allowed to be armed in the courtroom.


Judges routinely don't allow cops to go armed or wear their uniforms in court.


OK, but where did your "tell the judge to stick it" come from, then?

Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:55:39 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:56:23 AM EST
It must be hard on these guys when they get treated like ordinary people!
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:57:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Cops aren't super citizens. If the average person isn't allowed to be armed in the courtroom no one should be allowed to be armed in the courtroom.


In a May 29 e-mail defending the practice, city lawyer Barrett Rubens said that during all depositions of police officers at Ekl's suburban office,

Reading is Fundamental.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:58:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Cops aren't super citizens. If the average person isn't allowed to be armed in the courtroom no one should be allowed to be armed in the courtroom.


In a May 29 e-mail defending the practice, city lawyer Barrett Rubens said that during all depositions of police officers at Ekl's suburban office,

Reading is Fundamental.


yes it is"



U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve resolved the issue Tuesday, ruling that officers must leave their guns behind when they sit down with Obrycka's attorneys to answer questions. She also held that the depositions take place at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:59:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By patriot73:
Disgusting


What part is disgusting? The absolute abuse of power by Chicago's finest or the fact that they have to be like any other citizen in Chicago and be unarmed?

Kidding. I think I know your perspective on the issue.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:00:20 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:00:26 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:00:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

They should tell the judge to stick it. Don't show up.


Yeah federal judges have a good sense of humor about that kind of thing.


They tend to get angry and have their Federal Marshals go find those who failed to show up.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:01:04 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:01:21 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:01:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:



They should tell the judge to stick it. Don't show up.



Anarchy!

Anarchy!
Anarchy!

Also, what Aimless said. Federal Judges have all their good humor surgically extracted prior to taking the bench.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:01:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By Silence:

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Cops aren't super citizens. If the average person isn't allowed to be armed in the courtroom no one should be allowed to be armed in the courtroom.


In a May 29 e-mail defending the practice, city lawyer Barrett Rubens said that during all depositions of police officers at Ekl's suburban office,

Reading is Fundamental.


yes it is"



U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve resolved the issue Tuesday, ruling that officers must leave their guns behind when they sit down with Obrycka's attorneys to answer questions. She also held that the depositions take place at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse.


Doh!!!!!
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:03:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By AllserviceBilliards:
It must be hard on these guys when they get treated like ordinary people!


That lawyer is being a tool and wasting time. Who cares if they show up in uniform and armed? I wouldn't care if they showed up all carrying SWAT shields and carrying german shepherds piggy back. The sooner you get the depositions done the sooner you get paid.





Reading between the lines, I wonder how much all of this gamesmanship by the attorneys on both sides?

Plaintiff wants to depose the cops, Cops dont want to snitch on their brother. Attorney says 'no guns in my office', Cops say ' I cant talk then'.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:06:04 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/5/2008 11:08:04 AM EST by gopeterson]

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By AllserviceBilliards:
It must be hard on these guys when they get treated like ordinary people!


That lawyer is being a tool and wasting time. Who cares if they show up in uniform and armed? I wouldn't care if they showed up all carrying SWAT shields and carrying german shepherds piggy back. The sooner you get the depositions done the sooner you get paid.





His client has a right to attend those depositions. She may legitmately be intimidated about showing up at a deposition where Chicago's finest -- who attempted to intimidate and harass witnesses in this case -- are armed.

Completely believe it is a legitimate tactic by the lawyer. I would do the same under the circumstances.

And I would relish local p.d. to tell a federal judge to stick it and not show up. I know one federal judge who sent the marshalls down and pulled a doctor out of his office and incarcerated him until the end of the day for not showing up for court. Damn sure the judge would make an example of these guys if they didn't show up.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:06:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/5/2008 11:07:12 AM EST by SGTCap]

Originally Posted By Boomer8450:
The real question is why are the officers who stood around and watched their buddy kick the crap out of a girl half their size still officers?


+1

ETA its Shitcago, no wonder
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:07:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Silence:

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Cops aren't super citizens. If the average person isn't allowed to be armed in the courtroom no one should be allowed to be armed in the courtroom.


In a May 29 e-mail defending the practice, city lawyer Barrett Rubens said that during all depositions of police officers at Ekl's suburban office,

Reading is Fundamental.


yes it is"



U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve resolved the issue Tuesday, ruling that officers must leave their guns behind when they sit down with Obrycka's attorneys to answer questions. She also held that the depositions take place at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse.


The judge changed the rules after some pansy lawyers got sand in their manginas.


And the cops in this case havent been the best behaved either.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:08:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Cops aren't super citizens. If the average person isn't allowed to be armed in the courtroom no one should be allowed to be armed in the courtroom.


It's not a courtroom, it at some lawyer's office. edit whoops well originally it would have been at a lawyer's office. I don't know what the Feds do about armed police witnesses at the courthouse. I would assume they normally allow it. Er maybe not, they are pretty porky about that.





The only people allowed to be armed in the courthouse are U.S. Marshals.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:08:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By Boomer8450:
The real question is why are the officers who stood around and watched their buddy kick the crap out of a girl half their size still officers?

We all know why.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:09:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By Silence:

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By AllserviceBilliards:
It must be hard on these guys when they get treated like ordinary people!


That lawyer is being a tool and wasting time. Who cares if they show up in uniform and armed? I wouldn't care if they showed up all carrying SWAT shields and carrying german shepherds piggy back. The sooner you get the depositions done the sooner you get paid.





Reading between the lines, I wonder how much all of this gamesmanship by the attorneys on both sides?

Plaintiff wants to depose the cops, Cops dont want to snitch on their brother. Attorney says 'no guns in my office', Cops say ' I cant talk then'.


The facts that CPD says they are on duty when being deposed, and in uniform, and armed, and the lawyer calls them witnesses, makes me think the lawyer is being an idiot.

Because, if CPD says they are on duty for depositions, then they were on duty at the time of that incident. THEY WEREN'T THE GUYS DRINKING IN THE BAR.

So he has gone out of his way to irritate the "witnesses" he is deposing. Brilliant legal strategy. I expect a lot of his questions will be answered monosyllabically.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:10:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By Silence:

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By AllserviceBilliards:
It must be hard on these guys when they get treated like ordinary people!


That lawyer is being a tool and wasting time. Who cares if they show up in uniform and armed? I wouldn't care if they showed up all carrying SWAT shields and carrying german shepherds piggy back. The sooner you get the depositions done the sooner you get paid.





Reading between the lines, I wonder how much all of this gamesmanship by the attorneys on both sides?

Plaintiff wants to depose the cops, Cops dont want to snitch on their brother. Attorney says 'no guns in my office', Cops say ' I cant talk then'.


The facts that CPD says they are on duty when being deposed, and in uniform, and armed, and the lawyer calls them witnesses, makes me think the lawyer is being an idiot.

Because, if CPD says they are on duty for depositions, then they were on duty at the time of that incident. THEY WEREN'T THE GUYS DRINKING IN THE BAR.

So he has gone out of his way to irritate the "witnesses" he is deposing. Brilliant legal strategy. I expect a lot of his questions will be answered monosyllabically.



As if these cops are capable of anything else.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:11:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Cops aren't super citizens. If the average person isn't allowed to be armed in the courtroom no one should be allowed to be armed in the courtroom.


They are ON DUTY. It is part of their prescribed uniform.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:14:24 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:14:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Cops must come to depositions unarmed, judge rules


By David Heinzmann
The Chicago Tribune

CHICAGO — The videotaped beating of a female bartender by an off-duty Chicago police officer has turned into a contentious lawsuit that took a dramatic turn recently when police officers involved in the case showed up for depositions carrying guns.

When Karolina Obrycka's lawyers protested that armed officers answering their hard-nosed questions created an atmosphere of fear, the city said on-duty cops had no choice but to wear their guns.


U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve resolved the issue Tuesday, ruling that officers must leave their guns behind when they sit down with Obrycka's attorneys to answer questions. She also held that the depositions take place at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse.

"The thing we wanted to accomplish was for the cops to not have guns in depositions," Obrycka's lawyer, Terry Ekl, said.

In a May 29 e-mail defending the practice, city lawyer Barrett Rubens said that during all depositions of police officers at Ekl's suburban office, "you should presume that they will be armed with their service weapons when they do so."

Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city's Law Department, said the city tried to work out a solution with Ekl but was concerned that the officers—who are witnesses and not defendants in the case—should have a secure place to keep their weapons during questioning.

Other lawyers with experience deposing police officers said it is not uncommon for officers to be armed during depositions.

Obrycka is suing the city and Officer Anthony Abbate over the incident at a Northwest Side bar last year when security video captured the officer beating and kicking her after she refused to serve him another drink. The broadcast of the video on TV and online sparked a firestorm of criticism of police.

Copyright 2008 The Chicago Tribune


They should tell the judge to stick it. Don't show up.


What bama telling police officers to violate a legal order from the court?

I wonder if bama would feel this way if it was just a low serf with a CCW?

By the way I wish they would tell the Judge that too so they get locked the fuck up for contempt LOL
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:14:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By gopeterson:

As if these cops are capable of anything else.


Prejudice much?
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:15:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Cops aren't super citizens. If the average person isn't allowed to be armed in the courtroom no one should be allowed to be armed in the courtroom.


It's not a courtroom, it at some lawyer's office. edit whoops well originally it would have been at a lawyer's office. I don't know what the Feds do about armed police witnesses at the courthouse. I would assume they normally allow it. Er maybe not, they are pretty porky about that.





The only people allowed to be armed in the courthouse are U.S. Marshals.


Times have changed.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:15:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By Castillo:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Cops aren't super citizens. If the average person isn't allowed to be armed in the courtroom no one should be allowed to be armed in the courtroom.


They are ON DUTY. It is part of their prescribed uniform.


Doesn't matter. They still can't carry in a federal courthouse.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:15:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By AllserviceBilliards:
It must be hard on these guys when they get treated like ordinary people!


That lawyer is being a tool and wasting time. Who cares if they show up in uniform and armed? I wouldn't care if they showed up all carrying SWAT shields and carrying german shepherds piggy back. The sooner you get the depositions done the sooner you get paid.





It is probably a paralegal taking the deposition. And frankly, even if the lawyer was only doing it to humiliate these cops, they deserve it. They have proven themselves to be violent reactionaries - anyone willing to intimidate people to protect a fellow criminal who beat an innocent woman is a TERRORIST - they just have not yet graduated to beheadings and car bombs.

Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:16:20 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:16:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By gopeterson:

As if these cops are capable of anything else.


Prejudice much?


Don't really know what "prejudice much" means.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 11:17:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By jrzy:

What bama telling police officers to violate a legal order from the court?

I wonder if bama would feel this way if it was just a low serf with a CCW?

By the way I wish they would tell the Judge that too so they get locked the fuck up for contempt LOL


Good point, I wonder how many of CCW holders would disramr if told to do so, if they were a witness to an incident that ended up as a personal injury case, ie car crash, slip and fall, workplace injury etc.

But we know the answer to that don't we.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top