Read on Twitter
Lawyer thread:Let me present a few quick arguments on this HBO docuseries-esque article entitled: "The Making of a Molotov Cocktail Two lawyers, a summer of unrest, and a bottle of Bud Light"
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/lawyers-arrested-molotov-cocktail-nyc-protest.html https://twitter.com/TyGregoryGrant/status/1291409720083984385
1. Lawyers have a higher duty to uphold the law.
Conceivably, graduating from NYU Law (a top 10 law school), Mr. Mattis knows that it's illegal to do many of the things he is alleged to have done on the night of May 30.
Conceivably, graduating from NYU Law (a top 10 law school), Mr. Mattis knows that it's illegal to do many of the things he is alleged to have done on the night of May 30.
NYU Law requires Con Law so he also knows the appropriate way to exercise free speech and its limitations (one of which is not bombing cop cars).
Rahman had a similar education.
Rahman had a similar education.
Lawyers have an obligation to act within the confines of the law, encourage others to do the same, and vigorously advocate on behalf of clients within the guardrails the law permits.
Such that, even if Rahman and Mattis couldn't cite a statute they were violating, they undoubtedly know that what they were doing not only was illegal for them personally but could encourage others to similarly break the law.
2. Lawyers are required to exercise professional judgment.
This is why a lawyer turns down business if they aren't properly experienced to handle the work, has certain obligations if obtaining knowledge of the potential of harm, ethical obligations, and other duties to professional responsibility and the state Bar.
And so the author concedes its an "audacious" (insane?) choice to give an interview before fire bombing a cop car.
But provides cover:
"To be a lawyer is to agree to play by the rules, or at least to acknowledge that the rules exist, even as you seek to bend them."
But provides cover:
"To be a lawyer is to agree to play by the rules, or at least to acknowledge that the rules exist, even as you seek to bend them."
And attempts to muddy the water with character rehabilitation of Mattis and Rahman, I mean who among us hasn't made the singular mistake of making a molotov cocktail out of a Bud Lite?
Lawyers have been disbarred and gone to jail for a lot less.
3. Hatred of Trump is not a political philosophy.
There's this false equivalence I've noticed lately justifying actions because it's the converse of Trump. We get it - Orange Man bad! But, some actions are illegal because they should be illegal ...
But that doesn't stop the argument flaws and seeking to level things inherently different...
I mean what does "law" even mean to our author...
no, really...
I mean what does "law" even mean to our author...
no, really...
"And when a president ... seem[s] to regard the law as an obstacle course; when an attorney general metes out favors, not justice; & when immigrant children are held in cages & men are killed ... by police, some lawyers may want to embrace a more flexible definition of “lawless""
Sure.
3. Stop pretending certain crimes are just one bad moment.
You hear this all the time - oh gosh it was just a bad moment for Tyler.
No, stop it. If I was in the molotov cocktail throwing mood (gosh I miss the Russian Vodka Room), it would require:
1. Deciding to being a flame thrower
2. Purchasing a 6 pack (12 pack?) of Bud heavy
3. Purchasing an accelerant and a lighter
4. Acquiring a car (or an agreeable Uber)
5. Driving to said throwing site
6. Launching a projectile
2. Purchasing a 6 pack (12 pack?) of Bud heavy
3. Purchasing an accelerant and a lighter
4. Acquiring a car (or an agreeable Uber)
5. Driving to said throwing site
6. Launching a projectile
That's at *least* six steps and I'm not including the little baby steps like deodorant (all the cocktail tossing will break quite a sweat and I need to smell innocent fresh in my getaway).
All I am saying is there are many many moments that led to a criminal act that these lawyers (i) knew was criminal and (ii) failed to exercise professional judgment in doing so.
The punishment threshold is another question, but let's stop providing unnecessary cover to these folks.
Lawyers need to do better.
Lawyers need to do better.
Many of our institutions are under attack or review, some, rightfully so because they are outdated and perhaps outmoded, and others simply because people don't like them.
The legal profession should be one of objectivity and advocacy within the confines of the law while exercising professional judgment. If the "law" fails society, lawyers should be on the front lines writing and advocating ways to change through the rule of law they uphold.
Fin.
Fin.
