Lawyer Who Firebombed NYPD Car Blames ‘Unprocessed Trauma’ Prior to Sentencing

[el midgetron]

The lawyer who firebombed a New York City Police Department (NYPD) vehicle during a George Floyd riot claims she was suffering from “unprocessed trauma” at the time, the New York Post reported Saturday……

…..Her lawyers claimed in a court filing Rahman had been drunk before she and lawyer Colinford Mattis torched the car in May 2020, the report continued:

“Tossing the Molotov cocktail was a way of expressing anger at those police officers around the country for whom black lives did not matter,” her lawyers wrote to Brooklyn Federal Court Judge Brian M. Cogan. “It was an act of protest intended to avoid exposing others to harm.”

Rahman’s lawyer rattled off a laundry list of excuses explaining her decision to chuck the explosive device. These included “early trauma” from being a Muslim in post-9/11 America; “abusive partnership relationships”; and “the injustices that she has witnessed here and abroad,” including assisting refugees in Istanbul and Athens and helping low-income tenants in New York avoid eviction.

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2022/10/02/lawyer-who-firebombed-nypd-car-blames-unprocessed-trauma-prior-to-sentencing/

[MGB]

And throwing her in jail should cure her.

[Myles]

39 minutes ago, MGB said:

And throwing her in jail should cure her.

Hopefully for a long time.  Now they can add a public intox charge.

[glorybebe]

2 hours ago, el midgetron said:

The lawyer who firebombed a New York City Police Department (NYPD) vehicle during a George Floyd riot claims she was suffering from “unprocessed trauma” at the time, the New York Post reported Saturday……

…..Her lawyers claimed in a court filing Rahman had been drunk before she and lawyer Colinford Mattis torched the car in May 2020, the report continued:

“Tossing the Molotov cocktail was a way of expressing anger at those police officers around the country for whom black lives did not matter,” her lawyers wrote to Brooklyn Federal Court Judge Brian M. Cogan. “It was an act of protest intended to avoid exposing others to harm.”

Rahman’s lawyer rattled off a laundry list of excuses explaining her decision to chuck the explosive device. These included “early trauma” from being a Muslim in post-9/11 America; “abusive partnership relationships”; and “the injustices that she has witnessed here and abroad,” including assisting refugees in Istanbul and Athens and helping low-income tenants in New York avoid eviction.

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2022/10/02/lawyer-who-firebombed-nypd-car-blames-unprocessed-trauma-prior-to-sentencing/

Whatever happened to not judging all by one person's actions?  So one police officer committed a crime, all should be punished?  We aren't to judge one ethnicity as a whole when one person commits an offense,  but a LAWYER thinks it's ok to punish an unrelated group of officers.   Friggin idiot IMO

[spartan max2]

A lame ass defense but a common one. Criminal cases often try to pull in a trauma history to get sympathy from the jury.

[+and-then]

5 hours ago, MGB said:

And throwing her in jail should cure her.

Too damned right!  She should be given LOTS of time to "process" THAT trauma  

[+Link of Hyrule]

She was drunk, that makes everything ok, I guess  

Edit: whoops, didn't mean to click send yet. I was intending to add another sentence/paragraph that lawyers like to make mountains out of molehills. Overselling a case is part of being a lawyer, especially a self-interested lawyer. I very much doubt she believes what she is saying, it's just a tactic to try and get a favourable outcome. As silly as it is, it's probably fair to say that if she didn't make this argument she'd be an incompetent lawyer. Even if nothing eventuates, it's a lawyer's job to try. Anyway, that's my edit complete  

Edited October 4, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[+DieChecker]

Another good example that for liberals...

Stuff they don't like hearing = violence

Therefore,

Physical violence in response = OK.

Being triggered by microaggressions = violence.

So,

A person sneering at you = throwing rocks at them, or punching them is allowed.

The unpinning logic being to meet violence with violence. Which just in itself is fundamentally wrong.

Liberals practicing this are pure, and unrepentant, idiots.

I fear for the future of big liberal areas. They're going to start looking like the movie Idiocracy.

[el midgetron]

I suspect “trauma” is a word we might be hearing a lot more of in the future. It’s a popular concept among the left for claiming damage from a past injustice, even if the injustice was decades prior to your birth. It’s bound to spread like wild fire amongst the grievance class. Now, your grievance is not just what happened years ago to your ancestors, it’s a condition that you are physically suffering from today. 
However, there is a tiny kernel of truth to the idea but that doesn’t mean what is being germinated from that kernel is valid. This is from the university level textbook “Lifespan Development, Cultural and Contextual Applications for the Helping Professions” -

 

I am interested to hear people’s views about the excerpt in the above image. 
 

 

Edited October 4, 2022 by el midgetron

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Even if nothing eventuates, it's a lawyer's job to try.

Those who support the Democrat party here, tend to see no problem with someone like her getting a pass but at the same time CRUSHING a trespasser at the Capitol on J6.  A double standard of justice is NO justice and eventually, it will lead to a level of lawlessness that destroys our country.

[the13bats]

I see it about the same as the loon with the nail gun going after an FBI office.

[+DieChecker]

On 10/3/2022 at 7:49 PM, el midgetron said:

 

 

I am interested to hear people’s views about the excerpt in the above image. 
 

It of course is true. Anyone who passed high school history should be able to say the ENTIRETY of human history is one group dominating another for resources. It's no revelation.

IMHO, the fallacy is thinking that anything done today would fix anything from the past that's older the a generation. If, for instance the US FedGov handed out 50,000 dollars to every Native American, would that fix anthing? No, they'd still be living the same lives, and just live better for six months, then be poor again. Reparations doesn't work.

Claiming "trauma", is akin to these idiots with "long Covid", causing them to be tired, depressed and unable to work fir months on end. Sure, there may be some who honestly have depression, or chronic fatigue, but IMHO claiming it is Covid is about as likely as claiming its from McDonalds. People will claim trauma, because they think people will accept it, and they can get something out of it. Simple as that. Are there real cases? Of course!! But my opinion is it will be mostly opportunists.

Edited October 6, 2022 by DieChecker

[Myles]

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It of course is true. Anyone who passed high school history should be able to say the ENTIRETY of human history is one group dominating another for resources. It's no revelation.

IMHO, the fallacy is thinking that anything done today would fix anything from the past that's older the a generation. If, for instance the US FedGov handed out 50,000 dollars to every Native American, would that fix anthing? No, they'd still be living the same lives, and just live better for six months, then be poor again. Reparations doesn't work.

Claiming "trauma", is akin to these idiots with "long Covid", causing them to be tired, depressed and unable to work fir months on end. Sure, there may be some who honestly have depression, or chronic fatigue, but IMHO claiming it is Covid is about as likely as claiming its from McDonalds. People will claim trauma, because they think people will accept it, and they can get something out of it. Simple as that. Are there real cases? Of course!! But my opinion is it will be mostly opportunists.

I think you are correct with this statement.  "Trauma" is mostly used as an excuse to do stupid things,

[el midgetron]

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It of course is true. Anyone who passed high school history should be able to say the ENTIRETY of human history is one group dominating another for resources. It's no revelation.

IMHO, the fallacy is thinking that anything done today would fix anything from the past that's older the a generation. If, for instance the US FedGov handed out 50,000 dollars to every Native American, would that fix anthing? No, they'd still be living the same lives, and just live better for six months, then be poor again. Reparations doesn't work.

Claiming "trauma", is akin to these idiots with "long Covid", causing them to be tired, depressed and unable to work fir months on end. Sure, there may be some who honestly have depression, or chronic fatigue, but IMHO claiming it is Covid is about as likely as claiming its from McDonalds. People will claim trauma, because they think people will accept it, and they can get something out of it. Simple as that. Are there real cases? Of course!! But my opinion is it will be mostly opportunists.

The problem I have with the text book passage is that it seems to imply that the Trauma of “black and brown people” began with the arrival of the white Europeans, They arrived, traumatized the black and brown people and “this” transmission of trauma continues to this day. Those black and brown people were more than capable of creating their own preexisting trauma and we have historical record of them doing just that. Violence and cruelty are unfortunately a shared part of all mankind’s human nature. Every atrocity imaginable is documented as existing outside Europe before European colonization. Cannibalism, slavery, child sacrifice, ritualized warfare, Europeans didn’t introduce these things to the world. When Columbus landed in the new world the very first people he encountered were embroiled in a hostile conflict with a neighboring group who Columbus described as cannibals. Columbus traveled to the other side of the world and when he arrives he just happened to bump into people who are brutally killing each other. Imagine that.
 

And this missing context is reflected in much of the “academic” discussion on race and society in American today. White people have “privilege, fragility, anger and violence”. 

For some visual context, this was Brazil in 1557.

 

 

[+DieChecker]

32 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

And this missing context is reflected in much of the “academic” discussion on race and society in American today. White people have “privilege, fragility, anger and violence”. 
 

What I tell people is... Yes, I have privilege. What we need to do is help those without privilege to gain it. Hopefully by way of education, finding better jobs, saving to retire, etc...

What we dont need to do is shame and tear down people who are succeeding, for the sin of succeeding. That's "Kill all the doctors and lawyers" thinking like a communist revolutionary. Lift people up, not tear down. Oh, but tearing down is so attractive to the masses. It sells.

The other thing is entitlements make it so people won't be lifted up. If you make 50k on the dole, you aren't going to work a 45k job. Handouts, as with the homeless, just make things worse. People need to earn what they get, or they don't value it and wont/can't change for the better.

Edited October 6, 2022 by DieChecker