Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

(Minneapolis, MN) -- The man who was with the George Floyd on the night he died made a virtual appearance this (Tuesday) morning from jail before testimony in the Derek Chauvin trial. Morries (MOH'-rees) Hall invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination through his lawyer. That privilege would apply to any activities that took place on May 25th, 2020 before and after police arrived. Hall's attorney argued that without immunity, Hall would be open to future third-degree murder charges in Floyds death. Floyd's girlfriend testified that Hall provided George with the drugs weeks before Floyd died. Judge Pete Cahill is considering whether to allow Hall to testify on matters that would not be self-incriminating for Hall. Minneapolis police crisis intervention coordinator - Sergeant Ker Yang- testified this morning and Lieutenant Johnny Mercil is currently on the witness stand.

' + this.content + '

See the article here:
Floyd's Friend Invokes 5th Amendment Before Testimony Resumes in Chauvin Trial - Voice Of Alexandria

MINNEAPOLIS, (KTTC) -- The court has heard from almost 30 witnesses in total in the Derek Chauvin trial. On Tuesday morning, before testimony began, the court heard of Morries Hall's attorney. Hall is George Floyd's friend.

Hall is also the man that went to Cup Foods with Floyd on May 25, 2020, and he was in the passenger seat when officers approached Floyd. He is currently in jail and joined the hearing through Zoom.

Hall has been accused of selling opioids to Floyd, and drugs were found in the car that both Floyd and Hall were in.

"I notified all parties Mr. Hall would be invoking his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination were he called to testify, I think subsequently filed my notice, my notion to quash the subpoena," Hall's attorney Adrienne Cousins said.

She told the court that Hall would not be protected if he testified.

"At this point in time, Mr. Hall has no immunity," Cousins said. "He has been provided no immunity, no protection for his testimony whatsoever, and because of that Mr. Hall is invoking his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination in several key areas of questioning that we believe he would face."

Cousins told the court that any questions asked of Mr. Hall could be self-incriminating, even questions that do not involve drugs.

Judge Peter Cahill told the defense to write down a list of questions that will be given to Hall and his attorneys, so Hall's lawyers can tell the court if the questions would be self-incriminating.

Cahill asked the defense to submit the questions on Thursday.

Witness #23 Sgt. Ker Yang

Ker Yang has been with the Minneapolis Police Department for 24 years. He is a crisis intervention training instructor. He talked about the department's Critical Decision Model.

"A lot of the time, we have the time to slow things down and reevaluate and reassess," Yang said.

Witness #24 Lt. Johnny Mercil

Johnny Mercil is currently on medical leave with MPD, and he has been an officer for 25 years. Mercil trained officers on use of force. He also conducted Brazilian jiu-jitsu training.

Chauvin attended use of force class in 2018

The prosecution showed evidence that Chauvin attended Mercil's use of force class in 2018.

He told the court that officers are trained to use the least amount of force.

"The minimum amount of force that you need to accomplish the objective of arresting or detaining somebody is what you should use," Mercil said.

Mercil was asked if the above photo is a MPD-trained neck restraint.Mercil said it is not.

"Knee on the neck would be something that does happen in use of force that isn't authorized," he said.

Witness #25 Nicole Mackenzie

Nicole Mackenzie has been with MPD for six years. She is the medical support coordinator, administrator of the Narcan program and conducts CPR training.

She was asked if officers are trained to believe that if a person can talk, they can breathe. She told the court officers are not trained to learn that.

"There is a possibility that somebody could be in respiratory distress and still be able to verbalize it. Just because they are speaking doesn't mean they are breathing adequately," Mackenzie said

During the defense's cross-examination, they asked Mackenzie if a hostile crowd could be a reason officers delay providing CPR, and Mackenzie said yes.

After attorneys finished questioning Mackenzie, she was told by Judge Cahill that she would be subpoenaed to come back Tuesday, April 13 at 9 a.m. for the defense's case.

Witness #26 Sgt. Jody Stiger

Jody Stiger has worked for the Los Angeles Police Department for 28 years.He's worked on use of force board and helped teach officer tactics courses such as de-escalation and use of force.

"In a normal situation where you are dealing with someone that's a counterfeiter or someone who is using a counterfeit bill, typically you wouldn't even expect to use some type of force," Stiger said.

Stiger gave his opinions on the May 25 incident.

"Initially, when Mr. Floyd was being placed in the back seat of the vehicle, he was actively resisting the officers," he said. "So at that point, the officers were justified in utilizing force to try to have him comply with their commands and seat him in the back seat of the vehicle."

Stiger said once Floyd was placed on the ground and slowed down his resistance, the officers should have done the same.

"They should have slowed down or stopped their force as well," he said.

Testimony will resume Wednesday at 9:15 a.m.

Read more from the original source:
Officers take the stand on training and protocol; Floyd's friend fears self-incrimination - WXOW.com

The murder trial of Derek Chauvin continued into its seventh day, with the prosecution and defense focused on whether Chauvin violated police policy when he knelt on George Floyds neck for over nine minutes, reports the New York Times. Today, the court heard testimony from Sergeant Ker Yang, a crisis intervention coordinator with the Minneapolis Police Department, and Morries Lester Hall, a friend of Floyds who had been in the car with Floyd moments before he had been arrested. Hall planned to invoke the Fifth Amendment, however Judge Peter Cahill ordered Chauvins lawyer to draft questions for Hall by Thursday which could be answered without self incrimination.

President Biden will announce a new deadline for states to make all adults eligible for coronavirus vaccines, moving the original May 1 goal to April 19, writes the New York Times. Biden changed the timeline after increases in vaccine supply prompted states to speed up their vaccination drives. Vaccinations in the U.S. continue to steadily increase, and over 3 million doses are administered each day.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued an executive order prohibiting government-mandated vaccine passports, saying a system to track those vaccinated would tread on Texans personal freedoms, writes the Hill. Every day, Texans are returning to normal life as more people get the safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine. But, as Ive said all along, these vaccines are always voluntary and never forced said Abbott. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has also vowed to take similar executive action against companies requiring a vaccine passport.

The Chicago Project on Security and Threats released its initial findings on its analysis of the 377 Americans so far charged in the Capitol insurrection today in the Washington Post. Using court records to analyze the demographics and characteristics of those charged, the research showed that [c]ounties with the most significant declines in the non-Hispanic White population are the most likely to produce insurrectionists who now face charges. Specifically, the counties that had the greatest decline in white population had an 18 percent chance of sending an insurrectionist to the Jan. 6 riots, whereas counties with the least decline in white population had only a 3 percent chance.

U.S. and Iranian officials convened in Vienna to begin reviving the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal that President Biden pledged to rejoin, reports the Washington Post. The two nations will not meet directly, and European diplomats will act as intermediaries. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that the U.S. expects to discuss, the nuclear steps that Iran would need to take in order to return to compliance with the terms of the [nuclear deal] and the sanctions relief steps that the United States would need to take in order to return to compliance as well.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy called on NATO to create a path for Ukrainian membership in the alliance, days after Russia began amassing troops in the Donbass region, reports Reuters. In a phone call with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Zelenskiy said NATO is the only way to end the war in Donbass, and that Ukraines entry into the alliance will be a real signal for Russia.

Jailed Russian opposition-leader Alexei Navalny was moved to a medical unit due to an acute respiratory infection yesterday, writes CNN. Navalny began a hunger strike last week to protest the lack of access to medical care in the prison, and will continue his hunger strike despite having a fever and severe cough, according to his team.

Over 1,800 inmates escaped in southeast Nigeria after heavily armed gunmen attacked a prison with explosives and grenades, reports Reuters. The Nigerian police believe the attackers were from a banned separatist group, the Indigenous People of Biafra, but the group denied involvement. Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari called the attack an act of terrorism and ordered security to apprehend the escaped prisoners.

ICYMI: Yesterday on Lawfare

Bryce Klehm announced an episode of Lawfare Live on April 8 at 7 p.m. ET, during which the National Security Law Society at the Georgetown University Law Center will host a live recording of the Lawfare Podcast on the continuing threat of white extremism.

Jen Patja Howell shared an episode of the Lawfare Podcast, featuring Benjamin Wittess conversation with Lawfares Jacob Schulz and Justin Sherman, fellow at the Atlantic Council, about a report released by the New Zealand government on the Christchurch shooting.

Jordan Schneider shared an episode of ChinaTalk, featuring an interview with Derek Sandhaus about his book Drunk in China: Baiju and the Worlds Oldest Drinking Culture.

Jackson Neagli explained Hong Kongs election overhaul.

Darrell West shared an episode of TechTank, titled What We Can Learn About Mars From the Perseverance Exploration.

Jacob Schulz shared a report released by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board on the use of Executive Order 12333.

Emma Svoboda asked if Kazakhstan failed Xinjiangs ethnic Kazakhs.

Email the Roundup Team noteworthy law and security-related articles to include, and follow us on Twitter and Facebook for additional commentary on these issues. Sign up to receive Lawfare in your inbox. Visit our Events Calendar to learn about upcoming national security events, and check out relevant job openings on our Job Board.

See the article here:
Today's Headlines and Commentary - Lawfare - Lawfare

The answer to that question is as old as the country itself, and it continues to evolve as Americans debate the right balance of individual freedom and public safety.

After every mass shooting and subsequent examination of gun violence statistics, a predictable argument is sure to follow as gun-rights advocates and gun-control advocates square off over what should be done next. Each side speaks with passion and fire about rights and law and the Constitution, the meaning of the right to bear arms and a well-regulated militia, and what these terms mean in the context of our Second Amendment rights.

But does anyone really know what those rights are? Even the experts cant say for certain because the Constitution is constantly being reviewed and reinterpreted. Some commonly held myths about the Constitution also cloud what we think we know about our rights, and that goes for our First Amendment rights as well as our Second. So, what is the Second Amendment, exactly, and what does it encompass?

A lot of people forget that the Supreme Court didnt recognize an individual right to own guns until 2008, says Adam Winkler, professor of Constitutional Law at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America. That was when the Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller. The 54 ruling found that the Second Amendment protects the individuals right to bear arms for self-defense, and overturned a Washington, D.C., law that prohibited people from keeping handguns in their homes.

Nowhere else in the Constitutiondoes the people refer to anything other than an individual right, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. And thus the right to bear arms came to include the right of the individual to own a gun for protectionsomething that had never been articulated by the Supreme Court before.

RELATED: What Would It Take to Amend the Constitution?

The Constitution is a remarkably brief founding documentjust 7,591 words stretched over seven articles defining the authority invested in the government and 27 amendments generally laying out the rights retained by the people. Its brevity is both the beauty and the burden of the Constitution since it allows for interpretation in response to changing circumstances but also lacks specificity to easily settle disputes. When it comes to Second Amendment rights, the tension between these two traits is particularly sharp.

Heres what Second Amendment actually says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That short sentence has sparked endless discussion and disagreement.

The gun debate has been going in circles for decades, and it certainly doesnt bring us together as a society, Winkler says, noting that absolutists on both extremes often drown out more moderate discussion. Nonetheless, he says its important to let every side be heard when deciding which policy to pursue: Thats what makes us a democracy.

RELATED: Interesting Facts and Figures About the Constitution

Another key part of democracy is its ability to adapt to new g44conditions and societal norms. As attitudes that were once thought of as perfectly natural become abhorrent in more enlightened times, the law can change to reflect that. The subject of race relations is a perfect example.

In the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court ruled that state-mandated racial segregation did not offend the Constitution. But in 1954, when civil rights advocates argued in Brown v. Board of Education that separate but equal was a fiction that legalized unconstitutional discrimination, a unanimous Supreme Court agreed. Government-sanctioned segregation was outlawed, in the North and the South, less than 60 years after Plessy.

That same changing dynamic could exist in the context of the Second Amendment. Will the next mass shooting change the hearts and minds of so many Americans that the right to own guns has to change to accommodate this new reality? Its possible. After all, its sometimes said amongst Constitutional scholars that all it takes to change the Constitution is the ability to count to five. In other words, can you get five Supreme Court justices to agree with what you think the Constitution means? Ultimately, the right to bear arms means what a majority of the Court says it means, and that can shift relatively quickly.

But the Courts respect for precedent and history is meant to prevent our fundamental rights from getting blown away too easily by political winds. Justices often look to the Founders struggle in crafting the Constitution for guidance.

RELATED: Why I No Longer Think Guns Are a God-Given Right

The gun control debate frequently focuses on what the Founders intended when they wrote the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights, as the first 10 amendments are called. Was it so the people could take up arms to fight their own government gone tyrannical, or was the establishment of a well-regulated militia a way to discourage foreign threats? As Winkler and co-author Nelson Lund, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote for the non-partisan National Constitution Center, its a little of both.

While the Constitution and the amendments that would become the Bill of Rights were being debated in the earliest days of the republic, two factions emerged with very different views of what the new nation should look like. What would the relationship between the individual states and the federal government be? Should one be superior to the other? Who should have the firepower to maintain that balance?

States rights advocates, the Anti-Federalists, argued that the proposed Constitution would leave the states vulnerable to federal force, while pro-centralized-government Federalists responded that the people were armed and therefore not easily controlled by a federal army. But the lessons of the Revolutionary War showed that building an army was difficult and a ready militia was necessary for national defense.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions, Winkler and Lund wrote. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry.

RELATED: The Difference Between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

But while the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were hashing out the right to bear arms, the states were already regulating who could own guns and how they could keep them, Winkler notes. In 1776, Massachusetts required an oath of loyalty to the Cause of America from anyone who wanted to own a gun, with Pennsylvania passing similar laws to disarm those disaffected by the fight for independence.

Even after the Second Amendment became law, states were in the business of deciding who could own and keep firearms. In slave states like Virginia, for example, African Americans, even freedmen, were barred from possessing weapons.

In 2016s Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court extended the Second Amendment right to own weapons for self-defense to include all instruments that constitute bearable arms. But does that mean every individual has the right to own any weapon? The short answer is, no.

Like all of our rights, the Second Amendment is subject to commonsense restrictions, Winkler says.

Just as the First Amendment right to free speech doesnt protect perjury and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination doesnt cover voluntary confessions, the individual right to own guns can be regulated without offending the Second Amendment, he says. The Court has approved laws preventing convicted felons and the mentally ill from owning guns, for instance, a position not considered controversial except by the most ardent gun advocates.

Except for the few who favor totally banning firearms on one end of the debate, and the few who favor completely unregulated weapons on the other, the vast majority of Americans fall somewhere in between. They favor reasonable laws targeted at keeping guns out of the most dangerous hands while recognizing law-abiding citizens right to own firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sport. According to a November 2020 Gallup poll, 91 percent of Americans want gun laws to be stricter or to stay as they are, while just 9 percent want looser regulations.

But Winkler says revoking or significantly changing the Second Amendment is highly unlikely. The truth is, there are only about 10 states with restrictive gun laws, he says, including Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. Notably, California is known for the strictest regulations, and it also has the seventh-lowest rate of deaths by gun violence. Since it takes a super-majority of 38 states to repeal an amendment, and roughly 40 states are gun-friendly, Winkler says the Second Amendment is more likely to be amended to expand gun rights than revoke them. Instead, we will have to continue talking about it and trying to find the sweet spot where our right to individual security and public safety are in balance.

RELATED: Why Is It So Hard to Stop Gun Violence in America?

Sources:

Read more here:
What Is the Second Amendment? | Second Amendment Rights - Reader's Digest

News and research before you hear about it on CNBC and others. Claim your 1-week free trial to StreetInsider Premium here.

Thursday, April 15 @ 1 PM, EST

New York, NY, April 09, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- CommPRO.bizextends an invitation to please join us for this timely, informative, free webinar.Register here.

Webinar Overview

In an environment where misinformation, partisanship, and deep fakes abound, the role of the journalist has shifted from observer/reporter to advocacy and truth-telling. This panel discussion will explore why and where these lines are drawn and what the future will look like.

JoinAaron Kwittken(he/him), Founder and CEO of PRophet. and his panel featuring:

Discussion questions include:

Moderator

Aaron Kwittken (he/his/him)

Founder & CEO,PRophet

Aaron Kwittken is founder and CEO of PRophet, an AI-driven PR SaaS platform backed by MDC Ventures. He is also founder and chairman of KWT Global, a highly acclaimed PR and brand strategy firm with offices in New York, London and Los Angeles. A proud George Washington University alum, Aaron serves on GWs School of Media and Public Affairs advisory committee. Hes president-elect of PRSA-New York and past president of the Americas for the International Communications Consultancy Organization (ICCO); a former Board member of the PR Council; a former adjunct professor at NYU; writes for Forbes and The Drum; and is the creator and host of the popular Brand on Purpose podcast that features companies that do well by doing good. He has deep expertise in marketing technology, brand strategy, reputation management, crisis management and purpose-driven marketing. An endurance sports enthusiast, Aaron puts social impact at the center of everything he does personally and professionally.

Follow Aaron on Twitter:@AKwittken

Follow PRophet on Twitter:@PRophet_PR

Panelists

Sara Fischer

Media Columnist,Axios

SaraFischer is a media reporter forAxios. She joined the company in 2016 as a founding staff member. Fischer is considered one of the top reporters on her beat. Revue cited her weekly newsletter,AxiosMedia Trends, as the second-most popular media newsletter in the market and deemed it a must-read by media industry leaders. She was also recently named to Forbes 30 Under 30 Media list and to the 2019 Folio 100 in their Creator category. Beyond her weekly newsletter, Fischer overseesAxios media coverage for the newsroom, and steers the companys products and events around that topic. Her coverage spans corporate media, technology, social media, deals, entertainment, media regulation, policy and consumer habits.

Follow Sara on Twitter:@SaraFischer

Brian J. Karem

Sr. WH Reporter @Playboy, Author,Free the Press: The Death of American Journalism and How to Revive It

Brian J. Karem is an award-winning journalist, author, speaker and recognized defender of the First Amendment. Karem currently serves as the senior White House correspondent forPlayboy. He is also the host ofJust Ask the Question, a podcast featuring conversations with informed individuals about politics, current events and pop culture. He is also a frequent guest on CNN and other networks.

Karem has worked in both newspaper and television as an investigative journalist covering politics, crime, refugee issues, and state and local news. His work experience includes Americas Most Wanted (producer and correspondent);Peoplemagazine; Fox News; NBC News; and theCourier-Journal, among others.

Karem has received multiple awards for his work, including the prestigiousPieringer Awardand theFreedom of the Press Award, and was recently nominated as Journalist of the Year by theLos Angeles Press Club.

Throughout his career, Karem has been a champion of free speech and vocal advocate for freedom of the press. He has testified in support of afederal shield lawnumerous times before state legislatures and is the founder of the First Jailbirds Club, a group of 13 reporters who went to jail to defend a confidential source and who have toured the nation to rally for a federal shield law.

Most recently, Karem successfully filed a lawsuit against the Trump White House for suspending his credentials for a month, citing First Amendment and Fifth Amendment violations. The suit named President Donald Trump and White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham as defendants. He won the suit and has also successfully defended against two appeals.

Karem is a member of the White House Press Corps Association and the National Press Club and serves as immediate past president of the Maryland-Delaware-D.C Press Association.

Follow Brian on Twitter:@BrianKarem

David Kirkpatrick

Founder and Editor-in-Chief, Techonomy Media

David Kirkpatrick is a journalist, the founder and editor-in-chief of Techonomy Media, and author of the best-selling book The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company That Is Connecting the World. Techonomys conferences gather leaders to discuss how tech changes everything and to help build a better society. In these Covid times, along with frequent virtual roundtables, it hosts regular virtual events. Most recentlyDigitally United in mid-March, about the many ways tech can bring us together and remedies for how it has fractured us. In April Techonomy joins withWorth Magazineto hostThe Health+Wealth of America, about how our country can maintain progress emerging from the pandemic and economic crises. Techonomy normally hosts two major annual physical eventsin New York in May and a fall retreat in California. Speakers at its in-person conferences have included Marc Benioff, Sen. Cory Booker, Steve Case, John Chambers, Jack Dorsey, Esther Dyson, Katherine Maher, Marissa Mayer, Tim OReilly, Sean Parker, Penny Pritzker, Peter Thiel, Jeff Weiner, and Mark Zuckerberg. Kirkpatricks bookThe Facebook Effectis in 32 languages. He spent 25 years at Fortune Magazine, and is a contributing editor at Bloomberg Television and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Follow David on Twitter:@DavidKirkpatric

REGISTER

Contact:Fay ShapiroPublisher/CEOCommPRO Global, Inc.p: 212.779.0181https://www.commpro.biz

Visit link:
Free Webinar: Battling Deep Fakes and Misinformation Media's Role and Responsibility - StreetInsider.com

Virginia Beach Police Chief Paul Neudigate told city council members the technology doesn't fit on the officers' current gun holsters.

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. Virginia Beach Police Chief Paul Neudigate says the police department doesnt have body camera video, city camera video, or business camera video of the moment an officer shot and killed Donovon Lynch at the Oceanfront.

The officer's body camera was deactivated for unknown reasons, Neudigate said, and Virginia State Police will now investigate why the officer's camera wasn't recording.

Even if the officer who shot Lynch forgot to activate their body camera, the police department bought cameras that have the capacity to turn on and record as soon as an officer pulls out a gun.

However, Neudigate said the technology doesn't fit on officers' current holsters, so VBPD isn't using it.

We were forced as an agency to go with a different holster the single sidearm is not fit for, so even though weve acquired it and weve paid for it, it has never been functional," Neudigate said in an update to Virginia Beach City Council members Tuesday.

Neudigate said there are backorder and shipment issues with the holsters and screws that work with the body camera technology.

Lacking video of the shooting, Neudigate said the investigation of Lynch's death is unique.

I can tell you Ive worked a lot of [officer-involved shootings] in 32 years of policing, this is the first time Ive encountered a situation where weve had no body-worn camera footage, no independent video footage, no immediate independent witnesses, and we did not have a more timely statement from involved parties," Neudigate said. "So as much as we want to be transparent to our community and they deserve it, its hard to be transparent when we have very little information to guide our response in our investigation.

Chief Neudigate said his department didnt interview the officer who shot Lynch for days because they couldnt violate the officers Fifth Amendment rights. He told city council the Virginia Beach Commonwealths Attorney's Office will decide if the shooting was justified.

We are used to being scrutinized and as we should," Neudigate said.

Virginia Beach Police will increase the number of officers working near the Oceanfront, and Neudigate asked council members to find a "holistic" approach to curbing gun violence.

We have to be very careful because we dont want to be seen as oppressive and discouraging people from coming to the Oceanfront," he said.

After 25 years patrolling the Oceanfront, Virginia Beach Police Benevolent Association President Brian Luciano wrote a fiery letter to city council asking for more support.

Quite honestly, it is any given weekend that someone is injured or someone is shot, Luciano said.

Neudigate also told council members hes short-staffed by about 100 officers. He said he would like 150 to 200.

Those 100 officers could field a precinct dedicated solely to Oceanfront Operations, Neudigate said.

He said they will pull officers from other areas for the summer season. Luciano believes they need to focus on recruitment.

Until we solve the manpower issue, what we are doing is sacrificing services in the rest of the city, Luciano said.

Read more:
Virginia Beach police bought the technology to automatically turn on body cameras when a gun is drawn, but it doesn't work - 13newsnow.com WVEC

Narendra Modi was in Bangladesh to attend the countrys Golden Jubilee celebrations of independence.

At least 11 people were killed in Bangladesh over the weekend as protesters clashes with police during demonstrations called by Islamist groups against Prime Minister Narendra Modis Dhaka visit. Mr. Modi was in Bangladesh to attend the countrys Golden Jubilee celebrations of independence. After Mr. Modis visit, violence spread across the country with protesters attacking a train in the eastern district of Brahmanbaria and targeting several Hindu temples. The main group behind the violent protests was Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh, an umbrella organisation of radical Islamists that had in the past clashed with the Awami League government.

Hefazat-e-Islam, literally protector of Islam, was formed in 2010 when the country was taking gradual measures to undo the Islamisation of its polity by the military rulers in the late 1970s and 1980s. In 2008, the military-backed caretaker government had proposed the Draft National Womens Development Policy Bill, promising equal rights to women in property through earnings, inheritance, loan, land and market management. In the December 2008 election, the secular Awami League, led by Sheikh Hasina, Sheikh Mujibur Rahmans daughter, was brought to power. The secualrists had demanded repealing the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which had made sweeping changes to the countrys original secular Constitution during the years of military rule (Later in the year the Supreme Court ruled the amendment was illegal). The Islamist groups saw these developments, along with the shrinking space of clergy politics, as a threat to their core interests, and came together on one platform to form Hefazat-e-Islam. In February 2010, Hefazat called a demonstration in Chittagong against the Womens Bill and the bid to cancel the Fifth Amendment. They clashed with police, injuring over a dozen, and announcing the arrival of a new Islamist group in Bangladeshs political landscape.

Headquartered in Chittagong, Hefazat is a platform of the Sunni clerics of the countrys vast Quami madrassa network and their students. The Economist reported in 2017 that Hefazat madrassas were financed by the Salafi-Wahabi Islamists in Saudi Arabia. If in 2010, they demonstrated their street power by staging the anti-Womens Bill protests, in 2013, they would expand their demands to a 13-point agenda and hold massive rallies in the capital Dhaka. Their demands included enactment of an anti-blasphemy law with provision for death penalty, cancellation of the womens development law (which Ms. Hasinas government passed), a ban on erecting statues in public places (because thats idolatry), a ban on mixing man and woman in public and declaration of Bangladeshs Ahmadiyas, a persecuted minority in Islam, as non-Muslims (like in Pakistan).

The Awami League government initially ignored the protests. But Hefazat members organised many marches to the capital, in what they called the siege of Dhaka, to push for their demands. When the pressure mounted, the government acted swiftly and ruthlessly. In the early hours of May 6, 2013, security forces launched a crackdown on Hefazat activists to oust them from Dhaka. At least 11 people were estimated to have been killed in the operation.

Since the failed Dhaka siege, Hefazat was careful not to run into a direct showdown with the government or the ruling party. But it remained an important hardline voice that often put pressure on the government with its Islamist agenda. For example, when the Fifth Amendment was repealed, the government restored secularism and some other articles of the original Constitution but Islam continued to remain the state religion. Hefazet had threatened violent struggle against the government if Islam is removed as the state religion. The government had also made changes in school texts under pressure from Hefazat and other Islamists. In 2015-16, when Bangladesh was gripped by violence against secular bloggers and activists, Hefazet had demanded action against the writers who insult Islam. In 2017, giving in to Hefazats demands, the government removed the statue of the Greek Goddess Themis from the premises of the Supreme Court. In 2018, the Hasina government passed a Bill recognising DawraeHadith, a top degree of Hefazat-controlled Quami madrassas, as equivalent to a Masters degree in Islamic studies and Arabic, a long-pending demand of Hefazat clerics.

Ms. Hasinas government may have found Hefazat a lesser problem than Jamaat e Islami, the militant religious party whose leaders were put on trial for war crimes committed in 1971 by the war tribunal. The government did not give in to Hefazats key demands that would alter the secular character of the state, but offered small concessions to the group to avoid trouble. These concessions, however, appeared to have made them stronger over the years. And the protests they carried out against the visit of the Indian Prime Minister, at a time when both India and Bangladesh are trying to deepen their ties, pose a new challenge to both Dhaka and New Delhi.

See the original post:
Analysis | Hefazat-e Islam, the group behind anti-Modi protests in Bangladesh - The Hindu

Was the December 2018 shooting death of a Lawton teen predicated on fear or vengeance?

That is the question a Comanche County jury will decide following the first day of testimony in the trial of David Keith Winbush for the charge of first-degree murder. The crime is punishable by life in prison, life without parole or death.

Represented by public attorney Lawrence Corrales, Winbush, 37, took intermittent notes but primarily kept his eyes focused on the table before him during Tuesday's testimony. He is on trial for the shooting and killing of Marques Brown Jr., 15, who was a Lawton High School freshman when he died.

It began with the theft of Winbushs white 2003 Chevrolet Silverado the night of Dec. 8, 2018. Former Lawton Police Officer Austin Mahsetky testified to taking the stolen truck report from Winbush at his home at 502 SW Jefferson. He was told two males had stolen the truck.

Winbush and his friends had been a bar and arrived home to find the truck missing. After checking his home video surveillance system, he told Mahsetky the truck had been stolen about three to five minutes before hed arrived home.

He said that if hed caught them in the act, he wouldve filled the truck with lead, Mahsetky testified Tuesday.

Mahsetkysoon heard the 911 call made by Jessie Burk reporting the truck was found in the 1200 to 1300 block of Southwest Bishop Road. Mahsetky said he arrived to find Winbush standing in the street near his truck. Winbush's neighbor, Geronimo Martinezs truck was parked blocking it. It was shortly before 12:30 a.m. Dec. 9, 2018.

Winbush told Mahsetky that hed shot the driver twice. He turned over his handgun that was in his hip holster and was taken into custody. He told the officer the teen had pulled out a large knife and tried to stick him like a pig and he shot the (expletive).

Police never reported recovering a knife in the area of the incident nor was one collected when Brown was discovered.

Still upset about the truck, Winbush described its theft as a breaking point for him, according to Mahsetky. Hed recently been at the center of a story that caught a large amount of media attention when his dog was beaten and severely injured. That assault was also captured on Winbushs home security video.

He said he was tired of everything, tired of being messed with, Mahsetky said. He was tired of being a target.

Winbush later told investigators he ran up to the male on the ground who then jumped up while placing one of his hands into his jacket/hoodie pocket and that he freaked out. Mahsetky said Winbush described hearing a distinct gasp sound from Brown after the first gunshot.

He said he would never forget hearing that sound, Mashetky said. He said he'd thought he wouldnt feel so bad for using his gun.

Brown died as a result of two gunshot wounds fired from behind, according to the State Medical Examiners autopsy report.

Another friend of Winbush's, Kendall Jirtle, testified to driving Winbush to the site where Martinez had stopped the pickup. After leaving the bar, Jirtle said all were meeting at Winbushs home so they could drop their vehicles off and go to another bar. When he got there, Winbush told him the truck had been stolen. He and Jessie Burk watched the security video of the trucks theft.

When Mahsetky left from taking the theft report, Jirtle said Winbush spoke with Martinez, who was following the stolen pickup. Thats when Winbush said to go get it. Neither Jirtle nor Burk knew Winbush was armed.

Once at the scene, Winbush was the first out of the vehicle. He said Martinez was standing in the roadway and was looking down at Brown, who was lying face down on the ground.

Everything else happened after that, he said.

Jirtle said Winbush asked the teen if he was the one who stole his pickup. He saw Brown jump up and turn to run away and the first shot was fired. The second shot followed a moment later. He testified Winbush pulled the trigger and said he knew Brown had been hit by the first gunshot.

I heard the kid say oh, he said.

In the 911 recording played in court, Jirtle said it was his voice telling Winbush Dont shoot. Assistant District Attorney Jill Oliver asked him why he made that statement.

I didnt think he needed to shoot, he said. I know the first shot hit him.

Winbush told Jirtle the teen had a knife. Jirtle said he wasnt close enough to see if he did or didnt and, at first, believed his friend.

At that point and time, it was really hard to tell, he said. He had to have a reason to pull the gun.

Brown was able to run away for a short distance. Footprints in the snow led emergency personnel to him in the roadway on Southwest 13th Street near Oklahoma Avenue. The teen was taken to Comanche County Memorial Hospital where he was pronounced dead.

Jirtle testified no one chased after Brown or the three other teens seen running away from the truck.

During cross-examination, Jirtle told Corrales he didnt hear anything about a knife from Winbush until after the two shots were fired. He confirmed he saw Winbush fire the weapon.

He fired the first shot when he (Brown) turned and went to run and one after that, he said. It was just one after another. Everything just happened so fast.

During Martinezs testimony, he confirmed hed been looking for the truck for his neighbor. When he got behind it and began to follow, he said the teens sped up.

When asked if he sped up to keep up with them, Martinez looked to his lawyer at the back of the courtroom, and then invoked his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself. District Judge Emmit Tayloe asked the witness for clarity and determined he didnt want to admit to speeding. After Tayloe requested immunity for his exceeding the posted speed limit, and Oliver accepting it, Martinez confirmed he sped up in pursuit.

The teens driving the pickup made a turn from Southwest 11th Street onto Bishop Road at the northern boundary of the Lawton-Fort Sill Municipal Airport, struck a curb and went off the road to the right. Martinez said he pulled his vehicle in front of it and the doors opened with the teens bailing out. The truck continued and struck his truck.

Brown, who was unable to get away, was ordered to lie on the ground by Martinez and he complied. Winbush arrived moments later. When a knife was mentioned, thats when everything set off, he said.

He said knife, knife then the shots happened, Martinez said.

Martinez heard the first shot and saw the second burst from the handgun. He couldnt state for a fact that it was Winbush who fired the weapon, however.

Oliver then asked Martinez, Did you shoot the kid on the ground?

I plead the Fifth Amendment, Martinez replied.

Tayloe interjected and, again, asked Martinez if he pulled the trigger. This time, the witness answered: No.

I think you answered the question, Tayloe said.

Earlier testimony from one of the teens who had been in the pickup with Brown described the fear felt as they were pursued. The four had been riding around in the pickup, listening to music and smoking marijuana when a vehicle dropped in behind them, according to Warren Dennis.

When Martinezs truck blocked the truck, Dennis said they all tried to flee the stolen truck but Browns jacket was hung up on the door and the next time he looked, he was lying on the ground. As he ran, the sound of the gunshots scared him.

Dennis said he fled to his friends house. While on the run there, he said there was a truck that was circling the block and, he thought, looking for them. He said he wouldnt know Browns fate until seeing an Instagram post the next morning.

I just started crying and stuff, he said. Im scared to think about it. I got PTSD about it.

Testimony will resume at 9 a.m. today.

Read this article:
Question of fear or vengeance at core of Lawton murder trial - The Lawton Constitution

As debates about policing pervade the public conversation, professorRachel Harmonof the University of Virginia School of Law has written the first casebook to look at the laws that govern police conduct in the United States.

The Law of the Police, published by Wolters Kluwer, takes on the question of how the law shapes police-citizen encounters and how the law might be leveraged to make policing serve the public better.

Harmon, a former federal prosecutor who directs the Law SchoolsCenter for Criminal Justice, has taught a course on the laws governing police for 15 years. She came to UVA Law in 2006 after spending eight years as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Department of Justices Civil Rights Division.

Throughout her time in academia, she has wrestled with what role, if any, policing should have in peoples lives, and how best to prevent misconduct.

I came to the Law School from practice, where I spent years prosecuting civil rights cases, including against police officers, she said. Over time, I got frustrated with criminal prosecution as a response to police misconduct. Prosecuting illegal police violence can be important, but I knew there had to be better ways to prevent problems in policing.

Among her goals for the book, she said, was to look at how different laws and legal rules make policing more or less harmful.

The book is a reaction to the traditional approach to policing the police, which is rights-focused. For example, a common police practice she considers problematic is selectively asking drivers, based on a gut feeling, to open their trunks during a traffic stop with all of the officers conscious and unconscious biases in tow.

Lawyers have typically looked at such problems and argued that they violate Fourth Amendment doctrine or, if they dont, that the doctrine should be changed, she said. I see things differently.

In the evolution of her thoughts, Harmon first looked at how existing rights and remedies might be applied to curb policing that works against the public interest.

I spent my first couple of years as an academic looking at legal remedies to see whether they could be used to prevent problems in policing and tossing them over my shoulder, Harmon said. So civil rights damages actions, is that going to work? No, thats not going to work a lot of the time. Justice Department investigations of police departments, is that going to work? No, that wont work well enough either.

She then suggested enhancements to these existing tools, before going another way.

I wrote a couple of articles trying to improve rights and remedies before I started to write about how to think more broadly about police misconduct as a regulatory problem, Harmon said. The question is not only how to remedy police misconduct, but how to use law to get the public safety we want, both through policing and through other means.

Focusing on that question led Harmon to study the harms of policing and how the law overlooks them or contributes to them.

Moreover, studying the vast array of legal rules that shape policing and police departments led Harmon to realize how little of it lawyers and law students may know, she said.

Hopefully, the book can be a resource, not just for law students, but for academics, lawyers, police chiefs, journalists, activists, judges or just about anyone interested in how the law actually governs policing and how it might do so differently whether thats reforming police departments or turning public safety over to nonpolice actors, she said.

She noted that the book is different than a criminal procedure textbook, which specifically prepares lawyers for the concepts they will need to know as future prosecutors or defenders. Her book is organized by police practices, such as stopping traffic, using force, maintaining order, and policing resistance and protests, rather than legal categories dictated by Fourth and Fifth Amendment law. The book covers departmental policies and local and state law, as well as federal statutes and cases. It also addresses topics law students rarely study and on which there are few resources for lawyers and commentators, such as asset forfeiture, protest policing, video recording the police, and criminal investigations and prosecutions of police officers.

Even so, that hasnt stopped some professors who have given her book a test run from using it in their criminal procedure courses. Harmon said that the book was not conceived with that purpose in mind, but she has grown more comfortable with the idea that it can be used to teach an alternative version of criminal procedure, one in which the police are front and center.

Harmon is a member of the American Law Institute and serves as an associate reporter for its project on Principles of the Law of Policing. She advises nonprofits and government actors on issues of policing and the law, and served as a policing expert for the independent review of the white supremacist events of Aug. 11-12, 2017, in Charlottesville.

In December she wasco-author of a report, Policing Priorities for the New Administration, advocating for a stronger regulatory approach. The report, produced in collaboration with Barry Friedman and the Policing Project at the New York University School of Law, urged the White House to appoint a policing czar and require that all of the more than 80 federal law enforcement agencies meet basic standards for transparency, among other clear and actionable measures.

Read more from the original source:
Professor's New Casebook Is First to Look at Law of the Police - UVA Today

UAB Skyroad Leasing v. OJSC Tajik Air, No. 20-cv-00763 (D.D.C. Jan. 26, 2021) [click for opinion]

Petitioner UAB Skyroad Leasing ("Skyroad") brought an arbitration against Respondent OJSC Tajik Air ("Tajik Air"), before the Vilnius Court of Commercial Arbitration in Vilnius, Lithuania, for violating an agreement to lease two Boeing aircraft. In 2018, a $20 million award was issued in favor of Skyroad. It brought this action to enforce the award.

Tajik Air argued that the petition should be dismissed because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. Specifically, Tajik Air argued that it did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the United States for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Skyroad argued in response that a minimum contacts analysis was not required because Tajik Air qualified as a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the "FSIA"); therefore, Tajik Air had no Fifth Amendment due process rights. Skyroad's argument was based on the fact that Tajik Air was incorporated under the laws of Tajikistan and fully owned by the state.

Because Skyroad conceded that Tajik Air lacked sufficient minimum contacts with the United States to satisfy the Due Process Clause, the court only addressed whether Tajik Air qualified as a foreign state. The court noted that, underSection 1330(b)of the FSIA, personal jurisdiction over a foreign state exists as to every claim for relief over which the district court has subject matter jurisdiction. However, the court explained that this only applies to "an actual foreign government."

When a case involves an "agency or instrumentality" of a foreign sovereign, the court affords the instrumentality a "presumption of separateness" from the foreign sovereign. For purposes of personal jurisdiction, that presumption means that, unless rebutted, the instrumentality is entitled to due process protection under the Fifth Amendment. And such protection means that, unless the instrumentality has sufficient minimum contacts with the United States, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over it.

Skyroad's case thus rested on rebutting this presumption of separateness. Skyroad asserted that Tajikistan maintained such extensive control over Tajik Air that the company lacked a distinct identity. Skyroad argued that this lack of a distinct identity was clearly shown through (i) Tajikistan's owning 100% of Tajik Air's voting shares, (ii) the government's making decisions on disbursements and appointment of the company's Director General, the Supervisory Board including senior government officials, and (iii) the government's funding Tajik Air, and the reducing of Tajik Air's debts through tax offsets.

The court rejected most of these arguments, stating that the facts presented "are relevant but as a matter of law do not by themselves establish the required control" and "such government action to prop up a wholly owned instrumentality's financial position is not at all unusual, however, and does not constitute excessive control by the state."Further, the court identified features of Tajik Air that "are the hallmark of separateness from a sovereign". First, Tajik Air was restructured from a state enterprise to an open joint stock company by government resolution in 2009. Second, Tajik Air is "authorized to open bank accounts, operate on an independent balance sheet, and may acquire and exercise its proprietary rights and personal non-property rights, incur obligations and litigate."

Under these circumstances, the court ruled that Skyroad did not sufficiently rebut the presumption of separateness; therefore, the court deemed Tajik Air a "person" for Fifth Amendment due process purposes. Because Skyroad conceded that Tajik Air lacked sufficient minimum contacts with the United States, the court concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Tajik Air and could not enforce the $20 million award against the company.

Will Shields of the Washington, DC office contributed to this summary.

Continue reading here:
Arbitration. Enforcement of Award. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Personal Jurisdiction. District court refuses to enforce $20 million award...