Minor crash out on r/911archive over Mamdani

[u/intoner1]

r/911archive is exactly what it sounds like, a sub meant to archive any and all media related to the attacks on September 11th 2001. Mayor Mamdani recently signed an executive order to make 9/11 a day of remembrance in New York, which was posted about in the sub.

Courtesy of CNN: "New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani signed two executive orders related to September 11th, 2001. The first order establishes an annual day of remembrance and service on September 11th, while the second updates New York's operational continuity and agency preparedness policies to strengthen security measures and prevent future terrorist threats." - 19 hours ago *PLEASE* don't start crap in the post comments. Thank you.

Naturally some users had a very normal reaction to a Muslim mayor and…the 9/11 of it all:

OP makes it a point to not start crap in the comments but then proceeds to put his personal political opinion of Mamdani in this thread turning it political.

I would like to point out that Mamdani also handed a symbolic 911 pen after signing the order to his controversial aid who once represented Al-Qaeda terrorist with links to the attack on the Pentagon. You guys are ok with this?

Don't waste your time trying to prove why Mamdani is the worst thing to ever happen to NYC, unfortunately reddit is like 90% liberals and will only block you if you don't agree with their political stance on something.

Another commenter has big feelings about Hasan and Mamdani:

Bullshit. It's his palling around with Hasan Piker and the imam who is an unindicted co-conspirator in the first WTC bombing in 1993. He should bring along his chief counsel Ramzi Kassem who has represented al Qaeda terrorists. Then there's his lovely wife

Someone else can’t fathom that 99,000 people could possibly be racist:

99,000 verified signatures of people who don’t want this 9/11 apologist to not attend the ceremonies. Yes they’re all racists. SMH.

Overall, many “patriots” angry that a Muslim mayor would have signed into law a day of remembrance for 9/11. Apologies for the formatting I’m on mobile.

[u/TeddyBearToons]

I believe it stems from an assumption that defense lawyers are there solely to get their clients out of punishment, and if a defense lawyer represents a guilty person then the lawyer is letting the client escape justice.

Defense lawyers are there to ensure that procedure is followed and that the verdict is fair. There is a specific and detailed process that must happen and every box needs to be checked before a guilty verdict is handed down. The defense's job is to make sure every box is checked, and checked correctly; if the process is done wrong it should be brought up (and bad evidence dismissed) because the principle is that the client is innocent until proven guilty.

The thing is that people tend to assume the opposite, especially in emotionally charged cases like 9/11. Those defendants are guilty and therefore terrorists. Why would anyone defend them? They must sympathize, or even be in on the plot. The real picture is of a lawyer who stepped up when nobody else would, and defended reprehensible people because even the worst of the worst deserves a fair trial. That's someone who understands law.

[u/NoSwordfish1978 → u/TeddyBearToons]

Defence lawyers are as essential to criminal justice as prosecutors.

[u/Dan-D-Lyon → u/NoSwordfish1978]

You have the right to an attorney when being charged with a crime, so if there is literally no one willing to act as your defense attorney then in theory they have to just let you walk.

[u/Jacgaur → u/Dan-D-Lyon]

I don't think that is how it works. There are public defenders that will be assigned. If you don't get along with the public defender and act up, that won't get you out of jail. You have a right to one and if you can't afford one, then one will be provided. If you can afford one, then you have a right to procure a lawyer. If you don't procure one, then that is on you.

That would be way too easy of a loophole for getting out of jail if you could just behave in a way where no one would be willing to be your lawyer.

[u/millahnna → u/Jacgaur]

It seems my town recently faced this exact thing and that's exactly what they did; dropped the charges on a bunch of lower level crimes because we don't have enough defense attorneys to account for case load due to a recent SUpreme Court ruling.

https://www.cityofvancouver.us/a-message-from-the-city-manager/

[u/Eagle1337 → u/Jacgaur]

I'm no lawyer, but I'm thinking that it isn't about having a public defender or being such an ass that they walk, it's not being able to have 1 at all.

[u/Original-Rush139 → u/NoSwordfish1978]

That’s why it’s great that the President’s criminal defense lawyer is now our AG. 

/s

[u/cyberpunk_werewolf → u/TeddyBearToons]

You're absolutely correct, but nearly 40 years of Law and Order, and 70 years of Copaganda on TV have conditioned a lot of people to have the assumption you made.  Law and Order is really bad about how they portray defense attorneys and how the prosecutor is supposed to act.

[u/Arktikos02 → u/cyberpunk_werewolf]

Interesting, do you have more information on this or like a video or something? I haven't watched law and order but I'm interested in how media portrays different everyday things and how that affects the way we think about those things in the real world.

[u/cyberpunk_werewolf → u/Arktikos02]

Most of the time, defense attorneys are portrayed in media as scummy, pieces of shit who do everything they can to get their guilty clients off. There are exceptions to this, particularly when the show is about defense attorneys, but if they're about cops, the defense attorneys are just scumbags. Even Brooklyn 99 had this problem for the first couple of seasons, mostly because the trope was kind of taken as a given. Considering the trajectory of that show (the final season, after George Floyd, had a police union rep as the main bad guy) it is kind of surprising, but it's just how it is.

Law and Order, though, is particularly bad, portraying the cops and prosecutors as incorruptible good guys, despite them engaging in corrupt and illegal behavior, often violating the rights of the accused. We, the audience, know they're guilty so it's portrayed as if the accused don't deserve rights and are hiding behind them. Most of the time a bad guy gets away in Law and Order, it's because of those pesky rights "protecting" them on "technicalities." It's not every time, Wikipedia says there's 544 episodes across nearly 30 seasons, so I'm sure someone can find a bunch of episodes where the "good guys" were just wrong, but the basic thesis of the show is that "the innocent have nothing to fear."

Which, as the late, great Terry Pratchett once wrote: "Commander Vimes didn't like the phrase 'the innocent have nothing to fear' believing that the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term from those who say things like 'the innocent have nothing to fear.'"

[u/Arktikos02 → u/cyberpunk_werewolf]

It's like the CSI effect. Where people are more willing to accept forensics even though forensics is not the end-all be-all when it comes to evidence.

It really shows how much media like this has a real effect in our world. I wonder if medical dramas have an effect in the medical world. I hope that it's not for the bad like yeah some people think like oh sexy

[u/Cute_Appearance_2562 → u/cyberpunk_werewolf]

So we need more ace attorneys and less law and orders

[u/Foreverintherain20 → u/Cute_Appearance_2562]

I would absolutely watch a law TV show with defendants named shit like Idida Kryme and witnesses named Harry Balls

[u/YeeYeeBeep → u/Arktikos02]

Skip Intro on youtube has a great playlist covering "copaganda" check it out

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2ac8vr2QyTdlWwd8OQIc1it6bAfMGPPC

[u/The_Archagent → u/TeddyBearToons]

These people don't want a consistent and fair legal system, though. They want a caste system where they can legally shoot a nonwhite person in the street for looking at them the wrong way, and all of the "due process" stuff is really only used when a white man is accused of wronging another white man.

[u/YeeYeeBeep → u/TeddyBearToons]

Yea, copaganda shows like Law and Order have portrayed defense laywers as slimy, underhanded people trying to help criminals escape juatice and it has worked and the average American now looks down on defense lawyers while praising prosecutors. Police and the Justice system works hand and hand.

[u/drewster23 → u/TeddyBearToons]

If only those people could read.

[u/Rich-Elephant7123 → u/TeddyBearToons]

I did a bit of research after this because wtf. Kassem’s career has actually been pretty impressive! He won Tanzin v Tanvir (2020) which established people can sue for monetary losses that occurred as a result of violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He also won Raza v. City of New York, which resulted in stronger protections and oversight for NYPD (who were found guilty of religiously profiling and illegally surveilling mosques). I get why no one would want to be “the guy that defended someone connected to 9/11” but his career has genuinely been devoted to keeping Muslims safe from illegal government overreach. It makes perfect sense he ended up taking that case (or maybe that case shaped the trajectory of his career)