Daley Blames - Who Else? - The Media For Oprah-geddon
Chicago Gets Googled
Friday Flashback - Old School Oprah
Today's Transgender Day of Remembrance Honors the Dead
Review: Paramount Room
Before we continue with the post, we invite you to first re-watch the surveillance tape video that's been repeatedly shown across the country over the last 2+ years.
Now, with that in mind, consider that Abbate's attorney told the judge yesterday, “We expect to show Karolina went after our client. He didn’t go after Karolina, she grabbed him and tossed him around like a rag doll.” Karolina Obrycka, the bartender who was attacked, testified yesterday and admitted to trying to push Abbate out from behind the bar. Still, watching the video, it's hard to swallow the "tossed him around like a rag doll" claim.
Abbate chose to go with a bench trial instead of a jury trial, most likely because of the wide play the taped beating got on television. The trial could wrap up as early as today. As we mentioned yesterday, Abbate has since been stripped of his badge and the Chicago Police Board awaits the trial verdict before moving forward with any other disciplinary measures, including termination. [NBC 5]
UPDATE: Chicago Breaking News is reporting: "Judge John Fleming acquitted Anthony Abbate of two counts of official misconduct, saying that bartender Karolina Obrycka testified Abbate never announced that he was a police officer."
UPDATE II: Matthew Walberg has updated the CBN story with snips from Abbate's testimony.
In a second round of questioning, Hickey tried to rehabilitate his client's testimony."Did you feel in danger when she grabbed you from behind, body slammed you up against the wall and nearly took you to the floor?" Hickey asked.
"Yes," Abbate said.
"Were you going to stand there and let her hurt you some more?"
No," Abbate replied.
Closing arguments are expected this afternoon.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I don't know who's a bigger piece of shit, Abbate or his attorney. It's really a tough call.
You have to be fucking kidding me
From the Trib's quick article about it: "Abbate's attorney, Peter Hickey, suggested that his client was acting in self defense and that Obrycka was the aggressor." Pushing a man twice your size out from behind the bar where he didn't belong is being "an aggressor"?
This is the exact kind of shit defense/excuse that cops take from punks all the time, and now he's doing it to a bartender who is a quarter of his size.
Do these lawyers have no shame?
No, they have no shame, if that makes you feel better. Nor should they when offering the most vigorous defense for their clients.
God, I hate defending this asshole of an ex-cop, especially when the video seems (emphasis on "seems") so clear. But let's really think about what it means to be innocent until proven guilty--think about all the meanings of that basic part of our society. Think about what you would do and what you would expect from your lawyer should you ever be charged with a crime, even one so relatively minor as DUI.
What would I do? I would hope I'd have enough honor to know that if I did the crime, then I'll do the time.
Someone very, very close to me ....a good, sweet, wonderful young person did 2 weeks in jail for a DUI, blood alcohol was just over the limit...and in some states that level used to be legal, so it was not a case of swerving all over. But this person also had a problem with cocaine and the reason for the sentence was a dirty urine sample when tested on probation. So...yeah...2 horrible weeks in the slammer, lots of tears but NO complaints. No trying to get off, did the time, did the rehab and knew all along that cleaning their act up and getting caught and punished was the best thing that ever happened. This person is now clean, sober, good job and a productive member of society.
Sometimes "good lawyers" are the worst thing that can happen to a person, and to society. If this Abate gets off, what message does that send to society?
Thank goodness Matilda is here to teach us about complex thought.
How hard will it be to find a chicagoist comment where you advocated avoiding the justice system for vigilante justice? It is safe to say you are a contrarian and that doesn't mean you are really smart- it just means you are disagreeable.
Just because someone is a lawyer does not mean they get to throw ethics out the window. I presume the video was not allowed as evidence due to some technicality?
This is a disgrace- has she brought a civil case against this guy yet or does she need to wait until this case is done.
You people must be blind. You can clearly see from the video that Obrycka is going to town on Abbate's fist with her face.
The only upside of that joke of a trial opener is that very few if any of his cop buddies showed up, a big contrast from the first time he appeared in court when they tried to block the camera views of him and prevent media from entering it. I guess they finally realized what a pantload this guy is.
she does push him first, into the wall. Its not that hard for a small person to push a stupidly drunk idiot off his feet.
But, he was clearly the aggressor by coming behind the bar in the first place. If we're going to play "who made the first move," well it is clear he did.
and besides that, the legal concept of "self-defense" doesn't extend to beating the crap out of someone after they're laying on the floor helpless. You only can inflict damage to someone long enough to extricate yourself from the situation. If you keep doing it past that point, it becomes battery...
I hate watching this vid. Ugh.
This douchebag should get an extra year tacked onto his sentence just for arguing such an asinine defense...
Yeah, because if you were charged with a crime, you wouldn't want the most vigorous defense possible. You'd probably claim aliens made you do it if there was a chance you would get off.
Abbate appears like an asshole, to say the least, and should face stiff punishment upon conviction. But let's not forget that EVERYONE is entitled to a vigorous defense.
That's where my problem with lawyers comes in. How can you defend a guilty scumbag?
Yes, I know...this is what makes our system great, but it's hard to swallow sometimes.
Look at how lawyers bend over backwards to get drunk drivers off. I know this asshole 23 yr. old whose life revolves around drinking copious amounts of alcohol. Recently totaled his car, his blood alcohol was to the moon, and he was so fucking cocky about his mommy paying for a "good lawyer" to "get him off", when the best thing that could happen to this kid would be for him to be punished and learn a lesson. One of these days he's going to hurt an innocent bystander.
Vigorous defense...sure...but if Abate gets off, then that's just going to suck. Even though I do believe that it's better for 100 guilty men to walk free than one innocent man to be imprisoned.
Have you ever really heard the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"?
Listen, I know many lawyers are scumbags (just like people in any other profession), but what is your proposed changed in our system?
Of course it is hard to swallow. Nothing is easy when it comes to trying to achieve justice.
Unless you have a better idea ... something more than trite complaints about how life often is unfair and ugly ... I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
Before you ask, no, I'm not a lawyer. I just think everyone deserves a vigorous defense, especially those whose actions make us sick.
I know what you're saying and I agree with you, my point was that in situations like this, our system is very hard to swallow. And I wouldn't want any other system either, just to be clear.
It's their job to bend over backwards to get drunk drivers off just like it's a doctors job to bend over backwards to save the life of an asshole drunk who wrecked their car. Be more angry at the guys like Abbate who actually get away with this kind of stuff.
Maybe this helps:
I hate--yes, hate--speech that, for instance, tries to cast gays as sinners, or tells me that I'm unpatriotic to oppose the Iraq War, or whatever.
That said, everyone is entitled to free political speech--free meaning free of government prohibition, and which does not serve to cause riots or the like--and would literally die defending that right.
That does not meant I support the ideas I am defending, only the underlying political system. I think this is similar to what defense lawyers do, at least in general.
Look outside yourself, your own experiences and minor anecdotes and relatively superficial emotions, and you might come away with a differing view.
Had a comment a minute ago, but it seems to have vanished. Forgive me if it pops back into reality and I become redundant.
In a lot of ways, I think defense lawyers and police officers face very similar difficulties, in that both often find themselves on the wrong side of public opinion, and yet both are essential to the functioning of a free society. Defense lawyers have to have very thick skin and cold hearts, and they often have to divorce themselves from emotion or what they believe is moral and focus instead on what is legal and logical. They have to defend the most repugnant among us, and yet without them we would be no better off than Iran. I wouldn't want to be a defense lawyer, but I am infinitely glad that there are people who do.
They have to defend the most repugnant among us, and yet without them we would be no better off than Iran.
Of course the people of Iran would be a lot better off if we'd never have created a coup to overthrow their elected leader, installed a king/puppet and thus paved the way for the Islamic revolution, but hey! Whole 'nuther off topic can of worms..
We are of like minds.
Hi-five!
Except that now I'm wondering whether you thought I said Iraq, as I don't believe the Shah was an elected position, nor do I think we had much to do with the installation of the Ayatollah.
Check out what happened prior to the Shah in the 1950s (thank you Ike and the CIA!), and what our help to him in the late 1970s did for the popularity of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and what role our support of the Shah played in the hostage-taking. I think Navin is mostly accurate.
Oh ... wait ... never mind. You're right.
Yeah, you people can have fun watching me debate history with myself.
There's a pretty basic article on Mosaddeq on wikipedia. It all centers on refusing to give away oil (natural resources) to The West for peanuts, surprise. Same pattern as elsewhere and continues to this day. But you are correct that The Shah was a monarch while Mosaddeq was prime minister.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mosaddeq#Operation_Ajax
That's the bit (the "elected" part) that threw me for a minute, but ultimately you're right.
Yes, but that would require Americans to have a concept of history beyond the last decade or so, right? (Or to know the difference between history and nostalgia.)
My view is the same as yours, so why would you want me to walk away with a differing view?
I'm glad for our system, I cherish our system....I'm just saying that in some cases it's hard to swallow.
Guilty men, assholes and scumbags go free all the time, it's how it works.
If you look closely, you'll see the following stamped on my forehead: "Life is fundamentally unfair."
If this guy had one iota of decency he would apologize for PUMMELING a tiny woman.
Then he would take his punishment like a man. But he's going to have his lawyer say it was self defense...and more than likely he won't even take the stand.
That's life.
Most men aren't "men," are they?
Nothing new. Humanity is mostly populated by spineless, cowardly creatures who deserve to be ruled with an iron fist, not trusted with the responsibilities of being free, thoughtful citizens. Unfortunately, dictatorships always work less efficiently than democracies and/or republics, despite what one might assume, so we go with what's most pragmatic.
Good Lord... this reminds me of a Norm MacDonald joke from Weekend Update (took me a little while to dig this up):
"It was revealed today that O. J. Simpson told police that Nicole Brown Simpson used to beat him up. He also claimed that she and Ron Goldman killed him."
This made me lol so hard. Oh man, thos were the good old days.
I recognized Johnny Cash's voice in the background. If you listen closely, you can hear the words "..Sunday morning coming down..."
A quick Google search later and I was watching Johnny Cash sing "Sunday Morning Coming Down" on YouTube.
Not surprisingly, the song talks about recovering on a Sunday morning from a long night of drinking. The perfect song for Mr. Abbate.
the defendant is a scumbag who will rot in jail.
the lawyer, though, is just doing his/her job. to the people saying the lawyer is a dirtbag, grow up. either you think people accused of a crime should get a trial, or you don't. if you do think they should get a trial, then they need lawyers who try their best to defend them.
Here is the opening verse to "Sunday Morning Coming Down":
Well, I woke up Sunday morning
With no way to hold my head that didn't hurt.
And the beer I had for breakfast wasn't bad,
So I had one more for dessert.
Matilda...of all of your jackass statements, this one is on the top of the list.
This is not some CSI episode where we are overlooking the DNA evidence to clear a good name.
I agree that everyone is "innocent until proven guilty"...I also think that when I see a guy beat the shit out of a girl on video, and then the guy pleads "self defense"....I do wonder how those people sleep at night.
I'm **not** reminded of what a vigorous defense they are putting up. There is a difference.
Save your "look outside yourself" bullshit for cases that matter.
Or at least have what it takes to distinguish between the two types of cases. You make a mockery of your point by bringing it up on this case.
Get the fuck over yourself.
What part of everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense do you not understand?
Have you ever been charged with a crime?
And if you think one video is 100% evidence of guilt, you haven't been around the block too much. That is why we have trials in this country, not summary judgments. Learn the difference, and also the reasons for our flawed but relatively strong justice system.
God, people like you are so easily manipulated.
CSI episode? I'm arguing for the most thoughtful justice possible and you bring up a fucking TV show? What the fuck are you even talking about?
And you are assuming the jury will buy the self-defense argument. I'm not. Again, that is why we have trials, not summary judgments from emotional people on blogs.
I look forward to your non-vigorous defense if/when you are faced with a criminal charge. I am sure you will take the honorable way out and plead guilty and accept the full sentence, right--meaning, you not petition for parole or probation? IF so, you will among the dozen or so human beings who've ever done this.
Both of you - calm it down or I'm shutting it down.
Hey, Tom: Let's just replace trials by juries (or judges in some cases) with summary judgments based on the complete, unflawed truth one gains from videos on local news channels and YouTube, alright? That is what you are arguing for here. No need for a vigorous defense if enough people are convinced of what's true, right?
I am sure that system will be better than the one we have now.
Again, I hope you are never charged with a crime, or even issued a ticket that you "know" is wrong. Good luck with that.
Do I think Abbate is guilty? Yes. But that doesn't mean squat in our system. It only matters what the jury (or judge--not sure if this a bench trial) thinks, and that's the way it should be.
Matilda..., you responded to someone's post as some sort of opportunity to remind people about "innocent until proven guilty".
No shit? Is that how it works?
Americans can say "This douchebag should get an extra year tacked onto his sentence just for arguing such an asinine defense..." and **still** believe that a person is "innocent until proven guilty" and is entitled to a vigorous defense.
The mind is complex enough to comprehend both thoughts.
Yet you've given no evidence of complex thought here, though I am sure that's only because blog posts don't encourage that, right?
Matilda...we agree about the vigorous defense and the innocent until proven guilty issue. Of course people are entitled to that.
I just think you are a complete jackass for bringing it up here.
Chances are most people have a higher standard for what a "complex thought" is compared to anything written by the regulars on Chicagoist.
"I just think you are a complete jackass for bringing it up here. "
WEll, others, including you, were arguing the contrary.
That you think I'm a jackass is a compliment, so thanks.
I also appreciate that you apparently have become a member of my fan club. Still haven't seen that $5 annual membership fee, but then again, the Chicago post office is awful.
The Chicago Post Office is awful. The check is in the mail, my friend.
Good. I'd like to eat this month.
Amazingly I agree with matilda - but only because she is arguing about something so completely obvious that it's not even worth discussing.
Mat-tay
I was wondering when some one was gonna point this out! Can you imagine this argument warranting/escalating to the point of the Boy Gilmer having to pull out the nuclear cyber brief case to terminate it?
Sorry, Spook. Jack Bauer stole it from me. I have to go get it back first.
Jesse's Short Stop Inn sure is a nice-looking place.
It's totally so hot right now.
Not anymore. It's full of hipsters looking for the authentic get-your-ass-beatdown-in-a-dive-bar experience. But on the plus side, the PBR is finally selling there...
hah
Jesse's Short Stop In update: They just hired a young tattooed woman to work weekends to the confusion and consternation of the old regulars. And the CD jukebox is being delivered next week.
Anyway,
No damning video tape as evidence, and we're having a totally different conversation here with accusations of 'cop hate' and character assassinations of the young barmaid.
If his lawyer says "self-defense" and all that stuff, then will Abbate testify to that? Let's throw a perjury charge in here too!!!
As a matter of fact, see the second update above.
How would you prosecute a perjury case based on questioning how someone claimed to feel? What conclusive proof would you have that Abbate didn't feel threatened ... despite how ridiculous such a claim may seem?
I'm guessing (?) he was being sarcastic? Anyway, the update has info from Abbate's testimony.
His attorney actually used the words "body slammed" when describing how the barmaid handled this big oaf? I don't know which is bigger, Abbate's gut or his attorney's balls.
Is this a jury trial, because I'd be curious to know how they managed to stifle their laughter at the poor emotionally violated Abbate.
Nope. He requested a bench trial so it's being tried by the judge. How on earth they could find 12 people in town that had no opinion on the matter is beyond me anyway.
The smart money is on probation or acquittal for Anthony Abbate, seeing that Judge John Fleming is the trial judge.
All that means is that he walks and still has the alcohol monkey(addiction) on his back.