Can you imagine how tough it is going to be for these guys to go back before a judge (assuming they have the nerve AND the opportunity) and try to pursuade the court that their client was either innocent or deserves a break?


If judges are deciding cases based upon the personalities and pasts of the attorneys trying the cases, then we're already in big, big trouble.

I meant how tough it will be for the attorneys to go back in there and try to make an argument with a straight face!

Right.

I think there's enough bad to be said about the behavior on both sides of these arrests and that the conduct of one party does not excuse the conduct of another party, i.e., two wrongs don't make a right.

The two attorneys were [allegedly] wrong to be driving drunk/drunk in public while Mr. Moon was [allegedly] in the wrong for spitting on a police officer as well as trying to pass himself off as a law enforcement officer.

The police, however, had no valid reason in my book to alert the media (if that's indeed what happened), and this whole thing should have had the opportunity to play out just as the thousands of other crimes of this nature have been able to play out.

Well, before we go off and assume that the police alerted the media...let us remember one thing...the Oklahoman (and maybe even the TV stations) have news runners that either go to, or contact every law enforcement agency in the metro, and somewhat throughout the state whose main job is to get information on all people arrested the day/night before to see if there is anything news worthy. The police most likely did not have to call anyone. This was going to get out regardless. I used to be a prosecutor, and the newspaper went to the Sheriff's office, and the Police departments every morning and checked the public arrest records. If they saw anything that looked "juicy" they would then make official FOIA requests for the reports and any 911 tapes or videos/photos that we had on file. Maybe someone did call the news media, but I doubt it, because we never had to call them. They were asking sometimes before the stuff even got to my office. Louis Moon is well known in most circles and would have stuck out like a sore thumb....ie..arrested for DUI.

Well, I don't want to speak out of turn on this. I'm not sure how much I can/should elaborate when things are still pending. There's talk of a lawsuit for police brutality.

Now, while it is pretty obvious (you can tell by the video) that the guys had been drinking, there was no spitting on a police officer. Like has been theorized here, the badge incident was more of a "look, I support the cops" rather than "hey, I'm an Oklahoma County deputy."

The "take us to county" thing was because they know the cops there aren't gonna beat the crap out of them (though it was pretty funny on the video).

Hoya - Not sure that your theory holds water because the story & video so quickly went public. If the WAPD was truly guilty of police brutality and invented the charge of spitting on an officer, then they'd be trying to cover-up and hide, which they aren't. Despite being handcuffed, in custody and having the video camera pointed out to them, Moon & Co. were clearly abusive, argumentative and uncooperative, so it's reasonable to assume that they were even worse while on the street being questioned and then placed into custody. That said, anybody can sue anyone for anything, and I can sure see these two guys - attorneys - doing just that.

Good old America....sue when people are paying attention and hold the course long enough to where people forget...right out of the Schultz playbook.

Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.

Homer Simpson

I wouldn't worry about it they are attorneys they will get out of it. They will pay a fine and then it will be swept under the rug. As we all know the laws are different for lawyers, judges, state workers, government etc, etc.

Some enterprising reporter should find out why they were so insistent being taken to county... I'm guessing it was in the hope they'd be extended 'professional courtesy' and allowed to walk.
I guarantee you that is exactly why they wanted to go to county they knew they would probably just get a slap on the wrist and they probably still will. But then that is some more of the good ole boy policy working for you they cover each other no matter what.

so it's reasonable to assume

Police lie -- a lot more than you'd think.

(just like DHS workers, Dana)

Police lie like everyone else, and they do, more than just occasionally, use unlawful force. You don't know what happened here, you have one piece of the story which is video evidence. The rest of the story, so far, consists of various accusations which have yet to be proven.

It's not reasonable to assume anything in a criminal case without hearing both sides of the case. These guys were pretty obviously intoxicated, but I'd want to hear some evidence before making any 'reasonable' assumptions.

As we all know the laws are different for lawyers, judges, state workers, government etc, etc.

That type of ignorant comment is the kind people throw out there without any attempt at fairness or accuracy. It is just as accurate as saying all poor people are stupid and lazy. Give me a break.

It's not reasonable to assume anything in a criminal case without hearing both sides of the case. These guys were pretty obviously intoxicated, but I'd want to hear some evidence before making any 'reasonable' assumptions.

And what evidence do you have which would lead to your "reasonable" assumption quoted below?


Police lie -- a lot more than you'd think.

(just like DHS workers, Dana)

Police lie like everyone else, and they do, more than just occasionally, use unlawful force.

GUilty til proven innocent?

Why not to the average citizen that is the way it is done and sometimes your held guilty even after you have been proven innocent but then that is life.

Police lie -- a lot more than you'd think.

(just like DHS workers, Dana)

Police lie like everyone else, and they do, more than just occasionally, use unlawful force. You don't know what happened here, you have one piece of the story which is video evidence. The rest of the story, so far, consists of various accusations which have yet to be proven.

It's not reasonable to assume anything in a criminal case without hearing both sides of the case. These guys were pretty obviously intoxicated, but I'd want to hear some evidence before making any 'reasonable' assumptions.
I totally agree you will get no argument from me that cops break the law to get what they want. Just like pissed off DHS workers when you won't let them illegally kidnap your children and grandchildren for the Federal Bonus money. Of course it would have been even better if the lawyers had not been drunk then you could really stick it to the cops afterall they are lawyers. Amazing how some people can finally see my side of the story when you change the characters. One big difference though I wasn't drunk or drinking I was at work making money and paying taxes.

That type of ignorant comment is the kind people throw out there without any attempt at fairness or accuracy. It is just as accurate as saying all poor people are stupid and lazy. Give me a break.
No my dear ignorance is knowing the rules are different for others and pretending they are not.
It is well known that political people and movie stars etc. get away with stuff that regular people would not.
As long as you have the money and can pass the test you can be a lawyer. The other guy was right if you are going to put yourself in that position you should be held to a higher standard. The judicial people are supposed to be the example right? The elite of the human race either by morals or ethics it shouldn't be because of who has the most money or the connections or to fulfill a quota. That is why they supposedly put all those rulls in force background checks etc.
There used to be a day when people lived good lives and as long as you did that you really didn't have much to worry about as far as legal goes that is not the case anymore.
There used to be a time when a person was looked upon by their morals if you were a good person you had nothing to worry about that is not the case anymore.
It used to be only the mob and the gangs took people down just because they could that also is not the case anymore.
I could go on but I am sure you get the picture.

And what evidence do you have which would lead to your "reasonable" assumption quoted below?

Mostly anecdotal stuff where I've seen 'em caught webs of their own deceit. Nothing I'd share on an internet message board though.

Probably the most common thing would be the invention of probable cause to justify a search after-the-fact though.

I guarantee you that is exactly why they wanted to go to county they knew they would probably just get a slap on the wrist and they probably still will. But then that is some more of the good ole boy policy working for you they cover each other no matter what.


My guess is that they wanted to go to "County" because attorneys that are members of the Oklahoma County Bar Association can bail on their "own recognizance." Something like that.

Then again, these cats arent worried about the money aspect.

For all those ready to throw a punch, be careful. I know Mr. Moon and don't like him much but we all need to be reasonable here. We know very little about the facts of the case.

we all need to be reasonable here. We know very little about the facts of the case.


Reasonable???? These idiots could have killed someone!

What else do we need to know? That someone spiked their drinks? They were on prescription drugs? What? They were drunk as could be! And driving! Please.

Did you see the video?

I'm sorry, but if someone is driving the Wrong way through a drive though at 1:00am, something obviously is out of whack.

"Two attorneys were arrested in Warr Acres on Friday morning after witnesses reported the men driving the wrong way through a restaurant drive through lane.

Attorney Lewis B. Moon, 42, and Oklahoma County public defender David James Bedford, 32, were arrested about 1:40 a.m. at Whataburger, 7820 N MacArthur, after an employee called police and said a driver of a Cadillac Escalade was causing a disturbance and appeared intoxicated, Warr Acres Police Sgt. Alan Davidofsky said.

Witnesses told police the men nearly hit another car in the drive-through lane.

When a police officer arrived, Moon, the driver, was uncooperative and was “taken down,” Davidofsky said.

He said Moon also spit in an officer’s face.

Davidofsky said Moon pulled out a badge from the Oklahoma County Sheriff’s office and claimed to be a deputy.

Sheriff’s spokesman Mark Myers said the badge actually is known as a sheriff’s “eagle badge.” The badges are given to people who support the sheriff’s department but they are not official law officer badges. Myers said the badges are not given to people who promise political support or financial contributions but are more of a “keepsake.”

Myers said Sheriff John Whetsel “is extremely disappointed,” to hear about Moon’s arrest.

Moon was said to be belligerent at the Warr Acres Police Department, as well.

“While they were here, Moon was dropping names of judges and threatening to sue everyone. Then, comments were made about tracking down the clerks who called him in,” Davidofsky said.

Moon was taken to the Oklahoma County jail and booked on complaints of having actual physical control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated, impersonating a law officer, resisting arrest and placing bodily fluids on a law officer, Davidofsky said.

He said Moon refused to take a breath test to determine whether he was intoxicated.

Mostly anecdotal stuff where I've seen 'em caught webs of their own deceit. Nothing I'd share on an internet message board though.

Probably the most common thing would be the invention of probable cause to justify a search after-the-fact though.

So based upon that, although I only deal with mother who is mentally disturbed and wants to dismember her child as a sacrifice or I arrest a 16 year old for selling the Crystal Meth his uncle made I can apply my opinion of them to society as a whole to include you, your family and your coworkers?

What I have been eluding to in this thread is the double standard and some points mentioned by others, not just you Midtowner. A lawyer can have a private life but a cop cannot? I think the biggest misconception is cops have to be "on-duty" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If that were reality I would have quit within my first year. It is a job, not a lifestyle. While I will agree there are those within the profession who are a disgrace, that can be said for any and every profession on this planet. To apply that to all the others within that profession who do so with a passion to do right is ludacris. When I am at work I devote 110% of my effort to finding those who prey upon the innocent. Most who I work with are the same.

Just as you would like an officer who doesn't know you to give you the benefit of the doubt (that you are a good citizen) it is only fair it goes the same way towards us.

Now, back to the initial discussion. It was mentioned awhile back about the staff members from the Oklahoman and the news channels who go out and look for stuff. The poster was 100% correct. Growing up my father was a Public Information Officer (PIO) for a police department and every morning without fail he would receive a visit from 4, 5, 9 and 25 in addition to the Oklahoman and the local paper. Every day. They would review the prior day and night's acitivites and request further information on what they deemed newsworthy. Per the Open Records Act, they would get the information, reports, video, etc. they asked for.

Oh, so now it is political people and movie stars. In your earlier post, you included government workers, judges and lawyers. You are bitter and spewing hate.

So based upon that, although I only deal with mother who is mentally disturbed and wants to dismember her child as a sacrifice or I arrest a 16 year old for selling the Crystal Meth his uncle made I can apply my opinion of them to society as a whole to include you, your family and your coworkers?

What? I don't even know how that has anything to do with anything. We all do tough things.


What I have been eluding to in this thread is the double standard and some points mentioned by others, not just you Midtowner. A lawyer can have a private life but a cop cannot?

Did I say that? Nope.


While I will agree there are those within the profession who are a disgrace, that can be said for any and every profession on this planet. To apply that to all the others within that profession who do so with a passion to do right is ludacris. When I am at work I devote 110% of my effort to finding those who prey upon the innocent. Most who I work with are the same.

It's equally unreasonable to take someone's word as gospel-truth simply because they are a police officer. The door swings both ways. I suppose that if you have the benefit of knowing the individual, you probably know their propensity to be truthful or their propensity to make up probable cause after they have already conducted a search, or to file reports containing false charges to force a suspect/defendant to not have much of a choice as to sue the department/the police officer for Constitutional deprivations in exchange for a covenant not to sue.

I will say that the men in the department whom I know personally are fine individuals who really and truly do serve with honor. I also can't ignore the fact that there are men in blue who continually violate the public's trust, while hiding behind a blue wall of silence as to their misdeeds.


Just as you would like an officer who doesn't know you to give you the benefit of the doubt (that you are a good citizen) it is only fair it goes the same way towards us.

Do police give the benefit of the doubt as to the innocence of a criminal suspect? Again, you are affording them more credibility simply due to the job they do.


Now, back to the initial discussion. It was mentioned awhile back about the staff members from the Oklahoman and the news channels who go out and look for stuff. The poster was 100% correct. Growing up my father was a Public Information Officer (PIO) for a police department and every morning without fail he would receive a visit from 4, 5, 9 and 25 in addition to the Oklahoman and the local paper. Every day. They would review the prior day and night's acitivites and request further information on what they deemed newsworthy. Per the Open Records Act, they would get the information, reports, video, etc. they asked for.

Ah, so the PIO told the attorney, "I have something juicy for you!" I suppose we would have had to be privy to the conversation which took place between the newsok crime reporter and the Midwest City PIO, but I think it all hinges on who thought the story was newsworthy.

Frankly, I think crime as news is one of the things which has really heart the news. We all know crime happens, and the bad stuff gets really underreported. Unfortunately, if it bleeds, it leads. That sort of mentality killed journalism.

I wouldn't worry about it they are attorneys they will get out of it. They will pay a fine and then it will be swept under the rug. As we all know the laws are different for lawyers, judges, state workers, government etc, etc.

We all know people whose user name's are "Dana" are really really ignorant people.


(That didn't make any sense either, huh?)

What I have been eluding to in this thread is the double standard and some points mentioned by others, not just you Midtowner. A lawyer can have a private life but a cop cannot?


No one said that.

Karried,

From what I've been told, things didn't go down quite like they were reported in the Oklahoman. They didn't almost hit another car and they didn't pull the wrong way into the drive through. Now, we all know that Moon was belligerent, but that's not against the law. :)

Now, we all know that Moon was belligerent, but that's not against the law. :)

Being beligerent the way he was isn't going to help him in a DUI defense. He looks and acts sh*t faced. If (and this is a big if) he was the one behind the wheel, he could have been creeping along like a little old grandmother on Sunday afternoon and they are still going to convict him of DUI.

Being beligerent the way he was isn't going to help him in a DUI defense. He looks and acts sh*t faced. If (and this is a big if) he was the one behind the wheel, he could have been creeping along like a little old grandmother on Sunday afternoon and they are still going to convict him of DUI.

Considering the charges which could be brought from the facts as presented by The Oklahoman, the DUI is the least of his concerns.

Yeah, well, that's a fact.

They didn't almost hit another car and they didn't pull the wrong way into the drive through. Now, we all know that Moon was belligerent, but that's not against the law


No, but drunk driving is against the law. I really don't care if he almost hit another car, based on the video evidence, it's apparent they were drunk as skunks.. and I don't care who you are, or who you know or what your profession is, you can't be on the road driving a vehicle while intoxicated.

And if you doubt he was drunk then a question? Why did he refuse to take a breathalyzer, surely an Attorney can understand the ramifications of not taking one, especially, if he wasn't drunk. Why not?

Karried,

From what I've been told, things didn't go down quite like they were reported in the Oklahoman. They didn't almost hit another car and they didn't pull the wrong way into the drive through. Now, we all know that Moon was belligerent, but that's not against the law. :)

Hoya - They weren't charged with almost hitting another car or driving the wrong way through a drive-through because those things aren't against the law. You keep claiming inside knowledge without divulging sources, and presenting impirical knowledge from someone who had to be there, so if it isn't a Whataburger employee or customer, it must be from Moon or his passenger, both of whom have axes to grind. So who's telling you this stuff (including the police brutality allegation), and why are you passing it along here without attribution?

Why are the police able to pass their charges along without attribution and not have those same claims be questioned by you?

I detect a double standard.

We all know people whose user name's are "Dana" are really really ignorant people.


(That didn't make any sense either, huh?)
Yes I understood you quite well and you just showed your ignorance not mine.
By the way, if you are going to prove that you are all that, and of supreme intelligence you should have put a comma after the first really.

I really don't get all the hoopla. Sure, it was tabloid journalism at its best and the police video makes for good YouTubing, but why all the fuss?

Yeah, yeah - "Drunk driving bad!"

The reality is I bet many of the same people on this thread have driven legally drunk.

They didn't hit anyone and didn't cause any damage and have been arrested and will most likely be charged because of the publicity. So, what with all the gripes.

Wanna see drunk drivers? Watch them come and go from the Glitter Dome on Agnew.

I seriously doubt the bar association is going to care. Moon will check himself into rehab and make nice with the bar. The PD will most likely get fired, but c'mon, that's the last place a real lawyer wants to spend his career anyway.

Who was the lawyer awhile back that the local news featured? He had like 6 DUIs and yet had never done any jail time. His latest DUI was in Norman and he called in a political favor and the new DA Mashburn dropped the charges.

These guys throw around judges names because in many circumstances it does work. Not so much with the cops - it tends to really piss them off. But, the smart lawyers stay calm and quiet, get arrested, keep it out of the media and then work a deal with a judge or the DA to have a no-file.

Perfect example is the lawyer with all the DUI's and the other downtown lawyer - something Harris - that was arrested this year for being a public homo in one of our gay parks. I remember he masturbated in front of an undercover officer and then made a sexual advance. He called in a favor to our local DA and was never charged with the crime. Now, those examples are the real story - not that Moon is an alcoholic.

Yes I understood you quite well and you just showed your ignorance not mine.
By the way, if you are going to prove that you are all that, and of supreme intelligence you should have put a comma after the first really.

Dana, I think my multiple degrees shield me from your rather lame flame attempt on the occassional typo. But you go right ahead and give it a shot! Typo slam, ooooooooooooooo. :congrats: :congrats: Get some perspective and let the adults talk.

I really don't get all the hoopla. Sure, it was tabloid journalism at its best and the police video makes for good YouTubing, but why all the fuss?



We have nothing better to do! :)

I really don't get all the hoopla. Sure, it was tabloid journalism at its best and the police video makes for good YouTubing, but why all the fuss?

Because I'm outraged. Outraged, I tell you!

How dare a drunk person act like a complete idiot when put into an extremely stressful situation? No one would ever do that except for Mr. Moon, and we now have the video evidence!

-- actually, the above post sums this thread up nicely.

Hoya - They weren't charged with almost hitting another car or driving the wrong way through a drive-through because those things aren't against the law. You keep claiming inside knowledge without divulging sources, and presenting impirical knowledge from someone who had to be there, so if it isn't a Whataburger employee or customer, it must be from Moon or his passenger, both of whom have axes to grind. So who's telling you this stuff (including the police brutality allegation), and why are you passing it along here without attribution?

I already said I know the guys. Saw them both the day before this happened, as a matter of fact. And I'm not getting too specific because the situation isn't totally resolved.

This is basically a big joke around the courthouse, though.

This is basically a big joke around the courthouse, though.

I'm 'around the courthouse' alot and "This" isn't the 'big joke' - but Moon and the P.D. are. The sad thing is that nobody that knows Moon was surprised. He's known to be an alcoholic.

And, i agree, this isn't resolved yet because they are both still trying to do damage control. If I was Moon and the P.D. I'd voluntarily give back my Pal of the Police badge, enroll in AA and get a quick deferred sentence and be done with it.

I'm just not convinced that there are different laws for judges, lawyers, etc.

As a lawyer, if I get caught speeding, I get a speeding ticket. I may get it reduced to something less expensive, but the general public also has that option. Some people are too lazy or too scared to show up on that court date and just pay the fine by mail ahead of time.

The same with a DUI. If I decide that, after a long day in court, I want to go out and have some cocktails, and I get caught driving under the influence, I will, as an attorney, get a DUI. Nothing will be different than any other citizen. I may or may not end up with a DUI on my record -- but the same option I am given is also given to the rest of the public.

Do people really think only attorneys and judges get "special favors"? It's called a negotiated plea. It's called stepping up to the plate, standing in front of a judge and accepting that what you did is wrong and asking for something less than the maximum sentence the law calls for. We members of the bar are not the only people for whom this happens.

It's actually called DENIAL.

This doesn't only happen with lawyers, but it is common practice with the better connected ones. Same goes for elected officials. Let me try to carry a licensed concealed weapon into the capitol not once but twice and see what happens. Let me get arrested with 3-4 other perverts at Will Rogers park masturbating (calm down ladies) and you're telling me when the other three were prosecuted and the 4th - a lawyer and financial contributor to the DA's campaign wasn't - that was just 'chance.'

Maybe you're just not that good of a lawyer? Or, maybe you're actually better than the rest - just depends on perspective.

Lastly, I don't blame the defendant or his/her lawyer for pulling these tricks. I blame the prosecutors who do not refrain from the temptation.

BailJumper- I don't think it's quite as ubiquitous as you imply, but I agree with you in principle that it happens plenty.

Yes I understood you quite well and you just showed your ignorance not mine.
By the way, if you are going to prove that you are all that, and of supreme intelligence you should have put a comma after the first really.

Sorry to bump this thread for this post, but I just had to do this:


Yes, I understood you quite well, and you just showed your ignorance, not mine.
By the way, if you are going to prove that you are all that, and of supreme intelligence, you should have put a comma after the first really.

Dana, if you're going to try to be the local grammar police, please learn about grammar. To get you started, I have linked a fantastic explanation on the proper use of commas. Best of luck.

Using Commas (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_comma.html)