Skip to main content

NYPD OFFICER PLEADS GUILTY TO CRIMINAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION

Admir Kacamakovic, an eight year veteran of the New York City Police Department, pleaded guilty today to willfully violating the civil rights of a Brooklyn resident by illegally detaining and handcuffing him. As a consequence of these acts, Kacamakovic’s victim sustained bodily injury in the form of scarring on his wrist. The guilty plea was entered before United States District Judge William F. Kuntz, II, at the U.S. Courthouse in Brooklyn. As part of his plea agreement, Kacamakovic will resign from the NYPD and will not apply for a job in law enforcement in the future.

The guilty plea was announced by Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Mary Galligan, Acting Assistant Director-in-Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office, and Raymond W. Kelly, Commissioner, New York City Police Department.

As admitted by Kacamakovic at the plea proceeding, while on duty, Kacamakovic intervened in a traffic dispute that occurred in Brooklyn. When one of the men involved in the dispute confronted Kacamakovic and said he was going to file a complaint against the officer, Kacamakovic, without justification, handcuffed and detained the victim and, in the process, injured the victim.

“The defendant criminally abused the authority and public trust conferred on him by his status as a police officer,” stated United States Attorney Lynch. “Employing his badge, he subjected his victim to unlawful detention and injury. He has been held to account for his criminal acts and will not have the opportunity to repeat them.” Ms. Lynch extended her grateful appreciation to the FBI and NYPD, the agencies responsible for leading the government’s investigation.

FBI Acting Assistant Director-in-Charge Galligan stated, “A police officer who abuses his authority by falsely detaining and physically injuring a civilian inflicts broader damage. He undermines public trust in those sworn to protect and serve. The admitted conduct of this defendant is an affront to civil society and the dedicated men and women who safeguard it.”

Kacamakovic faces a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment when sentenced.

The government’s case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Michael Warren.

The Defendant:

ADMIR KACAMAKOVIC
Age: 32
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more