Here is a blog post by Sideria, the person who wrote the Two Moral Modes. This is about what really happened with the riot squad all resigning after the two cops shoved down that 75 year old man and broke his head (last I heard, he's still in the hospital and has brain damage.) There's a good discussion at the site.
Find it here: https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1628564.html
--Kim
June 5, 3:13 p.m: BuffaloNews.com (emphasis mine): 57 members of Buffalo police riot response team resign:
ETA:![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
heron61 brings the missing piece: Jun 5: WKBW: "EXCLUSIVE: Two Buffalo Police ERT members say resignation was not in solidarity with suspended officers": two officers speaking anonymously for obvious reasons claimed they most definitely did not resign the riot squad out of solidarity...
There's an argument that they're turning off the legal defense fund to coerce officers to quit the riot squad, as a punishment of the city. But they're basically a union. They could just have the officers go on strike instead. At the very least, being coercive towards their own members (cops) suggests their members aren't on-board with what the PBA wants. But I think it's more telling of something else. Being coercive of their members would antagonize them, to begin with, but this is worse. Their choice to turn off the legal defense fund is basically throwing their own members under a bus - it's the equivalent of canceling an insurance policy after collecting the premiums (membership dues) and I don't imagine they're pleased about it.
What that email really is, is the equivalent of a middle manager explaining to his employees why he's screwing them for their own good. He's saying, "I'm saying we, the PBA, have to cancel your (cops') legal defense fund to keep us from going bankrupt, because if we went bankrupt, then you wouldn't have us to protect you." And he does the standard abuser thing (read the whole email at that link) of going on about how "those other people are bastards and have it in for you, and they'll go after you for nothing if they don't like you" and how he's looking out for his PBA members... while he's canceling their legal defense fund coverage.
I hope all y'all realize: if these officers had had to carry proper malpractice*/liability insurance of their own, for that insurer to do what the PBA is currently doing would be a federal crime – it would be a violation of ERISA. But because they have to rely on whatever the hell a PBA is, instead of a real insurer, I guess not? Members pay dues, I guess, and then the PBA can just decide not to provide the service the members are paying for? I guess? (Or is there an ERISA case here?)
* One usually thinks of malpractice/liability insurance covering a judgement against you if you're sued and lose, but my policy, at least, also covers legal defense expense, including for licensure board investigations.
In any event, it sure looks to me that while this PBA President John Evans dude has a fast mouth on him and he tap-dances up a right show, what's really going on is just that the PBA can't cover even the legal expenses of just the two guys already charged – possibly because the PBA's dues have been spent on hookers and blow, maybe somebody should check out the PBA's books – so he's throwing the members under a bus to keep the PBA from going bankrupt.
Which, if that's the case (and maybe even if it isn't): this is what success looks like! When people talk about eliminating qualified immunity, the whole point is to make behaving monstrously while cop too risky for the cops to continue doing it. It can be a financial risk or the risk of a jail sentence, but the whole point is to not let them get away with murder, so they are less inclined to commit it. As we say, the deterrent effect of the law.
Well, huzzah, it looks like it works. We haven't even eliminated QI and at least one riot squad has folded in the face of prosecution of just two of its members.
All 57 of the members of the Buffalo Police Department's Emergency Response Team resigned Friday from the unit which responds to riots and other crowd control situations, the president of the union that represents Buffalo police officers told The Buffalo News.(For those of you unaware, the 75 year old man in question - identified as long-time peace activist Martin Gugino - had approached the police and was talking to them when two cops in riot gear shoved him backwards, and, like old people generally do when shoved backwards, he fell on his back striking the back of his head. There are at least two videos which capture what happened, from two different angles. [CW: GRAPHIC: 1, 2.] One also captures how when one of the other officers immediately moves to go to the aid of the elderly man he's grabbed and pulled back and at least one of the cops bellows at the stopped others "Hold the Line!" i.e. continue to advance in a line, do not stop.)
Two law enforcement sources confirmed the resignations.
Two members of the Emergency Response Team were suspended without pay late Thursday after they involved in pushing a 75-year-old protester to the ground as they were clearing the area in front of Buffalo City Hall at the emergency curfew. The Erie County District Attorney's Office is investigating the incident. No charges have been filed.
The Emergency Response Team members have not quit the police department, but have stepped down from the tactical unit, according to the sources.
Spectrum News first reported the development on Twitter, along with WIVB-TV.
The union representing Buffalo police officers told its rank and file members Friday that the union would no longer pay for legal fees to defend police officers related to the protests which began Saturday in downtown Buffalo and have continued on and off, according to one source. The union is upset with the treatment of the two officers who were suspended Thursday.
"Our position is these officers were simply following orders from Deputy Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia to clear the square," said Buffalo Police Benevolent Association President John Evans. "It doesn't specify clear the square of men, 50 and under or 15 to 40. They were simply doing their job. I don't know how much contact was made. He did slip in my estimation. He fell backwards."
ETA:
heron61 brings the missing piece: Jun 5: WKBW: "EXCLUSIVE: Two Buffalo Police ERT members say resignation was not in solidarity with suspended officers": two officers speaking anonymously for obvious reasons claimed they most definitely did not resign the riot squad out of solidarity...The officers we spoke with said the Buffalo Police Benevolent Association's statement asserting all 57 officers resigned from ERT in a "show of support" with the two officers that were suspended without pay is not true....and they feel pretty certain at least some others didn't either. They (or someone) provided the reporter with the email they had been sent, which includes this:
"I don't understand why the union said it's a thing of solidarity. I think it sends the wrong message that 'we're backing our own' and that's not the case," said one officer with whom we spoke.
"We quit because our union said [they] aren't legally backing us anymore. So why would we stand on a line for the City with no legal backing if something [were to] happen? Has nothing to do with us supporting," said another.
In light of this, in order to maintain the sound financial structure of the PBA [Police Benevolent Association, IIUC] it will be my opinion the PBA NOT to pay for any ERT or SWAT members legal defense related to these protests going forward. This Admin in conjunction with DA John Flynn and or JP Kennedy could put a serious dent in the PBA's funds.Yeeeeeeeeeah, they just ran out of money.
There's an argument that they're turning off the legal defense fund to coerce officers to quit the riot squad, as a punishment of the city. But they're basically a union. They could just have the officers go on strike instead. At the very least, being coercive towards their own members (cops) suggests their members aren't on-board with what the PBA wants. But I think it's more telling of something else. Being coercive of their members would antagonize them, to begin with, but this is worse. Their choice to turn off the legal defense fund is basically throwing their own members under a bus - it's the equivalent of canceling an insurance policy after collecting the premiums (membership dues) and I don't imagine they're pleased about it.
What that email really is, is the equivalent of a middle manager explaining to his employees why he's screwing them for their own good. He's saying, "I'm saying we, the PBA, have to cancel your (cops') legal defense fund to keep us from going bankrupt, because if we went bankrupt, then you wouldn't have us to protect you." And he does the standard abuser thing (read the whole email at that link) of going on about how "those other people are bastards and have it in for you, and they'll go after you for nothing if they don't like you" and how he's looking out for his PBA members... while he's canceling their legal defense fund coverage.
I hope all y'all realize: if these officers had had to carry proper malpractice*/liability insurance of their own, for that insurer to do what the PBA is currently doing would be a federal crime – it would be a violation of ERISA. But because they have to rely on whatever the hell a PBA is, instead of a real insurer, I guess not? Members pay dues, I guess, and then the PBA can just decide not to provide the service the members are paying for? I guess? (Or is there an ERISA case here?)
* One usually thinks of malpractice/liability insurance covering a judgement against you if you're sued and lose, but my policy, at least, also covers legal defense expense, including for licensure board investigations.
In any event, it sure looks to me that while this PBA President John Evans dude has a fast mouth on him and he tap-dances up a right show, what's really going on is just that the PBA can't cover even the legal expenses of just the two guys already charged – possibly because the PBA's dues have been spent on hookers and blow, maybe somebody should check out the PBA's books – so he's throwing the members under a bus to keep the PBA from going bankrupt.
Which, if that's the case (and maybe even if it isn't): this is what success looks like! When people talk about eliminating qualified immunity, the whole point is to make behaving monstrously while cop too risky for the cops to continue doing it. It can be a financial risk or the risk of a jail sentence, but the whole point is to not let them get away with murder, so they are less inclined to commit it. As we say, the deterrent effect of the law.
Well, huzzah, it looks like it works. We haven't even eliminated QI and at least one riot squad has folded in the face of prosecution of just two of its members.
|
Posts
