Police Abuse

Eric Garner Who? New York on Verge of Giving Police Unions Even More Power to Protect Bad Cops


Daniel Pantaleo

There's a piece that ran in the Daily Beast today by Michael Tomasky that called on Democrats to forget about winning in the Deep South, a geographical region Tomasky claims has "euthanized" ideas like "trans-racial community," that irked me. I'm not interested in the argument over whether Democrats or Republicans are better for any particular jurisdiction anywhere in the country. They're both awful. I'm also not interested in the bigoted exercise of ascribing belief sets to entire populations of people based on where they live or where they came from.

I do understand, however, the power of "racialized resentment," something Tomasky assigns to the South. How much easier it is to work off an idea of reality based on your preconceived notions and partisan preferences rather than facts on the ground. Last week a grand jury in New York City declined to indict Officer Daniel Pantaleo for the death of Eric Garner in police custody while a grand jury in South Carolina brought a murder charge against a white cop who shot a black man twice in the chest in a case the Department of Justice declined to prosecute last year. State prosecutors had been promising such a charge once the cop's spurious stand your ground claim was dismissed, and they had already charged him with official misconduct.

The kind of one-dimensional, partisan-colored thinking about different places isn't just unfair for the people trying to do the right thing in the "wrong places," it's dangerous for the wrong people stuck in the "right places."

Take New York State and this unfortunately not so shocking story via the Manhattan Institute's E.J. McMahon writing at the New York Post:

Sometime before year's end, the state Legislature must send Cuomo a bill it passed just weeks before Eric Garner's fatal July 17 confrontation in Staten Island. The measure would allow unions representing police and other civil-service employees across the state to insist on collective bargaining of disciplinary procedures affecting their members.

The bill represents the latest in a series of attempts by police unions to nullify a unanimous 2006 state Court of Appeals decision, which affirmed the New York City police commissioner's disciplinary authority.

The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association had sued then-Commissioner Ray Kelly for overriding disciplinary provisions in the police contract — including a rule requiring NYPD superiors to wait at least 48 hours before questioning police officers accused of misconduct.

There have been sporadic protests in New York City and around the country since the grand jury decision not to indict in the Eric Garner case was announced last Wednesday night. Over the weekend protesters in Berkeley, California, threw rocks at cops. Absent in these protests, as far as I can see, is any discussion of the role of police unions in protecting bad cops and creating the space for killings like that of Eric Garner's to go unpunished. After all, Pantaleo still has a job thanks to his union. When another cop in New York City shot the unarmed Akai Gurley, apparently after freaking out because the teen and his girlfriend entered the stairwell he was patrolling, he called his union rep as his victim lay dying.

There are a lot of intersecting issues that contribute to the staggering death toll created by police forces across the United States. None will fit neatly into any partisan's agenda. And none has gotten less attention from an establishment suddenly concerned with police violence than the way police unions frustrate effort to remove bad cops from the job.

And here's where the over-racialization of the issue of police violence, especially when combined with partisan dogma, can be particularly problematic, and lethal. McMahon notes of the New York bill:

The police-discipline bill was a classic under-the-radar, end-of-session special — an election-year favor to unions, brokered on the leadership level in both houses. It passed 57-2 in the Senate and 132-2 in the Assembly just before they adjourned in June. (Among those supporting the bill were all 42 of the Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian Caucus members present for the votes.)

So what's the point of all this protesting, of all this noise, when the system continues to produce bodies and the leaders who help keep it going can also hold onto power by claiming to be against it? And what's it say when their claim is given more credence because of the color of their skin?

Now it's up to Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) to decide whether this bill becomes law. Progressives who claim to be concerned about police violence haven't appeared to notice the issue. Will Cuomo's party affiliation protect him if he signs it? It would've been a no-brainer for him to sign it just a few months ago and it may yet prove to be.

NEXT: And the Award for the Best Iraq Bombing Goes to...

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The measure would allow unions representing police and other civil-service employees across the state to insist on collective bargaining of disciplinary procedures affecting their members.

    As one whose profession is dealing with Unions on a daily basis, all I can say is – what possibly could go wrong with this? Esp with a Union whose members literally have the power of the life and death over those they “serve”?

    Sounds legit.

    New York – do your worst! You never disappoint in that regard, City or state.

  2. What isn’t a no-brainer in politics?

    1. I used to be able to say “The University of Texas at Austin.”

    2. Nothing to do with NYC or Andrew Cuomo.

  3. The clout the police union must have in NYC has to be amazing. Not only do police unions usually have significant clout, remember that there are something like 35,000 NYPD officers (I don’t think that number includes support personnel who are not “officers”). That may seem like not that many in a city of millions, but when probably almost all of those officers (and their families and friends) end up voting how the union says, and considering how many people in NYC don’t vote (because it’s like voting for Kang and Kodos), it’s probably a significant–and monolithic–voting bloc.

    1. It’s gotta be like UAW families in Michigan, if not more so.

      I pity the fool who treads on them…

  4. Is it just me, or does that dude look like a retarded white rapper? I bet they call him D Pants or something stupid like that.

    1. Did you say…D-pants?

    2. Staten Island Eric Bana.

      1. Does he turn into Staten Island Hulk? Of course, instead of being green he’d be spray tan orange, and instead of smashing things he chokes loose cigarette sellers to death. HULK-O A-STRANGLE-O!

        Of course, he could also be a JJ Abrams Romulan, but instead of “red matter” he has tomato gravy and brasciole.

        1. If they blockaded the island, the problem would fix itself in a few months.

          1. Yeah but that would mean blowing up the Verrazano Bridge, and that thing still isn’t paid for yet.

            Richmond County should secede from NYC.

            1. We could rebrand it as “Atlantic City North.”

              1. Look, AC at least has an interesting and storied history. Maybe “Jersey City II” would be better. Or “Long Island West”.

                I just realized that in living in NYC for 7 years and while growing up being around NYC all the time, I’ve been to Staten Island…twice?

                1. You only visited the world’s largest landfill twice?

                  1. What are you talking about? I “visit” your mom all the time.

                    1. She was shut down in 1996 and is now a lovely public park that gives children cancer.

  5. I think two things have to be separated: internal discipline by the government as employer and legal (including criminal) responsibility. I’m not upset by a measure like this so much as it’s dealing with the first. I imagine for every bad cop who would use a collective (or not) bargained due process contractual clause to protect them from a just police administrative response there is probably one good cop (or just cop trying in a specific instance trying to do good) who would be disciplined easier or worse by a rotten police administrator absent these contractual protections.

    What really needs to be addressed is how to hold police legally and criminally liable better when they break the laws, including the rights of suspects and accused. This involves things like reforming immunity, the structures of DA offices, having independent investigators, etc.

    1. The problem is that you can’t separate a criminal investigation (by the police department) from an employment-type investigation.

      Look at that horrendous rule that cops accused of wrongdoing can’t be questioned for 48 hours. That’s a flat-out violation of any criminal investigation protocol, all of which run on the basic premise that any crime not solved in 48 hours probably won’t be solved.

      Now, you can posit some elaborate internal firewall between criminal investigation and employment matters, but that’s not going to stand up in principle or in practice.

      1. That insane rule derives from the fact that the police police themselves. With a truly independent agency policing police misconduct, that wouldn’t be obliged to obey any internal contractual rules of the police agency itself.

        1. With a truly independent agency policing police misconduct,

          See, also, “regulatory capture”.

          I just have zero faith in the independence of any such agency, unless its part of a much more sweeping reform that gets rid of pubsec unions, puts real limits on immunity, etc.

          1. Are you against government oversight departments like the GAO, IG’s or omsbudsmen because you think they’ll just get ‘regulatory capturered’ anyway?

            1. You mean, like the way the IGs have been coopted to go after whistleblowers?


              1. So are you against IG’s and such?

                1. Not entirely.

                  I just have little faith in their ability to enforce standards at their agencies.

          2. No, see, we set up two competing agencies that police each other, so the sheriffs vs. the local PDs. Then we put up one pot funding all the agencies, and let them murder each other to get the money.

      2. What RC said. These types of employment laws for government empls are THE WORST.

        It’s bad enough in the private sector (trust me – I know). Public? Your tax dollars at work, with even LESS accountability!


        1. I’m always completely amazed that anyone who isn’t a complete union shill could possibly not see police unions (and public sector unions in general) as completely terrible.

          1. I’m not a union shill, and especially not a public sector union shill. In my ideal world public unions would hold me in the same regard as Scott Walker, because I’d cut government employment and expenditure so radically.

            But I don’t see public sector unions as anymore terrible than any other interest group or organization which both lobbies the government and benefits from it.

            1. I’m talking about unions as they exist now and the laws that enable them to do so. If the union is just all of the cops saying “we’ll quit if we don’t get X” and the state or city that employs them could just say “OK, bye”, I have no problem with that.

              It seems like we pretty much agree on that. Forming a union like that, without laws to force employers to negotiate with them is clearly part of the right to free association.

            2. What if you have to become a member to work in the agency? Or the negotiated union rates are the ones you must be paid?

    2. I think that is a valid distinction to make. But when the misconduct the officer is accused of is also criminal, the criminal investigation should take precedence over any employment related stuff and no employment contract should be able to delay or in any way affect a criminal investigation.

      1. That should go without saying. Contracts like that would be starkly in violation of public policy imo. The real issue is that the investigators respect those contracts because they are the police too.

  6. Exhibit, well, who can count that high, in the case for abolishing pubsec unions.

    1. What does it mean to ‘abolish’ public unions? I don’t think you mean to prevent people from coming together and lobbying government, even if the lobbying is ‘hire us and pay us a lot!’ Do you mean not to bargain collectively? I’m not sure how that’s different than saying ‘the government can contract with sole proprietorships but not corporations.’

      1. If all it means is ‘we’re not going to collect your dues for you’ or ‘we’re not going to make anyone’s employment contingent on them joining your organization’ then, yes, that’s a no-brainer. Is that all you mean?

        1. Obviously you can’t prevent people from assembling, so what else could he possibly mean?

          1. That you can’t prevent people from assembling legally doesn’t mean people don’t suggest that kind of thing rather commonly. That’s why I asked.

          2. I think Bo is being intentionally obtuse again.

            1. Your projection is amazing. You are completely missing my question (you think I’m talking about whether public unions are good or bad things) and point and then accusing me of being obtuse.

              1. I dunno, I just kinda, you know, like thought it was like obvious and stuff that you, like, you know, like don’t recognize the like unions and stuff, you know?

            2. I think Bo is being intentionally obtuse again.

              (looks out the window, sees sun setting in the west)

      2. Oh fuck. I know this is a waste of time, but I’ll try.

        I don’t mind private sector unions so much because when their demands raise the price of goods and services, or result in the retaining of bad employees, customers have a choice to shop elsewhere. Worst case scenario the company closes shop.

        Not so with government.

        The result of this is that government retains shitty employees, provides shitty services, and continually raises taxes to pay for it all regardless of if the customers want, use, or need the services.

        Abolishing public unions isn’t a magical cure-all, but it wouldn’t hurt.

        1. I understand all that, but my question was, what do you mean by ‘abolish’ them?

          1. Rescind Executive Order 10988.

            1. So you want the government to fire any employee who, say, joins with a few other employees to complain about working conditions, or pay, or anything job related?

                1. That order, in part, prevents that kind of thing.

              1. Why not? What’s so special about government employees that they shouldn’t be employed at will, like us plebs?

                1. Do you think the government should be able to fire employees who exercise, say, their free speech rights? Private employers can of course (and should be able to).

                  1. Or should the government be able to, as most private employers can, fire government employees for being members of a political party? An interest group (like the NRA or NAACP)?

                    1. *WHOOSH*

                      There go the goalposts.


                    2. You’ve been behind since the beginning of this discussion, so it hardly surprises me you still haven’t caught up, nor that you project your confusion outward.

                      If a government can fire a person because he joins a group complaining about wages or agency mission or such, then how could they not fire a person because he joins a political party or group that, among other things, might complain about the agency mission, wages, etc?

                    3. If a government can fire a person because he joins a group complaining about wages or agency mission or such, then how could they not fire a person because he joins a political party or group that, among other things, might complain about the agency mission, wages, etc?

                      Like I dunno. Like, maybe it’s like because one of those organizations like threatens to like strike and stuff when they don’t like get their like demands and stuff, you know?

                    4. So your objection to government unions is that the members of them might strike?

                      If they strike, fire them. The same for NRA members or NAACP members that work for the government. They should be fired for not coming to work, not for being members of the NRA, NAACP or union though.

                    5. You’re trying to say that a union is just a club, and that firing people for joining that club is the same as firing people for joining any club.

                      This completely ignores the point of what a union is, which is a way for employees to compel their employer into ceding they collective demands of the employees.

                      But that’s what I come to expect when dealing with Bo.

                  2. That’s what the 1A is for.

                    1. This is what I’m saying, that union membership is protected in the same way as political party or interest group membership by the 1A (or it should be, it’s just another interest group).

                    2. A like union without like a contract and like negotiations and strikes and stuff like isn’t much of a union and stuff, you know?

                    3. Are analogies especially difficult for the retarded?

                    4. Are analogies especially difficult for the retarded?

                      They sure are when the retard making the retarded analogy is Bo.

                    5. And mind you, some of these aren’t even analogies (when government agencies do business with corporations they ‘negotiate’ and sign ‘contracts’ between and applicable to groups of people).

                    6. Don’t like contractors like bid and compete and stuff, and like unions don’t? That’s a like totally retarded comparison and stuff, you know?

                    7. Yes, public unions do compete and ‘bid.’

                    8. I didn’t know that. Hm. Interesting. I still think it’s a stupid comparison though.

                    9. Any reason other than ipse dixit?

                    10. I suppose if contractors were banding together into cartels in an effort to inflate prices while protecting producers of inferior goods and services being sold to the government, then it would be an apt comparison.

                      Because that’s essentially what the unions do. They raise the price of labor while protecting inferior employees, which lowers the overall quality of the higher priced labor.

                    11. When the analogy doesn’t have any applicability to the actual facts, they’re difficult for the non-retarded.

              2. Why bother firing them.

                The employees can join any organization they like. That however does not mean that the government needs to pay any attention at all to said organization or recognize their demands for collective bargaining.

                You want to be in a Police Union, fine, go join a union. Your work rules and disciplinary procedures however are determined by the legislature and you have no more rights to influence their creation than any other citizen does.

                Don’t like that, then go find another job, no one is forcing you to be a police officer

      3. Well, one might inquire about what distinguishes a “union” from any old club of current and former employees.

        That might give you a clue on how one can abolish unions without violating rights to free association.

        Hint: it has to do with collective bargaining.

        If cops want to have a club that only cops can join, sure, whatev. I got no problem with that.

        1. Why would you object to a group of potential employees bargaining together anymore than you would be a group of investors bargaining together?

          1. Because the people being bargained with are not spending their own money and have no real reason to keep costs low. Would you not care if you started getting weekly bills from the UAW to cover new contract costs?

            1. “Because the people being bargained with are not spending their own money and have no real reason to keep costs low.”

              And how is that different than a group of investors (a corporation) that is bargaining with the government for a contract?

              1. Nice goalpost shift from “a group of investors” to “a corporation”.

                If employees want to incorporate and offer their services in an “all or nothing” contract between their company and the employer company, I say go for it.

                But that’s not collective bargaining.

                1. I was using ‘corporation’ as ‘a group of investors’ from the beginning. That’s essentially what they are (well, they also have certain distinct legal status and protections when they incorporate, but that seems to be a bug, not a feature, for you with unions).

                  1. There’s a huge difference between a group of investors and a corporation, Bo.

                    A group of investors can get into all kinds of trouble that a corporation can’t.

                    Nice elision of the legal status of corporations with the waivers and privileges of unions, too. Show me a law that a corporation is exempt from because its a corporation, and we can talk about whether there unions and corporations are at all comparable.

          2. Why would you object to a group of potential employees bargaining together

            You mean, without invoking their rights and privileges under the union laws?

            I wouldn’t object at all. Once the anti-trust laws and the multitude of other laws that get waived for unions are applied, I doubt much would come of it.

            C’mon, Bo. Unions have a number of privileges or waivers of otherwise applicable laws. Once freed from the discipline of the marketplace (as in the public sector), those privileges/waivers lead to some very unfortunate results.

            1. So your ‘beef’ is not so much with unions and collective bargaining in theory, but with those things under the current NLRA framework?

              1. Pretty much, yeah.

                Do away with special privileges and waivers, and it becomes a whole new world.

                1. Fair enough. The NLRA is a liberty nightmare.

                  1. But I don’t think the NLRA applies to government employers, does it?

                    1. It doesn’t.

                      But the unions that represent it still enjoy its protections even when they are dealing with public sector employers. They all have both private and public sector locals.

                      Laws empowering pubsec unions are mostly a state and local affair. IANAUL, but I’d be curious to see what effect an explicit limitation of NLRA rights and obligations to private sector workplaces would have.

          3. “Why would you object to a group of potential employees bargaining together anymore than you would be a group of investors bargaining together?”

            I wouldn’t, so long as the employer had the right to say “no, I don’t feel like bargaining with you as a group.”

      4. Pass a law forbidding the state and local governments from negotiating union contracts for police.

        1. What would you think of a law that forbid state and local governments from negotiating contracts with corporations for this or that agency? I could see that coming about, you know, progs think corporations have all these advantages and protections that they will use to their advantage to get better deals, etc., etc.,

          1. It would be a stupid law. What are they going to do, only contract with sole proprietorships and partnerships? But I suppose it is within the power of the legislature.

            1. Would you favor such a law? It would be on the same basis of the union law you mention. In both cases the idea would be that because the union/corporation is a collective organization with special benefits/privileges conferred by government the union/corporation would be at an advantage vis-a-vis the government agencies, and ultimately taxpayers, that bargain with them.

              1. No. But I don’t think that laws can be made entirely based on pure principle.

                And the difference with corporations is that anyone can form a corporation. It’s kind of necessary to run a business of any size and it is completely open to anyone. Laws protecting public unions are special privilege for a particular groups of people. It is exactly because public sector unions are not subject to competition the way corporations or even private sector unions are that I am so strongly opposed to them.

              2. In both cases the idea would be that because the union/corporation is a collective organization with special benefits/privileges conferred by government

                Umm, what special privileges/benefits are conferring od corporations by the government, Bo?

  7. You know, I am all in favor of this.

    IF that is we make the union financially responsible for all police abuse lawsuits

    1. Nice. But I think the taxpayers should bear the burden. Every time there is a settlement each taxpayer should receive a notice saying Officer Dunphy just cost you $xx.xx

  8. Progressives don’t care about police violence. They only care who is committing said violence.

    1. And who it is committed against.

      Principals, not principles.

    2. As is always the case, this kind of shit is supported by the “it will never happen to me” morons. Even after they get singled out for something stupid like having grandma’s diaper searched at the airport.

  9. the staggering death toll created by police forces across the United States

    Oh, come on. “Staggering”? According to Wikipedia, in 2013 the number was 320. Yes, one can argue that’s too many, but it’s hardly “staggering.” For comparison, the number of police killed in the line of duty runs at about 100-200/year (though many of those are auto accidents, etc.).

    1. So in the War on Cops, the cops are winning.

    2. According to Wikipedia, in 2013 the number was 320.

      If memory serves, that number is based on selective reporting by less than all law enforcement agencies.

      1. I’m sure the number is arguable, I just have an issue with problems that are over-hyped. Whatever the exact number is, I don’t think it’s “staggering.” For the records, I also don’t think the number of rapes perpetrated by college students is “staggering,” either.

    3. Which Wikipedia article?

        1. There’s no citations in that article, and it even has a warning at the top.

          1. Yeah, but how far off do you think that number is? I doubt if there are hundreds more that somehow never got reported and counted. If you have a better source that has a more “staggering” number, please post a link.

            1. The WSJ’s reporting is that there are hundreds more than never get counted, mostly because entire states (such as really small states NY, Illinois and Florida) and at least 35 of the 105 largest police agencies don’t report to DOJ:

    4. 33 cops were killed in the line of duty in 2013. (30 shot, 2 stabbed, 1 deliberately run over)

      So even with the severely under-reported cop-kills, they are killing civilians about 10-to-1.

      1. How do you get 33? It says: “Line of Duty Deaths: 105.”

        1. Read the actual descriptions of deaths. Falling off a roof during a rescue is not being killed in the line of duty, it’s dying while clocked in.

          1. Even 33 is being generous. Some of them are prison guards.

          2. I think you have an idiosyncratic definition of “in the line of duty,” but even if you just count bomb, gunfire, stabbed, and vehicular assault, that’s 38.

            1. Only one of the vehicular assaults were deliberate. The rest was them getting run over on the side of the road.

              And the bomb was while he was serving in Afghanistan.

              1. Military police are still police. That should count.

                1. I’ve reading the gunfire deaths. No wonder they get all hyped about domestics and traffic stops.

        2. I think he is talking about deliberate homicides. Which is a better comparison.

          1. OK, but then Eric Garner doesn’t count as a “deliberate homicide.”

            1. OK, but then Eric Garner doesn’t count as a “deliberate homicide.”

              That assumes the cop is telling the truth.

            2. OK, wrong words, maybe. How about “criminal homicides”? I’m not a lawyer, gimme a break.

          2. Even the 25 heart attacks don’t really even give you a good “died while struggling with perp” story. Collapsing after a foot pursuit is you just being a fat ass.

            They list one that keeled over at a conference.

          3. So does the cop killed by another cop over a woman count? Recall there was one of those recently?

            1. So does the cop killed by another cop over a woman count?

              Well, considering that we are discussing 2013, then fully 1/10 of the police homicides for the year were committed by another police officer, Christopher Dorner.

              Who, by the way, is not listed as a fallen officer…

      2. Actually according to the FBI it was 27 feloniously killed in 2013…


        1. I’ve been revising it down as I read all the explanations.

    5. Maybe “staggering” isn’t quite the right word. But that is entirely subjective. Some people are more easily staggered than others.

      But I think I agree with your point. The absolute numbers probably shouldn’t be surprising or shocking at all. Cops are people, and there are millions of cops. Surely among all of those people, who are drawn to a job where you get to commit acts of violence under color of law, you will find a few hundred real murderers. So it really shouldn’t be shocking or staggering that police murder some people every year. What is shocking and staggering is that they often go unpunished or under-punished.

      1. Actually it is right around a million officers with the ability to make an arrest in the US.

        About 800,000 state and local police and about 200,000 for the Feds

    6. In 2013 it was 27 cops killed by violent criminal acts. 26 were shot to death, 1 was intentionally run down with a car. Over the last 3 decade the number of cops killed by violence has not been above 50 per year (unless you include those killed in the WTC attack) and has averaged around 40 per year.

      Also that 320 is largely a guess because law enforcement at all levels vigorously tries to prevent any metrics from being gathered on the subject. The true number is likely at least a little higher, not in the thousands per year range certainly but it wouldn’t surprise me to find the real number was closer to 500 per year than 300 per year.

      1. I’d be willing to bet that the real number is 4+ times the ‘official’ number.

  10. I don’t imagine that it will happen, but what really needs to happen is to give cops incentives (and the power) to arrest other police who they see acting criminally. That should be how it works. One cop sees another kicking the shit out of someone, he arrests him then and there and takes him to jail, just like anyone else who commits battery against someone. Also, punish police who fail to stop or arrest another cop who is acting criminally.

    One idea that comes to mind is to put state police in charge of policing local police departments. In my (limited) experience, I notice that a lot of State police are have a pretty low opinion of most locals. So maybe it wouldn’t be so hard to get them to actually enforce laws against the local police. Of course, then you need someone to police the state police. I’m not entirely opposed to a Federal role there.

    I’m probably in fantasy land here, but it’s an idea.

    1. Also, punish police who fail to stop or arrest another cop who is acting criminally.

      Out here in peon-land, knowing that a co-worker is engaged in criminal activity and doing nothing about it is a good way to catch a conspiracy or accessory charge. Not guaranteed, but if you support their work in any way, they are committing crimes while working, and you know about it, well, you might wanna lawyer up.

    2. Lol that sounds like the making of a comedy bit.

      Cop 1 starts beating up a suspect.

      Cop 2 tries to place cop 1 under arrest for assault.

      Cop 1 then tries to place cop 2 under arrest for interfering with a police officer

      Cop 2 then adds in a charge for resisting arrest

      Cop 1 ditto

      In the end the 2 cops end up shooting each other for failure to comply with a lawful order

      1. Cop 1 beats up a suspect

        Cop 2 turns him in

        Cop 2 needs backup

        Cop 2 is ignored

        Cop 2 is killed

        Cop 1 beats up another suspect

    3. A cop who turns in his brothers for committing crimes is going to get crickets when he calls for backup. Just ask Serpico.

      1. That’s why you need to foster hatred and distrust between local and state police so they won’t mind arresting each other.

        1. Last time I got popped by the cops it was a state trooper backed up by two locals. Cops have one tool: organized violence. That’s it. They need each other since that’s how they overwhelm individuals and groups of citizens. With numbers. Breeding animosity between departments will make them less effective, so they’re not going to do it. Say that state trooper had turned in some local cops for abusing suspects. Do you think he would have gotten any backup when he pulled me over? Yeah. I didn’t think so either.

          That is why bad cops are the rule, not the exception. Good cops who try to turn in the bad ones find themselves alone when they need help. So they quit being honest, or find another job.

  11. “The Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association had sued then-Commissioner Ray Kelly for overriding disciplinary provisions in the police contract ? including a rule requiring NYPD superiors to wait at least 48 hours before questioning police officers accused of misconduct.”

    Recall dunphy’s explanation for this? It’s not because of cop unions standing up for their corrupt members, it’s because police departments don’t want to accidentally violate the 5th Amendment rights of suspected rogue cops, because this could interfere with the criminal prosecution and harm the interests of the rogue cops’ victims!

    But it’s perfectly acceptable for cops to interrogate “civilians” within 48 hours, since there’s no way a “civilian” would feel pressured to give up his Fifth Amendment rights in such a situation.

    1. Where *is* dunphy?


  12. OMG. Did the sun rise in the West? Did Hell freeze over? Did the Giants beat the Jaguars? I actually agree with awful Ed Krayewski. SMH.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.