City Declines to Defend Sued Officer (Pepper-Sprayed OWS Protesters)

[Hissyspit]

Source: Wall Street Journal

City Declines to Defend Sued Officer

August 2, 2012, 8:55 p.m. ET

BY SEAN GARDINER

New York City has distanced itself from a high-ranking police official accused of firing pepper spray at Occupy Wall Street protesters, taking the unusual step of declining to defend him in a civil lawsuit over the incident.

The decision means Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna also could be personally liable for financial damages that may arise out of the suit, said lawyers familiar with similar civil-rights claims.

The 29-year veteran has asked a judge to reverse the city. "He wasn't doing this as Anthony Bologna, mister. He was doing this as Anthony Bologna, deputy inspector, NYPD," said his lawyer.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443866404577565341948999820.html

[Kurovski]

1. It was indefensible

And it is there for the entire world to see.

He was savage and vile.

[freshwest]

5. +1

[icekissy]

2. Spam deleted by zappaman (MIR Team)

[RedCappedBandit]

3. Good

If the city defends him, doesn't that mean that we the taxpayers will just take on the cost? His behavior isn't our fault. It's on him.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

7. If the city defended him, it's likely that an insurance company would simply take on the costs.

Unless the city is self-insured, it purchased insurance against malfeasance by its employees.

I agree with you that the decision by the city is a good one.

[McCamy Taylor]

4. This is NOT a good thing. NYC hopes that this will deter lawsuits against it and its agents

for the crimes they have committed against the public. They figure if there is no deep pocket, no attorney will take the case. No lawsuits, no bad press---everyone will assume that nothing wrong was done.

[freshwest]

8. I see that angle, but it might teach individual police there is no excape for wrongdoing.

I've worked with people in lawsuits with state employees, when agencies are not insured by an outside company, but the money come out of the general fund. The state fights to keep the damages down, but they have begun looking for the blame to be shared with the actual perps. Some suits are made out to sue not only the big pockets, but the small.

Bologna knew he was abusing his lawful authority, committing an unnecessary act and it was documented on youtube. He should be held liable. This guy was a political operative as well for the GOP, his job was not that of a regular beat cop. But so many abuses were recorded and sent out to the world that every one of those policemen should be held responsible for what they did. The idea thing would be for them to be charged for assault, or police brutality.

Even if big law firms attorneys don't want to take up the cases, those officers who have acted with impunity behind their badges should be punished civilly just like any other citizen, or as a criminal, or both. They acted criminally and people are tired of it.

As I said, I see your point but I'll bet Bologna has some money and that other officers will be affected by this and change their behavior. For too long some police departments have been hiding behind the tax payers and allowing these officers to go unpunished because the judgements came out of the city or county or state budgets, not theirs.

There is a certain amount of foolishness that goes on with bad actions, sometimes fatal, not just in law enforcment but other agencies, which they don't police themselves because they cynically pass the cost of litigation caused by them onto the state tresaury or other departments. If they can't stop that, they can at least stop rogue actors from doing this - forever.

If Bologna loses his own money, he will never do it again.

[sendero]

13. I agree..

.. and I hope the plaintiffs continue with their suit even without the promise of deep pockets.


Let this asshole spend $100K of his own money defending the indefensible, that would definitely be a deterrent to some of these fuckhead cops that think they are above the law.

[quakerboy]

10. I disagree

Its about time that the individuals who do wrong are left hanging rather than backed by the full power of the government.

Also, by the articles I have read, I believe that the lawsuit still includes the city, so i doubt they get off the hook that easy.

[msanthrope]

11. It's a great thing--let his union pay for his ass. That's a deep enough pocket.

He still has the PBA. And that is paid for by the cops.

What he won't have is the costs of his defense paid for by the taxpayers of NYC.

[marble falls]

12. Its not about the money, its about making cops act right. And if the city won't pay up for their....

bad actions, they'll begin to moderate their behaviors.

[freshwest]

18. Exactly There is often no money. But a change in policy to change behavior.

[2pooped2pop]

14. ACLU is where the Occupy attorneys come from

and I am pretty sure it's not about how much money they can make for themselves when they take on these cases. But you can be damned sure that the next cop getting ready to pepper spray kettled women will think twice about doing it if he won't be covered by the police net, and liable for suit on his own.


My Bologna has a first name ..........

[Macoy51]

17. This is a Good Thing

I disagree. This is a GOOD thing. This will mean the cops will have no one to hide behind when they misbehave. Normally the cops can violate the law and usually just get a few months paid vacation, maybe a write-up in their personnel file.

Yes, the city may be out a few million, but the cop gets off scot free. I feel that if a person knows they are personally liable for their actions, they are more likely to use restraint before busting heads and using pepper spray.


Macoy

[musiclawyer]

19. Sorry I must disagree

Most states allow local government to cut someone loose from taxpayer coverage if they acted with fraud, oppression, or malice ( outside scope of employment). Otherwise there would be no disincentive against rogue conduct, and the taxpayer would be paying for even more lawsuits and judgments than they are now. A legal and public policy consensus was reached long ago on this issue for a reason.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

20. I disagree. This can send a message to other cops that if you do this, you're on your own.

Somehow, the out-of-control cops need to be reigned in.

If this is one thing that can contribute towards that, no matter how small, then it should be seen as a good thing.

[McCamy Taylor]

6. Expect a police union strike over this one....

[freshwest]

9. They've just privatized Riker's. I'll bet laid off cops from other cities will replace them.

[Bohunk68]

16. It would seem

that you are telling everyone that the police should get away with this type of stuff because the rest of us are afraid of a police strike? I've read a lot of your posts over the years, and this is just not in tune with what I recall you have said in the past.

[tk2kewl]

15. lock up tony baloney in the tombs

[lunatica]

21. Good.

He's in need of a karmic adjustment.