3 ms·
Sorry, I thought it was clear from context. Dan Weber is 'danielweber', who wrote a sibling comment to yours, but starting from the opposite premise.
by nkurz 11y ago
Sorry, I thought it was clear from context. Dan Weber is 'danielweber', who wrote a sibling comment to yours, but starting from the opposite premise.
- mikeash 11y agoI didn't see it, since I didn't revisit the whole thread again. That comment is rather weird. It seems to be saying basically, "The cops are entitled to a legal defense, therefore a legal defense is good. This is a legal defense, therefore this is good." But the problem is not really that the union is legally defending these officers (if that is in fact part of their responsibilities then it's only reasonable that they should do so) but that they're doing it crazily. Filing a lawsuit to suppress good evidence from being used in an internal investigation is not a reasonable legal defense in my eyes. Anyway, I don't know that that comment qualifies as "anything the union does is fine," unless that was actually supposed to be a parody of something less extreme.