4 ms·

Not to mention lawyers have to work with the police fairly regularly. They see fostering an adversarial relationship as bad for them. So while the police may h

by bena 3y ago

Not to mention lawyers have to work with the police fairly regularly. They see fostering an adversarial relationship as bad for them. So while the police may have broken the law, caused damages, etc, and whatever, other police aren't going to pursue it and neither will most district attorneys.

acdha 3y ago
There’s also a significant personal risk. The NYPD has been very casual about abusing their powers before and anyone fighting it that hard might find it necessary to leave the city if they didn’t want 100% enforcement targeting them personally. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/nyregion/whistle-blower-police-officer-had-backup-secret-recordings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/nyregion/whistle-blower-p...
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > NYPD has been very casual about abusing their powers before and anyone fighting it that hard might find it necessary to leave the city That was a cop collecting evidence on fellow cops. It's obviously criminal. But the NYPD is sued all the time, and I haven't seen evidence of them systematically acting vindictively against either plaintiffs nor their attorneys.
  - acdha 3y ago
    I agree that it’s unlikely but going after their subpoena ability seems like the kind of thing which would be taken personally.
  - callalex 3y ago
    > That was a cop collecting evidence on fellow cops. Why is that relevant? Are you implying that this somehow justifies the gang behavior?
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Why is that relevant? Are you implying that this somehow justifies the gang behavior? Explaining, not justifying. Gang-like organisations react more forcefully to perceived betrayal (one up from competition) than bog-standard adversarialism.
      - 6510 3y ago
        Explaining why something happens doesn't go very far proving it doesn't?
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Explaining why something happens doesn't go very far proving it doesn't? Not sure what you're getting at. I'm asking for evidence of someone suing the NYPD in the manner this journalist might be harassed in the manner a cop collecting evidence on other cops was.
        6510 3y ago
        To me it works the other way round. You wouldn't want evidence it will happen, you would want evidence it wont happen. I think there will be no consequences if they go there?
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    > But the NYPD is sued all the time, and I haven't seen evidence of them systematically acting vindictively against either plaintiffs nor their attorneys. That'd be a full time job. Over the last 15 years, NYC has been paying out a million dollars per WEEK for NYPD abuse of power lawsuits alone.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    get real, they'll be vindictive if you file too many 311 complaints
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> neither will most district attorneys Why would a DA pursue it? Is there an allegation of a crime by the NYPD? This looks like a civil matter. The NYPD is sued for--and pays out on--civil damages all the time.

by bena 3y ago

acdha 3y ago

There’s also a significant personal risk. The NYPD has been very casual about abusing their powers before and anyone fighting it that hard might find it necessary to leave the city if they didn’t want 100% enforcement targeting them personally. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/nyregion/whistle-blower-police-officer-had-backup-secret-recordings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/nyregion/whistle-blower-p...

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> NYPD has been very casual about abusing their powers before and anyone fighting it that hard might find it necessary to leave the city That was a cop collecting evidence on fellow cops. It's obviously criminal. But the NYPD is sued all the time, and I haven't seen evidence of them systematically acting vindictively against either plaintiffs nor their attorneys.
- acdha 3y ago
  I agree that it’s unlikely but going after their subpoena ability seems like the kind of thing which would be taken personally.
- callalex 3y ago
  > That was a cop collecting evidence on fellow cops. Why is that relevant? Are you implying that this somehow justifies the gang behavior?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Why is that relevant? Are you implying that this somehow justifies the gang behavior? Explaining, not justifying. Gang-like organisations react more forcefully to perceived betrayal (one up from competition) than bog-standard adversarialism.
    - 6510 3y ago
      Explaining why something happens doesn't go very far proving it doesn't?
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Explaining why something happens doesn't go very far proving it doesn't? Not sure what you're getting at. I'm asking for evidence of someone suing the NYPD in the manner this journalist might be harassed in the manner a cop collecting evidence on other cops was.
        6510 3y ago
        To me it works the other way round. You wouldn't want evidence it will happen, you would want evidence it wont happen. I think there will be no consequences if they go there?
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > But the NYPD is sued all the time, and I haven't seen evidence of them systematically acting vindictively against either plaintiffs nor their attorneys. That'd be a full time job. Over the last 15 years, NYC has been paying out a million dollars per WEEK for NYPD abuse of power lawsuits alone.
- freejazz 3y ago
  get real, they'll be vindictive if you file too many 311 complaints

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> neither will most district attorneys Why would a DA pursue it? Is there an allegation of a crime by the NYPD? This looks like a civil matter. The NYPD is sued for--and pays out on--civil damages all the time.