With respect to the first point, concern about the G20-related emasculation of the Citizen Police Review Board is warranted -- but tempered by the fact that Vic Walczak and other
lawyers for those abused during the G20 event have assembled another review board, this one comprising the judges of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.With respect to the second and third points, the analysis seems cogent.
With respect to the fourth point, the Cometeer's continuing objections to dismissal of the The Not-So-Great InsolvenCity Parking Garage Sale evokes a fine exchange from My Cousin Vinny:
Judge Chamberlain Holler: Mr. Gambini?
Vincent Gambini: Yes, sir?
Judge: That is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought out objection.
Gambini: Thank you, your honor.
Judge: Overruled.
3 comments:
Thanks. Wish my faith in what's going to happen in court was as strong and yours, but even that'd be only be a partial vindication for the CPRB and a partial recovery.
With respect to the fourth point: pretty funny. I'd laugh if I wasn't weeping.
Actually, I take that back, I DO have faith in the courts. It's that I don't see how punitive rewards to plaintiffs are going to have that great an impact on the CPRB situation.
The CPRB is intended to promote accountability for police conduct.
The CPRB has been hobbled to the point at which it seems unable to arrange accountability, but the federal courts seem capable of imposing accountability.
City taxpayers may pay a severe price if a federal court judgment is the only avenue available to victims, but city residents elect and tolerate the problems so holding them to account for those problems seems appropriate.
Post a Comment