The NYPD is represented in big defensive civil rights cases like this by the NYC Law Department, which is a city agency that (among other things) acts as outside counsel for other city agencies and employees. Basically the city equivalent of the state Attorney General.

The NYPD does also have its own internal law department, but they don't handle big litigations like this one.

New Yorkers Will Pay Millions. FTFY.

It was pretty funny.

[deleted]

Dude, what are you talking about? They actively fought this case for two years. The PACER docket has like 900 filed documents on it. It’s kind of absurd to say they weren’t allowed to defend themselves.

There were hundreds of arrests on Fordham that the Bronx DAs office dropped.

Of course they let this happen in the Bronx, I’m just glad the protestors will be paid

They weren’t kettling rioters…

>Any intentional physical touch can be considered assault.

This is 100% correct, and your response of "serious injury is needed!" is pedantic and not relevant to the point.

Any intentional physical touch can be considered a form of assault in New York. Even if the offense doesn't have the word "assault" in it.

Thats crazy.

Lol.

We can pay a salary that easily covers basic insurance premiums. If the premiums rise because of the officer’s record, that’s on them. That’s the whole point—make it economically harder to repeat offenders to maintain a career in law enforcement. It’s exactly how we treat doctors. If someone’s insurance premiums are significantly higher than average for the industry, they’re probably not cut out for it.

If cops want to personally defend themselves, they’re free to waive qualified immunity. I don’t see that happening voluntarily ever.

Correct.

>To which arguing the point about serious injury is pedantic to point of almost being irrelevant.

You're correct that comment I replied referred to "any assault".

However, that's not the point I was replying to (and indeed it's not what I quoted in my reply).

My reply was aimed at the bad examples of "assault" that were provided. Those bad examples would be misleading and missinformative to the reader.

They would be misleading because these are not automatically assault under NY Law, and thus such conducts would not be impacted in any way by the bill proposal from the news.

>Sorry sir, I fell over and my fist fell into her face.

​

>Any intentional physical touch can be considered assault.

They do fight them and often win. But when the evidence is overwhelmingly against them they settle.

Just having a rational take on this, unlike most people. The city would very obviously be footing the bill if this ever became a thing

[deleted]

Yes. NYPD was the out of control group in 2020

If they went to soho and did the same shit, you would have complained. The Bronx got hit really hard with looters. Look at the Fordham Riot.

yeah my guy, the cops have their own law department. my friend literally worked there. they are treated by cops and others as if they are part of the nypd, even if there is nominal structural separation. they are de facto part of the nypd. which is why my friend didn't continue working there. he felt that even the IA lawyers went easy on the cops, which was ironic because they were also despised by the cops as if they were inteneral affairs cops.

but, notably, the lawyers that handle the cases for the cops are not the same ones that handle lawsuits against the city or other departments. that was more the point i was trying to make. the same lawyers do not handle tripping on the sidewalk and police brutality cases.

You ok bud? Overcompensating for something?

[deleted]

[deleted]

>It's not pedantic.

The slogan of the pedant.

The umbrella of "assault" covers several different offenses. While you are correct that the specific offense being referred to by the proposal requires serious injury, the comment you originally replied to was:

>It’s odd to me that any assault isn’t a felony.

To which arguing the point about serious injury is pedantic to point of almost being irrelevant.