It's unfortunate that all of them weren't immediately fired for their conscious decision not to address the assault and battery committed by one of their ranks, or to render first aid, and when the man finally was attended to, they dragged a man with what was very likely a cervical spine injury. They're all trained first responders and they knew better.
Final point: if this is what they're comfortable doing in broad daylight in front of a news crew, imagine what they're doing without cameras rolling.
I was not sure if I am allowed to editorialize titles a bit but I agree because they are still sworn officers. If dang is around, he should change it.
>“Fifty-seven resigned in disgust because of the treatment of two of their members, who were simply executing orders,” said John Evans, PBA president.
I say symbollically above because the protesting officers will still be paid by the city.
> All officers who resigned from ERT will remain on the job in their regular duties
Is the argument that what happened in the video is acceptable? Maybe they think it's unacceptable but doesn't warrant major action? Can someone explain the ideology here?
Another reason seems to be that a prior court case allows cities to opt out of paying legal costs for officers accused of these wrong doings. In light of the risk of being sued and the lack of support from their legislative and executive representatives, they have opted out of riot duty. I would also not be surprised if they feel like they are being classified bad people as a group for the transgressions of a few. Perhaps a bit of getting what they (we all?) have been dishing out?
This weekend in Buffalo could be very enlightening, we'll have to wait and see how this goes.
If we, as a society, believe we can operate with a less powerful policing contingent, can we behave ourselves and not increasingly wrong each other?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. They don't seem to have trouble applying that logic to peaceful protesters when there are a handful of protesters who start getting violent.
The article suggests that these additional officers "resigned in disgust because of the treatment of officers who were simply executing orders".
I have to ask, what orders were those exactly.
I'm sure they were tasked with clearing the area. I'm also certain they were not tasked with critically injuring a citizen (let a lone a senior citizen) while doing so. Those officers were not suspended for "simply executing orders", but how they did so and perhaps more importantly how they were susceptible to the peer pressure inappropriately applied by uninvolved officers egging them on. This was 50+ officers vs one 75 year old guy asking questions. They have all taken a public oath.
I was a military dog handler, I have family in state police. My closest cousin wears a police ring as his wedding band. I have the up most respect for law enforcement in general and feel that the overwhelming majority of officers act heroically in the face of daily uncertainty.
However, this entire group of officers needs retraining. Officers who are susceptible to peer pressure (either applying or receiving) need to be retrained or discharged. This not an appropriate career path for those not confident enough to resist being bullies or cowards.
