Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_ir1p89c wrote

Reply to comment by drpvn in NYPD is Illegally Sending People to Rikers Without Ever Seeing a Judge, Lawsuit Claims by psychothumbs

“We can’t comment on this until NYPD denies it all, at which point we should take them at their word that it doesn’t happen.”

50

drpvn t1_ir1psr1 wrote

No, but we should hear what they have to say. I’d say that between you and me, I’m the only one who’s willing to hear what each side has to say.

−22

Ouity t1_ir1r3ec wrote

Don't we already know what NYPD is going to say ?... what are you expecting except a refutation?

31

drpvn t1_ir1r96j wrote

I don’t. I guess you do.

−7

Ouity t1_ir1rxnl wrote

I have a pretty good idea that they are not going to go out and admit in a public statement that they violated state law and peoples' civil rights. I'd say it doesn't take much of a brain to figure out why. They lose in court automatically if they do that. So instead, they will opt to release a nothing-burger that will basically say "we work tirelessly to respect/defend peoples' civil rights etc etc etc NYPD is troubled by the complaints (MAYBE) but we will follow due process and defend our officers conduct blah blah blah." Think I missed anything?

19

drpvn t1_ir1v03t wrote

I’m talking about their motion to dismiss, not a press release.

1

hailfire27 t1_ir3a3gr wrote

Why do you even like the cops? None of them are your friends and will put you and your dog into the ground for fun.

9

Ouity t1_ir29ay2 wrote

A motion to dismiss happens when a case is legally invalid. Like, when you are making a claim that has no legal remedy, or which does not point to an actual law, or is a misreading of a law, you can just file to dismiss the case. Since there are multiple claimants filing under a lawyer who are pointing to specific circumstances which would, if true, be violations of this law, I do not think their case is going to be dismissed on procedural grounds. And if the NYPD tries to argue their claims are meritless and invalid, I will love to read that. It's definitely not what I guessed, so that would be cool for you.

I did not assume you were talking about a motion to dismiss because from where I'm sitting, a judge would rule against a motion to dismiss this case and allow it to enter discovery, since discovery of evidence is the only way to actually ascertain whether the claims presented are factual. The claims presented are definitely in violation of the law.

8

drpvn t1_ir29pst wrote

That’s all true, but sometimes defendants will toss factual assertions in their MTD if they’re favorable.

2

Ouity t1_ir1rz1i wrote

!RemindMe 6 months

14

hjablowme919 t1_ir21i0g wrote

We all know what the NYPD will say. They will deny they are doing anything wrong. Or they will say it was just a few officers and this is not policy and they are sending the officers for additional training.

Then some PBA rep will scream about how things like this are why officers are quitting and they can't get enough new recruits, blah, blah, blah.

All bullshit.

23

drpvn t1_ir220h9 wrote

So you think it’s clear that everything alleged in the complaint happened just like it’s alleged?

0

haxlmal t1_ir28m0a wrote

Don't play this game. You are pretending to be objective and morally superior when so many cases exactly like this one have been proven to be police abuse. Sure, maybe in this one specific case, it's a frivolous lawsuit, but you're missing the forest for the trees. Police do this shit so often that it's statistically far more likely that it's all true. And in any case, public trust has been completely eroded by their own hand. They are wayyyyy beyond the "let's give them the benefit of the doubt" phase.

14

drpvn t1_ir2aw9r wrote

I’ve seen too many complaints to take them at face value. And I do a lot of plaintiff-side work.

I have zero reason to think this lawsuit is frivolous, apart from the baseline of skepticism I have toward all complaints.

−3