Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    ‘Funny Thing About Cops, They Hold Grudges’

    ‘Funny Thing About Cops, They Hold Grudges’

    This time it’s in Ohio, and the “threat” comes from a police union lawyer directed at an Ohio Republican state senator who voted in favor of S.B. 5, the bill stripping public employee unions of collective bargaining rights. 

    The lawyer, after being told that the statement quoted in the post title was viewed as a threat, walked it back and denied that the grudges would be acted upon with violence.

    But this is becoming a disturbing pattern in which the distinction between the police and the police unions becomes blurred, as documented in my prior posts:

    The details are over at The Other McCain.

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.



    Linked, with video at of Ohio union thugs screaming and yelling at the statehouse yesterday, as the bill passed: 'Focus on Ohio as GOP Advances Curbs on Public Unions'.

    Threatening a former member of the Special Ops community? That's pretty stupid. His friends hold grudges longer.

    The purported walk-back was pretty disingenuous. As a rule, threats tend to be a bit ambiguous so as not to be prosecutable. So obviously the lawyer wasn't going to make it an explicit threat. But the implication was that the cops would have the last laugh, as it were, which suggests something a bit more consequential than their influence as a tiny voting bloc.

    Also, framing it in terms of COPS holding a grudge naturally implies they would use their power AS cops, not simply their once-every-four-years say as voters. What if your kid's doctor said something similarly menacing like, "Funny thing about pediatricians: We hold grudges"? I don't think you'd assume he was talking about some "civilian" form of retribution like taking you off his Christmas card list.

    I believe even Mrs. Gump would use the "t" word describing the way that lawyer's clients were behaving. His critical judgment faculty is likely clouded by advocacy responsibilities, so we probably need to take that into account before judging him too harshly. An accommodation, by the way, he seems to deny to others. Could he be arrogantly myopic?

    Only someone who has had administrative dealings with Police Departments can understand the twisted thinking of these "defenders in blue".
    For the most part they live in a self-serving world of their own, with the ever present it's us against them mentality.
    They think they are above the laws that apply to every day citizens, and never fail to grab any additional freebees they can grab.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend