NYC Pepper-Spray Commander Faces Disciplinary Charge
He’s being docked 10 vacation days for violating departmental guidelines:
The Internal Affairs Bureau reviewed the incident and found that Inspector Bologna “used pepper spray outside departmental guidelines,” said Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s chief spokesman. He declined to elaborate.
The inspector can accept the charges and plead guilty, or he can opt for a departmental trial. Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly is the ultimate arbiter of punishment in such matters and has wide leeway in his decisions.
It’s the least they could do.
“Deputy Inspector Bologna is disappointed at the results of the department investigation,” said Mr. Richter. “His actions prevented further injury and escalation of tumultuous conduct. To date, this conduct has not been portrayed in its true context.”
12 Responses to “NYC Pepper-Spray Commander Faces Disciplinary Charge”
If the extent of his punishment is being docked 10 vacation days I’d say he’s getting off easy.
Ten vacation days? Man that was ASSAULT!
ASSAULT is a crime!
I DEMAND JUSTICE!
Note that it did not say the commander committed a crime, rather that he violated policy in his use of the OC spray. That is a very important distinction.
Kind’a like the distinction between ‘a lynching’ and ‘a hanging’ eh?
EEllis is to be thanked for pointing our this difference in semantics.
If someone now walked up to Inspector Bologna and pepper sprayed him, could they get off by giving up 10 vacation days?
No kind of like the difference between breaking the law and not. But why bother with little things like the law when you want to lynch someone right?
As for the suspension itself. By my reading pepper spray is not authorized to be used in crowd control in NYC, just for defense and arrests. Under those guidelines I can understand how the actions of the commander would violate those rules. From a legal standpoint pepper spray is lawful to use when force is allowed to be used. The situation which Bologna used pepper spray seems to me to be one in which force could legally be used. So while he may of violated department rules that’s a far cry from him violating the law which is far more lenient than dept policy.
Why anyone would choose to run interference for a cowardly menace like Bologna is beyond me.
First unless you actually know the man you have no idea if he is cowardly or not. You are just spouting insults to demean and lessen someone who you have decided to dislike. Second I like facts. You may get as creative and fanciful with your statements as you want I on the other hand like to stick to facts. The fact is there has been no determination of any violation of any laws. Now how the heck is stating a fact running interference? You seem to want to concentrate on misinformation, insults, and bad feelings. I will again stick with facts.
Ellis, I am judging this man’s action, not his life biography. His behavior in this instance was cowardly and goonish. There is nothing “fanciful” or “insulting” about calling his action exactly what it was. If you want to make excuses for crappy behavior it’s your business, but don’t be foolish enough to expect everyone to get on board.
I see no crime committed, merely a regulatory infraction. The use of pepper spray has been limited to certain circumstances. This was not one of those circumstances. While the officer did not have the regulatory right to do so in New York City, he is deputized to use the force he reasonably thinks is necessary to keep the peace.
The punishment was, I think, unjust insofar as it was far too harsh. The So-Called “Occupy Wall Street” movement is causing disruptions in commerce, and endangering safety (see the blockading of Times Square), and it is right, I believe, that the police stop that.
I have made no excuses. I have stated facts. You called him a coward not that his actions were cowardly, which by the way is not an accurate representation, goonish I’ll let pass even tho I don’t believe there is enough evidence to support the claim but cowardly means his actions were motivated by fear and I see no evidence at all that is the case in that 22 seconds of video. I don’t expect everyone to “get on board” because there is nothing to “get on” from my viewpoint. I believe in making conclusions based on evidence like a grown up. You seem to decide by feelings but pretend those decisions are based in fact.