Skip to main content

Defunding By Other Means

 


The good news is that State Senator Gary Winfield’s bill eliminating qualified immunity for all police departments across the state is not due to go into effect until July 2021, well past election day this coming November. The bad news is that the predictable consequences of the bill – a decrease in police recruitment, an increase in retirements, and an increase in insurance premiums paid by municipalities – will arrive much before July 2021.

It is not only ideas that have consequences; policies produce consequences as well. And bad policies produce bad consequences. The consequences of state policies fall, like the gentle rain, on the just and the unjust, on the poor and the rich. It is not likely that a wealthy, low crime community such as Greenwich, home to millionaire politicians such as Governor

It has been suggested by progressive legislators that the likelihood of suits attending a withdrawal of partial immunity is a scare tactic deployed by Trump loving Republicans who are 1) privileged, 2) white, and 3) little understand the black experience in America because, as privileged whites, they are strangers to invidious racism and bigotry.

Then too, the Winfield bill contains a suit saving proviso:

From a cost point of view, all these terms are juridical fig leafs. What action taken by a police officer is NOT willful? The term “wanton” is a term of art that may mean whatever prosecutors wish it to mean. And progressive legislators, Winfield among them, have already suggested that police departments in Connecticut – apparently all of them, since the bill touches all of them -- are riven with what has been called “systemic racism” arising from slavery. Winfield surely cannot believe that such inherent racism is NOT malevolent.

The animating feature of the effort to abolish partial immunity – thus leaving police departments and municipalities everywhere in the state at the mercy of costly litigation – is to abolish police departments by means other than those suggested by street agitators carrying signs that plainly say “defund police.” Litigation arising from the abolition of partial immunity will be costly whether or not aggrieved persons bringing suit prevail in courts of law. It may not be out of bounds to hazard a guess that partial immunity was instituted in the first place to prevent costly and disabling suits.

State Senator Daniel Champagne, also the Mayor of Vernon and a retired police sergeant, stressed these very points in the Senate debate on the revocation of partial immunity. Champagne regards the bill as being menacingly abstruse. In the absence of partial immunity, Champagne asks, can someone who has received a parking ticket sue police? Champagne does not ask whether such suits can be won in court; his question is – can such a suit be brought to court? “What about the officer who confronts an armed man, fires and mistakenly hits a bystander?” Champagne asked, “Would regional SWAT teams still be possible?”

As police recruitment falls away and “officers step back from fear of litigatory reprisals,” Champagne’s formulation, would serious calls to police departments continue to be answered in a timely fashion? Would convictions be overturned and set aside by courts if, say, a prisoner found guilty of domestic violence were to plead that an arresting white officer infected with residual Jim Crow had failed to follow the Witfield law?  And why are we assuming that the proper answer to a spike in crime statistics is a diminished and cowering police force?

There are signs that some woke journalists in Connecticut are beginning to explore the unorthodox legislative process that gave us the police reform bill. The House adjourned after passing the troubling Witfield provision, making it impossible for the Senate to amend the bill. Who coordinated that political ballet? If fact, the whole process of adoption contained so many moving parts so neatly arranged that any woke journalist, asked to believe that Swan Lake came together by happenstance, might be just a tad suspicious that the whole effort was carefully choreographed to produce a bill that seeks to solve a policing problem in, say, New Haven by imposing crippling restrictions on a police department in, say, Caanan, Connecticut, population  1,095, where Jim Crow laws had never gained a foothold.

Senator Cathy Osten of Sprague hit the right button when she said, answering generalized intimations of racism, “I don’t believe anybody around this [senate] circle is anti-police or racist. We need to work together. ... We have divided ourselves. We have made this a political thing, not a policy thing.‘'

Politics, which in corrupt states involves the use of crooked policies to retain power, has always been the worm in the policy apple.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The PURA soap opera continues in Connecticut: Business eyeing the exit signs

The trouble at PURA and the two energy companies it oversees began – ages ago, it now seems – with the elevation of Marissa Gillett to the chairpersonship of Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulation Authority.   Connecticut Commentary has previously weighed in on the controversy: PURA Pulls The Plug on November 20, 2019; The High Cost of Energy, Three Strikes and You’re Out? on December 21, 2024; PURA Head Butts the Economic Marketplace on January 3, 2025; Lamont Surprised at Suit Brought Against PURA on February 3, 2025; and Lamont’s Pillow Talk on February 22, 2025:   The melodrama full of pratfalls continues to unfold awkwardly.   It should come as no surprise that Gillett has changed the nature and practice of the state agency. She has targeted two of Connecticut’s energy facilitators – Eversource and Avangrid -- as having in the past overcharged the state for services rendered. Thanks to the Democrat controlled General Assembly, Connecticut is no l...

The Murphy Thingy

It’s the New York Post , and so there are pictures. One shows Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy canoodling with “Courier Newsroom publisher Tara McGowan, 39, last Monday by the bar at the Red Hen, located just one mile north of Capitol Hill.”   The canoodle occurred one day or night prior to Murphy’s well-advertised absence from President Donald Trump’s recent Joint Address to Congress.   Murphy has said attendance at what was essentially a “campaign rally” involving the whole U.S. Congress – though Democrat congresspersons signaled their displeasure at the event by stonily sitting on their hands during the applause lines – was inconsistent with his dignity as a significant part of the permanent opposition to Trump.   Reaching for his moral Glock Murphy recently told the Hartford Courant that Democrat Party opposition to President Donald Trump should be unrelenting and unforgiving: “I think people won’t trust you if you run a campaign saying that if Donald Trump is ...

Lamont Surprised at Suit Brought Against PURA

Marissa P. Gillett, the state's chief utility regulator, watches Gov. Ned Lamont field questions about a new approach to regulation in April 2023. Credit: MARK PAZNIOKAS / CTMIRROR.ORG Concerning a suit brought by Eversource and Avangrid, Connecticut’s energy delivery agents, against Connecticut’s Public Utility Regulatory Agency (PURA), Governor Ned Lamont surprised most of the state’s political watchers by affecting surprise.   “Look,” Lamont told a Hartford Courant reporter shortly after the suit was filed, “I think it is incredibly unhelpful,” Lamont said. “Everyone is getting mad at the umpires.   Eversource is not getting everything they want and they are bringing suit. It was a surprise to me. Nobody notified me. I think we have to do a better job of working together.”   Lamont’s claim is far less plausible than the legal claim made by Eversource and Avangrid. The contretemps between Connecticut’s energy distributors and Marissa Gillett , Gov. Ned Lamont’s ...