Unions Lose Bid to Reinstate Bad Apples

It only took 8 years but the Trial Court has finally decided that Jay Cicinelli and Joseph Wolfe are not entitled to their jobs back at the Fullerton Police Department for beating Kelly Thomas to death.

Cicinelli Writ of Mandate Denied

Remember those protests a few months back about police accountability? Yeah, welcome to  Fullerton. We were bitching about these issues before it was cool.

Let us not kid ourselves here – the only way these guys were able to fund their lawsuits against the city, that we taxpayers have been paying to defend against for more than half a decade, is because they were largely (if not entirely) being funded by various police unions & police legal funds.

This is the type of justice system the police want and demand in their contracts and giveaways. This is what their bought and paid for candidates promise and deliver year in and year out. That the police unions will fight for years to reinstate a violent one-eyed sociopath who never should have been hired on in the first place should be, well, eye opening (pun intended).

Despite the caterwauling from union hacks & bureaucrats, we’ll never get the best and brightest no matter how much we spend when it takes this long to get rid of the most rotten of bad apples.

Now we get to wait and see if the unions fund an appeal to drag this nonsense out for another decade at our expense. Kelly Thomas was unavailable for comment as of this writing.

Only a clearly biased person could consider this a brutal and inhumane act. It is appalling the level of prejudice Cicinelli suffered.

11 thoughts on “Unions Lose Bid to Reinstate Bad Apples

  1. Facts is Facts

    But let’s never forget that these goons were offered up as a minimal sacrifice to avoid a real investigation into what happened and how pervasive the Culture of Corruption in the FPD has ALWAYS been.

    Reply
  2. John R Hogerhuis

    “they were largely (if not entirely) being funded by various police unions & police legal funds”

    Leading to the obvious conclusion, what a wonderful world it would be if police or any other union members had no legal defense or protections whatsoever!

    What happened to Kelly Thomas was a crime, but getting rid of unions and legal defense funds is ludicrous.

    The criminal justice system has to function and punish even if everyone has someone capable defending them.

    Reply
        1. John R. Hoogerbooger

          I like boots. We like women’s shoes. We/I are so fucked up we can barely reply to Dr, Schwartzman when he asks who I am. But then we are not sure if Dr. Schwartzman is even real. Goddamn I’m a mess.

          Reply
  3. Anonymous

    Don’t forget to mention the architect of this misfit so called police department full of criminals
    Pat McKinley

    Reply
  4. Louis G.

    The idea of getting rid of public employee unions is not absurd. It is necessary for our democracy to survive. The public employees union objectives have no practical opposition. They have installed their Mandarins in Sacramento in order to do their bidding at the expense of all others and have the power to hire and fire their bosses. They want everything they can get and, with the protections they now have, they won’t stop until they have total control and the plebes are left with crumbs and bound us to inextricable debt.

    Reply
    1. John R Hogerhuis

      “The idea of getting rid of public employee unions is not absurd. It is necessary for our democracy to survive.”

      Then I guess you might as well throw in the towel on America because the 1st amendment isn’t going away.

      The simple thing to understand about unions in general: they can only negotiate what management or the owners are willing and able to give.

      There is no magical ability for any union to force what it wants. You can withhold your labor. You can band together with others to withhold your labor. But you cannot take what is not given.

      Can that cause disruption for periods of time? Sure. But unless you want to live in an authoritarian state, where you can tell people they cannot collectively bargain or strike, then you need to put up with those disruptions in the event that a union asks for more than is available.

      But the bottom line here is that the authors of this article aren’t simply making an anti-union case, which is anti-freedom, anti-first-amendment and therefore anti-American in and of itself. They’re making the case that the only way to reign in police human rights abuses against civilians is if the police do not have adequate representation in court.

      Reply
        1. John R Hogerhuis

          Oh, I can read. I quote:

          “Let us not kid ourselves here – the only way these guys were able to fund their lawsuits against the city, that we taxpayers have been paying to defend against for more than half a decade, is because they were largely (if not entirely) being funded by various police unions & police legal funds.”

          So is that just a throw away statement? Is the writer just bitching for no purpose? Or arguing against unions because they defend their members in court, simply the plain meaning of the statement?

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.