Hard as it is to believe, it appears that the insanitary and possibly toxic area used to hold demonstrators during the Republican convention was not a city facility, but a property provided by the RNC.
Although there are potentially some complex legal questions lurking around the terms by which RNC might have made the space available to the cops, in several imaginable scenarios — but not all! — the RNC might be liable for any damages caused by toxic exposure. Alternately, or even jointly and severally, the city might be extra liable if it used a facility that it knew or should have known was unsuitable.
I suspect that some plaintiffs' lawyers are going to have a (justified) field day with all this.
For what damages? 3 days of time and the resulting pain and suffering? And under NY Penal Law art. 35, justification is an acceptable defense…to me the scariest part of this episode is that some attorneys clearly decided the penalties would be slim to none prior to these actions being taken…
I wouldn’t accept the allegation that the RNC provided the Pier 57 holding facility just based on the linked article. If it is true, credible media sources will be more than glad to report it and it’s easy for them to check out. There is plenty wrong with what we know for sure about the way these detentions were handled without having to throw out wild allegations like this.
Christopher Chopin; I don’t think the length of time is really material. Is kidnapping OK if it’s only for three days? And as far as justification being acceptable defense, I think the city weakened their position greatly there when they failed to charge people.
Wow. I’m just flabbergasted.
You better believe if I represented one of the people unjustly detained, I’d be filing suit against the RNC for false imprisonment.
The cops clearly did the imprisoning; the allegation is the RNC provided a holding space for them that was unfit for human habitation and the cops chose to use it…