Group doesn't want to pay legal fees for ex-officer

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Group doesn't want to pay legal fees for ex-officer

Updated 1:59 pm, Saturday, July 16, 2016

CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) — A police advocacy group says it doesn't want to pay the legal fees of a former North Charleston officer charged with murder in the shooting death of a black motorist more than a year ago.

Michael Slager, who is white, paid monthly dues to the group Southern States Police Benevolent Association and hired an attorney through them after the shooting death of Walter Scott.

But Charleston lawyer David Aylor dropped Slager three days later when video showed Slager firing as Scott tried to run away from a traffic stop in April 2015. The cellphone video was circulated widely on the internet.

Slager sued the group, saying it violated an insurance contract promising unlimited legal aid if he were involved in a shooting.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Group-says-it-doesn-t-want-to-pay-officer-s-legal-8382015.php

[CincyDem]

1. Unfortunately, he's probably right.

The contract implication ("we'll take care of you no matter what&quot is pretty consistent with the position that PBAs have always taking - no matter what happened, no matter what the video shows, no matter what the witnesses say - we're always on the cop's side.

Fortunately, I hope, the video evidence is starting to show just how far some of these guys have gone (and likely been going for decades if not longer).

In a fit of insane logic, I'm hoping this cop actually does get legal representation from his contract so it will cause these PBA asshats to start thinking about what kind of behavior they're really protecting with their knee-jerk (and contractual) support of "anything goes" policing.

[gopiscrap]

5. I agree with you

[Midnight Writer]

2. He pays his dues, he gets his service. It's in the contract.

I don't think anyone is going to get this murderer off the hook on this case, but he has paid for legal representation and he should now get proper legal representation.

If the advocacy group does not want to be obligated in a case of this kind, THEN THEY SHOULD NOT BE SELLING THE INSURANCE!

The money has been paid, the service is due.

[Sherman A1]

6. Agreed

while I appreciate that they may not want to do this, if it's in the contract the deal is already been made.

Now, looking to the future, perhaps those contracts need to be reviewed.

[Dustlawyer]

9. I have done this type of work in Texas. The contract requires the cop/client to cooperate

in his own defense and not lie to his attorneys. If the insurance association is asking for Summary Judgement then they have a contractual "out" that has to be clear and clearly violated. You cannot lie about what you did or didn't do.

[Statistical]

10. Ageed.

In the future they should write their contracts to have limits if they want there to be limits. Maybe these type of organizations need to wake up to the fact that there are some evil cops, not just bad cops but downright evil cops. If you right a "anything goes policy" well you are protecting them as well.

[StrictlyRockers]

3. Fuck him.

Have him use a Public Pretender.

He shot an unarmed black man in the back as he was running away. He didn't try to disable him or use any kind of non-lethal force. He shot him enough times that there was no chance he would live and then planted a gun and rendered no aid to the man.

Fuck him. I understand why the organization does not want to defend him despite their contract. I would do the same. I'd drop him as a client so fast! I would say go ahead and sue me. Best of luck with that. Hope we don't have to pay a fine or something.

But no way in hell are we standing beside you on this one.

Did I already say fuck this guy?

[cstanleytech]

7. As others have explained if he had a contract with the group

then they have to honor it unless of course there is a clause in said contract that doesnt obligate them to provide the attorney in which cause he is SOL.

[The Second Stone]

4. In California

an insurer is required to defend an act that is alleged to be intentional if it is also alleged to be negligence. That does not mean the insurer must provide indemnity (pay the damages) for an intentional act, but must if it is ruled negligent. That is for civil cases.

I'm assuming that the PBA here decided that there was no possible way that the act was not criminal in view of the video evidence.

[Hoppy]

8. This is not about damages. It is about legal representation. The puke paid for his membership. The

membership included legal representation. He is entitled to such representation. In this stage of the legal process, he is "alleged." Therefore he is entitled to the legal representation.

His problem is that the lawyer dropped the case. That in itself is unique... a lawyer with some kind of a conscience.


Another problem for the P.B.A. would be to determine the wording of the legal aid agreement that would allow them to refuse to pay representation for the next asshole (and we know there will be others).

[Scruffy1]

11. I'm sure they know they have to pay.

Sounds to me like it's more about PR, or that the money that's supposed to be there is gone.