IT ALSO DIDN’T HELP THAT HE LIED ABOUT IT
After his employment with the New York City Department of Correction was terminated, due to his “excessive use of force” and his submission of a “false report,” WS challenged that determination via a special administrative review procedure, known an “Article 78 proceeding.”
And upon the New York County Supreme Court’s transfer of the dispute to the Appellate Division, First, Department, the latter noted that video footage showed WS approaching a restrained and escorted inmate (from behind) and punching the latter in the side of the head. WS is then said to have filed a “false use of force report,” which inaccurately indicated that the inmate had broken loose and was about to attack WS.
Given that WS had violated the department’s “Use of Force Directive,” which "prohibits the use of high impact force, including [s]trikes or blows to the head" unless one "is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death," and also prohibits the use of any force as a "response to an inmate's verbal insults, threats, or swearing,” and because the outcome was supported by “substantial evidence,” the AD1 didn’t think officer’s termination was shocking to its “sense of fairness.”
Bet WS wasn’t shocked by that either.
# # #