As many of your already know, my proclivities regarding the ACLU run a mile wide and ten yard deep, but there are always exceptions to every ‘rule’ – this is one of those times.
Over the years, the ACLU has been known for cases against anyone from citizens to cities and states – even federal, which many would see as nuance cases. Crosses out in the public squares during Christmas and other infinitesimal items which leaves many to see the abuse of our court system to forward Liberal agendas, marred in detaching any reference to God in America while letting many references to other religions continue.
These apparent abuses have damaged the reputation of the American Civil Liberties Union to many, thus, every time a suit is filed with their involvement, it is assume to be another silly court posturing to dismantle our Constitution more than uphold it. However, it would seem there are some cases that are worth credence and judicial review. One being the two cases going on in Maryland, filed on June 29, 2017.
The two cases are regarding settlement in police brutality and excessive force cases, which in many regards, the details have been shielded by the municipalities for which they occurred. The ACLU teamed up with a Baltimore based news organization The Real News Network, to sue Baltimore and Salisbury, Maryland for failing to disclose information as per the Maryland Information Act; under the guise of a gag order placed by settlement decision – paid out by the Local Government Insurance Trust fund which pays the settlements.
These two battles stem from the lack of transparency under cover of confidentiality, which TRNN and ACLU claim keeps cases involving police brutality and use of excessive force from the public. They claim this is a disservice to the public the police departments serve and should not be shielded at all.
Given the Black Lives Matter climate created from situations badly askewed against the police, this is a hotbed issue now as it pertains to the police and their treatment of people within their community. Many distrust the police in general but these types of shadow actions doesn’t proffer any reason for citizens to not believe the BLM rubbish designed more for race baiting than any meaningful change in Law Enforcement – Community relations. In fact, these clandestined actions only pour more fuel on the flames of dissent.
Should local city governments be allowed to shield the public from their officers’ wrongdoing or repercussions should excessive forces be found to be true? The argument for communities to have this information is logical by all accounts because those officers should be held accountable both in a court of law and in public opinion. Therefore, this ACLU case does have practical merit and is legitimately seeking recourse and disclosure of such.
We’ll be following this case closely to see how things get sorted out, but in the meantime this is a shout out to the ACLU for finally taking a case everyone can believe in. Cheers to them!