INSIDE THE CASES AROUND 3 FIRED COPS
Hub lays out 60 pages of allegations, most sustained
The city spent 60 pages laying out the case against the three officers it announced it had fired, according to documents, including 38 on anti-vaccinemandate leader Shana Cottone.
In the end, the Boston Police Department sustained two of three allegations against Officer Joe Abasciano, one of two against Officer Michael Geary and 21 of 24 against Cottone, then a police sergeant. All three were fired, with Geary getting the ax following his October hearing and Cottone and Abasciano this past Monday.
In short, Boston Police chief administrative hearing officer Deputy Superintendent Richard Dahill sustained complaints against Cottone over allegations related to actions she took as she opposed the city’s vaccine mandate, and Abasciano and Geary over tweets they made related to when supporters of former President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Both Cottone and Abasciano plan to challenge the rulings, and say these are cases of political retribution, while Geary couldn’t be reached for comment. Cottone denies that many of the allegations the city laid out happened as they did. Abasciano says he wrote the posts in question, but that firing him for them is an inappropriate response.
Cottone and Abasciano, who were both involved with the Boston First Responders United group that sprung up December
2021 to object to Mayor Michelle Wu’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates, were fired within a few hours of each other on Monday, a fact that the BFRU blasted in a statement then, saying, “The cases against both officers are both politically motivated and retaliation for speaking out in support of personal choice and freedom of speech.”
Cottone allegations Cottone’s section is the combination of six internal-affairs cases comprising 24 counts against the most vocal and visible critic of the vaccine mandates.
They involve allegations that Cottone, who was working as the duty supervisor in the district that encompassed Wu’s house, “failed to assign” officers
to Wu’s security detail at her home on the day the mandates were announced, though higher-ups noticed and had the roles filled.
Other sets of allegations involve her disobeying an order not to record the mayor as she spoke at a roll call, in a different precinct while Cottone was on duty, about the mandate. Cottone said she “zoned out” when the captain said that, which Dahill didn’t take as an appropriate excuse.
Other allegations involve two sets of interactions with other police offers at two different pizza parlors in Boston as she protested the city’s COVID rules while on leave. Dahill wrote that she was “flagrantly discourteous, confrontational, and insulting toward both the
restaurant manager and the restaurant worker” and that this “reflected very unfavorably” on the department.
Cottone said many of the comments the department ultimately took issue with were “gallows humor,” and that this, writ large, was a fait accompli from the moment she incurred the ire of the mayor.
“If I was outside the mayor’s house with a sign that said ‘Get the vaccine and Michelle Wu is the best,’ I wouldn’t be here right now,” she told the Herald this week.
She said that her firing should bother people no matter their political stripes.
“If you’re on a different political spectrum than people, they will cheer your
demise,” she said she’s realized. “But it’s scary. People should be worried.”
Abasciano allegations The Abasciano case played out more in the public eye, as he was one of the police officers who headed down to the Trump rally on Jan. 6 that preceded the riot. Both Abasciano and the city agree he never entered the Capitol.
The only charge actually related to him going to D.C. then was misuse of family medical leave, and Dahill dismissed it, saying people are allowed to travel or do other personal activities while they’re out on legitimate leave.
The two charges that were sustained are both related to tweets Abasciano sent, including, “Today
there will be only two parties in America, traitor and patriot.”
“I find the posts, taken at face value, indicate that Officer Abasciano is unable to impartially and without bias perform his duties as a sworn member of the Department,” Dahill wrote.
Dahill added, “Officer Abasciano noted that the political discourse today has been increasingly extreme and that Twitter is a cesspool. While I agree with that sentiment, I find it does not have any bearing on the case at hand.”
Abasciano told the Herald his tweets from a pseudonymous account were a “lament” rather than a threat, and should have been protected by the First Amendment. He disagreed with Dahill’s characterization, saying, “It wasn’t hard for me to put my personal, political persuasions behind me” on the job.
The determination found the tweets broke “Canon Eight” of the ethics rules, which states “Employees shall conduct their private affairs so as not to reflect unfavorably on the Boston Police Department; or in such a manner as to affect their ability to perform their duties honestly, effectively, fairly, and without impairment.”
Geary allegations Geary’s determination largely centers around how he commented “rats get bats” on an FBI post seeking information about the Jan. 6 riot. He explained this to internal affairs as “I was taking a satirical jab at the FBI. I wanted to make fun of them a little bit.”
Dahill wasn’t amused, calling the comment “a warning of potential violence against people who assist the FBI in their investigation. I find that the comment has a chilling effect on cooperation between the community and law enforcement.”
Dahill sustained a charge of “conduct unbecoming” against Geary, while not sustaining a charge of “neglect of duty/unreasonable judgment” against him.