Chit Chat: Seattle PD
Print Page | Close Window

Seattle PD

Printed From: ProfessorPaddle.com
Category: General
Forum Name: Chit Chat
Forum Discription: Non Boating Related Discussions
URL: http://www.professorpaddle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9748
Printed Date: 17 May 2025 at 8:14pm


Topic: Seattle PD
Posted By: Tobin
Subject: Seattle PD
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2010 at 2:50pm
 
 
 
 
Does anyone else think that it hadn't been a girl the person would be face down with a cop's knee in the back your neck probably bleeding.
  What pisses me off a little is the SPD is taking heat over it.


-------------
Sure?



Replies:
Posted By: NOMADIC WORLD
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2010 at 3:06pm
I agree with the cop. He had a group in real close quarters, a holstered weapon, and hands grabbing all over him, I'd be swinging to clear the space before I laid both of them on the ground and threw them in the car too. There is no room for stupid, and man or woman reaching around my gun will pay the price.

-------------
In The Business of Doing Things.


Posted By: James
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2010 at 3:35pm
Totally 100% Agree and Disagree.

First he should have knocked both of those ladies out and taken them both in.

Second he was totally wrong for wrestling that long with the lady. It shows his inability to take control of a situation. He needed to either cuff her or not... it looked like a pushing match on the playground. That officer deserves a serious talking too. Things get more out of control the longer they are allowed linger. Because of his lack of ability to assert that control by the end of the confrontation the lady had been over handled and there was a full crowd watching the wiggle match which should have been a simple slam bam arrest.


Posted By: Wiggins
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 12:58am
James is 100% right. When wristy twisty games don't work it is time to try something else. Escalate or back off until help arrives and then go for the "tactical" dogpile and make her a human pretzel.
 
As it stood he had no control and was set up for a ass whooping.
 
Up until a few months ago this was a text book case for a Taser application (before the second woman got involved). Now Tasers are on the same level of force as a baton.
 
Kyle


-------------
I smell bacon


Posted By: Courtney
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 8:48am
When I first saw this video I couldn't believe he hit her but then when I saw the entire video and put myself in the officer's shoes, now I think he was totally justified.  I would have felt very vunerable with two people grabbing at me and would have wondered if any of the bystanders would have jumped in too.  He really needed some back up.


Posted By: STLboater
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 9:17am
On a funny note, the girl being pushed around sure knew how to run her mouth.  I believe at one point she said something about "you weak ass mother f******" that was pretty funny.... And it is true, that officer had no control.

-------------
Kayak Academy Whitewater Instructor


Posted By: Sisu
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 10:25am
Interesting comments, and not what I expected from paddlers, when the underlying crime is the horrific act of JAYWALKING.    My thought when I watched this was that given the location and the crowd and the fact that he was alone, why does the officer feel compelled to issue a citation for jaywalking to these folks?  Seems to me that he exercised very poor judgment.   Of course people are going to tell him to pound sand when he orders them to identify themselves so he can issue a citation -- depending on the circumstances, and if I thought the officer was being a jackass,  I might do the same thing.  I wouldn't resist like these young women did, but when I was 17 I might have.  Any maybe I am sexist, but I have a problem with punching 17 year old girls in the face.  I could see some exceptions to that rule, particularly in police work, but in my opinion this wasn't one of them.  The officer put himself (and by implication SPD) in a bad situation, got scared, and made a mistake.  How about maybe a stern warning to those evil jaywalkers next time, and save the butt whuppin for the crack dealers?
ps
Usually I agree with Wiggins' analysis, but a taser? Really?


Posted By: STLboater
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 10:33am
I didn't know the background of the story was jaywalking.  That sounds a little bit crazy, but judging how the girl was acting in the video, she probably did something to deserve being put down. 

I think the cop is lucky that he didn't get jumped when he punched that girl.  Or maybe everyone else in the crowd knew better than to get involved.


-------------
Kayak Academy Whitewater Instructor


Posted By: James
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 11:01am
I think what were missing here is the story behind it, the article said the girl had a previous criminal history, so you never know what history this officer or shift had with her. What I disagree with is that the girl physically was grabbing at the officer before he punched her. That is fair game as far as I am concerned. He probably though she was grabbing his gun. Now it is his fault it ever got that far but still, nothing gives a citizen the right to grab a police officer in mid arrest.

Crap when I was getting my ass fined for towing the guy out of the ditch they threatened dave with interfering in an investigation just for walking up to the group of police going off on me.

When I was 17 I got arrested and while I was already cuffed laying on the ground face down I got several knees and kicks to the ribs because I was mouthing off. When my dad found out about the event and the officers that kicked me he told me that's what you get for disrespecting authority, even though I was not the one at fault.

I just to add some flame to this conversation have you driven on rainier down there, cause I have and very often youth will walk out in the road to cross and literally stop in the road yell at cars and basically strut their feathers making sure motorists know they can't do anything and that I in my teenage rage own this hood... I don't know what happened but I can tell you right now that chicks attitude was right there.

Nice post tobin this is fun!


Posted By: Erik
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 11:24am
Originally posted by James


just to add some flame to this conversation have you driven on rainier down there, cause I have and very often youth will walk out in the road to cross and literally stop in the road yell at cars and basically strut their feathers making sure motorists know they can't do anything and that I in my teenage rage own this hood... I don't know what happened but I can tell you right now that chicks attitude was right there.
Damn straight James.  I lived about a mile from where this incident occured for 6 years, and saw this jay-walking attitude almost every day.  It would piss me off, but I always gave them the benifit of the doubt, and thought that their need to control "their" streets was all they had.  People are quick to say "all this over jay-walking?".  Let me tell you, it's a chronic problem in that zone.  And I'm always one to err on the side of slight lawlessness.
 
Tough place for that cop to be at that moment, and I'm sure his life feels slightly different today...you know, with the media (including National) spinning it their way.
 
Once again, makes me glad I left that zone.


-------------


Posted By: Ellingferd
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 11:47am
The fact that it was jaywalking has nothing to do with it. If they had just stood there and gotten the ticket, nothing else would have happened. However they did not. Instead they chose to argue and begin touching the police officer in an aggressive way. That is considered assault, and that is what the officer responded to. Its not like he saw them crossing the street illegally and immediately punched her in the face. He was responding to assault, not jaywalking. Move past the jaywalking. No one cares about the jaywalking. Following that logic, if I get pulled over for texting while driving, I should be able to belligerently address and then assault the officer who pulled me over, and not be held accountable for it because he pulled me over for texting. Doesn't make any sense.

Bottom line is the women werent behaving appropriately, and the officers action was questionable, but nothing beyond that. Perhaps he could have done something else, but I think he showed great restraint given the possibility of the situation. The guy was totally alone, clearly nervous and unsure of what to do, and was surrounded by a hostile crowd. I have seen cops do much, much worse with less provocation and never be questioned about it.


Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 12:26pm

I'm surprised someone here thinks paddlers would always support people attacking police because the offense was small.   Jaywalking... speeding... failure to use turn signal.... doesn't matter.

The crime she got punched for was ASSAULT.  You DON'T hit or push an officer.

The person jaywalking doesn't get to choose what LAWS are enforced.

Cops get shot pulling people for having tail lights out, this was going bad quick.

James is also right.  The cop probably could have avoided it all by either backing off or being really assertive and cuffing her sooner.  I would be scared in that situation... he was WAY outnumbered and being ganged up on.

Police are not bullet proof, and if you watch at 1:32 it sure looks like one of the bystanders may have even been holding a gun.
http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=91 - http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=91


-------------
H2O please


Posted By: Sisu
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 12:36pm
[QUOTE=Ellingferd]The fact that it was jaywalking has nothing to do with it. If they had just stood there and gotten the ticket, nothing else would have happened. However they did not. Instead they chose to argue and begin touching the police officer in an aggressive way.
 
 
I'm not sure what to make of that. Jaywalking is a citation offense and the officer has pretty much full discretion as to how he handles it, so that would seem to have everything to do with it.  I respect police officers, but that doesn't mean that I feel I am somehow required to refrain from disagreeing or even arguing with an officer without the risk of arrest or a beating or both.  From what I can see, and what I have read, the officer initiated contact with the first woman, and her friend attempted to intervene.  If these are a couple of white girls in a wealthy neighborhood (also known to mouth off and disrespect authority on occasion) do they get the same treatment?
Or imagine a situation where your son or daughter or girlfriend gets stopped for jaywalking by a perhaps overly zealous officer and starts getting manhandled for allegedly being "disrespectful" and you are right there.  I'm sorry, but I am not going to stand there with my thumb up my ass respecting police authority if the officer is overreacting, which they sometimes do.  I am old enough to know better than to touch a cop, but I hope I would not be too afraid to at least try to hang in there despite the officer using his "command voice" to order me to step away, even if if meant taking a punch.
Police are public servants who we pay with our tax dollars to enforce the law equally for everyone. What is that slogan "To Serve and Protect" right?   Exercising good judgment is an essential function of their job. We should respect them, but they need to treat all of us with respect as well. 


Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 12:39pm



-------------
H2O please


Posted By: James
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 12:57pm
There were white kids in that crowd. I don't think color has anything to do with it, and I think it is crazy that it is the first thing that everyone jumps on. If they were white kids... well guess what when white kids get the same treatment and they do, no one jumps on the well if they were richer white kids, or if they were blonde haired. I don't see this as much about color as much as location. I hate to say it but we all get to choose how to act and where to act/hang. If you want to thug around rainier or even hilltop, don't cry color when the police kick your ass. Because you can't stop someone in those neighborhoods and offer pleasantries while your sifting through a rap sheet and watching a crowd form around you. 


Posted By: Ellingferd
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 1:10pm
Again, as I said, the officer's actions were questionable, but understandable. Unfortunately there is no yay or nay for what he did. However, it is not acceptable under ANY circumstance to touch a police officer. The girls acted wrongly.

I am also not sure how he was being overzealous. Granted there is no context before the point the video is being taken, or the remainder of the incident so it isn't possible to be entirely sure what happened. However, it would seem he was attempting to arrest the girl in black, she resists and the girl in pink comes over and begins assaulting the officer. That assault is the action that warranted the response. Not jaywalking. Why he was trying to arrest the girl wearing black, I can only speculate, but I am sure it has something to do with resisting.

If I had a daughter and this happened to her, I would be angry, but my first question would be: "Why in the hell were you touching a police officer?"

In terms of respect, I would say he was far too respectful to the two girls. I have seen, in person, a man get full on tackled by two police officers because he just happened to look like someone they were looking for. The actual suspect had done something in the bar I was outside of, but this was the wrong guy. Once tackled, the guy's face was ground into the cement with a nightstick behind his neck. I could see blood begin to seep onto the concrete from some cuts on his face. The guy did nothing, did not resist, etc. THAT is police brutality plain and simple. No provocation, no threat. Just some dude standing in the wrong place looking similar to the wrong person. Dont get me wrong, I am not the biggest fan of the police, but I am also not the biggest fan of people acting stupid, which is what the girls did.

On the subject of race, it is pointless to bring it into this argument because it is only speculation. How do you know for sure two white girls wouldnt get the same treatment? If I were to speculate, I would imagine nothing violent would have happened if the girls in the video had only mouthed off to the officer. You are allowed to disagree with an officer verbally, but as soon as you get physical you have officially broken the law. Thats what the girls did, so they get whatever physical reaction the officer deems appropriate which, in this case, was on the lighter side of what I have experienced.


Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 1:20pm
Amen, I rented a garage and ran a shop one block off of Rainier (Chicago Street) for years.

I know the neighborhood VERY well, and the little girl that got shot in the drive-by was in the house across the street.  (it was actually a walk-by as my buddy witnessed the guy leaving)

That is a tough neighborhood, anybody that thinks they would not be worried as a cop there should walk from my shop along Rainier after 11pm sometime...  Actually don't do it, I'd rather hand paddle Robe in my playboat than take my chances there.

Race had nothing to do with this incident, the violence inherent in the area may have.


-------------
H2O please


Posted By: Erik
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 2:07pm
Originally posted by Travisimo

Amen, I rented a garage and ran a shop one block off of Rainier (Chicago Street) for years.

I know the neighborhood VERY well, and the little girl that got shot in the drive-by was in the house across the street.  (it was actually a walk-by as my buddy witnessed the guy leaving)

That is a tough neighborhood, anybody that thinks they would not be worried as a cop there should walk from my shop along Rainier after 11pm sometime...  Actually don't do it, I'd rather hand paddle Robe in my playboat than take my chances there.

Race had nothing to do with this incident, the violence inherent in the area may have.
Spoken like someone who knows that zone.  There were two different times I could not get to my house after work because there were murders on my block and they had several square blocks shut down.  However, I will say that I (personally) never had the slightest issue with anyone, and I found most residents freindly / interesting.  I do miss the diversity, but once it was time to have kids, that was it...no more. I could literally sit on my porch and watch drug deals go down all day / every day, at the corner store. Let me know if you need an address
 
 
Also, I found daylight to be just as bad, if not worse than night time.  Used to take my dog out for walks late night, and thought things were eerily quiet compared to daytime.  Once we moved to Bellingham, we almost missed the sound of sirens, which we had (apparently) become accustomed  to.
 
Seems like the real issues in that area were between thugs vs thugs (with the occasional innocent bystander), and thugs vs police.  Police tended to not handle things well, but I always thought they had a tough road to patrol.  I'm sure police in the area are quite jaded from day to day interactions.
 
This whole discussion brings back lots of memories of crazy sh*t I saw in that zone.  The cost of housing is alluring for that area...but there's a reason.


-------------


Posted By: Sisu
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 4:05pm
Originally posted by Ellingferd

You are allowed to disagree with an officer verbally, but as soon as you get physical you have officially broken the law. Thats what the girls did, so they get whatever physical reaction the officer deems appropriate .
 
I'm with you up to this underlined point, which I'm pretty sure isn't the standard.  The use of force needs to be reasonable under the circumstances.  There is a whole spectrum of possible reactions here, and a police officer has the difficult job of choosing the correct response, but that is his job.  I think you would agree (or at least I hope so) that cracking her head with a baton would have been an objectively unreasonable use of force even if the officer, in his subjective view, thought is was appropriate.  I think this punch was unreasonable and you think it was appropriate, and that is fine. We are free to disagree, and I promise I will save you again this year if you swim on the MM.
 
My hypothetical involved an officer initiating contact with your son or daughter, and not vice versa, and wondering what you would do if the officer got a bit rough and it went like this:
 
Officer:  Sir, I ordered you to step back, did you just touch my arm?
Ellingferd:  Officer, I was simply asking you to stop twisting my daughter's arm and may have inadvertently brushed your sleeve on your massive forearm.  My daughter is a bit sassy but she is sorry she jaywalked.
Officer:  Sir, you have just admitted assaulting an officer and interfering with a lawful arrest.  That entitles you to one (1) free hickory shampoo, an application of Kel-Lite conditioner, both administered by me and followed by your arrest.
Ellingferd:  Thank you officer -- I deserve it.  Please go light with the Kel-Lite conditioner..
 
 
My point is that I don't think a good police officer would have either gotten himself into this situation or resolved it in this manner.  When you have the power, it needs to be exercised judiciously, not just because what you do may be "allowed."  I will end my comments on this topic with this question:  What message did the officer's actions send to the community?
 
 


Posted By: Ellingferd
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 4:26pm
I never said it was appropriate, I said the following: Again, as I said, the officer's actions were questionable, but understandable.

I only say his reaction was understandable due to the extremely stressful situation with which he was presented. I cant say what I would have done in his situation, but in speculation I probably would have called for back up and been more forceful in the arrest. I imagine if he had threatened pepper spray or a tazer, the girls would have backed off.

However, the guy was surrounded by an angry group of bystanders, and was then pushed by someone who was not directly involved with what he was doing. That is a bit disconcerting because if one person from the crowd steps in and pushes the officer, it would only take one or two more to do the same before you have a full on brawl with the cop in the middle getting the piss kicked out of him.

As to your scenario, the girl in the video did a little more than "inadvertently brush her sleeve on the cops massive forearm", she aggressively pushed the officer.

The better point is the one you made about a good officer not letting this situation come into existence in the first place. I am not sure how experienced the guy was in the first place and I would like to think he was a rookie, but probably not since he was alone. He certainly looked nervous, and I would be too.

Apparently the police guild has ruled he did nothing wrong, so this is more or less a moot point.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/421842_cop16.html


Posted By: Wiggins
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 7:47pm
I doubt this was about jaywalking by the time the officer went hands on. Let's start with the girl the officer was trying to arrest. If a cop tells you to stop you are being detained (this is the initial phase of any traffic stop or other on viewed civil offense contact like jaywalking). Try to walk away and it is resisting arrest. If you refuse to identify yourself and provide contact information when you are stopped for a investigative purpose it is Fail to Obey or Obstructing (criminal arrest territory). Give false information and it is Making False or Misleading Statements (criminal) unless the information comes back to an actual person in which case it it felony ID Theft. The tape starts when the girl is resisting arrest her actions have already elevated this to the level of a criminal investigation.
 
The girl who was hit was actually being restrained from getting involved in the fray by members of the crowd both before and after she was punched. A case could be made on those grounds alone for Disorderly Conduct (criminal). Once she interfered with the officer trying to arrest the girl it was Obstructing a Public Servant  and Rendering Criminal Assistance for <insert offense or offenses from above here> (both criminal). Once she made physical contactby pushing the officer she has now committed Assault in the 3rd degree (felony level assault). Personally I would have not have charged Assault 3rd, but technically it fits.
 
Bottom line was this stopped being about jaywalking before the officer used force against the girl who was hit in the face.
 
Look at the video. His only effective target at the time was the face. At that time he was not in a position to safely apply lesser forms of force like OC spray or joint control tactics, but was in a position where he had to respond immediately to her actions. She just pushed him and was coming back at him once again while he was already struggling with another person.
 
As far as other options before things went totally sideways go they are pretty limited. The best option would be if he was familiar with the subjects he could have cited them by mail and avoided needing to restrain them. If he didn't know them and let them go without trying to detain them then he would potentially face disciplinary action for failure to respond. Backing off to wait for backup would be ideal, but it isn't always available and then you have to deal with a situation on your own. If it is beyond your ability to control the situation then it is time to back off. I don't think anyone would argue that he had control of the situation. If backup was around the corner then it is not unreasonable he would try to hang on to her until back up arrived. This may have been the case based on his order to the girl he hit directing her to not leave.
 
Based on what I have seen and read, I would say the use of force is justified, but the officer's lack of control of the situation (mainly because it appeared he was trying to avoid using more force) led to incident deteriorating. If he had used more force on the girl he was trying to arrest once she started resisting and his control tactics failed, such as OC spray or taking her to the ground to handcuff her, it is unlikely the situation would have gotten so out of hand, and he probably would not have had to hit the other girl.
 
Sisu, in your scenario above if the officer told you to step back and failed to do so while he was trying to affect an arrest then you are now subject to arrest for obstruction. If you were close enough to actually touch the officer, accidently or not, then you are way too close for the officer's safety. Having been in that situation a number of times I typically get the subject I am trying to arrest into custody and in my car as quickly as possible, then detain the parent in handcuffs so I can safely search the child for weapons and then put them back in the car. After I am done dealing with the kid I usually take the bracelets off the parent and we have a talk about why they needed to back off. Afterwards I typically I let the parent go with a warning. This tends to happen with adults as it is rare we can actually take kids into custody and away from their parents. There is the catch though. If I feel your touch was the start of an attack all bets are off. At the end of the day going home at the end of my shift is my only priority. It will happen one way or another. By ignoring my commands and then putting yourself in a position to make physical contact with me you have greatly increased the likelihood of having force be used on you.
 
As far as the question of whether wealthy white girls in nice neighborhoods would be treated this way I can only speak as to what I have seen in my own jurisdiction (which has 8 different agencies working in it as regualar law enforcement) and I can remember a lot of times where stuck up rich kids found out the hard way the mommy and daddy's wealth or position didn't buy them a free pass or special treatment. I have never seen anyone get out of trouble because they are rich, had connections, were white, or where they live (at least not until the jury gets involved).
 
Finally; Tasers have received a bad rap in the public eye. The reality is that they are a lot less force than OC spray or a wrestling match. Take a hit with a Taser and you are fully recovered immediately after the hit. The person just falls down and has two small, shallow puncture wounds. The OC spray will burn for hours, can scratch the cornia of your eyes, and makes breathing difficult. If you wrestle with someone you are likely going to fall down and get scraped up. The possibility is there for broken bones and dislocations.
 
After the Taser was adopted widely there was a decrease in suspect injuries and deaths suffered during and post arrest. I won't argue that there are cops who were too quick to use the Taser, but it was a great low impact tool for just this type of situation.
 
Kyle


-------------
I smell bacon


Posted By: SupaSta
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2010 at 11:24pm
According to the Seattle Times story, the first girl got the cop's attention by ignoring his request to come talk to him after being caught jaywalking.  It escalated from there.  She tried to walk away, he went and got her.  Then she tried to squirm away again, and he tried harder to keep her under control, and it just got more and more out of control.  These two girls just thought they were too cool to listen to the police.  They probably don't feel so cool now.
 
IMO, it doesn't really matter what happened before he got shoved by a bystander, his reaction to being shoved while making an arrest should be nothing short of getting the second person out of the picture.  He punched her in the face and she became a non-issue - good work mr. police officer!  Maybe he should have kept it from getting to that point, but that's moot.
 
I think the Chris Rock video is perfect.  Respect the police, don't be an idiot, and you won't get your ass kicked.  If you really, really think the police officer is wrong, then take it to court.  But again, that means you will have to be a calm, rational person and make your case without screaming and shoving anybody.
 
Just my $0.02
 
Dan


-------------
Life is short, paddle hard!


Posted By: Sisu
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2010 at 9:51am
Originally posted by Wiggins

I doubt this was about jaywalking by the time the officer went hands on.
 
I know I said I wasn't going to comment any more on this issue, but I feel compelled to address Kyle, who shared a lot of good insights from the perspective of, by all accounts, an excellent police officer.  The statement about this not being about jaywalking anymore is my point. Many of the posts here have made the point that this is a rough area which is true.  Most of the residents though, are good law abiding people, who probably wish there was a larger police presence in their neighborhood so they would be safer.  What the residents see, though, is drug dealing and gang intimidation and violence being perhaps a lower priority for the police than in other neighborhoods where it simply would not be tolerated.  If you live in that neighborhood in those circumstances, and an officer decides to come in and make some kind of a point by detaining people for jaywalking of all things, it seems like a bad joke.  The reaction of the guy filming this incident saying "you've got to be kidding me" over and over again sums it up pretty well.  It is a reaction not only to a police officer punching a 17 year old girl in the face, but also to the whole incident, precipated by the officer's need to assert his authority based on perhaps the most mundane violation of law that exists.
I think the race card is often used inappropriately and I am the first to say so when I think it is.  My reaction to viewing this video is that race was a factor here, but I am not inside the officer's head and I could be completely off base, as most posts here suggest.  In my first comment on this issue I expressed some suprise that a paddler's forum would be so supportive of the officer's actions  (or in my opinion, violent overreactions) in this incident, and was called to task for suggesting that paddlers would support people who assault police.  That wasn't what I meant, of course, but on further review, I can see that I had no basis to imply my own views to the folks in this forum.  I confess that in my life, which I have tried to live in a reasonably  law abiding fashion, I have , poached a "closed" creek or two, run a "closed" waterfall, surfed a wave on a "closed" flood stage river, occasionaly  ducked ropes at ski areas to ski out of bounds, rock climbed where I wasn't supposed to, trespassed on "closed" state land, drank beer in public places, failed to come to a full and complete stop at a stop sign when no one was around, and yes, even jaywalked. My off the cuff thought was that most paddlers would think that enforcing the jaywalking ordinance is a pretty low police priority and should never result in  an escalation to the use of force, but I was improperly stereotyping (just as I suggested the officer was doing) and I stand corrected.
Finally, here is a link to today's paper with a story on the issue.  At the end of the article, former Judge Michael Spearman notes:
 
"Certainly, when an officer observes a jaywalking or other minor infraction, there is some obligation to make an effort to either cite the offender or in some way encourage compliance with the law,"  "However, whether the use of force in this situation is a best practice is questionable."
 
 
Local News | Auditors have cited concerns with Seattle police jaywalking stops | Seattle Times Newspaper

  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012136804_coppunch17m.html - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012136804_coppunch17m.html

 



Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2010 at 11:37am
[/QUOTE]
  My reaction to viewing this video is that race was a factor here, but I am not inside the officer's head and I could be completely off base, as most posts here suggest. 

 [/QUOTE]


Wow I'm shocked again.  HOW???


The only person I heard calling anybody "ni*ga" was the person assaulting an officer of the law and trying to escape.  Listen to her language again, they cannot play it on normal media and then show me ANY action or word by the officer that shows he was considering race.


I am shocked SHOCKED and actually angered by people who think that just because a white cop arrests a black person it is because they are black that they are arrested.  It's because she was breaking SEVERAL laws.


I would expect worse to happen to me if I acted the same way.



-------------
H2O please


Posted By: Sisu
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2010 at 4:26pm

The fact someone happens to be a police officer and has the badge of authority and carries a weapon does not mean that he or she is right.  I do not condone these women's actions, but on the other hand, if the officer was being an ass, I have to admire their willingness to stand up him without fear.  Sounds like the consensus here is that regardless of whether the law, or enforcement of the law, is right or wrong, we are required to submit to it.  If we don't, we get arrested and/or a beating, and apparently we are afraid of that.  Those women weren't afraid just because it was a cop.  All they did was cross the street where they apparently weren't supposed to, and didn't believe that it warranted being detained by the police.  Everything that follows flows from that single offense. From what I have read, the women disrespect the officer by ignoring his order to identify themselves and take their citations, so he grabs one of them and it goes from there.  Me, I probably back down and take the citation like a good little boy because I make the calculation that it isn't worth it to me to stand up for myself on principle.  But I'm not sure that is the right thing to do.  I think we should never be afraid to question authority, or even to resist it, if we believe it is being incorrectly administered.

 

We cannot, by total reliance on law, escape the duty to judge right and wrong.... There are good laws and there are occasionally bad laws, and it conforms to the highest traditions of a free society to offer resistance to bad laws, and to disobey them.  ~Alexander Bickel



Posted By: huckin harms
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2010 at 4:43pm
well said sisu

-------------


Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2010 at 5:33pm
so sisu is implying that jaywalking is a bad law, and proposing civil disobedience to the point of pushing an officer?  You can put any cute quote you want at the end of a post, it doesn't change facts.

Don't get caught up in "what ifs"

This is not a what if case.  If you shove a police officer you deserve to get punched.  Civil disobedience never includes needing to be held back by your boyfriend so you don't assault a police officer.

No matter how much you don't like what an officer does, there is a time and place to take that beef up.  In this case that place would be a court of law.

I am again surprised that sisu is getting a warm response from anybody.  She broke a law.  If you guys are against jaywalking LAW you should take that up.

Don't push cops, in fact don't go pushing anybody doing their jobs.


-------------
H2O please


Posted By: Ellingferd
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2010 at 6:07pm
Seriously, when is pushing anyone you dont know okay? Imagine this, the girl pushes the cop and instead of punching her he says: "hey, please dont do that". I imagine the girl isnt going to say: "oh, im so sorry officer". No. She is going to keep pushing until she gets what she wants. So, he punches her and she is out of the scenario instantaneously.

Personally I am not a big fan of cops. Never have been. I have had my fair share of run ins with the law as a teen and in college and none of them were positive. Cops dont like punk skateboarders. However, I would have never even considered pushing a cop, despite how ridiculous and asinine the cop was being. It doesnt matter what the cop is doing, you dont push them. If you think they are acting beyond their rights, you take that up later, not in the moment. We have lawyers and due process for a reason. Advocating standing up to police officers, and being physical with them is simply absurd and will only result in you getting your ass beat and everyone else wondering why you would be dumb enough to pick a fight with a cop.


Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2010 at 6:18pm
I agree 100%

I too have been harassed by police to the point that I really considered sueing the Kirkland PD for harassment.  It was truly bad, I was often a target for police harassment.  I too NEVER considered pushing one.  Even when they were being downright rude and nasty to me I always responded with "yes sir" and "no sir."

I guess I was intelligent enough to realize not to fight that kind of authority with a physical shoving match.  The people in this instance were not.


-------------
H2O please


Posted By: SupaSta
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2010 at 8:06pm
Look at it this way.  A cop's reaction to being physically assaulted is much the same as the reaction of a sleeping bear being poked with a stick.  He's going to take a bite out of your ass.  It doesn't matter if the bear was sleeping in the wrong place, at the wrong time of day, or if he was holding your blankie.  You don't poke a sleeping bear with a stick.
 
It really has nothing to do with black vs white or jaywalking, gang banging, or drug dealing, it has to do with Darwinism and some people not understanding that real life has consequences.
 
dan


-------------
Life is short, paddle hard!


Posted By: Sisu
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2010 at 9:40am
[QUOTE=Travisimo]so sisu is implying that jaywalking is a bad law, and proposing civil disobedience to the point of pushing an officer?  You can put any cute quote you want at the end of a post, it doesn't change facts.

Not exactly.  What I am trying to say that if a law is vague, and is being selectively or even discriminatorily enforced, I don't think I have somehow waived my rights to object because a police officer is doing the enforcing and he has the power to kick my ass and/or arrest me.  In a perfect world, we make our points in a mutually respectful way and the matter is resolved in court.  In reality, sometimes things break down, and police officers have on occasion been known to lose their tempers and abuse their authority.  However, the job requires them to be better than that, and the good officers are, I think, the ones who are willing to save people from their own stupidity sometimes. 
 I understand that we disagree on whether the police officer acted appropriately in this situation, and I respect the fact that you and many others think he did.  What I take issue with is the apparent view you and others express on the bigger picture, i.e. that there are no circumstances that justify civil disobediance or pushing an officer back.  Have you seen the video of that (innocent) guy getting the "mexican piss" kicked out of him by 3 -4 officers a few weeks ago near Lake Union?  What if you are his friend and you are there and you know he had nothing to do with the alleged crime?  I hope that if I am his friend,  I am going to make them kick me too.
Just as I don't know what was in the officer's head when he punched that girl, none of you do either.  Please be willing to question authority and if you think it is wrong, be brave enough to challenge it even it the authority in question is in the form of a police officer.
 
By the way Alexander Bickel was a Supreme Court clerk to Justice Felix Frankfurter, a Yale law professor, and one of the most prominent Constitutional law scholars of his time.  He is probably spinning in his grave at this quote being labeled "cute."
 
Over and out.


Posted By: Wiggins
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2010 at 1:57pm
The funny thing about this whole thread is that when you look at the bigger picture and remove the context of this one incident I doubt there are many of us here that disagree with Sisu.
 
Civil disobedience has deep roots in this country, but civil disobedience is a considered action. I think that is probably where the train goes off the rails for a lot of people when they hear about this case. People who are acting in protest of something have a point to make by breaking a particular law or rule. From the students that walk out of class to protest immigration laws, the actual protesters at WTO (not the sh*t starters), the people that marched with Martin Luther King, Harriet Tubman, the Whiskey Rebellion, to the Boston Tea Party participants; this country has a deep rooted tradition of civil disobedience. However, the examples above all considered that their actions would have consequences and accepted those risks because they felt their cause was greater than themselves (or, possibly in the first example, they just wanted to get out of class).
 
I think there is a difference between that, and what we see in the video, or hear in the story behind it. I doubt this girl was trying to make a political statement by jaywalking, and if she was you can bet we would of heard about it by now because it makes for a better headline. What most of us see when we consider this incident is a couple of teenage girls throwing a tantrum, and a cop unable to control his scene.
 
By contrast I was in traffic court once and saw a woman plead not guilty to a seat belt ticket. She felt that it should be against the law for school buses to not provide seat belts for children. So she jumped in her car and drove around until she was stopped for not wearing her seat belt because she wanted to stand up in court and go on record to bring attention to this issue. She was found guilty and paid her fine. She knew there was no way she was going to win, but that was not way she was there. This was an act of civil disobedience.
 
On selective enforcement: I don't know why this cop was enforcing a jaywalking law. It is something I personally have never enforced. I also know that everyday I enforce laws I don't like or agree with because those are laws that are important to the community I serve, or because my superiors have identified a problem they want to try and address. It may have been something that was out of his hands. Maybe he has a reason for enforcing the jaywalking law, and of course, he may just be a prick. We don't know, but what is known is that jaywalking is illegal, and if he observed the offense he can detain them for that offense (i.e. if his motivation for detaining them was because they jaywalked and not because he wanted to detain them and then saw them jaywalking). We don't know what was in this guy's head, but on the face value of the known information, we have no reason to suspect that any prejudices influenced why he was enforcing this law.
 
If you want to jump in and save your friend because you think the cops are wrong, and you have accepted the consequences, then I would characterize that as civil disobedience on some level. You may even kick the cop's ass, but ultimately there will be consequences. If you haven't considered your actions then you may be a good friend, but there is no higher purpose to what you are doing.
 
A room full of cops rarely have a consensus on whether any particular use of force was the best way to handle any given situation. It is always ok to question police tactics in the aftermath of something like this case. Agreeing to disagree in these types of situations is almost always the norm. I have enjoyed this thread because it has been a civil discussion on the subject.
 
Kyle


-------------
I smell bacon


Posted By: Ellingferd
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2010 at 2:17pm
I would agree, and I am all for civil disobedience. Civil disobedience, however, necessitates both disobedience and civility. Civil disobedience stops being civil as soon as you become physical. Read Thoreau and you will find this utterly apparent in his writings. He would have whole heartedly advocated for the two young girls standing up for what they believed, but not in a physical nature. If you dont agree with the rules of the state, then try to change them, but not with violent means. His ideas were the heart of India's fight for independence from Britain and our own civil rights movement. In both of those instances, Gandhi and MLK preached the same ideas: non-violent protest, which obviously would indicate no physical reaction no matter how violent you oppressor becomes. Read "Account of the Salt March" by Webb Miller, and you will get a first hand account of what civil disobedience really means.

These girls were not civil, they were merely disobedient and violent at that.


Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2010 at 3:06pm
The reason the cop was enforcing that law was because the school actually asked them to.  It is a big problem there.  Go ahead and drive there as school lets out to see for yourself.

"The potential for jaywalking accidents was worrisome enough for Franklin High staff and the school district to ask cops to make their presence known at the bus stop."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012146689_pedestrian18m.html - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012146689_pedestrian18m.html

As far as spinning in graves, we aren't talking about pie in the sky or relative instances.  We are talking about THIS actual case.  I would hope that a Yale graduate (My sis just got her PHD last Thurs from there... yay!!!) would be more offended that their quote was used out of context or in the wrong context.  My "silly" comment was for you using it in this instance.

The law that was broken was assaulting an officer, that is why she was punched.  That law is just.  An officer has a right to stop somebody from jaywalking when the school asks them to.

Stop arguing what ifs, this case is cut and dry.





-------------
H2O please


Posted By: huckin harms
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2010 at 3:53pm

NO travis, the case is NOT as cut and dry as you say it is....



-------------


Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2010 at 4:06pm
"(1) A person is guilty of assault in the third degree if he or she, under circumstances not amounting to assault in the first or second degree:

     (a) With intent to prevent or resist the execution of any lawful process or mandate of any court officer or the lawful apprehension or detention of himself or another person, assaults another; or"

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.36.031 - http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.36.031

http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=333947 - http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=333947





-------------
H2O please


Posted By: Wiggins
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2010 at 5:21pm
In my experience there is no such thing as a cut and dry case. Especially once lawyers, a judge, and a jury get involved.
 
If I were an arresting officer I wouldn't charge Assault 3 on anything I see in the video. Assault 3 is a felony assault, and typically the courts are going to want to see felony level damage from that assault. If she squared off with him and tried to duke it out you would have a strong case for Assault 3, but with it being a technical assault with no injury the case is much stronger for Obstruction or Rendering Criminal Assistance. Technically she is guilty of Assault 3, but the reality is that charging high sometimes creates a backlash against the prosecution and hurts their case. This is especially true when dealing with juveniles.
 
I had a guy slam me into a door frame so hard that the mark from it is still visible on my arm over a year later. I grabbed onto his arm as he was resisting arrest and he swung me into the door frame while trying to get away. I am sure that it was intentional, but I couldn't prove that he wasn't just trying to get away. I tacked on a Resisting charge rather than a Assault 3 charge as a result. If I had charged Assault 3 in addtition to intent the jury would have wanted to see a real injury, not a scrape and a bruise that won't go away. This guy ended up getting a class B felony plead down to a misdemeanor and got less than a week of house arrest for a sentance, but I kept my credibility intact with the judge and the PA's office and that will help me do more good with better cases in the future. It is far from ideal, but that is the world we live in.
 
By the way, the felony charge was a no brainer, open and shut case....
 
Kyle


-------------
I smell bacon


Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2010 at 11:31pm
Since none of us here talking was there and cannot really speak to who was in the wrong...

The fact that the "punchee" just apologized to the officer, it may be a bit more cut and dry than certain people here have hinted at.  She was in the wrong, she has admitted it and apologized.  She is young, and I do hope she learns.  Being punched was enough, a felony is a scary reality now for her.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012154761_rosenthal19m.html - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012154761_rosenthal19m.html

If I were a judge, at this point I would show mercy.  She is an adult, and a felony (that she DID commit one) carries serious repercussions.  I personally think this is the best outcome considering the circumstances.  I hope she gets off lightly and the officer learns how to be a lot more assertive to avoid this in the future.

P.S.: the officer did NOT have a taser, so really I think he did about all he could do to control the girl and crowd quickly.  I still say he was 100% in the right.


-------------
H2O please


Posted By: Wiggins
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2010 at 2:33pm
Under the new court rules the officer could not have used a taser until about the same time as he hit the girl. The Taser is prone to failure. When they work they are great, but when you have someone charging you I want something more reliable.
 
Back when Tasers were on the same level of force as OC spray they used to end these types of disputes very quickly. Most of the time displaying the Taser was enough to get a situation under control when even drawn guns wouldn't because people knew the cop would use the Taser (this led to cops trying to use Tasers are a replacement to firearms when they needed there guns, but that is another subject). The failure rate on the Taser was less of a concern because it was used to deal with non compliant subjects rather than aggressive ones, so the situation often gave you other riskier options if the Taser failed.
 
As far as the officer doing all he could do to control the girl, he certainly needed improvement in this area. If you watch the comments video from the instructor at the Basic Law Enforcement Academy you'll note that he only talks about whether or not the officer was justified in hitting the second girl, and does not comment on how he was dealing with the first girl. The reason for this is that BLEA teaches that non compliant suspects who are resisting handcuffing get taken to the ground and cuffed there. The reason for this is that it limits their ability to resist. When you fail to do that, as this officer did, you get the sh*t show that we saw here. If he had controled the girl faster, then he would have minimized the size of the crowd, and likely the need to control it.
 
It is probably very telling that out of all the non field assignments they could have given this guy, he went to a training squad.
 
Kyle


-------------
I smell bacon



Print Page | Close Window