Department of Justice: One in Five Uses of Force by the Seattle Police Department Are Unconstitutional

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports on a recent Department of Justice civil rights investigation over just how often the Seattle Police Department uses force and on what grounds; according to the paper, the investigation was publicized 11 months ago, but the process began well before the police department was embroiled in such high-publicity incidents as the June 2010 fatal shooting of a deaf woodcarver who was holding a three-inch knife (reported on by Radley Balko here).

The DOJ did not investigate specific cases such as the above, but they noted a wide-spread pattern of "unnecessary or excessive force" by officers. Some of the worse parts? Officers turn "too quickly" to batons and flashlights. More than half of the uses of the former are again "unnecessary or excessive." And many incidents involve minor crimes such as traffic violations.

Although more than half of the recipients of police violence were minorities in a city which is 70 percent white, the DOJ found no official "pattern of discrimination" (which was one of the questions they asked in their investigation) but noted that certain interactions with pedestrians had potential to be discriminatory.

They further found that there was very poor internal reporting on use of force incidents by the department and the city's citizen's police review board is not effective either.

The P-I notes that certain officers seem to get in more confrontations than others:

Last year, just 20 of the department’s 1,300 officers accounted for 18 percent of the uses of force reported, the investigators continued. Put another way, those officers on average each filed a use of force report nearly once a month; more than 789 officers didn’t file a single report the entire year.

Not to mention, the DOJ's press release notes that people who may not be in full control of their faculties are getting hurt by police:

SPD officers escalate situations, and use unnecessary or excessive force, when arresting individuals for minor offenses. This trend is pronounced in encounters with persons with mental illnesses or those under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This is problematic because SPD estimates that 70 percent of use of force encounters involve these populations.

And the P-I again:

[U.S. Attorney Jenny] Durkan said the department has done little to investigate after officers report using force and has not looked into whether those officers who do so frequently need more training, reassignment or disciplinary action. She also suggested that training conducted by the state police academy doesn’t give officers the tools they need to defuse potentially violent situations.

“Police officers are taught how to win fights but not how to avoid them,” Durkan said.

Of the 1,230 use of force reports filed by Seattle officers in 2010, only five received significant review within the department. No actions were taken against any supervisors for failing to investigate or review their subordinates actions in the field....

Two-thirds of the complaints received by the office were routed back to the precincts were the abuses were alleged to have occurred. The investigations done at the precinct level were described by an Office of Public Accountability employee as “appalling.”

Not to overly praise the DOJ,  but this is my favorite part of their report:

“Officers must have a sufficient factual basis to detain or investigate someone, or a person is free to walk away from police and free to disregard a police request to come or stay. In these circumstances, a person’s decision to ‘walk away’ does not by itself create cause to detain.”

The Feds and the police department are currently negotiating over reforms, which will also involve an independent outsider coming to oversee and make sure they are proceeding as mandated. The whole process could take several months.

Whole thing here.

Reason on police.

(Hat tip to sloopyinca.)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    A dunphybait thread?

    Hrm. I lived nearly half my life in the Puget Sound and Puyallup. Far enough away from Seattle to not really interact with their po-po, but I did usually feel like the citizenry's relationship with the police was not exactly warm and fuzzy.

    When I was a kid, my mother, a nurse, was pulled over for doing six over the speed limit while on her way to assist with an emergency surgery. The cop was so nasty to her I think he permanently reversed her previously glowing opinion of the police.

    Maybe it's all the rain.

  • ||

    there's nothing to "bait" me for.

    i am glad the justice dept. did this investigation, and critical of SPD.

    i've always thought them mediocre, but they are apparently thuggish too

    again, the stats show they are far less likely to even USE force than the national average,but apparently WHEN they do, they are very likely to use UNjustified force, which is inexcusable

  • ||

    By "unjustified", you mean "illegal", right? That's what the DoJ is saying. Of course, I didn't see any charges filed.

    And before you start running your pie-hole, why don't you read the Seattle Times story on the report.

    I'll quote you a bit: A federal civil-rights investigation into the Seattle Police Department has found routine and widespread use of excessive force by officers, and city and police officials were told at a stormy Thursday night meeting that they must fix the problems or face a federal lawsuit, according to two sources.
    Excessive force is illegal.

    -and-
    Three weeks ago, the Justice Department issued a sharply worded letter urging the Police Department to immediately address a policy that allows officers to invoke their protections against self-incrimination in even the most routine use-of-force issues. Justice officials said the policy made prosecutions of errant officers difficult and undermined public confidence.
    That's that administrative process you're often heard crowing about. Looks like the DoJ doesn't think it's quite the "Due Proces" you give it credit for being.

    The credibility of the SPD is now as worthless as that of the MCSD and it's band of criminals and capo Joe Arpaio.*

    *You may want to take a look at their DoJ report that individually points out criminal acts (which you claimed it didn't do) yet makes no attempt to charge any of the responsible criminals...just like this report does.

  • ||

    sloopy, is all you have grievances?

    jesus christ. i could say the sky is blue and you would disagree with me.

    i am saying that i am glad the justice dept. is investigating and taking seattle to task about excessive force.

    i am saying i have no reason to doubt their assessment that 20% of SPD's UOF's are unjustified.

    what exactly are you wanking about?

    clearly, the SPD does NOT use DUE PROCESS.

    their process suckx.

    i've long said they are mediocre. i now see they are thuggish too

    that's inexcusable

    what exactly IS your complaint to me about?

  • ||

    My complaint (and it's not directed at you, per se) is that what you call "excessive," the non-LEO populus calls "illegal." And I'mm pissed that these type of investigations rarely, if ever, result in prosecutions.

    When the USDoJ investigates someone and finds 20% of their interactions where force is used to be unconstitutional (the Constitution is the highest law of the land, by the way) it means that 20% of those interactions are illegal. It would not make that blanket accusation without supporting evidence of individual acts, yet does not consider those acts actionable. That pisses me off, because it treats the police as a separate class of individual, whose acts, although consistently illegal, are not worthy of prosecution. And we're not talking about them speeding 20% of the time in their cruisers. We're talking about them breaking the highest law of the land 1/5 of the time they use force.

    The bone to pick I have with you here is that you are always so quick to cry about "due process" and have even mocked me for bringing up SPD's sneaky use of evidence IRT self-incrimination. The DoJ basicaly says in the report that they use department policy to avoid prosecution for officers and have engaged in serial undermining of justice to protect themselves at the expense of justice being served. And you seem to not have a problem with that.

    Again, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy here. They are being told they break the law 20% of the time they use force against someone not in their group. They are told they engage in serial perversion of justice when they investigate themselves. But, they are told they will not be subject to criminal prosecution fore these criminal acts. If you don't see where that is wrong, then you are beyond sanity.

  • ||

    My complaint (and it's not directed at you, per se) is that what you call "excessive," the non-LEO populus calls "illegal." And I'mm pissed that these type of investigations rarely, if ever, result in prosecutions.

    When the USDoJ investigates someone and finds 20% of their interactions where force is used to be unconstitutional (the Constitution is the highest law of the land, by the way) it means that 20% of those interactions are illegal. It would not make that blanket accusation without supporting evidence of individual acts, yet does not consider those acts actionable. That pisses me off, because it treats the police as a separate class of individual, whose acts, although consistently illegal, are not worthy of prosecution. And we're not talking about them speeding 20% of the time in their cruisers. We're talking about them breaking the highest law of the land 1/5 of the time they use force.

    The bone to pick I have with you here is that you are always so quick to cry about "due process" and have even mocked me for bringing up SPD's sneaky use of evidence IRT self-incrimination. The DoJ basicaly says in the report that they use department policy to avoid prosecution for officers and have engaged in serial undermining of justice to protect themselves at the expense of justice being served. And you seem to not have a problem with that.

    Again, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy here. They are being told they break the law 20% of the time they use force against someone not in their group. They are told they engage in serial perversion of justice when they investigate themselves. But, they are told they will not be subject to criminal prosecution fore these criminal acts. If you don't see where that is wrong, then you are beyond sanity.

  • ||

    dunphy|12.17.11 @ 5:16AM|#|show direct|ignore
    sloopy, is all you have grievances?

    Not all the time. Just when an injustice is done

    jesus christ. i could say the sky is blue and you would disagree with me.

    I would when it's 2:16 am and the sky is black (like when you typed this)

    i am saying that i am glad the justice dept. is investigating and taking seattle to task about excessive force.

    How exactly are they taking them to task? They say 20% of their force is illegal but they will not prosecute. They say they have created an investigative process that deliberately and systematically fails to find fault with officer swhen laws are broken, yet they will not prosecute. That's not "taking to task," dumbass.

    i am saying i have no reason to doubt their assessment that 20% of SPD's UOF's are unjustified.

    You keep saying "unjustified." Unjustified = criminal. The DoJ said so. And Unconstitutional also = criminal. The DoJ said so as well. Also, obstructing justice is criminal. The DoJ said they consistently obstruct justice by omission. So you have no doubt that 20% of their uses of force are criminal and they act in a concerted manner to pervert justice? OK, fine. That takes us to...

    what exactly are you wanking about?

    What you call "wanking," a sane person would call a failure to prosecute a widespread and systematic breaking of the law.

    clearly, the SPD does NOT use DUE PROCESS.

    You mean they break the highest law of the land on a regular basis. Stop mincing words.

    their process suckx.

    No, their process is designed to protect officers from prosecution. It is not designed to seek justice. That goes beyond sucking and into aiding and abetting or at least obstruction of justice.

    i've long said they are mediocre. i now see they are thuggish too

    By thuggish, you mean their widespread and systematic criminal activities and failure to investigate those activities, right?

    that's inexcusable

    Yet you see no need to prosecute these crimes?

    what exactly IS your complaint to me about?

    Do you still need to ask?

  • jacob||

    Boom!

  •  ||

    Do you have to pay rent here?

  • Anyway||

    Anarchists page the token cop in 3...2...1...

  • ||

    I'm not an anarchist, but HI!, dunphy.

  • ||

    hey!1!! :)

    already gave my "comprehensive " response below

    i hope SPD cleans house and gets with it.

    again, i'll make the comment that it doesn't surprise me that a PD in a far leftwing enclave has these kinds of problems.

  • ||

    This is why I avoid anything that might cause me to interact with the SPD.

    This trend is pronounced in encounters with persons with mental illnesses or those under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This is problematic because SPD estimates that 70 percent of use of force encounters involve these populations.

    This is because Seattle is lousy with hobos, bums, and beggars. Seattle does "wethousing", where alcohol is provided along with a place to sleep, from social services.

    My guess is that the police get used to dealing with people who are 1) unstable, and 2) who no one cares if they get roughed up. The cops get used to being able to use force for compliance. Then they interact with someone who isn't a bum, but the cops act the same way towards them because they're used to it. It's become habit.

  • Lowdog||

    I think that is the problem with how the police handle people in most places. Police officers are so used to dealing with scumbags that they assume everyone is a scumbag, and so have a huge chip on their shoulder by default. You can almost see it when you interact with them in a very polite way, like they have to switch gears and it throws them off a bit.

  • ||

    i think it's more common, for obvious reasons, with cops who work ACT teams etc. that tend to deal with the scummiest of the scum very often, whereas the average patrol cop deals much more often with "regular" people and good people.

  • ||

    oh, i'd also add that chronic drunks can be a royal pain in the ass to deal with. but GENERALLY speaking,good cops learn to use verbal judo.

    iow, i would expect a guy who works the DUI squad, who deals with tons of drunks to have a higher use of force occurrence than somebody who works many other units. it's especially true with drunk women, ime. ime, drunk women, especially drunk women drivers are far more likely to resist and/or assault cops than almost any other demographic. imnsho, part of it comes from growing up in a society where it is taboo for a man to hit a woman, but not vice-versa, and when the alcohol get's a flowing, the cop arresting them is just another man (or sometimes even woman) and they think they can get away with it without consequences.

    regardless, GOOD cops use force when justified/necessary but have to have compassion/empathy and some patience when dealing with drunks

    the best way to deal with drunks is using all of the above, as well as a little sarcasm (without patronizing). keeps you sane

  • Betty Friedan||

    What is it like living in the 19th century? Bet it rocks being a white straight male who is perfectly OK with random acts of violence committed by agents of the state against others...just not you.

    Damn civil rights.

  • A fan||

    Episiarch|12.16.11 @ 8:26PM|#
    This is why I avoid anything that might cause me to interact with the SPD.

    This trend is pronounced in encounters with persons with mental illnesses or those under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

    Not surprising since Epi is mentally ill.

  • ||

    Seattle does "wethousing", where alcohol is provided along with a place to sleep, from social services.

    I know this seems retarded, but it is the cheapest way to ward of DTs. Old-school physicians will write orders for "2 CANS OF BEER HS" if they don't feel like giving their alcoholic patients benzos.

  • the problem ||

    You dont get dt's overnight

  • ||

    No, but heavy alcoholics will go into withdrawals pretty fast. Not full blown DTs, but enough to be quite unpleasant. Anonopussy me all you want, but I was a floor RN long enough to see all kinds of crazy shit when it comes to alcoholics.

  • you were wrong||

    And isnt it funny how you botch about anonopussy, when the only point wasthat wethousing for dts mkes no sense

    And I was an emergency intake coordinator for twm years, you know less about this than I do

  • you were wrong||

    By the way, look how sensitove you it when it was pointed out dts dont happen overnight, no one said shit to you or about you but you cried like someone personally attacked you and your family

    Are you aways this much of a crybaby faggot?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Forgive my ignorance, but what's "DT"? Is it delirium tremens?

  • ||

    yes. note that alcohol withdrawals CAN (and have) killed people. not true of heroin and many other illicit drugs.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Please. The DEA lists Khat, a substance of which constipation is the most serious side effect, as a Sched. I drug.

    There is absolutely no rhyme or reason to American drug policy.

  • ||

    we obviously agree on that.

    that was kind of implicit in my point

    alcohol , when abused , is one of the most dangerous drugs around. not scheduled

    MJ, even when abused, has no lethal dose and physical addictiveness

    schedule I

    dumb dumb dumb

  • ||

    Of course, there shouldn't even BE a schedule of illegal drugs at all.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Yes there is. It's just that saying we maintain the WoD in the fashion we do in order to maintain and pander to police and prison guard unions is fucking immoral, so they go with the usual bullshit abut it being bad and all.

  • ||

    i find these charges disturbing and i hope SPD is held accountable and makes changes for the better.

    as stats i have posted show, SPD is much LESS likely to USE force than the national average

    that's good.

    however, it's pretty clear that WHEN they do, they often (20% of the time) do so in an unjustified manner AND their department fails to hold them accountable all too often.

    i've always thought SPD mediocre at best, but mediocre is one thing, thuggish is another

    i have to make a little bit of a jab at the appalingly left wing city of seattle, since it SEEMS to me that the vast majority of times i hear about brutal PD's and/or bad PD's they are in leftwing havens

    why is that? (i think i know why, but i digress)

    i would be curious to know what % of officers the FBI identified as frequent or chronic offenders. i would be interested to know if it is the small minority of officers doing the vast majority of bad shit, or if it is more institutional.

    anyway, i am not saying the justice dept. is always correct (god knows they have prosecuted some innocent non-cops and done some shoddy and biased investigations in general) but i certainly will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are probably correct.

  • Coeus||

    i've always thought SPD mediocre at best, but mediocre is one thing, thuggish is another

    So you were wrong about a PD next door, but you think you're qualified to call bullshit about other peoples personal experiences on the other side of the country?

  • ||

    wrong how?

    i never made any dispositive statement about SPD not having a UOF problem.

    thankfully, there is now substantial evidence they DO have a UOF problem, and based on the DOJ's report, one that is pervasive and inexcusable.

    i didn't state something contrary to the DOJ report. so, how does that make me wrong?

    seriously. i get it that you are butthurt, but i am GLAD the DOJ has done this investigation

    sunshine is the best disinfectant, so let's sunshine the fuck out of these guys

  • ||

    sunshine is the best disinfectant, so let's sunshine the fuck out of these guys

    Actually, darkness would be the best disinfectant. The darkness of a jail cell for every one of these cops that broke the highest law of the land when they deprived someone of their constitutional rights. Darkness for every person involved in serially covering up the crimes committed through bureaucratic process and department policy designed to protect officers against prosecution rather that to seek justice.

    thankfully, there is now substantial evidence they DO have a UOF problem, and based on the DOJ's report, one that is pervasive and inexcusable.

    Actually, there's now substantial evidence that they are operating a criminal enterprise that breaks the highest law of the land 20% of the time they use force against another person. And if it is so "pervasive and inexcusable," then why are you not screaming for prosecutions? They list the crimes in the report. They list the cover-ups in the administrative processes. And like I said above, we're talking the highest law of the land, not some penny-ante law they break with alarming regularity. Prosecutions that result in lengthy prison sentences is in order here, yet the DoJ does the same as they did for Arpaio's criminal enterprise...they give them a pass. And you can't tell me that courtesy would be extended to any other group of people.

  • ||

    So SOD has been caught. Lucy, with all of the other police crime you report from around the country, how did this Lovesk agency get caught?

  • Paul||

    This is fascinating. On a completely unrelated note, I was remembering as an impressionable yute growing up in the 70s and 80s, just how often I would hear the refrain or statement from officers, "in (x) years on the force, I've never drawn my service weapon". To be sure, as an adolescent boy whose childhood was steeped in cop shows and crime dramas, this always came as a disappointment, as I was always anticipating being regaled with stories of the hard-charging, devil-may-care cop taking down the bad guys.

    I fully admit that it's pure speculation on my part, but I would be willing to bet a non significant sum that if you took a survey you'd be much more hard-pressed to find veteran officers with more than ten years on the force who had never drawn their service weapons, even in mayberry-esque towns.

  • ||

    per policy, most agencies have their officers draw their weapon on every "felony stop". i've probably been on over 100 in my career, so just there, that's over 100. granted, i've been in shootout(s) etc. too, but you were talking about merely drawing a gun

    a felony stop is when you stop a

    1) stolen car
    2) armed robbery suspect
    3) murder suspect
    etc.

    and those are hardly uncommon round these parts.

    the stats i have read show officer involved shootings to be stunningly rare, and the vast majority of felony stops never see officers having to fire, and they gain compliance... however, the drawn gun helps compliance and also gives us a reactive edge IF the guy draws, etc.

    i could see an old skool walk the beat street cop being more able to make such a claim.

  • ||

    www surprisefirms com

  • ||

    My friend just met a lover on this site --casualchats.com. It's where for men or women to find intimate encounters.It's a nice place for people who wanna start a short-term relationship .No hesitation to find your true love.

  • ||

    Die in a fire.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Negotiating over reforms eh? They should be negotiating and someone as been served with an indictment on an information. The Feds, the biggest bullies in the world, arent't going to get too hasty.

  • ||

    One in five? Are we talking about a police culture of rape here? Or am I crossing the threads?

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    Oh God, never cross the threads!

  • PermaLurker||

    Imagine all the trolls expanding outward at the speed of light...

  • ||

  • VikingMoose||

    (and ONE in five IS. One... is...)

  • Brendan||

    Next up on the DOJ tour (hopefully)-Las Vegas.

    http://www.lvrj.com/news/gille.....95588.html

  • ||

    I don't recall what happened to the cop that shot the deaf woodcarver. I'm kind of hoping he's serving 700,000 consecutive life sentences, but I know he won't be. What'd he get?

  • BigT||

    Williams' knife was found closed. The shooting ruled unjustified by the Police Department's Firearms Review Board. In April, the city agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle claims brought by Williams' family.
    Birk, resigned Feb. 16 after King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg announced charges would not be filed in the incident.

    Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/mount.....z1gnJWG4ax

  • ||

    Fuck me. Are you serious? NO charges?

  • ||

    Departmental policy>Criminal code

    Protection of the shield>Service of justice

    These stories are why I get so pissed off, yet dunphy keeps defending the policies that are designed not to serve justice, but to protect officers from prosecution when they commit criminal acts.

  • jacob||

    OK, I'm a libertarian and I hate authoritarians as much as anyone, but I read your link and there's more to the story than what you posted.

    On the late afternoon of Aug. 30, 2010, Williams was walking with a knife and a piece of laminate flooring at the intersection of Boren Avenue and Howell Street and was confronted by former Seattle Officer Ian Birk. Williams, a chronic inebriate with a long criminal history, was drunk.
    Birk told Williams to drop the knife three times and fired at least four shots in the brief encounter, heard in the video above. The two-year officer said Williams had an aggressive stance when he turned and Birk said he was fearful of an attack. An attorney for the Williams family argued that Williams was not a threat and Birk acted improperly.
    Williams' knife was found closed. The shooting ruled unjustified by the Police Department's Firearms Review Board.

    ...

    But less than a week before his fatal shooting by a Seattle police officer, Williams was recorded threatening to kill police officers.
    In 2009 prosecutors described him as having 30 criminal convictions over two decades, including lewd conduct and indecent exposure. Three days before his death, Williams, a chronic inebriate, was cited for drinking in public.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    What difference does it make if he had convictions for lewd conduct or indecent exposure? Was the cop afraid he was going to wave his weenie at him?
    Did the cop have an aggressive stance when he assaulted Williams? If so, would Williams have been justified in shooting the tax fattened thug?
    The cop should be in prison for murder, no question.

  • ||

    Love how everyone seems to be ignoring;
    less than a week before his fatal shooting by a Seattle police officer, Williams was recorded threatening to kill police officers.

  • Dr. Q||

    Jacob, Williams did not take an "aggressive stance" towards Birk. That's a ridiculous lie. Williams was shot in the back.

    What happened (and you can see most of the incident on video) is that Birk spotted Williams, approached him from behind while yelling at him to drop his knife, then shot him immediately after without giving him a chance to comply. Williams was hearing impaired and probably never heard what Birk was yelling at him or even knew he was there. Furthermore, Williams's knife was legal to own and possess and Williams was not breaking any laws at the time which means that Birk did not actually have the legal authority to stop him or order him to drop the knife in the first place. It's also worth pointing out that shortly after the shooting, Birk said (it was captured on video) that he had seen Williams using the knife for woodcarving which means that he was fully aware that Williams was using the knife as a tool rather than a weapon.

    In other words, Birk is the very definition of a violent lunatic. He spotted some guy minding his own business and shot him in the back without any provocation at all. He's a murderer and he should be prison.

  • Paul||

    Jake, you haven't seem the video, have you?

  • Amakudari||

    In 2009 prosecutors described him as having 30 criminal convictions over two decades, including lewd conduct and indecent exposure.

    In other words, nothing serious. The guy was probably a drunk/jerk/bum/whatever, but it just sounds like he was arrested for being a loud drunk and urinating in public, neither of which remotely suggest an inclination toward violence. Fuck blaming the victim.

  • ||

    Nothing serious...
    less than a week before his fatal shooting by a Seattle police officer, Williams was recorded threatening to kill police officers.

  • BigT||

    Of the 1,230 use of force reports filed by Seattle officers in 2010, only five received significant review within the department. No actions were taken against any supervisors for failing to investigate or review their subordinates actions in the field....

    Sounds like a poor mgt, poor training issue. Since politics often plays a role in determining the hierarchy, this fits with dunphy's observation that lib cities are worst.

  • ||

    I hate more laws, but maybe one is in order here. It should be a felony for an officer not to investigate a UOF claim, or to not do the investigation to the fullest of his abilities, or to bring criminal action against an officer when there is evidence a crime was committed. And excessive force needs to be made criminal, not administrative. No other class in our society can have their criminal actions investigated by their own employer and handled without the courts involved. It's time that was ended.

  • BigT||

    "The systems of accountability are broken," said Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Civil Rights division.

    Liberalism is all about reducing or eliminating accountability, personal responsibility.

    “SPD’s vague Use of Force policy and inadequate training encourage pervasive underreporting and render the Department’s statistics on its use of force incomplete,” the report’s authors noted

    More of same.

  • BigT||

    Root of the problem:

    The union also maintained the same stance it has taken in past discussions about police accountability. O'Neill said any changes the city intends to make that affect officers' working conditions would have to be discussed during labor contract negotiations. The guild currently is working without a contract.

  • BigT||

    SPD now has a new Review board. Wouldn't it be cheaper and more effective to outfit every cop with a minicam on their uniform? Objective, complete data are best.

  • ||

    In Washington? Lmao. The unions are so entrenched and powerful there, you might as well shoot a cop in the face -- the consequences will be far less painful than if you tried to outfit their members with cameras.

  • Mensan||

    dunphy says, "as stats i have posted show, SPD is much LESS likely to USE force than the national average"

    DOJ says, "We also find that SPD’s vague Use of Force policy and inadequate training encourage pervasive underreporting and render the Department’s statistics on its use of force incomplete."

    More succinctly, the stats show that SPD is less likely to use force, because SPD policy is to underreport their use of force.

    DOJ: "In 2010, just 20 officers accounted for 18% of all force incidents."

    My interpretation: In 2010, just 20 officers actually reported all or most of their force incidents.

  • ||

    Gee, why don't we let the Bloods and Crips takeover from the SPD. Then Seattle will become a hellhole like LA.

  • ||

    You are liberal hypocrites. You are all the first ones to cry to the SPD when someone's steals your car, breaks into your homes or robs your daughter.

  • Amakudari||

    Because that's their job.

    Not regularly violating a person's Constitutional rights through pervasive, unwarranted violence is another part of their job.

    And they get paid damn well to do these things.

  • ||

    Gee, dunphy was able to keep commenting about eggs and steak on the other thread but for some reason can't find the time (or strength) to come on here and address our very valid claims and questions. IOW, he's a coward.

    Oh, and dunphy, when you read this please go over to the ATF thread from Friday and take a ganders at the links I posted on the Arpaio DoJ investigation. You were running your sphincter about the report on Thursday, but it looks like you were wrong and I was right about the contents after all. Are you gonna admit you don't know a fucking thing about what the police departments in this country are doing now? Or do you not have the time what with your busy schedule and all.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "This badge is the only thing preventing me from skull [fucking] you and dragging you down the street," one of the officers can be heard saying in the video.

    I'm pretty sure video of any non-LEO threatening and physically assaulting another person, and then lying to police about it, would bring criminal charges. This is the point the sloopster seems to be trying to make, and that the dunphmeister seems to be trying to avoid addressing.

  • ||

    From the video: The attorney says, "it's inconsistent to say anything like that."

    No, this is wholly consistent with the behavior not only reason, but the USDoJ has chronicled in regards to police violence, falsification of police reports and the lack of criminal prosecution when these acts are committed.

    -and-

    "Three of the four officers were suspended...for profanity."

    Yeah, suspend them for profanity and ignore the physical assault and threats of further violence, the wrongful arrest and falsification of a police report...crimes for which any non-cop would be prosecuted.

    But dunphy won't address this either. He'll stay hidden like a little bitch and won't address the number of questions many of us have hit him with in this thread.

    I swear, I cannot for the life of me see why any of you other posters have even a shred of respect for that guy. Yeah, he's pro-pot and legalized gambling, but other than that, he's a "go along to get along" cop who will not take a stand against violence and call for prosecutions when they are clearly warranted. He blames "policy" and says cops deserve "representation," when the representation leads to the policies that prevent justice being served in at least 95% of the times cops break the law.

    He has no principles. He has less concern for justice than he does for policy. He routinely accepts the bad instead of seeking the good. He allows for the destruction of individuals to protect the power of agents of the state. He argues in bad faith.

  • ||

    It's shit like this story about a cop breaking the law and not being charged that pisses us off yet dunphy defends. Just read this excerpt:
    Pike says Hester even conducted an unauthorized search of his workplace-- the Jackpot Recreation Center-- in an unsuccessful search for drugs. At a court hearing, a judge agreed to extend the temporary restraining order, and also agreed that Hester's search of the premises was unauthorized because he did not have a search warrant, did not file a report and did not officially submit or share information about the search.

    Pike says Hester has also driven by his Jackpot home numerous times, staring at him and his family. Neighbors also testified that they had seen Hester up to five times a day, driving slowly by the home. The judge also ordered Dep. Hester to stay away from Pike, his family and Pike's home in Jackpot.

    The internal investigation being conducted by the Sheriff's office is expected to last about two months.

    Note that the judge said the guy broke the law at the hearing, yet no charges will be filed. And it says the internal investigation, rather than the DA's investigation. Hmmm, strange way of investigating behavior a judge declared criminal from the bench.

    But the culture of corruption is isolated! Justice gets served! Police are not treated differently! Bollocks!

  • ||

    Of course, if we charged cops with having sexual relationships with children instead of just letting them resign, perhaps they wouldn't keep sexually molesting other children.

    Note: once he was a civilian, he got charged with the crimes. When he was a cop? He was allowed to resign and faced no prosecution.

    But they're held to a higher standard...

  • ||

    Is 6 months in jail a normal sentence for mowing down two people while reaching for your phone? Honestly, I'm curious. And note the charge was "attempted manslaughter. Seems to me, the guy was successful in his attempt.

  • iExcuse||

    Just a few bad applesdepartments.

  • ||

    sloopyinca has exhaustively said all I would say on this.

    The double standard is so blatant and appalling, yet seems completely imperceptible to those on the inside.

    Really? Systematic, illegal use of force hundreds of times a year according to the DOJ, which is not exactly a hostile witness, here? And not a single, solitary criminal charge?

    Unjustified use of force is a felony for the peasants. But not, apparently, for our betters.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement