Wendy McElroy: Under "Cooperation" Act, Cops Can Punch You In the Face Whenever They Want

At the Freeman, Wendy McElroy raises another important concern with the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, the bill to enforce public sector unionization on all states. The PSEECA, which has already been called out for its potential to endanger budgets and hobble cities, may also turn local cops into misbehaving federales:

The act would also diminish police transparency and accountability because it would regulate disciplinary policies through which police and sheriff departments address alleged abuse and misconduct. The act would strengthen unions that have a long record of siding almost unconditionally with their members against such allegations. For example, in June a young black woman who had jaywalked was punched in the face by a Seattle policeman. The president of the local police union declared, "He [the Seattle officer] did nothing wrong. If anything, I think he maybe waited a little too long to engage in force."

Equally, when local authorities attempt to correct police abuse, police unions are often the greatest barrier. The Syracuse Post Standard (July 6) reported, "Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner has taken courageous steps to rid the police department of misbehavior that sullies the image of every officer." Nevertheless, she has come "under withering criticism from the police union for refusing to sign a commendation" for a detective whom a federal jury found guilty last year of using excessive force. On July 19 the Austin police union urged the city council not to accept a $750,000 settlement with the family of a man killed by an officer last year. In many cases, police unions also act to block public and media scrutiny of accused officers.

The act has already passed the House so its fate rests with the Senate. The D.C. watchdog periodical The Hill (July 19) reported, "Senate and House Democrats are headed for a clash this week over funding for U.S. troops….The Senate and House are squabbling over $22.8 billion House appropriators added to the supplemental bill… Senate Democratic leaders doubt the House bill can pass their chamber with the extra spending " Nevertheless, Harry Reid has made it clear he will push the legislation and is threatening to keep the Senate in session past in August 1 if necessary. Given how important the August recess is to upcoming election campaigns, a lot of legislation may well be rushed through.

Related: Texas attorney general says the bill is unconstitutional.

Comments

[rustedangel]

I think most H&R readers have already seen the Seattle jaywalking punch video, and concluded the officer was in the right. If you missed it, Here it is.

[Old Mexican]

I watched the video, and for the love of the universe I cannot see how the 200+ pound jack-booted, tax-fed gorilla was in the right.

[John]

Regardless. Everyone agrees that police unions are a menace to clean government and accountability.

[rustedangel]

Well to me it seemed pretty clear that he was trying to ticket someone for a legitimate violation, and that they refused to be detained and laid hands on him.

Normally I think getting a ticket for jaywalking is complete BS. I happen to live in Seattle though, and I think pedestrian traffic on Rainier Ave does pose a significant public safety risk.

For the record, I hate all unions. If I could choose to be reincarnated, I would want to be a robber baron and hire scabs to break union strikes.

[Old Mexican]

Re: rustedangel,

Well to me it seemed pretty clear that he was trying to ticket someone for a legitimate violation, and that they refused to be detained and laid hands on him.

"Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. "

"Civil Disobedience" - Henry David Thoreau.

[rustedangel]

Very eloquent prose, thank you for sharing it. I always thought of Thoreau as a pussy in high school, I think I should revisit him.

I suppose in using the term legitimate, I was committing the fallacy of arguing from authority. However, ignoring the question of existence of statutes addressing jaywalking, I must say in this instance and this particular location I believe jaywalking constitutes a public hazard. Ideally we would all be conscientious citizens and not infringe upon each other's personal spheres of liberty, but inevitably there will be people who ignore the safety of others because it benefits them. Should we allow these externalities to persist and flourish? Is the reason that the cure, law enforcement, is worse than the disease? I'm having a hard time understanding your objection.

[TickleStick]

"Very eloquent prose, thank you for sharing it. I always thought of Thoreau as a pussy in high school, I think I should revisit him."

I hate to break it to you, but he's dead now.

[dunphy]

and again in this specific case of jaywalking

1) where this occurred, rainier ave is a VERY busy arterial with multiple lanes of traffic that is quite busy, especially in the after school hours, which is when this occurred

2) the city had built a pedestrian overpass at that location, specifically to address the danger of (mostly) high school kids from nearby franklin high who routinely just ran across the streets. numerous collisions and near misses had occurred, prompting the construction of the overpass

3) the high school had made a request to the city to please respond and enforce jaywalking statutes so that the kids would stop or at lesat be deterred from running across the street

the media did an interview with some kids recently after the incident, and one kid said that he routinely ran across the street because he was fast enough to avoid getting hit and using the overpass was a waste of time. the reporter asked the kid how much time he would waste walking over the overpass and he said it would take a minute lol

this is the reason WHY he was enforcing this law

note also that SPD is famous for being strict about jaywalking. like it or not, they take it seriously.

[zoltan]

Let natural selection do its thing, I say.

[dunphy]

except that there is in loco parentis thing, not to mention auto-ped fatality collisions (or serious injury ones) waste metric assloads of taxpayer dollars. from a libertarian perspective, at least by writing jaywalking citations, he is GENERATING income while simultaneously providing a specific and general deterrent towards more jaywalking.

and it's not like it's ONLY the moron jaywalker who gets injured. sometimes the car swerves or hits other peoople, property after hitting the kids, etc. not to mention the poor sap who hits the kid is saddled with guilt for the rest of his life.

and he's gotta get the entrails removed from his front grill

[Xmas]

I've heard from friends that live in Washington State that there pedestrians don't have the right of way over vehicles. So, if you hit a pedestrian that is jaywalking, it is not the fault of the driver.

See the "Yield to vehicles" point here: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/walk/laws.htm

Here on the East Coast, pedestrians always have right of way over vehicles. If you hit a pedestrian on the road and not in a crosswalk, it's still the driver's fault.

[db]

Actually in PA, vehicles have right of way unless the pedestrian is in a crosswalk. I knew a guy in college who delivered pizzas and struck a pedestrian while delivering one night. He was not even charged, and the guy he hit had to pay for the damage to the car.

[dunphy]

actually, no. he was attempting to arrest the jaywalker after she refused to comply with demands to stop and provide id. WHILE HE WAS WRESTLING WITH THE JAYWALKER, ***another*** woman came in and grabbed the officer's arm, at which point he brushed her off, at which point she grabbed his arm again apparently attempting to interfere with his arrest of the OTHER woman, THEN he punched her. it was a 2:1 situation, and he was being interfered with in making a lawful arrest.

also noted, that this wasn't some sort of random jaywalk patrol. the city had constructed a pedestrian overpass at that location due to vehicle-pedestrian collisions, and the local high school had REQUESTED the police come to the location and enforce the ordinance, because students were routinely ignoring the crosswalk and running across several lanes of traffic of a very busy rd (rainier ave s)

[TrickyVic]

""I watched the video, and for the love of the universe I cannot see how the 200+ pound jack-booted, tax-fed gorilla was in the right.""

Given the situation as it was, what did you expect the cop to do?

[dunphy]

anybody who refers to this guy as a "jack-booted, tax-fed gorilla" is already evidencing their clear bias and why even bother trying to rationally discuss with such a person?

[Paul]

OM: This is a rare case where I don't think the officer overreacted that much. You could make nuanced arguments about his need to arrest the first girl in the first place, but it's not a strong case against him. See my post below.

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

The young lady who was struck was attempting to forcibly prevent him from executing an arrest.

You're welcome to think that it was an ill considered arrest. I suspect it was.

You're welcome to think that he should have used a more eloquent mechanism to get his way. He should have. Though the video makes it clear that his grappeling technique was pretty poor (all strength; no subtlety or strategy), and he probably didn't have the wherewith all.

But using force to effect arrest against resistance is a police power that goes back to the common law, and he ceased to apply it when she stopped interfering.

The whole business left something to be desired, but it was at least within sight of propriety.

There are much better examples of police unions defending out-of-line members.

[dunphy]

i don't think it was an ill considered arrest at all ... here's why

1) seattle police was requested by franklin hs to proactively enforce jaywalking violations in that area due to the fact that it's long been a traffic problem area, that they build a ped overpass to solve the problem, and people (especially HS kids) were routinely ignoring it and rushing across several busy lanes of traffic on this busy arterial

2) he witnessed the violation, and at a minimum would have given a warning, but when he demanded the violator comply and stop - she didn't

3) after verbal demands to stop were ignored, he has an absolute right to detain her and decide to arrest physically and custodially book OR once he finds out her name (which he can't do if she walks away) issue her a criminal cite for obstructing as well as a civil infraction for jaywalking

3) ime, frequently when people choose to refuse to stop whether on foot or in a vehicle, it's because they have warrants. you create a perverse incentive for people to refuse lawful orders to stop if you reward such people by not stopping them.

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

You could go back and read the earlier thread for all the details but the officer reportedly made a decision to try--without backup--to arrest a group of people who were flaunting their defiance as he wrote a ticket to an earlier offender.

Which is to say he put himself in a position where it was likely that one or more non-violent offenders would try to walk away from arrest.

That was a strategic error which led directly to the wrestling match in the video.

* Did he have the law on his side: sure.

* Good law: could be, the reports are encouraging on that matter.

* Smart decision: not so much.

Thankfully several much worse outcomes were avoided in part because the officer acted with restrained violence, and in pat because the crowd wasn't really aggressive.

[dunphy]

please quote some reference to where the officer tried to stop a group of people. if he did so, i would think that was a little silly, even if legally justified.

fwiw, go to this link...

WATCH THE VIDEO

this is a busy as fuck arterial, with multiple lanes each way and a lot of traffic

look at the video of these morons running right into heavy traffic RIGHT under the fucking pedestrian overpass...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....an18m.html

[kilroy]

That's the first time I've seen that video and I'd have to side with the cop.

Very poor choice of examples by Ms. McElroy, and it's not for lack of options.

[dunphy]

and ms mcelroy can;'t even get the facts straight. she claims the cop punched the jaywalker...
FALSE

he punched the woman who interfered with his attempting to arrest the jaywalker after she refused to comply and provide id.

and also, as explained, franklin High school requested police respond and enforce the statute, as the city had built a pedestrian overpass over the busy rainier ave. s expressly to cut down on vehicle-ped collisions and incidents (vehicles swerving and screeching to avoid people running across the street), and the kids were routinely ignoring it and running across the street.

also noted that the woman who interfered with the arrest has since apologized to the police officer, publically.

[Old Mexican]

Equally, when local authorities attempt to correct police abuse, police unions are often the greatest barrier.

Unions are the greatest barrier to correct ANY sort of abuse.

[Cyto]

Wendy makes a mistake in using the Seattle jaywalking case to back up her claims. A plurality of Reason blog comments were in support of the police officer. You'll not likely find a less friendly audience for abusive police than this blog, and it still wasn't a slam-dunk condemnation. Therefore support by a biased union representative is hardly surprising - or even an indictment of the union system.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Cyto,

I wasn't one of them, for sure. I was raised with the idea that only cowards hit women. I guess the H&R posters that sided with the jack-booted beast were raised under different standards.

[TrickyVic]

""I was raised with the idea that only cowards hit women.""

Obviously the lady was raised under a different standard too. Ladies don't act like that.

[Old Mexican]

Re: TrickyVic,

Obviously the lady was raised under a different standard too. Ladies don't act like that.

I wasn't raised to not hit ladies only.

Only cowards hit women.

[TrickyVic]

""Only cowards hit women.""

Really? It's that cut and dry? What about women suicide bombers? Are they untouchable?

[dunphy]

the law and the use of force guidelines are gender neutral, and should be.

also note that he was effecting the arrest of somebody else, and she was interfering. it's not like he could let go of the first one to go after the second one. he made one quick punch, which fwiw didn't even result in any injuries beyond stinging pain, and it rectified the problem. she can be seen holding her nose, no longer interfering with his arrest.

also noted that the local high school requested to the PD to do jaywalking enforcement there, a busy arterial, where there was a pedestrian overpass built within a few yards of where the schoolkids (primarily) were running acorss the street instead

[rustedangel]

What if your life is in danger? What if you are accosted by 5-6 armed women? Personally, I would prefer to attempt to preserve my life and lose my chivalry.

[Old Mexican]

Re: rustedangel,

What if you are accosted by 5-6 armed women?

Mmmm, are they pretty?

[Night Elf Mohawk]

I've never hit a woman, but that absolutism is moronic questionable.

[zoltan]

Only cowards hit women.

Only cowards don't defend themselves and others against abuse.

[Ivan]

"Only cowards hit women", pretty close to what my father taught me.

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

I was raised with a more nuanced version of this idea, and the whole business make me exceedingly uncomfortable, but what would you have had him do?

Just give up the arrest?

Draw his tazer? Or his gun?

As I said before: his principle error was strategic: he should never have let it come to that.

[dunphy]

how would you have handled it? if what he did was so wrong, what would you have done? be specific.

[TrickyVic]

You beat me to it. It is a bad example. But I have a better one.

The head of the PBA for NYC made excuses and defended the cop that sodimized Abner Louima.

[Abner Louima]

You know I wanted it.

[WTF]

More importantly than the girl who got punched - where in the fuck does Congress get off thinking it has the legitimate constitutional power to tell a state or local government how to relate to its employees?

That's just plain fucked up, right there. This Congress and administration have just totally lost any understanding or recognition whatever of the constitutional limits to their power, or the concept of federalism and shared sovereignty.

[Cyto]

But, but... the unions! Unions are more good!

[Take Care of THIS!]

I have trouble feeling sorry for the woman who got punched. Her friend is getting arrested, and she decides to jump in and try to start a struggle with the cop. What else was going to happen other than her getting punched?

[John]

He could have shot her I guess. To me the whole thing is pretty low on the list of cop outrages.

[dunphy]

it's not an outrage AT ALL. it was completely justified.

i;'m the first to criticize excessive force, like the local cop who ran in and beat the girl in the holding cell. note that that officer was fired... and tried twice for assault. two hung juries.

[hmm]

"He [the Seattle officer] did nothing wrong. If anything, I think he maybe waited a little too long to engage in force."

With a statement like that society should iterate to shoot first in a little less than 100 incidents.

[TickleStick]

Same a China in reponse to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.

[Leroy]

I'd have to agree with the quote here.

Had the police officer grown a set and stopped pussy-footing around with the first woman (the jaywalker) the second woman wouldn't have had time to assault him.

The cop here tried to be too nice to the jaywalker because she was a woman. If I struggled against a cop trying to detain me I would expect to have my ass slammed on the ground and a knee in my back.

So I would have to agree that the officer waited too long to engage in force.

[dunphy]

his wrestling with the woman WAS force. heck, according to most use of force continuums even giving a verbal order is FORCE, although not physical force.

[J sub MNG]

Cop unions are a good thing because they proect the downtrodden workers from unjust discipline from elected police chiefs, sherriffs and other elected officials.

If your head gets bashed in or your maney stolen by a thug clad in blue, it's just the price we pay for social justice.

[John]

+infinity

And don't forget they negotiated those salaries and benefits fair and square. What do you not believe in the sanctity of the contract?

[dunphy]

police chiefs are appointed, sheriffs are elected fwiw.

as a police union member myself, i don;'t pretend that my union protects society at large, or the general good. they advocate for US, and US only. unions are a selective advocacy group and not always right, or always wrong, but necessarily biased towards their constituents.

it's an adversarial system, just like a court of law.

[zoltan]

The only good thing about unions is they can stop a city or county from changing strict hiring standards for the sake of diversity.

[hmm]

As a man I'd be ashamed I couldn't manhandle both women at the same time without throwing a punch. Hell, I'd be ashamed I couldn't disarm the situation verbally.

Is that racist, or sexist, or both?

[TrickyVic]

That cop should be ashamed he couldn't put the first one in cuffs dispite his best effort. What's the odds that the other lady jumped in because the cop appeared weak?

[Islam]

That's what I was thinking.

[rustedangel]

I definitely got that impression too. If he had controlled the situation and cuffed the 1st girl right away I think there would have been no scene.

That said, it's really easy to armchair quarterback someone.

[TrickyVic]

""That said, it's really easy to armchair quarterback someone.""

That's why websites have comment sections. 😉

[dunphy]

i think part of the reason it took him so long was he was afraid to get more aggressive and throw her on the ground after that level of resistance, because he was alone, and surrounded by a taunting crowd

[Kat]

He (or you, if you were ever to find yourself in a situation like this) should always try to verbally defuse things prior to using force. The cop punched first for the same reason cops shoot friendly house dogs: that's what they're trained to do.

Also, unless you know a good nerve hold you could do one-handed and equally well with both hands, there's no way you'd be able to restrain two struggling and frightened people, regardless of sex, for any length of time without hurting yourself or them.

[Tulpa]

I took way too long with my response below, since Kat already made my point in a better fashion.

But I have to question the utility of silver tongued oratory in that situation. The easiest way to control a hostile and potentially violent crowd is to badly hurt the first one who makes a threatening move. More times than not that will prevent the others from taking that chance.

[hmm]

Well fuck. In that case he should have just shot one of them. Problem solved.

[Tulpa]

Oh, and I wouldn't remotely compare it to shooting a household dog. First because the damage isn't comparable -- I doubt the punched woman was even seriously injured -- and second because it's much easier to tell when a human is attacking compared to a dog. You have to be much more careful to interpret what an approaching dog's intention is.

While I share the general feeling around here that most dog shootings are unjustified, I hope that even you guys don't expect cops to just stand there and allow themselves to be bitten.

[hmm]

At 6'4" 230lbs and having spent a decent portion of my life pulling myself into a tree. I'm pretty sure I poses the attributes to restrain both of those women without punching either.

Now that I have my internet tough guy shirt on. The officer couldn't even handle the one woman. Who appears to weighed less, and appeared to have less strength than the officer. Yet he spent forever dancing around with her. If she was a threat she should have been dumped to the ground handcuffed and hauled off. Not waltzed around a car.

[dunphy]

and if she was dumped to the ground, which would have been lawful fwiw with her level of resistance, and she got ouchies, or god forbid broke a tooth or whatever on the pavement, he very well may have been rushed by the crowd and people here and elsewhere would be calling for him to be fired and sued for excessive force.

fwiw, i am a competitive strength athlete, and 230 lbs, and it is NOT easy to place a struggling ANYBODY male or female into cuffs if they are actively resisting. i certainly think i could have done a better job 🙂 but it is not as easy as TJ hooker episodes imply.

[hmm]

I didn't say it was easy. I said it was possible.

The idea of being rushed is silly. Crowds rarely react that way. A ten minute cruise through crowd psych 101 will support that. Especially with regards to police. If the officer feared for his life he should have drawn his weapon, that's what it is there for.

[dunphy]

crowds do RARELY react that way, but when they do it can be deadly. officers act with this sort of decision matrix all the time. i know the psychology, and i can totally understand why he did not want to risk getting overrun by being relatively "light" with his force on the first woman.

here's a hint. IF the police officer drew his weapon, he needed to be justified in doing so, and in that situation at that point imo he wasn't. and it would create the risk of seriously escalating the situation. IF you are justified in drawing your gun, then generally speaking you are justified in shooting a person if they rush you when you have the gun out, so you BETTER be justified in the first prong.

lots of stuff is "possible" but as a guy who has made hundreds of arrests over 20+ yrs, i am dealing with reality. SPD and WA state do not teach their officers to be martial artists. the physical defensive tactics training is pretty minimal and fwiw physical tactics training is especially weak if not constantly reinforced through continuous training, and i know for a fact that that doesn't happen with SPD.

if the citizens of seattle want to pay (a lot) more to significantly raise the level of physical tactics training for their officers, more power to them.

my agency's training budget is so tight, it aint gonna happen.

like i said, i don't think he handled the first woman OPTIMALLY, but understanding the situation, i think he did a pretty darn good job.

also, let's be realistic. i can guarantee you that he was at least as worried about what he did LOOKING bad on video as he was about effecting the arrest. slamming her on the hood woul dhave LOOKED bad, even though it would have been justified. whether or not it would have inflamed the crowd , he's got all that crap running through his mind while he is trying to wrestle this woman into cuffs.

[hmm]

And jacking a woman in the face is not a serious escalation? Really? I thought your force continuum was always to be one step ahead (which is bullshit in most situations). So after the woman resisted and he spent 2 minutes dancing with her why didn't he escalate? Why did he continue to grapple? If the case was nothing more than a jaywalking case why escalate to that point, other than the massive ego most officers carry?

He wasn't so worried about being filmed that he wasn't willing to throw a punch at the woman.

You're demonstrating the same thing anyone who criticizes the police in general for, the thin blue line with the us v. them mentality.

The whole incident was handled poorly from the minute the officer decided to engage the public, over a jay walking infraction.

[dunphy]

there are two seperate offenders here.

he would NOT have been justified in punching the resistant subject, not under my agency's use of force guidelines, and imo not under the 9th circuit.

he punched the woman who assaulted him and interefed with his arrest, which WAS justified.

this has nothing to do with any thin blue line. it has to do with legal analysis and the use of force continuum

when officer's act inappropriately, i call them on it, such as the paul schene case (commented on here) where i said i thought the officer should have been FIRED and CRIMINALLY CHARGED and guess what? a few months later, he was charged.

and for the 100th time, the officer did not CHOOSE to "engage the public over a jay walking infraction"

FRANKLIN HIGH SCHOOL REQUESTED POLICE enforce jaywalking due to the fact that kids were routinely ignoring the pedestrian overpass that had been built there SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE JAYWALKERS were causing a traffic hazard (and collisions and near misses) on the busy arterial knows as Rainer Ave S.

even if he wasn't assigned ot be there enforcing jaywalking, he had every reason to do so, but the reality in this case was that he WAS ASSIGNED TO ENFORCE THESE STATUTES DUE TO A REQUEST FROM THE LOCAL HIGH SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION

if you can't even get your basic fact pattern right, you fail.

and you have

[Tulpa]

If the officer feared for his life he should have drawn his weapon, that's what it is there for.

Where were you on the snowball fight thread? I could have used you as a caricature witness.

[hmm]

I have never feared for my life in any situation regarding a snowball. Never. Ever. As a matter of fact I think I would have had a hard time not lighting a few people up with snowballs myself.

[dunphy]

lol on "caricature witness"

drawing a weapon especially amidst a crowd is a SERIOUS decision, and one not to be made lightly.

i am very glad he did not choose to do so. once you escalate to that level, it is EXCEEDINGLY difficult in many cases to sucessfully de-escalate.

his use of force in this incident was entirely appropriate, whereas the snowball incident was a complete travesty.

SPD fwiw, requires officers document every time they draw their gun (apart from unoccupied building searches etc.).

[hmm]

I'm not sure, but I think Tulpa was for the officer with respect to the snowball incident. I remember a property rights argument and other silliness.

[dunphy]

really? i think the officer, or ANYbody in that situation would not have been justified in doing what they did (his drawing his gun etc. )

contrast with THIS incident, where the use of force was CLEARLY justified, and quite frankly, handled quite well

the problem is that you have a cop punching a woman, which always LOOKS bad. it doesn't matter how JUSTIFIED it is, it looks "icky" and then the fact that he was a white officer and she a black female adds all kind of levels of local outrage.

regardless, officers act under constitutional (*state and federal, not to mention the 9th circuit) guidelines, as well as dept. force policies, and i can state unequivocally that punching somebody who is grabbing your arm while you are making an arrest of somebody else (and especially when she did it MULTIPLE TIMES) is entirely reasonable

[Tulpa]

The officer in the snowball fight wasn't on duty. I wasn't defending him as a cop, I was defending his right to self-defense as a general citizen.

And he didn't draw the weapon until the mob started pelting him in the face with snowballs. Clearly, most people here remember snowball fights from the perspective of games on snow days, where they're just harmless fun...but the behavior of the mob in that story doesn't bring to mind harmless fun.

[dunphy]

i'm aware he wasn't on duty. i'm also aware that i believe he was not legally justified in pulling his gun.

[Leroy]

fwiw, i am a competitive strength athlete, and 230 lbs, and it is NOT easy to place a struggling ANYBODY male or female into cuffs if they are actively resisting.

Agreed. I worked at a placement facility for juveniles, and we frequently had to 'restrain' the residents. I was a wrestler in highschool and college, but even the 12 year old that weighed 50 lbs soaking wet could give you hell if he had his mind set on it, especially if you're trying to be gentle (as the cop obviously was with the first female)

[dunphy]

the worst are nekkid sweaty people. there's a great cops episode with philadelphia pd where they are trying to wrestle a slippery wet naked guy into custody inside a store and it's a frigging pig pile clusterfuck of cops and it still takes them quite some time.

[dunphy]

he didn't punch "first". did you even see the video?

[Tulpa]

It takes two hands (and probably a knee) to handcuff a struggling person. No way you're going to be able to do that while physically controlling another person. You have to remove the attacker from the situation long enough to get the handcuffing done.

And yeah, let's see you guys perform a delicate maneuver like handcuffing while surrounded by a hostile mob to which your back is turned while you kneel on the ground.

[hmm]

Why can't a trained cop execute this "delicate" maneuver?

[dunphy]

you are kidding right? this reminds me of the common fallacy used by 911 truthers, the myth of the powerful, exceptionally competent and knowing govt. (iow, even believing that govt. is competent enough to pull off such a massive conspiracy w./o leaks and/or to catch the cues that it was going to happen, etc. etc.)

police officers are not trained martial artists. we have (i can speak for state of WA) some training. it doesn't make us into royce gracie. he handled it pretty well. fwiw, i've had a lot more training than the average cop, and am a nationally ranked competitive athlete, and *i* know how difficult it is to wrestle somebody into handcuffs, and especially when another person is interfering and to achieve that result WITHOUT causing injury to either party or myself, which is exactly what he did

you can criticize all you want, but he had a resistive subject, a taunting crowd, and a second subject assaulting/interfering with the arrest and he managed to dissuade the latter party and wrestle the former into handcuffs with no injuries to either party or himself. that's pretty fucking successful use of force, frankly

[hmm]

You mean to tell me police forces aren't trained to subdue a violent criminal and restrain them? You have some training?

Well there's the problem. Because I've never seen a strike as a means of subduing a person to the point of hand cuffing them. Neither have the two sheriffs I know and the one prison guard I know had worse to say about the cop than I did.

Like I said before, maybe the fact he was wrestling her into handcuffs over jay walking was the issue. Maybe a little more verbal and a little less Heman cop.

*the other person in the video didn't interfere until well past the time the officer could have had the lady cuffed or at least up against the car, instead he danced with her*

[dunphy]

no, i mean to tell you that the training we receive does not turn us into martial arts experts such that we expertly take (especially TWO PEOPLE AT ONCE) into handcuffs without risk of injury to them or us,and that it all looks pretty like a TJ hooker takedown.

it is DIFFICULT to take a struggling person into handcuffs. period. and especially if you are trying not to inflame a crowd who is watching your every move and then you have ANOTHER person jump in and grab your arm.

he did a GOOD JOB.

the strike was NOT applied to the person he was trying to handcuff. fwiw, a strike to her probably would NOT have been justified under most use of force policies, because she was being RESISTANT but not assaultive (at least according my recollection).

contrast with the woman who grabbed the officer's arm WHILE he was wrestling with the arrestee. ThAT was assaulting and not merely resistive and the punch ACHIEVED the goal, which was to prevent and dissuade her from effecting the other person's escape.

fwiw, the 2nd woman's crime was much more serious than the first. merely resisting is one thing. actively trying to grab an officer while he is arresting somebody else is generally treated more seriously and justifies a higher level of force.

and he was wrestling her into cuffs for JAYWALKING. he was wrestling her into cuffs for refusing to stop and provide ID after she jaywalked. i don't care what the infraction is. if an officer demands you stop and provide ID, you have a duty to do so. do we provide an incentive for people to ignore police demands to stop subsequent to committing infractions by NOT going after them and just saying 'screw it'? that creates a perverse incentive for them to NOT obey a lawful order to stop

there is no contention in this incident that the order was unlawful (and even then, she wouldn't have the legal right to resist the order. her redress would be in court and a civil suit). there is no claim that she did not , in fact, commit the offense, in the officer's presence.

if you think it's a minor offense, GROOVY. but recall that the franklin HS REQUESTED police enforce jaywalking in this AREA, a busy arterial with a past history of collisions and near misses due to jaywalking, and where a pedestrian overpass was built specifically to alleviate the problem, and which overpass she CHOSE not to use, and instead run across the street

and if she had been hit by a car, we would have some poor sap just driving down the road who is now saddled with the guilt of killing somebody (although not his fault) who ran out in front of him, a grieving family, and god kjnows what collateral damage, if he swerved after hitting her or to avoid her

if you think the city of seattle should legalize jaywalking, such that people can run across busy arterials, especially where there is a pedestrian overpass, then feel free to lobby for repeal of the jaywalking statutes.

but imo it is a legitimate public safety issue

the irony is that she very well may have just gotten a WARNING for jaywalking, if she had stopped and complied.

instead of now facing resisting arrest charges.

it was HER decision to jaywalk, it was HER decision to compound her problems by ignoring a lawful order, and it was HER decision to resist arrest

[hmm]

Just so you know your caps lock is sporadically sticking.

And it was the officers decision to escalate the situation to violence. As I recall no one became physical until the officer did. Oh, but that's right you are supposed to be one step ahead of the perp with respect to escalation of violence.

You're doing a good job of reaffirming the negative stereotypes.

[dunphy]

no, it was not the officer's decision

he used reasonable force at each point that the arrestee ESCALATED.

when she decided to not stop, she made that decision. that justified the physical stop, and etc.

i don't give a flying fuck about your biases and prejudices. and "negative stereotypes". i am referencing use of force guidelines, consistent with legal decisions, and you are referencing "stereotypes"

the reality is that every day people COMPLY with orders to stop in seattle and elsewhere, after committing infractions and are either given a citation, a warning, or arrested in some cases if there are criminal violations, warrants, etc.

SHE chose to escalate at each step by refusing to stop, then resisting when the officer tried to stop her. and the 2nd person chose to assault the officer and interfere with an arrest. people make choices, and live with them

[fresno dan]

Ironically, I just commented on another post about the over use of racism. But here is Montgomery county MD the messages on a police message board came out - e-mails between cops, and it was....racist.
Here is a clear example of public employees stereotyping people, joking about abusing their powers, tantamount confessions of false witness, etcetera, and the county was unable to fire or discipline or even investigate the users of the message board. It was quite an eye opener for me.

[Paul]

The president of the local police union declared, "He [the Seattle officer] did nothing wrong. If anything, I think he maybe waited a little too long to engage in force."

This particular case got a little more complicated. For instance, the young woman popped in the mouth by the police officer actually later apologized to said officer.

If you watch the full video, while I would hesitate to say she was assaulting the police officer, let's say she was shoving him aggressively enough and attempting to interfere with the arrest of another girl-- because the girl punched by the cop wasn't the one jaywalking. It was a friend of the jaywalking girl who started shoving and "hitting" the officer and physically started pulling her friend away from the officer. He actually asked her several times to back off and when she saw he wasn't doing anything physical back, SHE became extremely aggressive and he finally responded with a totally boss overhand right.

The fact that this case cooled off very quickly in a city like Seattle-- a city that collectively goes apeshit if they even suspect racial profiling-- tells you something.

Let me put it this way, this jaywalking case in no way resembles the deputy Schene case... a serious breach of police power that should have ended with him getting thrown in jail, but ended in a hung jury.

[dunphy]

and i , as a cop, said schene should have been fired and tried... and he was.

it actually ended in TWO hung juries.

contrast with this jaywalker case where the cop did remarkably well with the second woman. he made one quick, effective punch and it ENDED the confrontation with her AND even didn't cause any injuries. it was a close to flawless use of force.

he is lucky it WAS on camera. it exonerates him completely.

[dunphy]

i wonder if ms mcelroy will make a retraction or correction. it's simply not correct as to her claim that:For example, in June a young black woman who had jaywalked was punched in the face by a Seattle policeman.

[dunphy]

the woman was not injured at all. unless, "transient stinging pain" counts as injury. it was actually a very effective blow and achieved the desired result (to stop her from interfering with the other person's arrest) with no injury.

[hmm]

Legal, "transient stinging pain" caused by another individual striking someone in the face counts as an injury. You would think an officer would know that?

[dunphy]

i am well aware of that, but i know most laymen think of injury as bruises, broken bones, etc.

under RCW, that pain DOES count as injury.

regardless, it was a quite effective blow, and since it did not cause injury BEYOND transient stinging pain AND accomplished the goal, with just ONE strike, it was a remarkably effective, prudent, and restrained use of force.

this officer did, overall, a very good job. a punch in the nose, especially god forbid a white police officer striking a black woman is never going to look pretty. regardless, it was entirely justified, and i applaud the young woman for PUBLICALLY APOLOGIZING to the cop.

[hmm]

If you're aware of it why are you advocating otherwise?

the woman was not injured at all. unless, "transient stinging pain" counts as injury.

I don't give a flying blue assed monkey fuck what laymen consider it. You have stated you are an officer of the law and yet you are clearly advocating the exact opposite in order to try and make your point.

I don't care how fucking effective it is. I could put 2 rounds in that woman's chest and call it effective. The tactic being effective is irrelevant.

You can stop saying he did a good job, we get it. What the woman did after is also irrelevant.

[dunphy]

i wasn't "advocating" anything. ceteris paribus, transient stinging pain is LESS serious than transient pain combined with visible and/or disabling and/or evident injury and/or continuing persistent pain

recall that, for example, in numerous cases, to include the paul schene case (where the jury hung twice), one of the reasons given by some jurors for NOT finding the cop defendant guilty of assault (imo, he did commit assault, but i'm not the finder of fact... the jury is), was that she suffered no injuries BEYOND a transient pain (upon being slammed to the ground).

fwiw, our use of force policies distinguish transient pain from bruises, and continued pain in that the latter require a whole seperate use of force report than the former.

in brief, it is relevant as juries, case law, and dept policies have shown

second of all, how effective the use of force is, IS relevant. for example, if he punched her, she came back at him (iow, it was ineffective), he may have had to escalate to an even higher use of force because the lower level of force was ineffective.

this is a consistent aspect of use of force case law- whether the level of force is seen as reasonable does NOT mean it must be "minimally intrusive" but reasonable considering the level of force the officer is being confronted with, and the likelihood of success.

see , for example,

Gregory v. County of Maui, 523 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir.2008) (citing Forrester, 25 F.3d at 807-08).

furthermore, in discussing use of force options, the likelihood of extent of injuries (which distinguishes between transient pain, minor bruising vs. more serious injury, internal organ damage, broken bones, etc.) is key as to primary, secondary and tertiary targets

this is why , for example, baton strikes are generally directed at primary targets (peroneal nerve etc.) because they are likely to be both EFFECTIVE and minimally intrusive (to use the language of the SCOTUS) vs. secondary and tertiary targets.

iow to justify a strike to a secondary or tertiary target (the head would be a tertiary target) factors to consider are the effectiveness (there's that word again) of lower levels of force, the level of resistance the offender presents to an officer, the nature of the offense, whether the suspect is armed, the officer's knowledge of the suspect's violent history, the necessity of preventing escape, etc. etc

it's called "totality of the circumstancees"

hth

[Tulpa]

I should add that I think the cop was being overzealous about enforcing the jaywalking statute in that case. A lot of the trouble was self-inflicted by his decision to try to detain an entire crowd single-handedly.

Perhaps he was worried about being accused of discrimination if he randomly chose a black woman to write a ticket for.

[dunphy]

in THIS case?

you are aware that franklin high school, that is right next to this location had REQUESTED the police perform jaywalking enforcement in this area, because of the problem of kids running across the roadway instead of using the ped overpass that the city had constructed to protect them from running across an arterial roadway, and ESPECIALLY during rush hour, which in that area (and most of seattle) starts about 2:30 to 3:00 pm) iow when schoolkids get out for the day?

you are aware that the reason they constructed the ped overpass was due to past problems with peds and vehicles on a busy arterial?

he didn't randomly choose anybody. seattle PD is well known for being proactive in jaywalking enforcement and regardless, in THIS case they were actually requested by school administration?

[hmm]

Do you often find officers in physical confrontations over jay walking tickets?

[dunphy]

no, because in the VAST majority of circumstances, the people COMPLY with the order to stop, at which point, the officer records the person's identification and issues either a citation or warning.

i have made several dozen of these type stops in my 20+ yrs of law enforcement experience, and issued maybe 3 or 4 citations, giving mostly warnings.

in ONE instance, i had a guy run from me after my order to stop. i chased him , caught him, and arrested him.

he didn't start the physical confrontation

SHE DID

1) she refused to stop. and note, this is stipulated. nobody has claimed she didn't ignore his MULTIPLE orders to stop

2) when he went to grab her, which is what you are justified in doing when somebody refuses and order to stop, she resisted him. clearly. it's seen on video.

SHE ESCALATED it, not him

3) the woman who interfered with the arrest by grabbing the arm, committed a much more serious offense, which was assaultive not merely resistant, and a "closed hand strike" is clearly justified under
1) constitutional (federal) law
2) constitutional (state) law
3) SPD force guidelines (fwiw, i've read them. have you?)
4) 9th circuit opinions (which are controlling unless and until SCOTUS overrules, which they do frequently with the 9th)

[dunphy]

oh, i also should note that , generally speaking, in any type of offense (jaywalking, traffic, whatever) where the person flees, there is a high likelihood they have warrants, etc. which is often what incentivizes them to run. they don't want to go to jail.

officers are authorized, and imo duty bound to stop those who refuse orders to stop, lest they incentivize such behavior.

[hmm]

Uh, I have no obligation as a citizen to stop if you tell me to stop without reasonable cause. Reasonable cause does not include my refusal to stop and deny your friendly stop. (in this state) Further more I have no obligation to self identify if I consent to a friendly stop without reasonable cause.

You are exemplifying the very issues being raised. You are not all powerful and at least where I am you are not duty bound to "stop those who refuse orders to stop" unless you have a reasonable cause.

You're going to have a hard time just tossing out opinions and codified law to scare anyone here (that's the vibe I'm getting). Because I'm betting most here are better versed in law than you are.

Police departments manage to legally justiy shooting dogs and unarmed people all the time. I'd have to say that your attempt to justify the officers inabilities and need to strike a woman isn't surprising.

[Tulpa]

He had reasonable cause to stop her -- she was in violation of statute and he needed to cite her for it.

I'm with you in general, though -- police should NOT have the authority to stop you just because they want to ask questions -- there should be probable cause that you've committed a crime. Unfortunately the law says otherwise.

[dunphy]

tulsa, the law says they need reasonable suspicion per terry v. ohio, to be precise.

[Tulpa]

Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause...

[dunphy]

i;m aware of that.

in THIS case, the officer had probable cause AND he had the extra factor that he had personally witnessed the offense. (some states require than an infraction be actually witnessed. WA state and most states do not. RS is required). but in this case, he HAD probable cause, and not based on what somebody told him, but what he saw with his own two eyes.

the reality is that, even though in THIS case, the officer was assigned to this area to do jaywalking enforcement because of a request from franklin high school

regardless, go to this link
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....an18m.html
WATCH THE VIDEO

and tell me if you don't think stopping people for jaywalking, like shown in the video is entirely appropriate.

kids think they are invincible.

i've seen what happens when metal meets flesh. trust me, they aren't

[dunphy]

actually, you are wrong.

under the law., you DO have a duty to stop even if you think the reason to stop is not justified. that's black letter law. your area for redress is civil court, etc. if you believe the stop was unlawful.

there have been some state case laws that are different . for example, in MA it USED to be lawful to resist an unlawful arrest. that case law was changed.

again, you demonstrate your ignorance of the law.

there are a # of reasons for this.

regardless, you are not omniscient. let's say an officer says "stop" and you don't, because you think you did nothing wrong. in fact, you DIDN't do anything wrong, but you are a white male, shaved head, wearing a blue shirt outside the safeway and the officer just received a shoplifting call that a white male, shaved head, wearing a blue shirt had just exited the store. in fact, you are not THAT male, but that's irrelevant. based on the description, and your proximity, the officer has (at least) reasonable suspicion, if not PC at THAT POINT, and your refusal to comply creates PC for arrest for obstructing EVEN IF YOU ARE INNOCENT of the underlying offense.

u are not omniscient. u have a legal duty to comply

[hmm]

you DO have a duty to stop even if you think the reason to stop is not justified.

No I don't. If the officer thinks he has reasonable cause to detain me he can place me under arrest regardless of asking me to stop. If I ask I if am free to go and he says anything other than yes he has custody of me and better have a fucking reason. Otherwise he is illegally detaining me. My redress is both civil and criminal at that point if he is acting outside the scope of his duties and detaining me.

The trick isn't knowing my rights, it's knowing the officers authority.

You really are high on the "you have a duty to comply" horse. Liken' that authoritah aren't ya? We all know how far reasonable suspicion can be stretched.

Refusal to comply laws are abused about as much as the commerce clause.

[dunphy]

look, i am trying to be nice about it, but you CLEARLY don't know case law. any 1L, or anybody who has a cursory knowledge of con law could see that.

if the officer has reasonable suspicion, he can detain me.

the METHOD of detention is determined by again, the totality of the circumstances.

if i am doing a terry stop of an armed robbery suspect, i don't say
"hey, stop. i need to talk to you" with my hands at my side.

i'm not "high" on anything. i am citing the law, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, as has been determined by the scotus. every state can recognize ADDITIONAL protections, and many do, but i am not aware of any that do not allow an officer to detain somebody for RS of a crime or an infraction (some require the officer personally witness it, when it's an infraction, though)

whether a detention under terry becomes an arrest, constructive or otherwise, is dependant on a host of factors (force used, time detained, etc. etc.) but the reality is this.

the vast (and i mean VAST) majority of people respect that if a cop says "stop" or "come over here" etc. that they need to comply. the vast majority of such encounters, and i can state this from 20+ yrs experience in three states, are brief, friendly, etc.

the officer in this case witnessed an infraction. he had the legal authority to detain that person for the time it takes to

1) write the ticket - if he chooses to do so
2) question her about it briefly (note that WA state generally does not allow the scope of the questioning to delve into criminal matters without some particularized suspicion, when the stop is merely for an infraction. but i digress)
3) run her name through WACIC/DOL/NCIC to check for warrants, etc.

and that's it. when people COMPLY, which the vast majority do, there is no reason for the officer to put hands on the person, and they do not.

SHE elevated the encounter by refusing to stop at which point it went from a simple stop for an infraction, where she would get either a verbal warning, or a citation, and turned into a situation where she gave the officer probable cause for arrest (obstructing).

all she had to was stop, and provide the officer with her name, dob, etc. - enough information to write the citation. NOTHING more.

by refusing to do so, she crossed from a simple civil infraction into a crime.

he STILL might have given her a warning or a criminal cite, but after multiple requests to stop and to comply, and once he put her hands on her to physically get her to stop she resisted etc.

she was the only one at fault here.

if she had a problem with the law that forbids jaywalking, she could take it up WITH THE COURT or petition the legislature to change the law, or the city council to pressure the police chief to let school kids run across rainier ave (a busy arterial) during rush hour (after school gets out) instead of taking an extra minute or so TO WALK OVER THE FRIGGING PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS and USE IT

and if you were the one driving your car on rainier, and you had to swerve to avoid her dumb ass, you would be pissed. if you hit a pole or something - doubly so.

i am a libertarian because i believe people have the right to be left the fuck alone, and to do what they want with their own body and their own space.

otoh, i do not believe that people have the right to run across a busy arterial because they are too fucking lazy to use the overpass.

and god knows if her precious little self HAD been hit by a car, we would hear endless hagiographies about what a great kid she was bla bla when the reality was the only reason she was dead, and some poor motorist was saddled with guilt for the rest of his life was because she didn't want to use the frigging crosswalk.

LAME

[hmm]

but you CLEARLY don't know case law.

That's an interesting way to start a rebuttal. It's more interest since you listed absolutely zero cases or case law in the argument.

[Edwin]

hmmmm, you should STFU, because you clearly don't know what you';re talking about here

[hmm]

Clearly. Your insightful rebuttal littered with facts, case law, references, and irrefutable... wait never mind.

[dunphy]

again, if there is ONE thing about the law i said that you think is not supported by case law, then name it.

i teach firearms to include use of force training. i've read the cases, and our curriculum is devised with such in mind. i am not writing a legal brief here. it's a friggin' blog post. if you want to continue to wallow in ignorance feel free.

if you question any legal principle about use of force, force continuum, etc. then tell me which one and i can probably point you to the proper reference.

in the case of SPD, i have read their entire use of force policy (i've read a # of regional agencies around here, because it helped us co
mpare to our own).

it is not online as far as i know.

[hmm]

I know threaded comments are bullshit, and I'm sure you agree. The response you replied to just above this was to Edwin.

[hmm]

oh ya, two m's not four. That's the pointy finger and the bad finger. No other fingers or thumbs.

[dunphy]

nearly everything i said is SUPPORTED by case law. you are correct. i did not list specific cites for each. feel free to challenge any specific claim of mine, and i will be glad to provide a case law cite for it. i am not writing a legal brief here, and i don't feel the need to annotate every single statement i make when it is uncontroversial settled law e.g terry v. ohio, etc.

again, what SPECIFICALLY, if anything do you DISagree with?

[hmm]

You've already proven you are willing to use whatever reasoning or argument you want to make your point.

unless, "transient stinging pain" counts as injury.

Why would not assume you are going to make the same type statements totally disregarding case law and codified law (that you seem obsessed with using w/o actually using it) to support your point that what the officer did was not only acceptable, but the correct action?

I'm pretty sure that no matter what you will find a way to justify the act and not question any portion of it. You'll argue they aren't trained to handle the situation, which is laughable, that the officer had a duty to arrest her and escalate the incident farther (rather than try to talk the incident down), that case law that really isn't all that relevant, or some form of contempt of cop bullshit. Spending time discussing an argument that dilutes to the point of not even resembling the issue raised for the original discussion is silly.

It's safe to say that the union and the blue line/wall will remain intact for years to come. Until people get sick of the way their public servants are treating them.

The incident was handled poorly from start to finish.

I just realized the name, dunphy. It's very fitting, given past endorsements and defenses, whether you are Jack or not.

(Your using all caps for emphasis is annoying as hell.)

[dunphy]

again, with your rubbish. i'll make two quick points

1) you keep saying that i will do anything to justify cop force, that i am just a kneejerk cop apologist, yet that's demonstrably false. i made it very clear i thought the paul schene jail cell beatdown WAS a criminal assault, and that he should be fired and charged. if i was interested in kneejerk defense of cops who did something WRONG, i wouldn't say that. THIS cop did not do anything wrong from a legal, departmental or civil standpoint.

2) let's try this. if this cop did something wrong, then CITE THE FRIGGING USE OF FORCE GUIDELINE HE VIOLATED

feel free to use a model use of force continuum for guidance if you are unable to locate SPD's. like i said, i've read SPD's but i have no idea if it's online.

a punch to the nose is a closed hand impact strike. that is justified when, among other things, somebody assaults an officer. this officer was assaulted. nobody denies that. specifically, he was assaulted while he was ALREADY making an arrest, which raises the seriousness, since it at least suggests (as most people here believe) that she was attempting to assist the other woman in committing escape.

and do this thought experiment. assume it was a guy who grabbed his arm while a female cop was arresting another man. would SHE be justified in punching?

here's a hint. the guidelines are not gender dependant.

if it would have been ok for a female cop to do to a male suspect, it's ok here.

hth

[Tulpa]

How is that going to disincentivize people with warrants out on them/drugs in the vehicle from fleeing?

[dunphy]

simple. because people do NOT like to be tackled (which usually happens after a foot pursuit) or pitted etc. after a vehicle pursuit. they also don't like the additional penalties that come from eluding, obstructing, etc.

this is no mystery. i've interrogated hundreds of all sorts of suspects. their past experience with the cops is often an incentivizing behavior in regards to how they react to police conduct.

i have never fired my taser at anybody, but have drawn it and threatened use of it if suspects didn't comply on several occasions (i did so with a knife wielding EDP last week). many have told me the reason they complied with a drawn taser, was that they had been tased before, and didn't want it to happen again.

heck, even chris rock said not to run from the police. 🙂

if criminals can get away with X, they tend to continue to do X. one does not have to be a psychologist to understand that.

also i can say unequivocally as somebody who worked deep undercover for a long time, that criminals share anecdotes about police behavior. if the word gets around that dept. X doesn't pursue for Y, they share that info. i've heard that stuff firsthand while hanging with people undercover.

criminals usually do not engage in complex cost-benefit analysis, etc. but they are not immune to changing their behavior based on past experience.

this sharing of info spreading behavioral changes is what is referred to as "general deterrence" vs "specific deterrence" which would be where an individual modifies their behavior based on the enforcement action.

let me give you one example.

we had this house that was famous for having very loud and raucous parties numerous drunken kids, etc. the neighbors complained, we would respond and they would refuse to open the door. we couldn't do anything w/o a warrant, so we did nothing.

this went on for a short while, and community pressure got pretty severe.

the behavior was incentivized because we did nothing.

the next time it happened, we got a search warrant (telephonic) based upon being able to see numerous apparent juveniles in possession of alcohol through the window.

We served the warrant, arrested the resident juvenile for furnishing, cited a bunch of kids for MIP, and we NEVER had another problem at that house.

now, that may seem like an extreme reaction, but my point is the behavior was changed. the kids realized
1) if the cops knock on the door and say they are going to get a warrant, they MEAN it

in most cases of juvenile parties, we would issue warnings and the kids would tone it down and all was well and good. but these ones wouldn't even come to door or turn the shit down, and they were clearly incentivized by our doing nothing.

that's how the real world works.

fwiw, i played in a (loud) band in college. the cops would come to shut us down- we complied. they acted on complaints of neighbors, etc. and the hours that the noise statutes covered. and i never once had a problem with them. they were respectful, etc. as was i. there's a lesson to be learned here.

[hmm]

Awesome ANECDOTE!

Why not make an EFFORT to get a hold of the parents or property owner and let them know THAT it has to stop or you will have to take more drastic action? Instead of GOING the route of escalating the situation and getting a warrant, arresting PEOPLE, and passing out summons. Maybe a little more serve AND a little less protecting people from SHITTY music and DRUNK kids?

that's how the real world works.

Any other PEARLS of wisdom on how "the real world" works?

Do you REFER to yourself in the third PERSON? I'm getting a strong VIBE that this occurs on a regular BASIS.

[dunphy]

there were no parents. brother and sister lived there. sister was 22 iirc and often out of town, and we were unable to even get a contact # for her.

her brother was 17 and was the one who held the parties.

parents are a good resource in many cases. not in this one

[Leroy]

I think you often find officers in physical confrontations when the accused refuses to stop once given the order.

In fact I'd be willing to bet it happens 100 percent of the time provided that the cops can catch the accused.

[dunphy]

depends what you mean by physical confrontation.

if you mean grabbing the person, then yes.

if the person refuses to stop and either runs or walks away, the only thing that stops them, if they don't DECIDE to stop is to be physically stopped

[dunphy]

also note the selection bias. SPD makes metric assloads of jaywalking cites, whether they result in arrest or a warning. however, THOSE don't make the news. when there is a problem, such as this incident, it does

and incidents like this, are entirely caused by the defendant. SHE refused to stop, SHE resisted arrest, and the other woman made the choice to assault the officer in the course of his arresting another

they escalated it. most people don't escalate jaywalking stops, thus there is no physical encounter.

[Tulpa]

Did they request that one officer detain an entire crowd?

[dunphy]

i think the video in this article is very instructive.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....an18m.html

do you think the kids who are doing this should be subject to warnings and/or citations for jaywalking?

can ANYBODY honestly watch these morons jumping into heavy traffic and dodging between lanes of traffic and NOT think they DESERVE a cite when they do it within a few yards of a ped overpass specifically built to help them get across the street safely?

seriously?

[zoltan]

They don't deserve a cite; they deserve several broken bones.