Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: Seattle Police, Garrity Warnings, Investigations, Accountability, Recomendations!

  1. #1
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Seattle Police, Garrity Warnings, Investigations, Accountability, Recomendations!

    A poster in Virginia, Where a 59 yr old sunday school teacher was shot to death in the parking lot 33 days ago,
    "read some for yourself, in the "Culpepper Shooting" thread", found this PDF in "The War on Guns Today" forum.

    It contains a letter from Seattles lawyers concerning recomendations for investigations of Officer Involved Use of Force, U.S. V. Garrity...


    http://www.snyderandhoagllc.com/Spec...ition_2012.pdf

    lots of important info to think about,especially if you get Birked!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Good find Bob.

    Officers are public employees working for "government" when performing their job they voluntarily surrender some rights. I find it utter rubbish that they can do criminal acts and then not have to testify about it because they may loose their job. Rule of law means we are not ruled by men who decide law it means our politicians and public employees are ruled by law, yet we can see how even the courts and the politicians use "law" to protect themselves over the public whom they supposedly serve. Our constitution federal and state protect our liberty not government employees liberty.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501
    I really like this statement: "In those relatively rare circumstances where an officer might have engaged in criminal
    misconduct, it is a disservice to the Department, those officers who follow the law, and the
    community to unnecessarily create artificial obstacles to holding that officer accountable. SPD' s
    current policies and practices do jus t that."

    What I've always believed, perception is more important sometimes than reality. The public perceives inequity, and acts accordingly.

  4. #4
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by oneeyeross View Post
    SPD' s
    current policies and practices do jus t that."
    Until the Court rules that they can't anymore. SPD is trying to hide officers actions behind the exceptions to the Public Disclosure Law. I believe this is being challenged.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    West Jordan
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Good find Bob.

    Officers are public employees working for "government" when performing their job they voluntarily surrender some rights. I find it utter rubbish that they can do criminal acts and then not have to testify about it because they may loose their job. Rule of law means we are not ruled by men who decide law it means our politicians and public employees are ruled by law, yet we can see how even the courts and the politicians use "law" to protect themselves over the public whom they supposedly serve. Our constitution federal and state protect our liberty not government employees liberty.
    I will disagree, why should a public employee who breaks the law have to say testify? The 5th amendment applies to all citizens does it not?

    I am not defending illegal acts just the right to not self incriminate.

    It seams you want to hold them to the same standards as everyone else but deny them the same rights.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by stargateranch View Post
    I will disagree, why should a public employee who breaks the law have to say testify? The 5th amendment applies to all citizens does it not?

    I am not defending illegal acts just the right to not self incriminate.

    It seams you want to hold them to the same standards as everyone else but deny them the same rights.
    Why should a 'public' employee be treated any different than a 'private' employee.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ectful-dialoge
    Why do YOU deserve special treatment, as an American citizen, that other citizens do not also get.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 03-13-2012 at 11:42 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by stargateranch View Post
    I will disagree, why should a public employee who breaks the law have to say testify? The 5th amendment applies to all citizens does it not?

    I am not defending illegal acts just the right to not self incriminate.

    It seams you want to hold them to the same standards as everyone else but deny them the same rights.
    I don't think a police officer should have to testify against himself. However, he should have to file an accurate and truthful report of his actions while on duty. If he fails to do so he should be fired just like I would be fired for lying about something serious to my employer. So it becomes a catch .22 for the officer, tell the truth and be prosecuted, or lie/file no report, and be fired. However, that is how it should be, because they should not be committing crimes, and when they do commit crimes they should be held accountable just like anyone else would be.

    However, that is not what happens in Seattle. In Seattle officers commit crimes, lie about it, their supervisor winks and nods, and then get on with the their career. Actually getting fired is next to impossible. Heck, an officer in Seattle shot and killed a man for walking down the street with a closed and legal knife and not only was he not prosecuted, he couldn't even be fired. He resigned under pressure from the police department, but they couldn't fire him. He is a straight up murderer and he just walks away.... It is ridiculous.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    I don't think a police officer should have to testify against himself. However, he should have to file an accurate and truthful report of his actions while on duty. If he fails to do so he should be fired just like I would be fired for lying about something serious to my employer. So it becomes a catch .22 for the officer, tell the truth and be prosecuted, or lie/file no report, and be fired. However, that is how it should be, because they should not be committing crimes, and when they do commit crimes they should be held accountable just like anyone else would be.

    However, that is not what happens in Seattle. In Seattle officers commit crimes, lie about it, their supervisor winks and nods, and then get on with the their career. Actually getting fired is next to impossible. Heck, an officer in Seattle shot and killed a man for walking down the street with a closed and legal knife and not only was he not prosecuted, he couldn't even be fired. He resigned under pressure from the police department, but they couldn't fire him. He is a straight up murderer and he just walks away.... It is ridiculous.
    What is it LEO like to say? Oh yeah, something like this:

    "Your silence implies that you're guilty."

    "If you have nothing to hide, then you'd consent to talk to me."

    "Only guilty people want a lawyer."

    Et cetera.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    West Jordan
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    What is it LEO like to say? Oh yeah, something like this:

    "Your silence implies that you're guilty."

    "If you have nothing to hide, then you'd consent to talk to me."

    "Only guilty people want a lawyer."

    Et cetera.
    Dave,

    Saying those things takes away no ones rights.

    All Garrity says is that I cannot be compelled to testify by my employer at the cost of my job, and then the employer turn over the findings to criminal investigator.

    I have friends who have lost their jobs, and rightfully so, for DUI and other similar things. So in response to your other post and in my experience we are treated differently and it's is usually harsher. That is my personal experience.

    You cannot deny someone a constitutional right just because they work for the government. They can choose just like you can to give up those rights through something like a non-disclosure agreement however.

  10. #10
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Agents of the state (tyrant, Leviathan, et cetera) have and conflate powers with rights.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    West Jordan
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Agents of the state (tyrant, Leviathan, et cetera) have and conflate powers with rights.
    Have I "conflated" something? Or was that a general statement.

    I am a little put out that we advocate the 2nd amendment so forcefully (and rightfully so), but the 5th amendment is not so vigorously defended or advocated.

  12. #12
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by stargateranch View Post
    Have I "conflated" something? Or was that a general statement.

    I am a little put out that we advocate the 2nd amendment so forcefully (and rightfully so), but the 5th amendment is not so vigorously defended or advocated.
    This is OpenCarry.org's forum. There are similar fora/forums for each of the enumerated rights.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by stargateranch View Post
    I will disagree, why should a public employee who breaks the law have to say testify? The 5th amendment applies to all citizens does it not?

    I am not defending illegal acts just the right to not self incriminate.

    It seams you want to hold them to the same standards as everyone else but deny them the same rights.

    If you follow the original article, you will see that it was also a part of Force Science Institute's ( www.forcescience.org ) Transmittal #199, where they discuss procedures that should be followed in investigating an Officer Involved Shooting (osi). They stress that following those procedures will lead to a better investigation outcome where facts are obtained, as opposed to the officer being subjected to "the stigma of presumed guilt".

    Well, how come the rest of us don't get that treatment recommended when we are being investigated after a shooting incident? (Yes, I mean all of us, LACs and obvious dirtbag BGs.)

    And if you actually read the OP's quoted article, you will see that the cops are getting wasy more than the protections that us mere mortal LACs are allowed.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by stargateranch View Post
    I will disagree, why should a public employee who breaks the law have to say testify? The 5th amendment applies to all citizens does it not?

    I am not defending illegal acts just the right to not self incriminate.

    It seams you want to hold them to the same standards as everyone else but deny them the same rights.
    When he breaks the law in "serving" the public he has no rights, he surrendered them when deciding to work for the government.

    NO I don't want to hold them to the same standards, I want to hold them to higher standards that's part of taking the job, if ya can't handle it don't take the job.

    A private employer has no duty to respect a persons rights and can fire them at will, you are employed by the public and they should demand you comply even if it incriminates you and be able to fire you at will.

    Now off duty you decide to go buy a rock and smoke it in your apartment you have all the rights of non self discrimination as everybody else.

    We have to remember rights apply to people not government. So I repeat when you sign up to work for the government your rights as a government employee are constitutionally restricted. Yet the truth of the matter is we see the government and statist lovers rationalizing away and providing more protection for government workers especially their standing armies in the form of Law enforcement agencies and we have seen the courts, politicians, gov. employees, I might as well throw in the unions that represent them working as symbiotic parasites to protect each other as they feed off the hosts they were hired or elected to protect.

    What if you decided not arrest me on an illegal detention, I go to the public disclosure department and ask for your report and you decided not to file one because you know that either way you commit a crime? You fill the report honestly and it shows you illegally detained me, committed coercion, and broke several other laws, you decide to lie on the report and break several other laws, perjury being one..the case law set out in Brady vs. Marlyand. Should you have the ability to simply refuse to fill out a report, because doing so incriminates you in a crime?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by stargateranch View Post
    Dave,

    Saying those things takes away no ones rights.

    All Garrity says is that I cannot be compelled to testify by my employer at the cost of my job, and then the employer turn over the findings to criminal investigator.

    I have friends who have lost their jobs, and rightfully so, for DUI and other similar things. So in response to your other post and in my experience we are treated differently and it's is usually harsher. That is my personal experience.

    You cannot deny someone a constitutional right just because they work for the government. They can choose just like you can to give up those rights through something like a non-disclosure agreement however.
    This will be rendered moot when LEO are forced to were 360 degree cameras with microphones. And when the officer lacks the ability to disable those devices during his shift.

    Short of that, no person or court will ever know the truth about what any officer did, or didn't do, if there is only written or verbal testimony.

    LEO are afraid of this imho, because of the frequency with which they break the law.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    West Jordan
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    This will be rendered moot when LEO are forced to were 360 degree cameras with microphones. And when the officer lacks the ability to disable those devices during his shift.

    Short of that, no person or court will ever know the truth about what any officer did, or didn't do, if there is only written or verbal testimony.

    LEO are afraid of this imho, because of the frequency with which they break the law.
    All my contact with the public is recorded, I cannot delete or alter it, audio and video. It's dept. policy.

  17. #17
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by stargateranch View Post
    All my contact with the public is recorded, I cannot delete or alter it, audio and video. It's dept. policy.
    Do you honestly think a cop who cares less about the law is going to follow policy? Especially one that could land him in jail?
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...haynes15m.html

    ASeattle police officer contradicted herself on the witness stand Wednesday, giving a jury conflicting testimony in the assault trial of an off-duty Seattle police officer accused of kicking a handcuffed man in the head outside a Ballard bar...

    In initial testimony about the conduct of Officer Garth Haynes, Officer Shannon Burt explained what she saw on patrol-car video she viewed shortly after the Dec. 12, 2010, incident. "I think the video is not clear enough to make out anything specific," Burt said...

    [later under oath] In a dramatic moment, Craig Sims, chief of the criminal division in the Seattle City Attorney's Office, asked Burt about a statement she gave to a sergeant about a month after the incident. Burt acknowledged that she told the sergeant she saw Haynes walk left to right and appear to swing his leg at one of the people."
    This is why LEO deserve no special protection. Just one example of many known incidents -- and countless incidents that will never see the light of a court room.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 03-15-2012 at 01:34 AM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    West Jordan
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...haynes15m.html



    This is why LEO deserve no special protection. Just one example of many known incidents -- and countless incidents that will never see the light of a court room.
    I 100% agree no special protection.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    West Jordan
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    Do you honestly think a cop who cares less about the law is going to follow policy? Especially one that could land him in jail?
    No I don't. A cop who breaks the law is criminal and should be treated as such, but not stripped of any of his rights either.

    I was just kind of letting you know what my department requires. Also video is sure getting better but it still does not show everything. I had a lady latch on to my arm and bite through my shirt. Her lawyer argued it didn't happen and the video sure didn't show it. The scar on my tricep proved otherwise. Even full audio and video is not a magic pill. I also had a gal that I had arrested accuse me of rape...the video sure saved my butt on that one. The whole encounter was documented, her taking her clothes off in the back of my car and all. I love video, makes for extra work but its work I am willing to do.
    Last edited by stargateranch; 03-15-2012 at 02:16 AM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Good find Bob.

    Officers are public employees working for "government" when performing their job they voluntarily surrender some rights. I find it utter rubbish that they can do criminal acts and then not have to testify about it because they may loose their job. Rule of law means we are not ruled by men who decide law it means our politicians and public employees are ruled by law, yet we can see how even the courts and the politicians use "law" to protect themselves over the public whom they supposedly serve. Our constitution federal and state protect our liberty not government employees liberty.
    officers are in the unique position of immediately after using their guns of being asked questions by COPS wherein if they don't answer, they can be held liable for violating dept. rules.

    anybody else is free to say "i choose to remain silent".

    that's why garrity, etc. was invented, because it recognizes that we are in a unique situation that others are NOT placed in

    we thus have specific rules.

    every time we get in a shooting we will still be asked basic questions we have to answer 'are there any suspects outstanding' and stuff like that to ensure the scene is safe, and VERY general questions, about what happened.

    but since we can be administratively compelled to provide statements (nonLEOs don't have this happen) , we need special protections as to how those statements can and can't be used.

    nobody BUT a LEO can be compelled to provide a statement about a shooting, so yes.. we need our rights protected.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by stargateranch View Post
    I 100% agree no special protection.
    garrity is not special protection. it's a recognition that we have SPECIAL duties that nonleo's do NOT have (such as being administratively compelled to provide statements)

    a nonleo cannot be administratively compelled to provide a statement

    we CAN

    thus, there are special rules about how those statements can be used.

    it is unfair to call this a special protection, since it doesn't recognize that we have a special DUTY that nonLEO's don't

    i can be compelled to provide a statement. you, as a nonLEO cannot

    garrity is thus needed to cover how THOSE statements can be used

    note also, in my jurisdiction, ALL police shootings automatically get a inquest. that is not true when NONLEO's shoot and kill. they CAN be used, but almost never are.

    that's another special BURDEN, not "privilege".

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    When he breaks the law in "serving" the public he has no rights, he surrendered them when deciding to work for the government.

    NO I don't want to hold them to the same standards, I want to hold them to higher standards that's part of taking the job, if ya can't handle it don't take the job.

    A private employer has no duty to respect a persons rights and can fire them at will, you are employed by the public and they should demand you comply even if it incriminates you and be able to fire you at will.

    Now off duty you decide to go buy a rock and smoke it in your apartment you have all the rights of non self discrimination as everybody else.

    We have to remember rights apply to people not government. So I repeat when you sign up to work for the government your rights as a government employee are constitutionally restricted. Yet the truth of the matter is we see the government and statist lovers rationalizing away and providing more protection for government workers especially their standing armies in the form of Law enforcement agencies and we have seen the courts, politicians, gov. employees, I might as well throw in the unions that represent them working as symbiotic parasites to protect each other as they feed off the hosts they were hired or elected to protect.

    What if you decided not arrest me on an illegal detention, I go to the public disclosure department and ask for your report and you decided not to file one because you know that either way you commit a crime? You fill the report honestly and it shows you illegally detained me, committed coercion, and broke several other laws, you decide to lie on the report and break several other laws, perjury being one..the case law set out in Brady vs. Marlyand. Should you have the ability to simply refuse to fill out a report, because doing so incriminates you in a crime?
    there are many ways our rights are restricted as cops. i agree. but the idea that cops should be COMPELLED to give statements AND those statements can be used against them in court goes against everything our bill of rights and constitution stands for.

    we are cops. we still have rights. i respect EVERYBODY's rights, to include cops and noncops

    i have interviewed people after a shooting. i couldn't administratively compel a statement, so these are disanalogous.

    i;m not exactly sure what your question is vis a vis brady? it's a bit broad, and i am trying not to read into it

    for example, any time i use force, i am NOT required to put details of the force usage into my report. because it COULD be incriminatory. i have the right to be vague in the report. if and when the dept. administratively compels a statement about my force, i give it, but that is not ever admissible in a criminal trial.

    the issue here is compelling people to give information that could be incriminatory. cops have the same rights as anybody else here.

    in a collision,i can demand name, driver's license # etc. i cannot demand the driver tell me what happened. they can simply say "i don't want to give an account under my 5th amendment rights" and i go "groovy, less paperwork. " and i just get the other driver's account adn/or witnesses

    working as a cop does not mean i cede my 5th amendment rights. period. full stop. we ARE citizens, btw. just like noncops

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Until the Court rules that they can't anymore. SPD is trying to hide officers actions behind the exceptions to the Public Disclosure Law. I believe this is being challenged.
    it's not really SPD. it is the city of seattle and the city attorney, actually.

    regardless, this is the same city that tried to circumvent the state law/constitution vis a vis right to carry, so what do you expect?

    the people who run seattle govt. are lawless, liberal , statist idiots.

    i hope SPD gets continually slapped with lawsuits etc. note that seattle city officials actually want to lobby the legislature to make video'd traffic stops subject to a new legislatively enforced SPECIAL kind of privacy protection

    i think that will run afoul of the 1st amendment IF the WA legislature did it, and i dobut they will

    regardless, our govt. is supposed to be open and accountable to the public. the city of seattle are liberal scum who violate that concept.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    we need special protections as to how those statements can and can't be used.

    nobody BUT a LEO can be compelled to provide a statement about a shooting, so yes.. we need our rights protected.

    The SPD agrees. 100%. They really, REALLY need special rights.

    After all, they keep shooting innocent people, driving their heads into cement walls, kicking them in the head when they are spread eagle on the ground, et cetera.

    Yes, police need special protections.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •