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

[PALO]

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.

SPD's (specifically the city of seattle actually) blatant violation of the spirt and the letter of open records laws is disgusting

as for the other ridiculous rhetoric spare me.

the birk shooting was awful. other than that, i'm not sure what "shooting innocent people" they keep doing you are referring to.

SPD, btw, uses deadly force (and force in general) far less per capita than the national average. granted, they also work in a relatively low crime city

[sudden valley gunner]

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

Yes you are citizens too but you choose to work for the government if you use force against a citizen you better damn well testify about that even if it incriminates you in a crime and could loose your job otherwise you don't deserve to work for the people and should loose your job. Because constitutionally you do cede some of your rights as a public employee acting in your public duties the constitution limits your powers. Notice I separate your private rights from your public service. Because people have rights, government doesn't. But then to argue that government is made of people so they deserve those rights and even "special protections" is just plain contrary to the protections we as citizens are supposed to have against "police" actions of the government.

I recognize that reality isn't what it should be though.And how the courts have watered down citizens protections while increasing "special protections" for government workers.

You know what is funny (not that you have said this) how so many statists and LEO and pro LEO folks like to use that false argument of "if you got nothing to hide" for individuals who want to invoke their rights of 4th and 5th amendments against government intrusion, yet when the citizens demand the same from them they want to try to hide behind protections they don't have. I can go to your human resource department and ask for your e-mails you have no right to stop me, yet without a warrant you can't get mine.

[sudden valley gunner]

SPD's (specifically the city of seattle actually) blatant violation of the spirt and the letter of open records laws is disgusting

as for the other ridiculous rhetoric spare me.

the birk shooting was awful. other than that, i'm not sure what "shooting innocent people" they keep doing you are referring to.

SPD, btw, uses deadly force (and force in general) far less per capita than the national average. granted, they also work in a relatively low crime city

Birk shooting wasn't "awful" it was murder. And if the grand juries haven't become the rubber stamp of prosecutors wishes he would have been tried as a murderer.

Why do you have open records? Is it because as a government agency you don't have the same rights as the public? My records aren't open?

[Herr Heckler Koch]

Is it because as a government agency you don't have the same rights as the public? My records aren't open?

Is it because as a government agency you don't have the same POWERS as the public?

[Dave_pro2a]

as for the other ridiculous rhetoric spare me

Yeah, "ridiculous rhetoric."



The fine work of an upstanding officer: King County Sheriff's Deputy Matthew Paul.

BTW the person in that picture is an innocent man. "Ridiculous rhetoric."

[Aknazer]

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.

The actions of public employees should be public record. As such, imo, a public employee should have to give a truthful account of their actions while on the clock. Not doing so (again, my opinion) is falsifying public records. This is simply a part of being a public servant much like how there are certain rights that are restricted for those of us that are in the military.

Those of us that are in positions of power/public service SHOULD be held to a higher standard than the general population. To not do so and to make it easier for those of power to hide their actions simply breeds corruption/abuse of power.

[Dave_pro2a]

The actions of public employees should be public record. As such, imo, a public employee should have to give a truthful account of their actions while on the clock. Not doing so (again, my opinion) is falsifying public records. This is simply a part of being a public servant much like how there are certain rights that are restricted for those of us that are in the military.

Those of us that are in positions of power/public service SHOULD be held to a higher standard than the general population. To not do so and to make it easier for those of power to hide their actions simply breeds corruption/abuse of power.

Agreed.

If you take an oath to both OBEY and ENFORCE the law, then yes -- you should be compelled to truthful statements after you are involved in something potentially illegal (like a shooting), if it happened while on duty.

If that scares you, then don't take the oath.

Seems easy to understand imho.

[sudden valley gunner]

Is it because as a government agency you don't have the same POWERS as the public?

Our state constitution....

SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

So I would argue just like their reports and files have no 4th amendment right, they in acting as government employees have no 5th amendment right if it comes to a conflict of "powers", the civilians right as a private citizen against crimes from government trumps the governments not wanting to incriminate itself, and like it or not a cop in acting as the force of government surrenders those rights when he commits crimes against those he serves and he surrenders rights when he chooses to work for government.

I feel government employees have no right to unionize, or dictate to their masters who can or can't do their job, a "public" job.

The actions of public employees should be public record. As such, imo, a public employee should have to give a truthful account of their actions while on the clock. Not doing so (again, my opinion) is falsifying public records. This is simply a part of being a public servant much like how there are certain rights that are restricted for those of us that are in the military.

Those of us that are in positions of power/public service SHOULD be held to a higher standard than the general population. To not do so and to make it easier for those of power to hide their actions simply breeds corruption/abuse of power.

Well put.

[Jim675]

The actions of public employees should be public record. As such, imo, a public employee should have to give a truthful account of their actions while on the clock. Not doing so (again, my opinion) is falsifying public records. This is simply a part of being a public servant much like how there are certain rights that are restricted for those of us that are in the military.

Those of us that are in positions of power/public service SHOULD be held to a higher standard than the general population. To not do so and to make it easier for those of power to hide their actions simply breeds corruption/abuse of power.

I agree. The reasonable alternative to an honest accounting on the public record should be forfeiture of the public job and assumption of the full rights of an accused citizen.

[Vitaeus]

I agree. The reasonable alternative to an honest accounting on the public record should be forfeiture of the public job and assumption of the full rights of an accused citizen.

Sounds like a plan, let's do it that way.

[Dave_pro2a]

I agree. The reasonable alternative to an honest accounting on the public record should be forfeiture of the public job and assumption of the full rights of an accused citizen.

Capital idea Jim. (no sarcasm intended)

[sudden valley gunner]

I agree. The reasonable alternative to an honest accounting on the public record should be forfeiture of the public job and assumption of the full rights of an accused citizen.

+1

[stargateranch]

I agree. The reasonable alternative to an honest accounting on the public record should be forfeiture of the public job and assumption of the full rights of an accused citizen.

Agreed, thank you.

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

All my contact with the public is recorded, I cannot delete or alter it, audio and video. It's dept. policy.

Your Dept. should be commended for this policy. I my area Detroit/Metro there have been instances of entire fleets of PD vehicles, building cameras being intentionally "disabled" via non use/disabled. When I asked one of my elected officials to inquire they relayed they were told "the majority of the time we don't want the video". Until we have safeguards in place this nonsense will go on; as some in LEO leadership have deemed themselves royalty in my honest opinion. Here's one glaring example of it: that is way too close to my home. He/they were allowed to operate for years without being held accountable - in part due to the "blue wall of silence".
http://www.freep.com/article/2011092...orruption-case

SNIP: A former Romulus police chief, his wife and five police officers were charged Tuesday as part of a three-year State Police investigation that prosecutors said unveiled corruption, including the misuse of drug forfeiture funds and obstruction of justice.

St. Andre and the officers solicited prostitutes, embezzled drug forfeiture money and made false police reports.

The officers are accused of spending $40,000 in forfeiture funds in one year on marijuana, prostitutes and alcohol, Worthy said, adding that St. Andre directly supervised Balzer, Landry, Hopkins, Channells and Droege and had knowledge of their alleged criminal activities.

[Dave_pro2a]

i respect EVERYBODY's rights, to include cops and noncops

I'm 'willing to believe' that you believe that.

I seriously doubt the absolute truth value of that claim.

[oneeyeross]

...

SPD, btw, uses deadly force (and force in general) far less per capita than the national average. granted, they also work in a relatively low crime city

While this might be true (and I have no reason to doubt it is) I must say that if true, why was the justice department investigating them and recommending changes?

See, there is the problem. If Seattle is one of the best in the nation and the Justice Department still has issues with the way it is being done, what does that say about the other places we have out there that aren't as "good" as Seattle?

Scary, ain't it?

Once again, it is an issue with "perception." If the people in Seattle "perceive" the cops as being abusive, unresponsive to the community, obstinate and obstructionist, all the good will in the world isn't going to change that much. Actions speak much louder than words....if Seattle PD and King County Sheriff's Dept started firing/terminating some of these bad apples instead of letting them cry and tell us how great a cop they really are, maybe people would have more faith that the system works.

Of course, the union can't let that happen. Cops being responsible? Heavens, what would we want next? Cops that know the law they are inforcing?

[MSG Laigaie]

Originally Posted by PALO ....SPD, btw, uses deadly force (and force in general) far less per capita than the national average. granted, they also work in a relatively low crime city

..if Seattle PD and King County Sheriff's Dept started firing/terminating some of these bad apples instead of letting them cry and tell us how great a cop they really are, maybe people would have more faith that the system works.

Of course, the union can't let that happen. Cops being responsible? Heavens, what would we want next? Cops that know the law they are inforcing?

So the excuse of "We don't kill as many as those other guys. See how good you have it here?" holds true for you? Your bias is showing.

[Dave_pro2a]

wrong thread opps

[Levi]

Ok, I have to weigh in on this one. I'm not a LEO nor have I ever been one. I have, however, put 10 years of military service in and that included some time as security with some LE training. No special rights are granted to service members on active duty except that concerned with the execution of their duties.

I don't believe in special police, military, or government powers. I firmly believe that the power is ultimately the peoples and is on loan to said entities. There should never be granted any special privileges, powers, or immunity to anyone that isn't common to all citizens in good standing.

Having read this article, based of the theory that the account was 100% as written, I believe that the officer should have been administratively dismissed immediately upon his failure to provide proper documentation of the incident. (Had something similar happened involving me in uniform, I would have been subject to a UCMJ article 13 action, separate from the fatality, for dereliction of duty for not filing proper paperwork.) It then should have rolled into a standard homicide investigation. Both parts treated as separate incidents.

Should police be stripped of their rights? No, but a huge amount of trust is placed on them. Failure to maintain the public trust should mean the immediate revocation of that trust and the loss of all that comes with it. Any actual criminal conduct should be a separate issue. You want to exercise your right to not incriminate yourself? NP, but you're doing it as a private citizen.

[gogodawgs]

<snip> You want to exercise your right to not incriminate yourself? NP, but you're doing it as a private citizen.

DING DING DING...... we have a winner!