• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
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/Special_Edition_2012.pdf

lots of important info to think about,especially if you get Birked!
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
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.
 

stargateranch

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
100
Location
West Jordan
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.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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/s...Police-officer-looking-for-respectful-dialoge
Why do YOU deserve special treatment, as an American citizen, that other citizens do not also get.
 
Last edited:

arentol

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
383
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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.
 

stargateranch

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
100
Location
West Jordan
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.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Agents of the state (tyrant, Leviathan, et cetera) have and conflate powers with rights.
 

stargateranch

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
100
Location
West Jordan
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.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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?
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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.
 

stargateranch

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
100
Location
West Jordan
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.
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
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?
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017752263_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:

stargateranch

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
100
Location
West Jordan
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:
Top